The book “Wine in the Bible” presents a strong theological basis for abstaining from alcoholic beverages.
ABOUT THE BOOK
The consumption of alcoholic beverages has become America’s Public Enemy No. 1, costing over $117 billion a year and claiming 100,000 lives annually—25 times more than all other drugs combined. The real human cost of alcohol is seen in underdeveloped bodies, violence, accidents, child and spousal abuse, divorce, assault, theft, murder, illness, and death.
Christian churches bear partial responsibility for the rampant alcohol epidemic now sweeping America, because through their views, teaching, and preaching, they have influenced society’s moral values and customs more than any other institution. Since Prohibition was repealed in 1933, most evangelical churches have abandoned their position of total abstinence, encouraging moderation in alcohol consumption instead. This moderation has led to 18 million Americans becoming moderate drinkers.
The gradual abandonment of total abstinence by many Christians was encouraged by the belief that the Bible approves the moderate use of alcoholic beverages. This view has provided millions of Christians with biblical justification for drinking alcohol.
In this book, Dr. Samuel Bacchiocchi boldly challenges prevailing thought and theology. His painstaking research convincingly shows that the Bible consistently teaches total abstinence as a divine command. This teaching has been obscured by many modern Bible translations, which render some of the clearest exhortations to “abstain” as “moderation” or “sobriety.”
Written in a popular style, this book may revolutionize the attitude of many Christians toward alcoholic beverages. It may prompt many to realize that when we accept the biblical teaching that alcoholic beverages have corrupted us, we will stop arguing for their virtues while misusing them.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr. Samuel Bacchiocchi was the first non-Catholic to receive an academic degree from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. He received a gold medal from Pope Paul VI for academic excellence—summa cum laude—with highest honors. He also earned a degree in the United States and served as a missionary in Ethiopia.
He is the author of several bestsellers that have received favorable reviews from many theological scholars. In recent years, he has conducted weekend seminars—from Friday through Monday—in many parts of the world, helping thousands of people better understand and experience spiritual values.
Dr. Bacchiocchi is currently a professor of Church History and Theology at Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan, 49, 103, married to Anna Gardin Bacchiocchi. They have three children—Loretta, Daniel, and Gianluca.
Samuel Bacchiocchi. Wine in the Bible
A Biblical Study on the Use of Alcoholic Beverages
Table of Contents
Section I: A Look at the Problem of Drunkenness
Chapter 1: Christian Responsibility
Chapter 2: Three Main Positions
Section II: The Meaning of the Word “Wine”
Chapter 3: The Secular Use of the Word “Wine”.
Chapter 4: The Biblical Use of Yayin and Oinos
Section III: “Wine” from a Biblical Perspective
Chapter 5: Biblical Approval of Unfermented Wine
Chapter 6: Biblical Disapproval of Fermented Wine.
Section IV: The Ancient Art of Food Preservation
Chapter 7. The Ancient Art of Food Preservation
Chapter 8: Preserving Grape Juice
Section V: Jesus and Wine
Chapter 9: The Wedding at Cana of Galilee
Chapter 10: New Wine in New Wineskins
Chapter 11: Is Old Wine Better?
Chapter 12: Was Jesus a Glutton and a Drunkard?
Chapter 13: Wine at the Lord’s Supper
Section VI: Wine in the Apostolic Church
Chapter 14: Acts 2:13. “They have had too much sweet wine”
Chapter 15: 1 Corinthians 11:21. “One remains hungry, while another gets drunk”
Chapter 16: Eph. 5:18. “Do not get drunk on wine”
Chapter 17: Exhortation to Be Sober
Section VII: A Look at Some Misunderstood Passages
Chapter 18: Deut. 14:26. “Whatever your soul desires… wine… strong drink”
Chapter 19: Prov. 31:6. “Give strong drink to the one who is perishing”
Chapter 20: Hos. 4:11. “Wine and drink have taken possession of their heart.”
Chapter 21: 1 Tim. 5:23. “Use a little wine for the sake of your stomach”
Chapter 22: 1 Tim. 3:8. “Not given to much wine”
Section VIII: Ellen White and Alcoholic Beverages
Chapter 23: Ellen White’s Theology of Abstinence
Chapter 24: The Consequences of Alcohol Use
Section IX: Alcohol in America
Chapter 25: Consequences of Alcohol Use
Chapter 26: Alcohol and Health
Dedicated to
All Christians who find in Holy Scripture the moral conviction not only to personally abstain from intoxicating beverages, but also to help others break free from this addiction…
Author’s Introduction
Someone asked me, “How do you determine the subject of your next book?” Usually, my decision is based on an entirely practical consideration—namely, the relevance of the subject to the members of my own Seventh-day Adventist Church and to Christians in general. For example, regarding my previous book, “Woman in the Church,” my decision was determined primarily by the need to better understand the validity and value, for our modern society, of the biblical teaching on the role of women in the Church. Readers of all Christian convictions responded to this study beyond my most optimistic expectations. A number of theological seminaries adopted this book as a textbook.
The story behind the writing of this book, “Wine in the Bible,” is similar in some ways. Recent studies, statistics, and discussions have impressed upon me the magnitude of the epidemic use of alcohol in American society in general, and in my own Seventh-day Adventist Church in particular. In American society, alcohol has become Enemy No. 1, costing $117 billion a year, leaving one million disabled, and causing at least 100,000 deaths—25 times more than the consequences of using all other illegal drugs combined (see Section IX on sources of statistical information). The real human cost of alcohol use exceeds these statistical figures in dollars, suffering, and death. No one can calculate the true cost of alcohol to our society in terms of children with developmental delays, domestic violence and cruelty, abuse of spouses and children, divorces, rapes, robberies, murders, illness, and death.
In my own Church, long known as an advocate of abstinence, alcohol consumption continues to increase. I became acutely aware of this trend through the following factors: frequent requests for help from pastors and members confronting alcohol problems in their churches; a published report in our church magazine, Adventist Review, noting that 58% of Adventist youth had tried alcoholic beverages and 17% of Adventist college students were frequent alcohol consumers; lectures held in our college dormitories by non-Seventh-day Adventist experts on overcoming alcohol addiction; classes on identifying substance abuse occurring in our dormitories; counseling centers established in our dormitories specifically to help students with alcohol-use problems. The establishment by the General Conference of two organizations to meet the challenge of steadily increasing alcohol consumption within the Church:
The Commission on Chemical Dependency and the Church.
The Institute for the Study of Alcohol and Drug Dependence.
In addition, series of articles on chemical dependency and ways to overcome it appeared in our magazines.
A Personal Sense of Responsibility.
Faced with overwhelming data concerning the destructive effects of alcohol not only on society in general but also on my Church, I realized in good conscience that I could no longer ignore this problem.
In my sincere personal desire to help in the war against public enemy No. 1, I began reading books and articles dealing with the theological, social, and medical aspects of alcohol.
I soon began to realize that Christian churches bear significant responsibility for the alcohol epidemic. Through their views, teachings, and preaching, they can influence society’s values and customs regarding alcohol more than any other institutions. What pastors preach from their pulpits about alcohol consumption
largely determines Christians’ attitude toward alcoholic beverages. Most of the one hundred million people who consume alcohol in the United States are churchgoers who are taught that the Bible permits moderate drinking. Moderate drinking has led more than 18 million Americans to become alcoholics, because alcohol consumption is a habit that produces drug-induced impairment of self-control.
Abandoning Abstinence.
Since most evangelical churches have contributed to the ever-growing alcohol epidemic by gradually abandoning their position of total abstinence and instead adopting a position of moderate drinking, I became interested in the consequences of this change. Why, for example, did the Methodist and Baptist churches, whose powerful influence in favor of abstinence greatly contributed to the adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on January 16, 1919, gradually change, at least in practice, to a moderate position when Prohibition was repealed in December 1933?
It seems that the main factor is the weakening of the conviction that total abstinence is a clear biblical principle that must be respected, like other principles given by God. Even Billy Graham, an abstainer, stated: “I do not believe that the Bible teaches absolute sobriety. Jesus drank wine. At the wedding feast, Jesus turned water into wine. It was not grape juice, as some try to explain.”
Lacking a further biblical basis for total abstinence, evangelical Christians, like Billy Graham, still recommend abstinence, but do so for social or medical reasons. /Editorial: “Graham on Alcohol: Don’t Use It” — Christianity Today, February 4, 1977/. However, such reasons do not provide compelling motives to remain abstinent or become abstinent. As long as Christians believe that moderate drinking is neither sinful in the biblical sense nor morally wrong, they will not feel compelled or convinced to practice total abstinence.
Uncertainty Among Adventists.
Seventh-day Adventist Christians have not been immune to the weakening of the conviction regarding total abstinence experienced by other evangelical churches. During 1988, I had the privilege of speaking at many Adventist gatherings in North America and overseas, where I presented this research. To my surprise, I discovered that some members and even pastors believed that certain biblical texts permit moderate drinking. Consequently, they believe it is better to promote abstinence on social and medical grounds.
Uncertainty on this issue occasionally surfaced in the literature of Seventh-day Adventist Christians as well. For example, in 1982, a special issue of Adventist Review devoted to abstinence stated: “Total abstinence is one of a number of areas in which the Bible gives no clear directive” /James Coffin, “Does the Bible Condemn Moderate Use of Alcohol?”—Adventist Review, February 22, 1982, p. 4/. This sense of uncertainty regarding the biblical basis for total abstinence could easily have prompted Adventists to adopt a more permissive, liberal attitude toward the use of alcoholic beverages. Some members and pastors were concerned about this tendency and often sought help.
A Request from Church Members
Among those who approached me for help in understanding certain biblical passages concerning wine, one person deserves special mention. His name is Yvon Kaza—a well-read, intelligent, active, and dedicated Adventist in Canada. Kaza reminded me of the persistent widow in Christ’s parable /Luke 18:1–8/, who kept coming and pleading with the judge until, at last, he took up her case and defended her against her adversary. In a similar way, Kaza contacted me on various occasions, by letter or telephone, urging me to research and provide a written response concerning the Bible’s teaching on alcoholic beverages. The reason for his persistent requests was the uncertainty existing in the minds of some Church members on this issue.
Kaza’s persistence and perseverance were fully rewarded. I am deeply grateful to him for challenging me to give this matter priority and for the valuable comments he provided while I was writing the manuscript. At first, I undertook this study reluctantly, because, like most Christians, I was under the impression that the Bible sometimes permits moderate use of alcoholic beverages. Reluctantly, yet determinedly, I decided to set aside another project and sacrifice seven months away from classes at Andrews University in order to investigate what the Bible actually says on this subject. I realized that, if nothing else, the experience would broaden my understanding of this topic and better prepare me to help those Christians who seek to understand God’s will regarding it.
Personal Discoveries
Looking back on the months spent researching the relevant biblical passages and studying the works of recent and notable theologians of the past, I can truly say that it was a life-changing experience for me, opening my eyes. I will briefly mention some of the personal discoveries that emerged in my mind.
I was surprised to discover that four related words—“vineu” in English, “vinum” in Latin, “oinos” in Greek, and “yayin” in Hebrew—have historically been used to refer to grape juice, either fermented or unfermented. When I applied this discovery to biblical references to wine, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the positive references to “wine” concern unfermented, nonalcoholic grape juice, while the negative references concern fermented, alcoholic wine.
Another surprising discovery was finding biblical passages that not only condemn the improper use of wine, but any use of it at all. In the third section, we will examine several passages from the Old and New Testaments that condemn alcoholic wine itself, regardless of the amount consumed.
The study devoted to preserving wine in the ancient world also provided valuable insight into this subject. To my surprise, I discovered that ancient people had far greater knowledge of the art of preserving fruit and wine than we generally realize. As is evident from Section Four, ancient writers tell us that preserving unfermented grape juice was sometimes a simpler problem than preserving fermented wine. Various technical methods were used to keep grape juice from fermenting.
My study of Jesus’ principal statements about wine, presented in Section Five, is also highly instructive. Examining each passage grammatically, in its full context and historically, I clearly saw that none of these passages indicates that Jesus drank alcoholic beverages or permitted His followers to drink them.
Most of the striking aspects of this entire study are concentrated in the examination of Section Six. It concerns the apostles’ warnings regarding mental alertness and physical abstinence. To my surprise, I found that some of the clearest apostolic warnings about abstinence have been translated with the simple meaning of “moderation” in the use of alcoholic beverages or “sobriety,” presumably in an attempt to accommodate modern drunkenness. Such inaccurate translations have misled many sincere Christians into believing that the Bible teaches moderate alcohol consumption rather than total abstinence.
When reading medical reports on the physical effects of alcohol, I was struck by two factors. First, as noted in Section Nine, alcohol harms every major organ of the body. Second, some medical studies have shown that there is no such thing as safe moderate drinking, because even one standard alcoholic drink at a time (equivalent to 45 grams of whiskey, 110 grams of fortified wine, 170 grams of ordinary wine, or 372 grams of beer) can affect brain cells with unpleasant consequences: crimes are committed, and attention, judgment, concentration, and emotional balance are impaired. Medical research has helped us understand why Scripture warns us not even to look at wine (Prov. 23:31).
Style
I have tried to write this book in simple, nontechnical language. Whenever I use technical terms, I explain their meaning.
To make reading easier, each section is divided into two main parts, and the subsections are arranged under appropriate headings. A brief conclusion is provided at the end of each section. All biblical texts are quoted from the Synodal edition.
Grateful Acknowledgments
It is most difficult to express the full extent of my indebtedness to the many individuals who directly or indirectly contributed to the publication of this book. Indirectly, I recognize my debt to the many authors who have already written on this subject. Some of the most valuable studies were published in the nineteenth century and were not reprinted for a long time. Although old, these studies were extremely valuable to me. Reading earlier and contemporary studies on this subject stimulated my thinking and broadened my understanding, even when I did not always agree with the ideas expressed.
I also wish to express my sincere gratitude to Thomas Baker, Yvonne Kaza, Sister Hedwig Jamieson, Dr. C. Mervyn Maxwell, Dr. George W. Reid, Dr. William H. Shea, and Dr. Ernest H. J. Steed, each of whom participated in reading and correcting my manuscript and influenced it constructively.
I express my special gratitude to Dr. Bert Beverly Beach, my former teacher in Italy and now director of the Department of Public and Religious Liberty at the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. For many years, Dr. Beach has taken a personal interest in my research and ministry. I will long remember his willingness to set aside time from his extremely busy schedule to improve the text and offer valuable advice.
I also wish to express my deep gratitude to Dr. Leone Clidden Running, my Hebrew teacher, who for many years was a professor of biblical languages at Andrews Theological Seminary. She devoted her time and expertise to correcting the manuscript and offered highly valuable comments. I express my special gratitude for her valuable service.
My family also deserves special recognition. My wife, Anna, and our three children—Loreta, Daniel, and Gianluca—saw very little of me during the latter part of 1988, while I was researching and writing this book. Without their love, patience, and encouragement, it would have been very difficult for me to complete this study in such a short time.
The Author’s Hope.
My earnest hope is that this study, the fruit of enlightened research, may help many Christians of all denominations better understand and accept the fact that consuming alcoholic beverages is not only physically harmful but, according to the Bible, is also morally sinful; it violates the principle given by God to ensure our physical, mental, and spiritual well-being. To effectively fight against society’s No. 1 enemy, we need today to develop an entirely new cultural attitude toward alcohol, recognizing it as a dangerous drug. I believe that such a new cultural attitude can best take root through the acceptance of the biblical principles of abstinence. Only by accepting this biblical command will Christians be able to abstain freely and morally from alcoholic beverages and help others do the same.
Preliminary Overview of the Book
I often hear this comment when readers of my book in various parts of the world say:
“I am really enjoying your book, but I must confess that I have not finished reading it yet.” Reading only parts of this book means missing precisely what may be the most important part of its content, and you will not be able to obtain a complete picture of the subject under consideration.
Partly out of respect for readers whose busy lifestyles do not allow them to read the entire book systematically from beginning to end, and partly in response to the desire to provide an overview of the issues addressed, I decided to try something new. Instead of summarizing the book at the end in the form of a conclusion, I present an overview of its contents at the very beginning. The concept of an overview is hardly new. The basic assumption is that if a person likes the overview, he or she will be encouraged to consider the subject presented with interest. My hope regarding this overview rests on the expectation that the preliminary overview will achieve two goals:
Provide a general understanding of the various issues examined and the conclusions reached;
Encourage the reader to read the entire book in order to gain a complete understanding of the many issues addressed.
From a biblical perspective, this book addresses the most widespread, costly, and destructive habit of our society—the consumption of alcoholic beverages.
A Look at the Problem of Alcoholism
The study begins in the first section with an overview of the problem of alcoholism in modern America and our Christian responsibility toward it. One hundred million Americans consume alcoholic beverages. Social commentators have rightly called this problem America’s No. 1 public enemy. This “favorite enemy,” as Jack Van Impe called it, claims at least 100,000 lives every year—25 times more victims than all illegal drugs combined.
Alcohol consumption in American society is estimated at $117 billion annually in economic terms (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism). This staggering figure includes the cost of premature death, reduced productivity, and specialized treatment.
The real human cost of alcohol, however, exceeds any statistical estimate of deaths, suffering, or financial expenses. In 1987, the Gallup organization reported that one in four families experiences a tragedy caused by alcohol use. This means that more than 61 million Americans are affected by the devastating consequences of alcohol consumption, including impaired child development, divorce, cruelty and domestic violence, crime, illness, and death.
Christian Responsibility
Christian churches bear serious responsibility for the immeasurable human and economic cost of alcohol because of their beliefs, teachings, and preaching. Through these factors, they can influence society’s moral values and customs—even more than any other institution. For example, during the first part of this century, evangelical churches played a major role in the adoption of the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on January 16, 1919, prohibiting the “manufacture, sale, and transportation” of alcoholic beverages.
After Prohibition was repealed in 1933, however, most churches weakened their position on total abstinence, encouraging moderate alcohol consumption instead. Unfortunately, this moderate consumption led to 18 million Americans becoming alcoholics, because alcohol is an addictive substance that forms dependence and weakens self-control.
The position favoring moderate alcohol consumption rests on the belief that Scripture condemns excessive drinking but approves moderate drinking. This belief, in turn, is based on the assumption that the Bible knows only fermented wine (the “one-wine theory”), which it regards as a divine blessing to be enjoyed in moderation. According to this theory, any condemnation of wine in the Bible refers not to the type of wine but to the amount consumed.
A Moral or Medical Problem?
By promoting the idea that the Bible permits moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages, proponents of this movement encourage people to believe that alcohol use is not a moral problem but a medical one. It is not a violation of a God-given principle, but a habit that can harm one’s health when alcohol is consumed excessively. Removing any additional sinful meaning from alcohol use has had a terrible effect on the entrenchment of drinking habits among millions of Christians. It has given Christians grounds to claim biblical and moral justification for drinking alcohol, thereby depriving them of the biblical and moral conviction to abstain from intoxicating beverages.
In view of the enormous influence of advocates of “moderate alcohol consumption” on millions of Christians’ development of drinking habits, the main purpose of this study is to examine the moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages. Since this assumption is dictated by the view that the term “wine” in the Bible always means “fermented wine,” I begin this study by examining the biblical and historical use of these terms.
The Meaning of the Word “Wine”
The purpose of this review, presented in the second section, is to determine whether the terms used for “wine” in the Bible refer exclusively to fermented wine or include both alcoholic and nonalcoholic wine. I traced the use of the word “wine” in English, Latin, Greek, and finally Hebrew. This review shows that four related words for “wine”—English “wine,” Latin “vinum,” Greek “oinos,” and Hebrew “yayin”—have historically been used to refer to grape juice, whether fermented or unfermented. This significant finding discredits the claim that the Bible recognizes only fermented wine and approves of its moderate use. The truth is that the Bible recognizes both kinds of wine: fermented wine, which it does not approve of, and unfermented grape juice, whose use it approves.
“Wine” from a Biblical Perspective
Building on the conclusions reached in the second section, I continue in the third section by examining the reasons for the Bible’s approval and disapproval of wine. I found that positive references to “wine” concern unfermented, nonalcoholic grape juice. Because of its natural and nutritious properties, grape juice fully represents God’s blessings of material prosperity /Gen. 27:28; 49:10–11; Deut. 33:28/, the blessing of the Messianic age /Joel 2:18–19; Jer. 31:10–12; Amos 9:13–14/, the free offer of God’s saving grace /Isa. 55:1/, the wholesome joy that God offers His people /Ps. 104:14–15; 4:8/, and acknowledgment of God through presenting grape juice as tithes, offerings, and drink offerings /Num. 18:12; Deut. 14:23; Exod. 29:40; Lev. 23:13/.
On the other hand, negative references to “wine” concern fermented alcoholic wine. Some of the reasons why Scripture condemns the consumption of alcoholic beverages are as follows: they distort one’s perception of reality /Isa. 28:7; Prov. 23:33/; weaken the ability to make responsible decisions /Lev. 10:9–11/; impair moral sensitivity and self-control /Gen. 9:21; 19:32; Hab. 2:15; Isa. 5:11–12/; contribute to physical illnesses /Prov. 23:20–21; Hos. 7:5; Isa. 19:14; Ps. 59:5/; and deprive people of the ability to perform civic or religious service /Prov. 31:4–5; Lev. 10:9–11; Ezek. 44:23; 1 Tim. 3:2–3; Titus 1:7–8/.
Preserving Wine
The main objection to the view that Scripture approves the consumption of unfermented grape juice is the claim that it was impossible to preserve grape juice in an unfermented state in biblical times. Therefore, I devote the fourth section of this book to examining this popular assumption, using the testimony of ancient writers concerning the art of preserving fruit in general and grape juice in particular. To my surprise, I discovered that ancient people were more familiar with the art of preserving fruit and wine than is commonly believed.
Contrary to the popular opinion that the problems of ancient people were primarily related to preserving fermented wine, it turns out that they were far greater than those involved in preserving unfermented grape juice. To prevent wine from fermenting, becoming sour, developing mold, or continuing to ferment, wine merchants used many preservatives, such as salt, seawater, aromatic resins, marble dust, lime, fumigation with sulfur, and crushed iris.
Compared with preserving fermented wine, preserving unfermented grape juice was a relatively simple process. This was achieved by boiling the juice down to a syrup or by separating the easily fermentable fruit pulp from the grape juice through filtration; or by placing the grape juice in a sealed jar and immersing it in a basin or vat of cold water; or by disinfecting the vessel before filling and sealing it with wine—fumigating it with sulfur. The use of such methods clearly shows that means of preserving grape juice from fermentation were known in ancient times. This conclusion is directly supported by the teaching and example of Jesus’ life.
Jesus and Wine.
The next logical step is to examine the principal events or statements of Jesus relating to wine, since they are commonly used to prove that Christ produced, recommended, consumed, and even commanded the consumption of alcoholic wine. In Section Five, I provide considerable detail to examine these claims. The conclusion of my analysis is that all such claims—the texts cited in favor of consuming alcoholic wine—lack textual, contextual, and historical support.
The “good wine” that Jesus made at Cana /John 2:10/ was “good” not because of its high alcohol content, but because it was fresh, unfermented grape juice. This is confirmed by external and internal considerations. The external evidence consists of the testimony of contemporary writers such as Pliny and Plutarch. They called wines that did not intoxicate “good.” Moreover, for purely moral reasons, Christ could not have produced 400–500 liters of alcoholic wine.
Surely He could not have intended the men, women, and children gathered at the wedding feast in Cana to become drunk! In that case, He would have been morally responsible for their prolonged intoxication. The testimony of Scripture and moral consistency require that the “good wine” produced by Christ was fresh, unfermented grape juice. This is supported by the adjective used to describe this wine. The adjective is the word “kalos,” meaning “morally excellent,” rather than “agathos,” which simply means “good.”
The “new wine” that Jesus recommended when telling the parable of the new wineskins /Luke 5:37–38; Mark 2:22/ was unfermented grape must—either boiled or filtered, since even new wineskins could not withstand the pressure produced by newly fermented wine.
Jesus’ own statement that He “loves to eat and drink wine” /Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34/ does not imply that He consumed alcoholic wine, but rather that He freely associated with people at their meals and everywhere. The phrase “to eat and drink” is used idiomatically to describe Christ’s social way of life.
The “fruit of the vine,” which Christ commanded to be consumed in remembrance of His redeeming blood /Matt. 26:28–29; Mark 14:24–25/, was not fermented wine, which in Holy Scripture represents human depravity and divine indignation, but pure, unfermented grape juice, corresponding to the symbol of Christ’s spotless blood, shed for the forgiveness of our sins. This conclusion was based on a study of the style of the Last Supper, Jewish Passover wine, the Passover law concerning leaven, the corresponding symbol, and the consistently used unfermented grape juice during the Lord’s Supper. Most persuasive is the fact that Josephus calls freshly pressed grape juice “the fruit of the vine.” This evidence unequivocally and definitively shows that the phrase “fruit of the vine” was used to denote sweet, unfermented grape juice. These proofs show that Jesus abstained from all intoxicating drinks in order to forbid His followers to consume them.
Wine in the Apostolic Church.
The way the apostolic Church received, preached, and practiced the teaching of Jesus and the Old Testament regarding the consumption of alcoholic beverages provides the most valuable confirmation and clarification of whether Scripture teaches moderate alcohol consumption or complete abstinence. In view of the fundamental importance of the testimony of the apostolic Church, my next logical step is to examine, in the sixth section, the apostles’ teaching regarding the consumption of wine in general and alcoholic beverages in particular.
This study should prove especially rewarding. Contrary to the prevailing view, I found that the New Testament is remarkably consistent in its teaching on abstinence from alcoholic beverages. The passages often cited to support the view of moderate alcohol consumption, when carefully examined, instead led to the rejection of that view and the affirmation of abstinence. For example, the mocking, ironic accusation that on the day of Pentecost the apostles had become drunk on “gleukos,” that is, grape juice, which was evidently a common beverage /Acts 2:13/, provides indirect but important evidence of their abstinent lifestyle and that of their Teacher, which they had inherited. There would be no basis for mockingly attributing the use of grape juice to them in order to discredit the disciples’ miraculous works if it had not been common knowledge that the apostles abstained from alcoholic wine. We must agree that the disciples were such simple, unsophisticated people—for they drank grape juice!
Similarly, the reference to drunkenness during the Lord’s Supper in the Corinthian church /1 Cor. 11:21/ provides no support whatsoever for the moderate consumption of alcoholic wine—for two reasons. First, everything that was happening in Corinth in this matter was a departure from the apostle Paul’s instructions delivered to the church /1 Cor. 11:23/; thus, the Corinthians’ behavior serves as a warning rather than an example for us. Second, a study of the meaning of the verb “metou” /to be satiated/ and the meaning
of the apostle Paul’s warnings clearly emphasizes that the problem in Corinth was indulgence of the appetite—“satiation” rather than drunkenness from alcoholic beverages.
I found one of the strongest biblical indictments against drinking alcoholic wine in Eph. 5:18, where the apostle Paul condemns wine as a cause of debauchery and shows a sharp contrast between the spirit of alcoholic wine and the Holy Spirit of God. Yet, to my great surprise, I found that most English translations and commentaries chose to translate and interpret Eph. 5:18 by emphasizing “drunkenness” rather than the word “wine” as the cause of debauchery. It surprised me that not only the Catholic but also the Protestant Italian translations with which I was well acquainted, as well as many ancient and modern translations, all render Paul’s text in such a way that debauchery lies in the very nature of wine. It seems that some English translators were so partial to wine that they decided to borrow Ernest Gordon’s words, “to save the face of wine while at the same time condemning drunkenness” /Ernest Gordon, “Christ, the Apostles, and Wine,” Philadelphia, 1947, p. 31/.
The translators’ inclination toward drinking alcoholic wine became most evident in their treatment of the apostolic exhortations to abstinence, expressed by the verb “nepho” and the adjective “nephalios.” The primary meaning of the verb is “to abstain from wine,” and that of the adjective is “abstaining from wine.” Yet these words were consistently translated according to their secondary meanings—“moderation,” “sobriety,” and “self-control”—rather than their primary meaning, “abstinence.” Such biased and inaccurate translations misled many sincere Christians into believing that the Bible teaches moderation in the use of alcoholic beverages rather than abstinence from them.
I was equally surprised to discover that the fundamental reason Peter and Paul give in their appeal to live lives of mental alertness and physical abstinence was eschatological—namely, preparation to live in the holy presence of Christ at His soon return. This reason holds added significance for Christians such as Seventh-day Adventists, who have accepted the biblical teaching of Christ’s Second Coming as a literal reality rather than an indefinite expectation of the future—in other words, as the future fulfillment of our present expectations rather than the present experience of the future. Abstaining from alcoholic and narcotic substances is a tangible, practical response to God’s invitation to make specific preparation for Christ’s physical return. An analysis of the apostolic teachings regarding the use of alcoholic beverages is presented in section six—the longest section in this book. In my view, it offers the most compelling defense of the biblical principle of abstinence from alcoholic beverages.
Some Misunderstood Passages of Scripture. To be fair to those who find support for their views on moderate alcohol consumption in certain biblical texts, I devoted section seven to a comprehensive analysis of five such passages. Examining each text in its immediate and broader context, in light of the historical customs of the time and the overall teaching of Scripture, none of these passages contradicts the biblical command to abstain. On the contrary, some of them indirectly but convincingly support abstinence.
For example, Prov. 31:6 implies, ironically, that alcoholic beverages are suitable only for easing the excruciating pain of the dying. First, because “wine and strong drink” /“wine and new wine”/ are mentioned here figuratively as representing the good gifts of God intended for the people of Israel—gifts they used for idolatry. Second, even if “wine and strong drink” were alcoholic, they are condemned in the passage, making it impossible to justify their use regardless of the quantity consumed.
In a completely different, yet equally convincing sense, 1 Tim. 5:23 supports the principle of moderation in two significant ways. First, the advice to “no longer drink only water” implies that Timothy, like the priests and Nazirites, had until that time abstained from both fermented and unfermented wine, apparently in accordance with the apostle Paul’s teaching and example. Second, the apostle recommends that Timothy consume only “a little wine”—not for physical pleasure or the sake of his stomach, but for medicinal purposes. Ancient writers such as Aristotle, Athanasius, and Pliny emphasize that unfermented wine was known and preferred over alcoholic wine for medical purposes because it did not subsequently produce side effects.
In light of this evidence and other biblical teachings concerning wine, it is reasonable to conclude that the wine Paul recommended for medicinal use was unfermented grape juice.
The conclusion of this entire study of biblical teaching concerning the use of alcoholic beverages can be summarized in one sentence: Scripture consistently teaches moderation in the use of healthy, unfermented products and abstinence from intoxicating fermented beverages.
Ellen White and Alcoholic Beverages
Since Ellen White had the greatest influence on the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s adoption of the biblical principle of abstinence from alcoholic beverages, I feel it necessary, in this eighth section, to examine her understanding of Christian moderation in general and abstinence in particular.
This study revealed that, for Ellen White, the message of temperance was a fundamental part of the Gospel and the mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Such a message entails teaching people moderation in the use of healthful substances and abstinence from harmful ones, including alcoholic beverages.
Ellen White revealed a wide range of harmful effects resulting from the use of alcoholic beverages—on individuals, families, and society as a whole. A drunkard personally experiences harm mentally, morally, and physically. As for the family, the use of alcoholic beverages often deprives it of necessities and accelerates misconduct and child abuse. Regarding society, Ellen White identifies alcohol as a primary source leading to crime, a major cause of tragic incidents and public health problems. In my view, Ellen White’s theological convictions and practical counsel regarding the use of alcoholic beverages stand out because of their biblical consistency and practical relevance for our time.
Alcohol in America
To help readers assess, from a social and medical perspective, why the Bible condemns the use of alcoholic beverages, I devote Section IX to a brief overview of the social and medical consequences—what alcohol costs American society. This overview emphasizes that the cost of alcohol use for the American people is staggering, not only in economic terms ($117 million a year), but also in terms of human suffering, poverty, crime, strained relationships between spouses and children, divorce, illness, and death.
If America wishes to effectively combat the tragedy of alcohol, it must develop an entirely new cultural position by actively promoting abstinence. In this effort, Christians can play a vital role if they embrace the biblical command to abstain. This will happen only when Christians accept and acknowledge the fact that drinking alcoholic beverages not only causes physical harm but also inflicts biblical and moral damage, because alcohol consumption is a sin. It is important that they not only abstain from all intoxicating and narcotic substances themselves, but also help others break free from them.
Section I: An Overview of the Problem of Drunkenness
… Introduction
Few problems have divided American society so deeply and been so destructive and harmful to society as a whole as the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Throughout American history, nearly every demonstration has debated whether Christians should drink alcoholic beverages. As a result of these debates, several temperance societies were organized: in 1826, the American Temperance Society; in 1836, the American Temperance Union; in 1869, the National Prohibition Party; in 1874, the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union; and in 1893, the politically oriented Anti-Saloon League. These movements, vigorously supported by several evangelical churches, eventually succeeded in prohibiting alcohol through the adoption of the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on January 16, 1919. This amendment prohibited the “manufacture, sale, or distribution” of alcoholic beverages.
With the repeal of Prohibition on December 5, 1933, when the 21st Amendment to the Constitution was adopted, the rate of drunkenness among Americans began to rise again, bringing disease, poverty, crime, and death with it. Today, alcohol consumption is widespread in America. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, drinking is a problem for 18 million Americans, and more than 10 million suffer from alcoholism. “Alcohol is responsible for nearly half of all murders, suicides, and accidental deaths in America. Overall, alcohol claims at least 100,000 lives each year, 25 times more than deaths caused by the use of other illegal drugs” (“U.S. News & World Report,” November 30, 1987, p. 56).
Chapter 1: Christian Responsibility
Christian churches bear some responsibility for the terrible problem of drunkenness in our time, because through their views, teachings, and preaching, they are able to influence society’s moral values and customs even more than any other institution. What pastors preach from their pulpits, or what teachers teach in their Saturday or Sunday school classes regarding alcohol consumption, largely determines the position each church member will take on drinking alcoholic beverages.
Those who teach that moderate alcohol consumption is a Christian freedom sanctioned by Scripture do not realize that moderation is the first step toward excess. First, because alcohol consumption is a habit that creates drug dependence, and second, because even moderate alcohol consumption diminishes our capacity for judgment and self-control.
In his book “God Is for Alcoholics Too,” Jerry Dunn, an authority on alcoholics, tells the story of a man who would stagger into his “Open Door Mission” for alcoholics in Omaha, Nebraska, wave a finger in his face, and say: “Jerry! I have a right to drink! The Bible says so! I challenge you—show me where the Bible says I can’t drink” /Jerry Dunn, “God Is for Alcoholics Too,” Chicago, 1896, p. 87/.
The Temperance Movement
The history of the temperance movement in America notes that those evangelical churches that supported total abstinence promoted the cause of universal abstinence through their enthusiasm. These included Baptist, Methodist, Congregationalist, New School Presbyterian, and Seventh-day Adventist Christians. Their fervent inspiration was prompted by the conviction that Scripture teaches abstinence from intoxicating drugs rather than their moderate use. Other churches that did not share this conviction—the Episcopal, Lutheran, German Reformed, and Old School Presbyterian churches—nevertheless, as John Merrill noted in his article “The Bible and American Temperance Movements,” “responded enthusiastically to the temperance movement” /“Harvard Theological Review,” April 1988, p. 165/.
The increase in per-capita consumption of pure alcohol—from less than 5.5 liters during Prohibition to nearly 17 liters per person per year—may be good evidence of the decline of the temperance movement; here, the experience of the same period is presented. This decline was influenced by the gradual abandonment by most churches of their belief in total abstinence as a biblical teaching—at least in practice.
Biblical Criticism
An important factor that prompted most churches to abandon their biblical position on total abstinence was the ever-growing influence of biblical criticism, which weakened belief both in the authority of Scripture and in the person of Christ. Scripture came to be presented, in the words of John L. Merrill, as “a product of its own cultural environment,” and consequently its teachings on alcohol use were regarded as less important than modern progress and perceptions” /John L. Merrill, p. 166/.
The Person of Christ
Understanding of the person of Christ was also weakened by attributing to Him limitations in human knowledge. It was claimed that Christ drank fermented wine because He did not understand its harmful effects. One writer said: “The limitations of Christ’s human knowledge were such that He could not know /as we know/ the full and absolute harm of all drugs containing alcohol. This is the essence of the matter—we follow Him in spirit rather than in the letter” /John Cope McKim, “Prohibition versus Christianity,” “North American Review” 208, Spring 1916/. The same argument was emphasized in 1830 by Garrett Smith, who claimed that Jesus drank wine simply because of a lack of “the better knowledge of our time.”
It is astonishing that anyone could worship Christ as the divine Son of God while regarding Him as ignorant of the dangers of alcoholic beverages. Moreover, could Christ’s knowledge have been so limited that He disregarded the Old Testament warnings against alcoholic beverages, such as Prov. 20:1; 31:4–5; Lev. 10:8–11; Hab. 2:15; 2:5; Isa. 5:11–12; 28:7?
Moderate Use Rather Than Abstinence [Е1]
The influence of biblical criticism can be seen in the movement from total abstinence to moderate alcohol use. This movement affected churches that had once been the strongest advocates of abstinence. For example, the Methodist Church was a leader in the temperance reform. Today, however, it follows the principle of moderate alcohol use even among its ministers.
Billy Graham caused quite a stir among the U.S. population when he turned a blind eye to President Carter’s drinking wine in the White House. Yet Graham said: “I do not believe the Bible teaches total abstinence… Jesus drank wine, and Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding feast. It was not grape juice, as some try to explain.” /“Carter Will Restore Trust,” Graham said” – Miami Herald, December 26, 1976, Section A, p. 18/. To quiet the loud outcry from conservatives, Graham clarified his position, saying: “It is my judgment that, because of alcohol’s devastating and destructive effects on America, it is better for Christians to practice complete abstinence, except for medical purposes… The slavish, submissive paralysis of alcoholism undermines our morals, destroys our families, and distracts people from the church.” /Editorial: “Graham Recommends Abstinence for Social Rather Than Biblical Reasons.”/
Biological or Biblical Ethics?
Like Graham, many church leaders and theologians today advocate complete abstinence, not on biblical or moral grounds—that drinking
alcoholic beverages is sinful—but because of their harmful effects on personal and public health. These people are guided by what may be called biological rather than biblical ethics, that is, by their concern about alcohol’s impact on human life /biology—the study of life/ rather than by their convictions about the Bible’s disapproval of alcoholic beverages.
This approach to the problem of alcohol consumption has gained influence among some Seventh-day Adventists. An example is a series of five articles on chemical dependency published in the Adventist Review on October 29 and November 5, 12, 19, and 26, 1987. Their authors discussed alcohol dependence primarily as a disease rather than as a sinful problem. The underlying suggestion seemed to be that the Adventist Church should move away from viewing the use of alcoholic beverages as essentially “deliberate sin.” Instead, alcoholism should be viewed as a medical rather than a moral problem.
A Moral or Medical Problem?
The change in the status of alcoholism to a disease, which some people began advocating in the late 1930s, has become widely accepted. As San Francisco psychologist Paul Good stated: “If you call it a problem, you cannot have a treatment industry” /quoted in “A Campaign to Grapple with Alcoholism,” p. 59/. He added: “The billion-dollar industry serving alcoholism as a disease is similar” /Ibid./. This flow of money into treatment programs—from businesses, insurance companies, and governments—could quickly dry up if the Supreme Court decides to change alcoholism’s status as a disease.
Adopting the disease model of alcoholism greatly diminishes the moral aspect of alcohol abuse, reducing it to a genetic and/or psychological disorder. This popular view has now been challenged by theologians such as Herbert Fingarette, an expert on drugs at the University of Southern California who is frequently consulted by the government in legal cases involving alcoholics. In his recently published book, Heavy Drinking: The Myth of Alcoholism as a Disease, Fingarette convincingly demonstrated, based on several contemporary medical studies that are usually ignored, that heavy, problem drinking is in most cases a matter of behavior and morality rather than a medical problem.
There is “no-fault” society.
And it is no wonder that when alcoholism is classified as a disease, it becomes clear that the individual is not responsible for it. This is simply another example of the fact that we are quickly becoming a “blameless” society—a society in which no one is willing to accept responsibility or be blamed for anything they do. We accept no blame for insurance, no blame for divorce, so why accept no blame for alcoholism?
Ralph Womer aptly observed: “Alcoholics cannot be punished for becoming what they are. They contracted this disease just as ignorant young men contract syphilis, measles, or mumps. The poor man was tormented by thirst. One day he entered a bar, where he was offered a disease-producing drink that destroyed his brain cells, ruined his marriage, and brought misery to his family. But it all happened so innocently. No one was held responsible for what happened.”
“We would never allow companies to sell a drink that causes measles, smallpox, or polio, but alcohol is treated completely differently. Yes, differently, because we do not really believe that it contains a disease-producing agent. When sold, it is simply a drink to quench thirst and bring joy and merriment to the heart. When an alcohol consumer becomes an addict, he acquires a disease. This ‘schizophrenic’ reasoning allows alcohol producers to sell their products without any responsibility or blame. The same view allows people to destroy themselves without guilt or shame. He is a kind of ‘victim,’ like all the victims of tornadoes, earthquakes, or floods. How can he be responsible for what he has become? By classifying alcoholism as a disease, we freed the alcoholic from guilt and all responsibility. This is essential if we, as a society, are to be ‘blameless’ in all this.”
“When the finished product is ‘pure as a mountain stream,’ and the consumer becomes an addict, he is the victim of a terrible disease. Thus, both producer and consumer are absolved of all responsibility for the suffering they have caused” /Ralph Womer, “The Blameless Society,” Church of God’s Light magazine, December 1988, pp. 1–2/.
The Need for Moral Conviction.
It is very important to inform Christians about the harmful effects of alcoholic beverages on their health, appearance, family, and society. But will this involve compelling them to remain or become abstinent? Will simple knowledge of alcohol’s harmful effects persuade Christians to become completely abstinent? In my understanding, education alone is insufficient. It does more. It produces in a person not merely a biological ethic, but primarily a biblical ethic. Only then will a Christian recognize that drunkenness is not merely a bad habit that harms health, but also violates the God-given principle of maintaining our health and holiness; then he or she will feel motivated to abstain from intoxicating drinks and all narcotic substances.
Massive national education concerning the dangers of cigarette smoking has not radically changed the number of smokers. There are still 40 million Americans who would rather smoke away their health than give up the habit. All this shows that biological ethics alone is insufficient. Similarly, educating people about the physical and social consequences of alcohol use will not substantially reduce the alcohol problem, whether in the Church or in society as a whole.
The reason for this is the fallen human nature described by the apostle Paul in these words: “For I do not understand what I do; for I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate… Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” /Rom. 7:15, 24/. Humanity’s long and sorrowful experience has shown that, for the sake of momentary pleasures, people will choose to do what they know will lead to the eternal destruction not only of their personal well-being, but also of society.
The Christian Path to Freedom.
The Christian path to freedom lies in seeking to serve God rather than ourselves, seeking to know and do the will of God rather than satisfy and preserve our lifestyle. Our present life is meaningless and unworthy of existence until we find its meaning and fulfillment in God. The Good News of the Bible is that God has provided a way for us, and that the meaning and fulfillment of life are found in Him. By accepting His forgiveness for our past sins and His power to live in the present according to the principles of His Word. According to the apostle Paul, this was the purpose of Christ’s coming into our world “in the likeness of sinful flesh, so that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” /Rom. 8:3–4/.
All this means that our Christian position regarding alcohol consumption should be shaped not merely on the basis of biological ethics, but on the basis of biblical ethics. Our convictions should be rooted not only in the negative effects of alcohol consumption—according to the physical and social aspects of life—but also in the positive principles and admonitions concerning drunkenness that God has given us in His Word. Defining our Christian position regarding alcohol consumption should begin by listening to what scientific research tells us about the effects of alcohol.
Chapter 2: Three Main Positions
What does the Bible teach about drunkenness? Does God approve of moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages? If God does not approve of consuming alcoholic beverages, did He nevertheless permit their use because of human weaknesses /Matt. 19:8/, just as He permits divorce, polygamy, and slavery? Does God categorically disapprove of the consumption of any alcoholic beverages, even in moderation? These three questions represent the three main positions that have been outlined on the issue of alcoholic beverage consumption. We will identify them respectively as the moderate, abstinence, and prohibitionist positions.
1. THE MODERATE CONSUMPTION POSITION.
Definition and advocates. The moderate view holds that if Scripture condemns excessive consumption of alcoholic beverages, then it approves of their moderate consumption. This view is defended by authors such as G. A. Williamson in his book “Wine in the Bible and the Church” /Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1976/; Kenneth L. Gentry in his work “The Christian and Alcoholic Beverages” /1986, Grand Rapids publisher/; and Norman L. Geisler in his article “A Christian Perspective on the Use of Wine” /“Christianity Today,” June 20, 1975, pp. 9–11/.
The moderate-consumption view rests on the basic assumption that the Bible speaks only of fermented wine, which is regarded as a divine blessing when enjoyed moderately and freely. But as we will see, recent research has challenged the “one kind of wine” theory, revealing that the Hebrew and Greek words /yayin and oinos/, which are translated throughout Scripture by the single word “wine,” can refer either to unfermented grape juice or to alcoholic, fermented wine.
Adhering to the “one kind of wine” view, moderates argue that it was fermented wine exchanged as a gift among godly people /Gen. 14:18–20/; that it was fermented wine offered as a gift to God /Ex. 29:38,40; Lev. 23:13/; that it was fermented wine the Israelites drank when they brought their tithes to the temple /Deut. 14:26/; that it was fermented wine Jesus drank when He was accused of associating with “wine drinkers” /Luke 7:33–35/; that it was high-quality fermented wine Jesus miraculously produced at Cana of Galilee /John 2:1–11/; that it was fermented wine Jesus used when instituting the Lord’s Supper /Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18/ and that the early Christians used in their observance of the Lord’s Supper /1 Cor. 11:21–22/.
The Weakness of This View.
We will now present the weak basis for each of the positions outlined above. At this stage, it is sufficient to make two general observations. First, advocates of moderate alcohol use do not adequately explain the passages that openly and clearly condemn not merely excessive, but even ordinary, wine consumption /Lev. 10:8–11/; Judg. 13:3–4; Prov. 31:4–5; 20:1; 23:29–35; 1 Tim. 3:2–3/. How can Scripture approve moderate consumption of fermented wine when it condemns wine as “mocking” /Prov. 20:1/, which “bites like a serpent and stings like an adder” /Prov. 23:32/? How can the same wine be recommended in the Bible as both good and evil? If the answer lies in the quantity rather than the type of wine consumed, then Scripture should give some indication of safe limits for drunkenness.
The second observation concerns the nature of fermented wine or any other alcoholic beverage. Could God legitimately recommend moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages, knowing their harmful effects? Moderation merely reduces, but does not eliminate, the harmful effects of alcohol. The same is true of tobacco use. Smoking half a pack instead of two packs of cigarettes reduces, but does not eliminate, the harm caused by tobacco. It is highly absurd and dangerous to imagine that God could approve and encourage moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages that poison our bodies, regardless of the amount consumed.
THE ABSTINENCE POSITION.
Definition and Advocates. Many conservative Christians recognize the problems inherent in the moderate view and therefore support the position we call abstinence. This view maintains that although God approved moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages in biblical times, it is preferable for Christians today to abstain from them because of the many serious social and health problems associated with alcohol consumption.
As noted earlier, Billy Graham held this abstinence position. Among more recent studies, this view is supported by the Reformed Presbyterian Church and the Evangelical Synod, as well as by Harold Lindsell’s book *The World, the Flesh and the Devil* (Washington, D.C., 1973) and Arnold B. Come’s *Drunkenness: The Christian Position* (Philadelphia, 1964). According to this view, abstinence is not a matter of clearly stated biblical teaching, but rather of prudent foresight in view of the enormous impact of alcohol consumption on society as a whole.
The Adventist Position on Abstinence.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church adheres to a position of abstinence, but on an entirely different basis. It believes that God does not approve of drinking alcoholic beverages. The book *Seventh-day Adventists Believe* /In the Beginning Was the Word/ states: “The instances of alcoholic beverage consumption described in some passages of the Bible may create the impression that God Himself approves of it. However, Scripture also tells us that God’s people participated in such social evils as divorce, polygamy, and slavery—practices unquestionably unforgivable in God’s sight. When interpreting such passages from the Bible, we should constantly remember that God does not always approve of what He permits” /In the Beginning Was the Word, p. 290/.
In its explanation of Deuteronomy 14:26, the Seventh-day Adventist commentary clearly confirms: “Thus it was with ‘wine and strong drink.’ Nowhere was there such a strong prohibition, except for those engaged in religious duties and perhaps also in the administration of justice /Lev. 10:9; Prov. 31:4–5/. In former times, God often ‘winked at times of ignorance’ regarding responsibility for practices He had never approved” /Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. I, p. 102/.
Viewing alcoholic beverages as permitted /though not approved/ by God in former times of ignorance and moral perversion, Adventists consider it necessary to emphasize primarily health-related reasons for their position of abstinence. An example is found in the book *In the Beginning Was the Word*, p. 286: “We need to abstain from alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and the irresponsible use of potent and narcotic drugs because they are harmful to our bodies.”
The weakness of this view.
The Adventist position that God permits alcoholic beverages without approving their use rests mainly on the claim that the “wine and strong drink” mentioned in Deuteronomy 14:26 refer to alcoholic beverages. /See the Seventh-day Adventist Commentary on Deuteronomy 14:26/. Since the text commands people to consume these beverages before the Lord in Jerusalem, the command appears to represent a divine concession allowing the use of alcoholic beverages because of human depravity. The weakness of this interpretation is examined in Section VII, where this text is studied in detail. Our study of the context and origin of the Hebrew word “shekar,” usually translated as “strong drink” /“sikera” in the Russian text/, shows that in this context “shekar” refers to an unfermented beverage.
The view that drinking alcoholic beverages was permitted as a divine concession is also weakened by passages that describe “wine” /yayin/ not as a divine concession, but as a divine blessing intended for people’s enjoyment. For example, Psalm 104:14–15 says: “You cause the grass to grow for the cattle, and vegetation for the service of man, that he may bring forth food from the earth, and wine that makes glad the heart of man, oil that makes his face shine, and bread which strengthens man’s heart.” Here “wine” is mentioned together with bread and oil as a basis of divine blessing that enjoys God’s approval.
Similarly, Isaiah 55:1 presents God’s free gift of grace, freely offering water, wine, and milk: “Ho! Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat; yes, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.” The fact that “wine and milk” are presented together here as symbols of the goodness and satisfaction of spiritual blessings emphasizes again that “wine” /yayin/ was not merely permitted but also approved. Other examples underscore divine approval of wine, found in passages that describe wine as a symbol of the prosperity and joy of the Messianic age. These passages will be examined in Section III.
An Obvious Biblical Paradox
The examples cited above, recommending wine as a divine blessing for believers, stand in sharp contrast to passages condemning wine “as one who deals treacherously” (Hab. 2:5), “wine is a mocker” (Prov. 20:1), and “it bites like a serpent and stings like an adder” (Prov. 23:32). These two contrasting types of verses present a perplexing biblical paradox. How can the same divinely inspired Bible simultaneously recommend and condemn the use of wine? Obviously, the same wine cannot be both good and evil at the same time.
The solution to this apparent paradox cannot be found in the amount of wine consumed, as moderate consumers of alcoholic beverages argue, because, as will be shown later, Scripture recommends and condemns wine itself, regardless of the amount consumed. Nor should we seek a solution by viewing the positive references to wine as divine concession rather than divine approval, since, as we have seen, wine is often presented together with food as a divine blessing for people to enjoy.
The solution must instead be found in recognizing that the Hebrew and Greek words (yayin and oinos), which are translated by the single word “wine,” can refer both to unfermented grape juice and to fermented wine. Failure to recognize this dual meaning of the biblical terms for wine has led some to conclude that the Bible’s teachings about alcoholic beverages are contradictory. Lael Otniel Caesar, for example, concluded his thesis “The Meaning of Yayin in the Old Testament” by saying that while “the use of yayin was sometimes prohibited and condemned, there is evidence in Scripture that God allowed Israel to use intoxicating beverages” (Lael Otniel Caesar, “The Meaning of Yayin in the Old Testament,” Andrews University, p. 152). This same view is expressed in the SDA Bible Commentary on Deut. 14:26, as quoted above.
Z. THE PROHIBITIONIST POSITION
Definition of the Position. The prohibitionist position arises from the obvious contrast between God’s approval and (p. 48 of the original) disapproval of drinking wine. In their view, the best way to resolve the problem is to recognize that the same Hebrew and Greek words for wine (yayin and oinos) can refer both to unfermented grape juice and to fermented wine. Therefore, the wine God approves is unfermented grape juice, while the “wine” He disapproves is fermented and intoxicating. According to this view, alcoholic beverages are prohibited in Scripture as unfit for human consumption. Participating in such practices not only harms one’s health but is also immoral, because it violates the biblical principle intended to preserve our health and holiness. This is precisely the view I intend to adopt after carefully examining all the biblical references concerning the use of “wine.” It was a pleasant discovery for me that Ellen White, who greatly influenced the Seventh-day Adventist Church in accepting the biblical principle of abstinence, clearly supported the prohibitionist position. The theological basis of her views is presented in Section VIII.
Advocates of the Prohibitionist Position
The most comprehensive and compelling defense of the prohibitionist position comes from Robert P. Teachout’s doctoral dissertation, entitled “The Use of
Wine in the New Testament,” submitted in 1979 at Dallas Theological Seminary.
I am deeply indebted to this study both for its sources and its analysis. The reader will soon see this in my frequent references to this work. Subsequently, in 1983 /and again in a 1986 revised edition/, Teachout published a 96-page popularized summary of all the conclusions reached in his 462-page dissertation, entitled “Wine: The Biblical Imperative—Total Abstinence.”
Another significant work supporting the prohibitionist position is Stephen Reynolds’s Alcohol and the Bible, published in 1983 by Challenge Press. Reynolds, who was one of the translators of the New International Version, offered valuable linguistic analysis of the crucial words and phrases. Ernest Gordon’s 1944 booklet Christ, the Apostles, and Wine /provided a useful exegetical study of New Testament references to wine. See Ernest Gordon, Christ, the Apostles, and Wine, Philadelphia, 1944/.
Among the other older works defending the prohibitionist position, one stands out for its scholarship and comprehensive analysis: A Biblical Commentary on Abstinence. Its authors were Frederick Richard Lees and Dawson Burns. This book was reprinted many times, first in England in 1867 and later in the United States. Its authors intensely examined every biblical passage relating to wine and strong drink, offering for each passage the various versions available, critical observations, and exposition. I am deeply grateful to H. D. Steed for lending me his personal copy of this very difficult-to-find book.
The smallest yet most valuable study, by Leon C. Field, Oinos: A Discussion of the Biblical Question of Wine, was first published in New York in 1833. I am deeply indebted to this book for its theological analysis of numerous New Testament references concerning wine and drunkenness.
Another old study is William Patton’s Bible Wines, Laws of Fermentation. In his book, Patton provided useful information about the laws of fermentation and used the word “wine” as it appears in the Bible and in history. However, his analysis is rather superficial, often limited to compiling statements by various authors. His book was reprinted by Sane Press. The latest edition was published in 1988.
In presenting the results of my own study of biblical teachings regarding the use of alcoholic beverages, I am deeply aware of my indebtedness to all the theologians listed above and to many others who have broadened my understanding of this complex and vitally important subject. Although I frequently refer to and acknowledge research conducted by other theologians, the views and conclusions presented in this book are my own, and I bear full responsibility for them.
CONCLUSION
Our review of the troubling problem of drunkenness in our time emphasizes that Christian churches bear part of the responsibility for it. This is because they have largely failed to instill clear convictions in people’s minds regarding the moral and physical evils of intoxicating beverages. In addition, we have found that the chief contributing factor in weakening the authority of Scripture in general, and its teachings on the use of alcoholic beverages in particular, is the influence of biblical criticism.
After Prohibition was repealed in the United States in 1933, an increasing number of churches abandoned their position of total abstinence, encouraging moderate alcohol consumption instead. This moderation, however, led to a terrible situation—millions became habitual drunkards, because alcohol consumption is a habit that creates drug dependence and diminishes the capacity for self-control.
To support their position favoring moderate alcohol consumption, many churches have adopted the view that the Bible knows only fermented, alcoholic wine—the “one kind of wine theory”—which they regard as a divine blessing, and that everyone
may freely enjoy it in moderation. Consequently, any condemnation of wine in the Bible referred not to the kind of wine—alcoholic—but to the amount of alcohol consumed.
In view of the enormous influence this position still has on the development of drinking habits among millions of Christians, we need to carefully examine what Scripture teaches concerning the consumption of alcoholic beverages. We will begin our study by considering, first of all, the meaning of the word “wine” in Scripture and history. We will then continue by examining the biblical teachings concerning alcoholic beverages as found in the Old Testament, paying attention also to the example and teaching of Jesus, as well as the apostles’ exhortations concerning abstinence and sobriety.
Section II: The Meaning of the Word “Wine”
Introduction
Why is Section II of this book devoted to defining the word “wine”? Surely everyone knows that wine is fermented grape juice! It is surprising to discover that most modern English dictionaries define “wine” as fermented grape juice, leaving no possibility for unfermented grape juice to be called “wine.”
The universally accepted definition of “wine” as “fermented grape juice” may well explain why many Bible-believing Christians conclude that the “wine” mentioned in the Bible must always be alcoholic. This assumption, known as the “one kind of wine theory,” makes it very difficult to study the Bible’s teachings concerning the consumption of alcoholic beverages and leads many sincere Christians to believe that God approves the moderate consumption of fermented, intoxicating wine. This reasoning can best be illustrated by a syllogism (a conclusion derived from two propositions—the Foreign Words Dictionary, p. 464), as follows:
The Bible knows only one kind of wine: alcoholic wine.
Wine is presented in the Bible as a gracious divine blessing.
Therefore, the Bible approves the moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages.
The problem with this syllogism is that its first premise is false. This section will show that the Bible recognizes two distinctly different grape beverages: first, unfermented, refreshing, and lawful; second, fermented, intoxicating, and unlawful. This view of two kinds of wine in the Bible is firmly denied by many theologians. Dunlop Moore emphatically stated: “The theory of two kinds of wine—fermented, intoxicating, unlawful, and the other—unfermented, non-intoxicating, lawful—is a modern assumption, invented during the present century, having no foundation in the Bible, or in the Hebrew original, or in classical antiquity” (Philip Schaff, “Religious Encyclopedia of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology,” Chicago, 1887, vol. 3, p. 2537). An even stronger denial of the two-wine theory is found in E. W. Bullinger’s “Companion Bible,” where it says: “The modern expression ‘unfermented wine’ is a contradictory term. If it is wine, it must be fermented. If it is not fermented, it is not wine, but syrup” (E. W. Bullinger, “Companion Bible,” London, 1923, Appendix 27).
The Purpose of Section II
In this section, we intend to explain that the theory of two kinds of wine, as many claim, in fact has no biblical or historical basis. For many readers, this study may seem rather technical and not directly related to examining the Bible’s teaching about alcoholic beverages. However, this study is necessary for understanding what the Bible says specifically on this subject. In reality, our conclusion regarding the secular and biblical use of the term “wine” enables us to clarify the apparent contradiction between biblical passages that recommend and condemn the use of wine.
Procedure /method/.
The procedure we will follow to trace the secular use of the word “wine” will move backward: from English to Latin, Greek, and finally Hebrew. This historical survey across four languages is justified by the fact that the English word “wine” is linguistically directly related to the Latin “vinum,” Greek “oinos,” and Hebrew “yayin.” The relationship in meaning and form between these words becomes even clearer when we place the corresponding words side by side without the case ending um in Latin vin/um/, the ending os in Greek oin/os/, and the prefix ya in Hebrew /ya/yin. Without the case ending and prefix, these four words appear as follows: wine, vin, oin, yin. The linguistic relationship between them is obvious. They all share essentially the same stem. This emphasizes that, in meaning, they are the same word, simply transliterated—represented in the letters of another alphabet—rather than translated by a word of equivalent meaning.
In view of their similarity in meaning and form, we must determine what these related words actually mean in the various languages. We need to conduct our study by beginning with the use of the word “wine” in English and then moving backward to Latin “vinum,” Greek “oinos,” and finally Hebrew “yayin.” We are confident that this procedure will help Bible readers see the historical consistency found in the secular and biblical use of this related word as a name for both fermented and unfermented grape juice.
This section is divided into two parts. The first is devoted to examining the secular use of the words “wine,” “vinum,” “oinos,” and “yayin.” The second considers the biblical use of the Greek “oinos” and Hebrew “yayin.”
Chapter 3. The Secular Use of the Word “Wine”
1. The Meaning of the Word “Wine” in English.
The Common Use of the Word “Wine”.
Most people today assume that the word “wine” can refer only to fermented, intoxicating grape juice or to any other fermented beverage. The basis for this assumption is common usage and the definition given to the word by most modern dictionaries. For example, the seventh edition of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines the word “wine” as follows:
“1. Fermented grape juice containing varying percentages of alcohol together with ethers and esters, which give it its aroma and flavor.
Fermented juice of plant products /fruits/, used as a beverage.
3. Something that cheers or intoxicates.”
Note that this modern definition makes no mention whatsoever of unfermented grape juice as one possible meaning of the word “wine.” Therefore, it is not surprising that when people read such definitions—ordinary or most dictionaries—they naturally assume that “wine” can mean only fermented juice.
The Use of the Word “Wine” in Earlier Times
This restrictive meaning of the word “wine,” however, represents a departure from the more classical, dual meaning of the word as a designation for fermented or unfermented grape juice. To verify this fact, one need only consult some older dictionaries. For example, the 1955 Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language defines “wine” as follows: “1. Fermented grape juice: in a broader sense, the juice of grapes, fermented or not.” This definition shows that 40 years ago the ordinary use of the word “wine” referred to “the juice of grapes, fermented or not.” It is noteworthy that even the more recent New Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language (1971) defines must—grape juice—as “wine or juice pressed from grapes but not fermented.” This definition clearly equates “wine” with grape juice.
In 1896, Webster’s International Dictionary of the English Language defines “wine” as “the pressed juice of grapes, especially when fermented; a beverage made from grapes by means of pressed juice and usually undergoing fermentation.” This definition is historically accurate because it recognizes that the basic meaning of “wine” is “pressed grape juice,” which usually, but not always, undergoes fermentation.
Robert Teachout states: “The problem is that people have taken the exclusively common meaning of the word—whether in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or English—as an intoxicating beverage and made it the word’s only definition. This is not sound scholarship! It is inaccurate both biblically and secularly, and it is historically inaccurate from the standpoint of the English language” (Robert P. Teachout, “Wine: The Biblical Imperative—Total Abstinence,” 1986, p. 22).
Older English Dictionaries
The inaccuracies in the English language become even more obvious when we turn to older English dictionaries. For example, Webster’s Dictionary of 1828 defines must—grape juice—as “New wine—wine pressed from grapes but not fermented.” Note that unfermented grape juice is called “new wine” here.
Nathan Bailey’s Universal Etymological English Dictionary offers the following definition of “wine”: “Natural wine, such as it comes from the grape without any mixture or adulteration. Spiced wine, which contains a certain amount of narcotic substances to give it strength, superior quality, flavor, effervescence, and certain other properties” (quoted by Charles Wesley in “The Bible and Its Wines,” Denver, 1985, p. 1). Note that in this definition Bailey does not use the word “fermented.”
Other 18th-century lexicographical definitions of the word “wine” are very similar. John Kersey’s Anglo-British Dictionary, or A Universal English Dictionary, published in London in 1708, states: “Wine, a drink made from the juice of grapes or other fruits; a beverage, in other words, juice, must, grape juice, sweet wine, newly pressed from grapes” (ibid., p. 2). In this definition, “wine” clearly includes “must,” sweet wine newly pressed from grapes.
Benjamin Martin’s New English Dictionary, published in 1748, defines “wine” as follows:
1. Grape juice.
2. A beverage pressed from fruits other than grapes.
3. Steaming wine, stirring the mind.”
It is noteworthy that here, for the first time in the meaning of “wine,” “grape juice” is mentioned without any reference to fermentation.
A clear example of using the term “wine” to refer to unfermented grape juice is given by William Whiston in his translation of Josephus Flavius’s work The Antiquities of the Jews, first published in 1737. Referring to Josephus’s interpretation of the cupbearer’s dream, Josephus Flavius wrote: “He therefore said, that he saw in his sleep three clusters of grapes upon three branches of the vine, large and ripe for gathering; and that he squeezed them into a cup which the king held in his hands, and when he had strained the wine, he gave it to the king to drink, who received it with pleasure and a joyful countenance. ‘You say,’ said he, ‘that you squeezed the wine with your own hands from three bunches of grapes, and that the king received it; know, therefore, that your dream is for your good, and foretells your deliverance from your present distress.’” /The Antiquities of the Jews, Book II, Chapter V, Section 2/.
In this translation, Whiston used the word “wine” as the proper translation for fresh, unfermented grape juice /gleukos/, evidently because at that time “wine” meant either fermented or unfermented grape juice. Josephus Flavius’s statement offers another significant insight—namely, that long before Israel became a nation, it was customary to press grapes and drink the juice immediately, while it was fresh and unfermented. This is what Josephus called “gleukos,” an expression that English translators rendered as “wine” or “new wine” in Acts 2:13. Does this translation not support the conclusion that unfermented grape juice was called “wine” in earlier English usage?
Bible Translations
The examples of definitions of the word “wine” cited above from older English dictionaries emphasize that when the Bible was translated into English during the reign of King James /1604–1611/, its translators undoubtedly understood the word “wine” to refer to both kinds of wine—fermented and unfermented. In view of this fact, the King James-era translation consistently rendered the Hebrew yayin and Greek oinos with the word “wine.” This was an acceptable translation at the time, precisely because these source words /yayin and oinos/ could have either meaning. Today, however, when the word “wine” is understood to have only one meaning—fermented grape juice—modern Bible translators should indicate whether the text refers to fermented or unfermented grape juice. When this clarification is omitted, uninformed Bible readers are forced to mistakenly believe that every reference to “wine” in the Bible refers to fermented grape juice.
THE MEANING OF THE LATIN VINUM
Latin usage of vinum. It is highly significant that the Latin word “vinum,” from which the English word “wine” is derived, was also used to refer to fermented or unfermented grape juice. A massive four-volume Latin dictionary, published in 1740, gives several definitions of vinum, all supported by ancient Roman authors. Two are especially relevant: “Aigleucos vinum” /“sweet wine”/ and “Defrutum vinum” /“boiled wine”/—both of which are unfermented grape juice. /A Four-Volume Latin Dictionary, London: 1740, vol. 4, p. 557/. The dictionary further explains that “Vinum vocantur ipsae etiam uvae” /“even the grape clusters themselves are called wine.”/ This latter statement is supported by Marcus Cato, who defined grape juice as “vinum pendens,” that is, “wine still hanging on the grape clusters” /Marcus Cato, On Agriculture, 147.1/.
In his Theatrum Botanicum, published in 1640, Parkinson explained that “the juice pressed from ripe clusters of grapes is called vinum—wine. From it both sapa and defrutum are produced, in English, boiled wine, and both are made from mustum, new wine. This explanation is significant, for it testifies that the juice pressed from ripe clusters of grapes is called vinum, wine, and after boiling becomes ‘sapa’ or ‘defrutum,’ depending on how long it is boiled.”
Pliny (24–79 AD), the renowned Roman scholar and author of the celebrated Natural History, lists boiled wines—sapa and defrutum—among vinum dulce, “sweet wine.” He adds other types of unfermented sweet wines known as semper mustum, “perpetual must,” passum, “raisin wine,” and mulsum, “honey wine.” The latter was prepared from must in the following proportion: 30 pints (a pint being 0.47 liters) of dry-quality must to six pints of honey and a cup of salt; bring this mixture to a boil.” (Pliny, Natural History, Cambridge, 1960, pp. 241–243.)
W. Robertson, in his Phraseologia Generalis, published in 1693, defined the Latin mustum as “wine, however, still on the vine.” Thomas Aquinas, the “Angelic Doctor” of the Roman Catholic Church, explained that grape juice—mustum—could be used for the Eucharist (Communion), because it already “has the specific quality of wine” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province, New York, 1947, Part 3, Question 74, Article 5, p. 2443).
The preceding examples are sufficient to show that the Latin word vinum, like its English derivative “wine,” was historically used to refer to either fermented or unfermented grape juice. Further material drawn from ancient Roman writers supporting this conclusion will be presented in Section 4, where we will examine ancient methods of preserving wine in an unfermented state.
The Secular Use of the Greek OINOS
Oinos: Fermented Grape Juice Only? It is widely believed that in secular and biblical Greek, the word oinos, from which both the Latin vinum and the English wine derive, means exclusively fermented grape juice. For example, in his book The Christian and Alcoholic Beverages, Kenneth L. Gentry stated: “Classical Greek—the historical predecessor of New Testament Greek (Koine)—uses this term for a fermented beverage. Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon of Classical Greek defines oinos as ‘fermented grape juice.’ It is interesting to note that Classical Greek used oinos as functionally equivalent to ‘fermented juice,’ as Liddell and Scott observed.” (Kenneth Gentry, The Christian and Alcoholic Beverages, pp. 45–46.)
Gentry continues by citing New Testament lexicography to show that “there is no major New Testament dictionary that questions the fermented nature of oinos” (ibid., p. 46). After examining several New Testament passages, Gentry concludes: “The matter is clear: oinos is an alcoholic beverage. However, the consumption of wine itself is nowhere forbidden.”
In light of such categorical statements, it is very important to establish whether oinos in Classical Greek really means only fermented grape juice. If this claim proves to be untrue—through the literary examples presented, in which oinos also refers to unfermented grape juice—then it is certainly possible that the same dual meaning of oinos is also found in the New Testament and in the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint.
Unfermented Grape Juice
There are enough Greek literary texts that reject the narrow definition of oinos as referring only to fermented wine. A clear example is provided by Aristotle /384–322 BC/. In his work Meteorologica, he clearly refers to “grape juice” or “must” /gleukos/ as one kind of wine: “Regarding some kinds of wine /oinos/, for example, must /gleukos/ becomes concentrated when boiled” /Aristotle, Meteorologica, 384a 4–5/.
Elsewhere in this same work, Aristotle refers to a sweet grape beverage /glukus/, which “although it is called wine /oinos/, does not have the effect of wine, for it has no taste like wine and does not intoxicate like ordinary wine” /Ibid., 388/. In this text Aristotle informs us in detail that unfermented grape juice was called “oinos—wine,” although it had neither the taste nor the intoxicating effect of ordinary wine. /See also Meteorologica, 388a 34/, where it says: “There is more than one kind of beverage called wine /oinos/, and the different kinds behave differently. For new wine contains more earth than old wine and therefore becomes concentrated best under the influence of heat, but less so under the influence of cold.” The reference to new wine becoming concentrated under the influence of high temperature implies that new wine was preserved unfermented by boiling. As we will see in Section IV, this practice was common among the Romans.
Athenaeus the Grammarian /around AD 200/ explains in his book The Deipnosophists that “the Methymnaeans had sweet wine /glukon oinon/, which they called prodromos, while others called it protropos.” /Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists, I, 54/. Later in the same book, he recommends this sweet, unfermented wine /protropos/ for dyspeptics suffering from indigestion: “Let him drink sweet wine diluted with water or warmed, especially the kind called protropos, sweet Lesbian glukus, which is very good for the stomach; for sweet wine /oinos/ does not intoxicate” /Ibid., 2, 24/. Here unfermented sweet grape juice is called “Lesbian”—non-intoxicating because the power of fermentation has been removed.
The methods by which this was achieved will be examined in Section IV—how grape juice was preserved in the ancient world. In this case described above, it should be noted that unfermented wine was recommended for treating the stomach. We will return to this fact in Section VII when considering the apostle Paul’s recommendation to Timothy to “use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent ailments” /1 Tim. 5:23/.
Elsewhere Athenaeus explains: “During the festivals he /Drimacus the General/ would go out, take wine from the fields, and give it to the animals for sacrifice so that they would be in good condition” /Ibid., 6, 89/. Let us note in this connection the remark by Lees and Burns: “We believe that no one can go so far in his prejudice as to believe that fermented bottled wine could thus be ‘taken from the fields’” /Lees and Burns, p. 198/.
Oinos as Freshly Pressed Grape Juice
In several texts, freshly pressed grape juice is called oinos—“wine.” For example, Papias, a Christian bishop of Hierapolis who lived at the end of the apostolic age, describes the popular view of the millennium at that time as a period when “grapevines will grow. Each vine will have ten thousand branches on each branch, and ten thousand clusters on each branch, and each cluster, when pressed, will yield 25 jars /4.54 liters each/ of wine /oinos/” /Quoted in Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.33.1, 3–4/.
Proclus, the Platonic philosopher who lived in the fifth century, noted in his commentary on Hesiod’s Works and Days, at line 611, where he explained that the grape clusters were first exposed to the sun for ten days, then kept in the shade for ten days, and finally, “they trod them, pressing out the wine /oinos/” [quoted by Lees and Buris, p. 433]. Here, too, the freshly pressed juice of the grape clusters is clearly called “oinos—wine.”
Several Greek papyri cited by Robert Teachout in his dissertation indicate that oinos can refer to unfermented juice. [Robert Teachout, “The Use of Wine in the Old Testament,” dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979, p. 369.] A very good example is a papyrus from A.D. 137, which contains the following statement: “They pay the person who earned his wages with pure, fresh wine /oinos/ from the cask” [P. Oxy. IV. 729].
Nicander Solomon suggests that oinos derives from the name of a man, Oineus, who was the first to press juice from a cluster of grapes into a cup and call it oinos. [Quoted by Robert P. Teachout, p. 370.] This view is supported by Melanippides of Melos, who says: “Wine, my lord, was named after Oineus” [quoted by Athanasius, “The Banquet,” 2.35]. These two statements emphasize that some scholars trace the origin of oinos to the very act of pressing juice from grape clusters. Presumably, the man who first did this was named Oineus, and the grape juice itself began to be called by his name.
The Septuagint Translation
The Septuagint, an interesting Greek translation of the Old Testament, offers significant examples of the dual meaning of oinos. Ernest Gordon points out that “in the Septuagint, the Hebrew word for grape juice, tirosh, is translated into Greek as wine at least 33 times, while the adjective ‘new’ is absent. Oinos without this qualification, therefore [p. 62], can easily mean unfermented wine in the New Testament” [Ernest Gordon, “Christ, the Apostles, and Wine,” Philadelphia, 1947, p. 14]. It is interesting that the translators of the Septuagint used oinos to translate the Hebrew word tirosh, meaning grape juice, instead of the less ambiguous word gleukos, which means “must.”
It is also noteworthy that although the Septuagint usually translates the Hebrew yayin as oinos, in Job 32:19 yayin is translated as gleukos, the common Greek word for freshly pressed grape juice: “Behold, my belly is like wine /gleukos—grape juice/ unopened; it is ready to burst, like new wineskins.” In this case, the translators of the Septuagint showed that, for them, the Hebrew yayin could refer to must—grape juice in the process of fermentation.
The secular and religious texts presented above have made it very clear that the Greek word oinos, like the Latin vinum and the English wine, was used as a general term to refer either to fermented or unfermented grape juice. We must now determine whether the Hebrew word yayin has the same dual meaning in secular usage.
Secular Usage of the Hebrew Word Yayin
Yayin as freshly pressed grape juice. Before examining the biblical meaning of the Hebrew word yayin and the Greek oinos, we will consider the use of yayin in Jewish literature, since the latter provides primary biblical material on how this word was used over the centuries in Jewish literature. The Jewish Encyclopedia provides a brief description of the various uses of the word yayin: “Fresh wine before fermentation was called ‘yayin mi-gat’ — /wine in the vat, Sanhedrin 70a/. Ordinary wine is wine from the harvest of a particular year. Wine from the harvest of the previous year was called ‘yayin yashan’ /old wine/. The harvest of the third year was called ‘yayin meyushshan’ /very old wine/. /The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906, article ‘Wine,’ vol. 2, p. 533/.”
An almost identical description of the use of yayin is found in the recently published 1971 Jewish Encyclopedia: “Freshly pressed wine before fermentation was known as ‘yayin yashan’ /old wine/; it was wine from the harvest of the previous year, while wine from an even earlier harvest was called ‘yashan noshan’ /old, very old/. /The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1971, article ‘Wine,’ vol. 16, p. 538/.” The full statement from Sanhedrin 70a, the Talmudic interpretation cited by both encyclopedias, reads as follows: “Freshly pressed wine before fermentation was known as ‘yayin mi-gat’ /wine from the press/.”
Both of these standard Jewish encyclopedias clearly testify that the term yayin was used to refer to various wines, including “freshly pressed wine before fermentation.” Freshly pressed grape juice was evidently also known as “new wine,” since Rabbi Hanina B. Kahana, answering the question, “How long is new wine called ‘new wine’?” said: “As long as the first stage of fermentation has passed… and how long does this first stage last? — Three days” /Sanhedrin 70a, London, 1935, vol. 2, p. 476/.
Unfermented wine for religious rituals.
Lewis Ginzberg, who for many years was a distinguished professor of the Talmud at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, wrote a scholarly article in 1923 entitled: “A Reply to the Question of Whether Unfermented Wine May Be Used in Jewish Rituals.” Its significant conclusions will be presented in Section V.
In this context, we will mention only two statements from the Talmud that Ginzberg examines very carefully and extensively. The first statement is from the tractate Bava Batra 97a, where Rabbi Hiyya discusses whether freshly pressed wine may be used for kiddush, a ceremony welcoming a religious holiday such as the Sabbath. Rabbi Hiyya said: “Since wine /yayin/ pressed from the vat is acceptable for libation bediavad, it is acceptable for Kiddush lekhathila” /The American Jewish Year Book, 1923, p. 408/. This statement is significant for two reasons. First, it shows that freshly pressed grape juice was known as “wine” /yayin/. Second, it emphasizes that fermented wine was acceptable for religious rituals.
The second passage largely and almost completely repeats the passage just quoted. It is found in Halakhot Gedolot, the earliest concise guide to the Talmud. The statement reads: “One may press a bunch of grapes in a press and perform Kiddush over the juice, since grape juice is considered wine /yayin/ in connection with the law of the Nazirite.” /Ibid., p. 409/.
This statement puzzles us because of the Nazirite law in Numbers 6:1–4, where there is no indication that unfermented grape juice was considered wine. Perhaps some rabbis reached this conclusion because they universally accepted grape juice as wine. Louis Ginzberg expresses this view as follows: “Since grape juice is not mentioned among the beverages prohibited to Nazirites, its prohibition could be justified by the rabbis only on the sole grounds that grape juice was considered wine.” /Ibid., p. 410/.
If this assumption is correct, it provides an additional, though indirect, indication that unfermented grape juice was generally regarded in Jewish society as wine /yayin/. However, such indirect evidence is hardly necessary to substantiate this conclusion, since the two passages cited earlier have already provided direct evidence that grape juice indeed denoted wine /yayin/.
Conclusion.
A study of the secular usage of related words—vineu, vinus, oinos, and yayin—has clearly shown that these words were historically used in their respective languages to denote pressed grape juice, whether fermented or unfermented. This means that those who boldly claimed that the “two kinds of wine” lacked biblical and historical support based their claims on ignorance, disregarding the parallel secular usage of related words denoting wine in English, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.
Chapter 4: The Biblical Use of Yayin and Oinos
Previous research has shown that in secular Greek and Hebrew, the corresponding words for wine—oinos and yayin—were used to denote either fermented or unfermented wine. At this point, it is vitally important to determine whether the same dual meaning of these two related words is found in biblical usage. This information is necessary because it will explain why Scripture sometimes clearly approves of wine and at other times strongly disapproves of it, even though the same words are used to denote both kinds of wine.
The apparent ambiguity of Scripture regarding wine is resolved if we can establish that the two related words for wine—oinos and yayin—are used in Scripture in the same sense as in secular Greek and Hebrew, namely, to refer to grape juice, whether fermented or unfermented. If this dual meaning is present in Scripture, it will then be easier to show that God approves of the use of unfermented grape juice and disapproves of the use of intoxicating wine, even though both kinds of wine are designated by the same word. In beginning our study, we will first examine the use of yayin in the Old Testament and oinos in the New Testament.
1. Yayin as Fermented Wine.
Specific Usage. The noun yayin is the most frequently used word for wine in the Old Testament—it appears 141 times. As already noted, the usage of this word reveals an apparent inconsistency, since sometimes it expresses God’s approval and at other times His disapproval. The reason for this usage becomes clear when we examine certain examples in which yayin clearly denotes fermented, intoxicating wine, and other cases in which it means unfermented grape juice.
According to tables compiled by Robert Teachout, of the 141 references to the word yayin in the Old Testament, 71 refer to unfermented grape juice and 70 to fermented wine. / Robert Teachout, n. 25, pp. 349–358 /. This table does not claim absolute numerical accuracy, since the context is unclear in some cases. The actual ratio of these two uses of the word is of comparative significance, because the purpose of our study is simply to establish that yayin is sometimes used in the Old Testament to refer to unfermented grape juice.
Examples of Drunkenness
No one doubts that yayin in the Old Testament often refers to intoxicating wine. This fact is clearly demonstrated both by the many examples of sinful consequences resulting from the use of yayin and by the divine condemnation of its use.
The very first example of the use of yayin in Scripture portrays the intoxicating effect of fermented wine: “Noah began to cultivate the ground and planted a vineyard. And he drank wine /yayin/, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent” / Gen. 9:20–21 /.
Another unpleasant example in which intoxicating wine played a leading role is the event involving Lot’s daughters. Fearing that they would be left without descendants after the destruction of Sodom and the surrounding cities, the elder daughter said to the younger: “Let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, so that we may preserve offspring through our father.” And they made their father drink wine that night; and the elder went in and lay with her father, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose” /Gen. 19:32–33/. The story continues by relating how, on the following night, the younger daughter repeated the same tragedy.
The account of Nabal presents another example of the sinful influence of intoxicating wine. Nabal was a wealthy man who benefited from David’s protection. However, in response to these benefits, he refused to provide the necessary food for David’s men. When David prepared a band of warriors to kill the ungrateful Nabal, his wife Abigail acted quickly, took the necessary provisions, and went to David, pleading for her husband’s foolish behavior. After David accepted her apology and all the provisions she had brought, she returned home only to find her husband drunk: “And Abigail came to Nabal, and behold, he held a feast in his house, like the feast of a king; and Nabal’s heart was merry within him, for he was very drunk. So she told him nothing, either little or much, until the morning. In the morning, when the wine had gone out of Nabal, his wife told him these things, and his heart died within him, and he became like a stone” /1 Sam. 25:36–37/.
Among the many other accounts involving intoxicating wine, we may mention Amnon, who was killed by the servants of his brother Absalom at the moment when “Amnon’s heart was merry with wine” /yayin/ /2 Sam. 13:28/. Likewise, when King Ahasuerus’s heart “was merry with wine /yayin/” /Esth. 1:10/, he attempted to force Queen Vashti to appear before the drunken nobles of the royal court.
These quoted examples are sufficient to show that yayin in the Old Testament often refers to fermented, intoxicating wine. The following passages clearly demonstrate divine disapproval of the use of alcoholic wine.
Disapproval of Yayin
A classic condemnation of the use of intoxicating wine and a description of its consequences is found in Prov. 23:29–35. After warning of the grief caused by wine—sorrow, strife, wounds without cause, and bloodshot eyes—Solomon repeats the warning, adding that one should not even look at wine: “Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it goes down smoothly; in the end it bites like a serpent and stings like an adder” /Prov. 23:31–32/.
A similar warning against consuming intoxicating wine is found in Proverbs 20:1: “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and whoever is led astray by them is not wise.” However, such warnings were largely disregarded. From the days of the prophet Isaiah, the consumption of intoxicating wine became such a widespread problem that even “the priest and the prophet stagger from strong drink; they are overcome by wine /yayin/, they reel from strong drink, they err in vision, they stumble in judgment” /Isa. 28:7/.
Other passages that clearly indicate that yayin refers to fermented, intoxicating wine will be mentioned in the next section, where we will examine more thoroughly the reasons why Scripture warns us not to consume intoxicating wine.
Yayin as Unfermented Grape Juice
No passage of Scripture explains itself. The use of yayin in the Old Testament to refer to unfermented grape juice is not always as obvious as its use to describe alcoholic wine, because it is not always accompanied by condemnation, as in descriptions of alcoholic wine. There is not even a single passage that clearly defines the word yayin as unfermented grape juice. If such a passage existed, there would be no dispute on this issue and no need to write this book.
The Bible, however, is not a dictionary that defines its own words. The meaning of its words often needs to be determined from their context and from their comparative use in other passages or related languages. In the case of the word yayin, we believe there are passages where the context itself clearly establishes that the word yayin refers to unfermented grape juice.
Isaiah 16:10. One of the clearest passages is found in Isaiah 16:10. The context depicts God’s judgment on Moab for its pride. This judgment is manifested, as is often revealed throughout the Old Testament, through the removal of divine blessing—from the vineyard and from grapes and grape juice: “Gladness is taken away, and joy out of the plentiful field; and in the vineyards there shall be no singing, neither shall there be shouting: the treaders shall tread out no wine /yayin/ in their presses; I have made their shouting to cease” /Isa. 16:10/.
An important point clarified here is that juice pressed from the winepress is called yayin. This is unquestionably unfermented grape juice, since fermentation is a process that develops over time. Some people mistakenly assume that if grape juice is left to itself, it automatically ferments, becoming “good” wine. This assumption is incorrect. When pressed grape juice /must—grape must/ is allowed to ferment without environmental control, it becomes spoiled grape juice /vinegar/, which no one wants to drink.
Kenneth L. Gentry objects to this interpretation, arguing that “poetic imagination is so prevalent in Hebrew poetry that it allows yayin to be transformed into alcohol” /Kenneth Gentry, N. I, p. 30/. His argument is that poetry sometimes attributes the final results to the substance that produced them. Gentry’s objection has two main weaknesses. First, he fails to recognize that the poetic imagery in Isaiah 16:10 concerns the joy of the harvest and the pressing of grapes. Yayin flowing from the press appears not in terms of what it may become—fermented wine—but in terms of what it is, namely, “wine from the press,” in the context of the harvest.
Secondly, Gentry disregards the fact that pressed grape juice—before fermentation—was called by the Jews, as already shown, “yayin mi-gat,” meaning wine from the winepress. Unwilling to accept that pressed grape juice could be called “yayin,” Gentry and many advocates of moderate alcohol consumption were forced to interpret the “yayin” flowing from the winepress as alcoholic wine. The usual interpretation of Isa. 16:10 does not require understanding “yayin” as a poetic reference to the final product—alcoholic wine—because the clear reference to grape juice makes good, obvious sense in context. A parallel passage is found in Jer. 48:33.
Jer. 40:10, 12. Another clear example of “yayin” being used to denote unfermented grape juice is found in Jer. 40:10, 12. In verse 10, Gedaliah, the Babylonian governor, says to the Jews who were not taken into captivity: “Gather wine /yayin/, summer fruits, and oil, and put them in your vessels, and dwell in your cities which you have occupied.” This command encouraged the Jews who had fled to neighboring countries to return to Judah, and they “gathered very much wine /yayin/ and summer fruits” /Jer. 40:12/. In both verses, we find the term “yayin” used in a construction referring to the produce of the vine. Alcoholic wine is not gathered from the fields. This usage contradicts the assumption that “yayin” can refer only to fermented wine.
Neh. 13:15. In Neh. 13:15, we find another example where yayin is used to designate freshly pressed grape juice: “In those days I saw in Judah some treading winepresses on the Sabbath, bringing in sheaves, loading donkeys with wine /yayin/, grapes, figs, and every kind of load, and bringing them into Jerusalem on the Sabbath day. So I warned them on the day they sold food.” Here, “yayin” most likely means pressed grape juice, since it is mentioned together with pressing wine in the winepresses on the Sabbaths. Fresh juice was sold on the Sabbaths along with fresh grapes and other fruit.
Lam. 2:12. The Book of Lamentations vividly describes the physical suffering of the Jews during the great famine following Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem: “Where are bread and wine /yayin/? As they faint like the wounded in the streets of the city, as they pour out their souls into their mothers’ bosoms” /Lam. 2:12/.
Here, infants cry out to their mothers for their natural needs, namely bread and wine /yayin/. It is hardly imaginable that, during a siege and famine, little children would ask their mothers for intoxicating wine as their material drink. “What they longed for as they were dying at their mothers’ breasts,” notes Robert Teachout, “was grape juice /yayin/, which was highly nourishing and part of their natural diet” /Robert Teachout, N. Z., p. 37/.
Gen. 49:11. In Gen. 49:11, God’s blessings prophetically spoken concerning Judah’s future life consist of an abundant harvest of wine /yayin/: “He washes his garments in wine /yayin/ and his clothes in the blood of grapes.” The idea expressed here is of such an abundant harvest that, amid the abundance of grape juice, he will wash his clothes.
In this passage of Scripture, we also observe a striking example of Hebrew parallelism, in which two expressions convey the same thought using different words. In this case, “garments” in the first phrase corresponds to “clothes” in the second, and “wine /yayin/” corresponds to “the blood of grapes.” “Blood” is a poetic name for “grape juice,” and its use in parallelism with “wine” emphasizes that in biblical times grape juice was called yayin before fermentation.
Song of Solomon. Other examples of the use of “oinos” indicating unfermented grape juice are found in the love poem written by King Solomon, king of Israel. In several verses, the enjoyment of pure love is compared with oinos: “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth! For your love is better than wine /oinos/… We will delight and rejoice in you; we will extol your love more than wine /oinos/… How beautiful is your love, my sister, my bride! How much better is your love than wine /oinos/” /Song of Solomon 1:1, 3; 4:10/.
In these verses, “oinos” can hardly refer to unfermented, intoxicating wine, since the author of this book condemns fermented wine as “a mocker” and “biting like a serpent” /Proverbs 20:1; 23:32/. Evidently, Solomon compares the sweetness of pure, undefiled love with sweet grape juice. This comparison is most appropriate because, as Tichout observed: “Just as grape juice was given by God for the purpose of gladdening people’s hearts /Psalm 104:15/, so is love between a man and a woman” /Ibid., 38/.
The examples cited above clearly emphasize that, contrary to prevailing opinion, oinos is used in the Old Testament, as noted in rabbinic literature, to designate either fermented or unfermented grape juice.
OINOS as Fermented Wine
The meaning of oinos, the Greek term for wine in the New Testament, is equivalent to the Hebrew meaning of yayin in the Old Testament. Earlier, we established that oinos was used in secular Greek literature as a common, general term referring either to fermented or unfermented grape juice. The same dual meaning of oinos can also be found in its biblical usage. However, the word oinos occurs only 32 times in the New Testament, whereas the corresponding Hebrew word yayin occurs 141 times.
Intoxicating Oinos
One of the clearest examples of the use of oinos as intoxicating wine is found in Ephesians 5:18: “And do not get drunk with wine /oinos/, in which is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit.” Clearly, oinos here refers to fermented, intoxicating wine. First, because it makes a person “drunk,” and second, because its use is condemned on account of “debauchery,” that is, extreme moral corruption.
The intoxicating power of oinos is also implied in its symbolic use to describe divine judgment upon the wicked: “He will drink the wine /oinos/ of the wrath of God, wine unmixed, prepared in the cup of His anger” /Revelation 14:10/. Here, “the wine of the wrath of God, unmixed” means wine not diluted with water, which could reduce its strength. A similar figurative use is found in Revelation 16:19, where it says: “And Babylon the great was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine /oinos/ of the fury of His wrath.” Here, the fury of God’s wrath is depicted as a cup of wine that intoxicates and drives mad those who are forced to drink it.
The intoxicating wine of God’s wrath represents retribution against “the great prostitute who is seated on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality, and with the wine of her sexual immorality the inhabitants of the earth became drunk” /Revelation 17:1–2/. Here, spiritual immorality is presented as the effect of intoxicating wine possessing incredible power to confuse the mind and corrupt the heart.
These few examples of the literal and figurative use of oinos have made it abundantly clear that the term oinos, as used in the New Testament, refers to intoxicating, fermented wine.
OINOS as Unfermented Grape Juice
The biblical use of the term for grape juice is emphasized in two different ways:
Through the Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint, which was used by the apostles.
Through the context of such New Testament passages as Matthew 9:17 and Revelation 6:6.
Oinos in the Septuagint.
Earlier we noted that the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament used during the period between the Old and New Testaments, was used by the apostles. In this translation, the Hebrew word used to denote grape juice—tirosh—is translated 33 times by the Greek word oinos /Ps. 4:8; Isa. 65:8; Joel 1:10–12; Joel 2:23–24/. For example, in Prov. 3:10, where freshly pressed grape juice /tirosh in Hebrew/ is translated by the word oinos in the Septuagint. In the Russian translation we read: “Your vats will overflow with new wine” /Prov. 3:10/. “New wine” is translated from the Hebrew tirosh, but the Septuagint simply uses the word oinos without the adjective “new.” This in itself shows, as Ernest Gordon observed, that “oinos without qualification, in this sense, could easily mean unfermented wine in the New Testament.” /Ernest Gordon /N. 29/ p. 14/ The fact that the translators of the Septuagint used the word oinos to translate tirosh, the common Hebrew word for fresh grape juice, is proof that oinos was used to refer to both fermented and unfermented grape juice.
This conclusion is also supported by the use of the Greek word oinos in the Septuagint to translate the word yayin when the latter clearly means freshly pressed grape juice. For example, the Septuagint uses the word “oinos” to translate yayin in Isa. 16:10: “No one treads out wine in the presses.” In view of the fact that the language of the Septuagint greatly influenced the writers of the New Testament, it therefore seems reasonable to assume that oinos was also used in the New Testament with the same dual meaning, referring to both fermented and unfermented grape juice.
Young wine is poured into new wineskins.
A possible use of oinos in the New Testament as a reference to unfermented wine is found in Matthew 9:17, where Jesus says: “Neither do they put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine spills out, and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.” From this verse it becomes clear that in Christ’s time it was customary to pour new wine into new wineskins in order to preserve both the wine and the wineskins.
The usual explanation of this practice is that new wineskins were used because they could better withstand the expanding force of carbon dioxide produced during fermentation. For example, Jimmy L. Albright wrote: “Freshly pressed wine was poured into new wineskins; old wineskins could burst under pressure /Matt. 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37–38/.” /Jimmy Albright, “Wine in the Biblical World: Its Economic, Social, and Religious Influence on New Testament Interpretation.” Ph.D. dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1980, p. 137/. This view can hardly be correct, for no wineskins, however strong, could withstand the pressure caused by fermentation. I learned this fact from personal experience when I saw glass bottles in my parents’ cellar burst into pieces after being filled with grape juice that had begun to ferment through carelessness.
A biblical encyclopedia correctly notes: “It is impossible for must to be put into wineskins to undergo the entire fermentation process, as is commonly claimed; the action of gas in the earliest stages of the process is so destructive that no wineskins could ever withstand it” /The Biblical Encyclopedia, “Wine and Strong Drink/.
The process of making wine in the Ancient Near East is known only to a limited extent. James B. Pritchard, a participant in the excavations at ancient Gibeon, where 63 storage facilities containing jars were discovered, candidly stated: “Very little is known from literature and pictorial sources about the process of wine production in the Ancient Near East before the Classical period” /James B. Pritchard, Gibeon: Where the Sun Stood Still? Princeton, 1962, p. 97/. According to his reconstruction, at Gibeon, grape juice pressed in winepresses was transferred into four different reservoirs over several days. In the last three reservoirs, violent, intense processes took place. The filtered wine was then poured into large amphorae and sealed with olive oil at 65 degrees Fahrenheit, or 18 degrees Celsius.
Unfermented Grape Juice
In light of this information, Christ’s statement about “new wine” placed in “new wineskins” can best be understood as referring to fresh wine pressed from the winepress, which was filtered and possibly boiled; this wine was then placed directly into new, airtight, impermeable wineskins—possibly by means of an olive-oil film over the opening of the skin. A discussion of the various methods used by the ancients to preserve grape juice unfermented will continue in Section IV. At this point, it is sufficient to note that Christ’s words emphasize that “new wine” /“young wine” in the Russian Bible/ must be placed in “new wineskins” to ensure the absence of any fermenting agent.
“If old wineskins are used,” explain Lees and Burns, “some decomposing protein substances adhere to the sides of the must and, through exposure to air, turn into leaven or ferment (Hebrew—seor); or, through prolonged use and heat, they crack and form a fissure, allowing air to enter unnoticed; the wine, thus coming into contact with the leaven as fermentation develops, bursts the wineskins, and they are ruined” /Lees and Burns, /No. 4/ p. 266/. On the other hand, if unfermented new wine is poured into new wineskins, there will be no cause for fermentation. Thus the wine will be preserved from fermentation, and the wineskins from bursting. If this interpretation is correct, then Christ’s reference to “new /young/ wine”—/oinos neos/—constitutes another example of the use of oinos in the New Testament to describe unfermented grape juice.
“But do not damage the oil or the wine.”
An example of the common use of the word “oinos” is found in Revelation 6:6, where a voice from the center of the throne says: “A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius; but do not damage the oil or the wine /oinos/!” The warning against damaging the oil and wine sets a limit on the destruction that the black horse and its rider intended to carry out. “Since the roots of olive trees and grapevines reach very deep,” explains Robert H. Mounce, “they would not be affected by a drought that could destroy only the grain crops.”
In context, this warning against destroying the harvest is significant because the reference to “oil and wine” shows that these two terms can be used to refer to dependable crops—the olive trees and grapevines that produce oil and wine /oinos/. This use of the term “oinos,” referring to the actual fruit—the grape—is not surprising, since there are many examples in secular Greek literature of wine being spoken of as forming within a cluster of grapes. /For some examples, see Lees and Burns /No. 4/ p. 433/. Anacreon, for example, speaks of oinos “confined in the fruit on the branches,” and he sings of grape treaders “that they may release the wine” /Anacreon, Ode 49 and Ode 51/.
The examples above of the use of oinos in the New Testament and the Septuagint show that the term, used in the biblical, Greek, and general senses, refers either to fermented or unfermented grape juice. This usage is consistent with our findings regarding the use of the word “yayin” in the Old Testament. Thus, the meaning of these two related biblical terms for wine /yayin and oinos/ must be determined by the context in which they are used. This will become more evident in the following section, where we will examine the biblical teaching on wine.
CONCLUSION
The survey conducted in this section of the use of four related words—“wine” in English, “vinum” in Latin, “oinos” in Greek, and “yayin” in Hebrew—has revealed remarkable consistency in the historical use of these related words. In all four languages, these linguistically related words have historically been used to refer to grape juice, whether fermented or unfermented. This significant evidence has eliminated the claim that the two-wine theory lacks biblical and historical support. The examples from biblical and historical sources examined in this section have shown the opposite: the one-wine theory lacks biblical and historical support.
Long before our century, scholars and theologians recognized that the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin words denoting “wine” could refer to fermented or unfermented grape juice. In recent times, however, this historical understanding has been obscured by the restrictive use of the word “wine,” which came to mean only fermented, intoxicating grape juice. This concept has misled many Christians into believing that “yayin” and “oinos” refer only to fermented wine, which Scripture unequivocally approves.
In this section, we have sought to clarify this prevailing misconception by showing how Scripture uses the same words—“yayin” and “oinos”—to designate fermented or unfermented grape juice. This conclusion will become clearer in the following section, where we will examine some reasons why the Bible does not approve of fermented wine but does approve of the use of unfermented grape juice.
Section III: “Wine” from a Biblical Perspective
Introduction
The Bible seems to speak of wine in contradictory terms. On the one hand, it unequivocally disapproves of the use of wine /Lev. 10:8–11; Judg. 13:3–4; Prov. 31:4–5; 23:31; 20:1; Hab. 2:5; 1 Tim. 3:2–3/ while, on the other hand, it sincerely commends wine as a divine blessing for people’s enjoyment /Gen. 27:28; 49:10–12; Ps. 104:14–15; Isa. 55:1; Amos 9:13; John 2:11–12/.
The solution to this apparent contradiction, as already explained in Section I, does not lie in the amount of wine consumed, for, as will become clear in this section, Scripture both condemns and commends wine itself, regardless of the amount consumed. The solution cannot be found in viewing the positive references to wine as a divine concession rather than as divine approval, for, as we will see in this section, wine is often presented as a divine blessing for people’s enjoyment.
Our thesis is that the solution is found in the dual meaning of the Hebrew word “yayin” and the Greek word “oinos”—terms translated by the single word “wine,” but which can refer either to fermented grape juice or to fermented wine. Recognizing this dual usage provides the key to the idea that the Bible approves of unfermented grape juice and disapproves of fermented, intoxicating wine.
To verify the reliability of this thesis, in the previous section we presented the historical usage of four related words: the English “wine,” the Latin “vinum,” the Greek “oinos,” and the Hebrew “yayin.” The historical usage of these related words shows remarkable consistency: all of them were used to refer to grape juice—fermented or unfermented.
The Purpose of the Third Section.
This section is based on the conclusion reached in the previous section, through an examination of the reasons for the Bible’s approval and disapproval of wine. This study will further clarify the distinction the Bible makes between fermented and unfermented wine.
This section is divided into two chapters. Chapter Five examines the Bible’s approval of wine, while Chapter Six examines its disapproval. The method we will use to determine which “wine” is approved and which is condemned will be based on the context of each reference. Only when the context clearly indicates that the beverage mentioned refers to unfermented grape juice will we accept “grape juice” as the legitimate meaning of the Hebrew or Greek word translated as “wine.”
Chapter 5: Biblical Approval of Unfermented Wine
The Central Importance of the Vineyard. The vineyard, with its products—grapes and wine—was vital to the biblical economy and theology. A glance at a concordance is enough to recognize this fact. The word “vineyard” occurs 94 times in the Old Testament and 23 times in the New Testament. The word “wine” occurs 54 times in the Old Testament and 9 times in the New Testament. The word “grape” occurs 18 times in the Old Testament and three times in the New Testament. The word “wine”—“yayin”—occurs 141 times in the Old Testament, and the word “oinos” occurs 30 times in the New Testament.
These numerous references by themselves emphasize the immense importance of the grapevine and especially its product—wine; the word occurs far more often than the words “vineyard,” “grapevine,” or “cluster of grapes.” The vineyard and its wine represent both the material and spiritual blessings God chose to use to bless His obedient people.
“Wine” as a Symbol of Divine Blessing.
Isaac Blesses Jacob. The earliest example of “wine” being used as a symbol of divine blessing is found in Genesis 27:28, where Isaac blesses Jacob, saying: “May God give you of the dew of heaven, and of the fatness of the earth, and plenty of grain and wine /tirosh/.” In this patriarchal blessing, material prosperity—“of the fatness of the earth”—is especially defined by the phrase “plenty of grain and wine.” The Hebrew words for “grain” and “wine,” “dagan” and “tirosh,” are both used not to denote the final products, namely bread and wine, but in fact the grain growing in the field and the grapes.
Tirosh (“wine”) is often used together with dagan (“grain”) and yitshar (“fresh oil”) /See, for example, Hos. 2:8, 22; Neh. 5:11, 10:39, 13:5, 12; Deut. 7:13; 11:14; 12:17; 14:23; 18:4; 28:51; 2 Chr. 31:5; 32:28/. As Robert Teachout convincingly demonstrates in his dissertation, the combined use of these three words shows that they “refer to products that were threshed or pressed” /Robert Teachout, “The Use of Wine in the Old Testament,” 1979, p. 195/. The word “tirosh” in particular clearly refers in numerous examples to pressed grape juice. /For example: Isa. 65:8; Prov. 3:9–10; Joel 2:23–24; Neh. 10:37; Deut. 33:28; Isa. 36:17; 62:8/.
In Micah 6:15, God proclaimed His judgments on His wayward people, saying: “You will sow, but you will not reap; you will press olives—but you will not anoint yourself with oil; you will press out grape juice /tirosh/, but you will not drink wine /yayin/.” Here “tirosh” /grapes/ is clearly placed in apposition to yayin /“wine”/, just as olives /zayit/ are placed in apposition to “oil” /shemen/. The poetic sequence and overall meaning require tirosh to be understood as a solid substance—the grape clusters that yield “wine” /yayin/ only after being pressed.
These observations should clarify why “wine” /tirosh/ is a key aspect of the material blessings promised to Jacob—namely, blessed unfermented grape juice, rather than fermented, intoxicating wine. This study explains why, from the very first mention of tirosh /“wine”/ in Genesis 27:28 to the very last in Zechariah 9:17, this word is consistently used to express God’s blessings for His people.
Moses Blesses Israel.
We find a similar example of tirosh /“grape juice”/ in Moses’ blessing, spoken over the entire nation before his death: “Israel dwells in safety, alone; Jacob’s eye sees a land abundant in grain and wine /tirosh/, and His heavens drip with dew” /Deuteronomy 33:28/. Here material prosperity is provided through an abundant harvest of grain and grape juice /tirosh/. The designation “new wine” is omitted in most English translations, thereby misinforming Bible readers and misleading them into thinking that fermented wine is the promised blessing of God for His people.
Jacob Blesses Judah. Jacob’s patriarchal blessing to Judah offers another example of unfermented wine /yayin/ used as a symbol of material prosperity. Jacob said: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh comes, and to Him shall be the obedience of the peoples. He binds his donkey to the vine, and his donkey’s colt to the choice vine. He washes his garments in wine /yayin/ and his robes in the blood of grapes /dam anavim/.” /Genesis 49:10–11/.
The parallelism between washing “garments in wine” and “his robes in the blood of grapes” emphasizes that “wine” /yayin/ here refers to grape juice, poetically also called the “blood of grapes.” Through this figurative expression, the idea emerges that God’s blessing on Judah would be so abundant that His people could use grape juice not only for drinking but also for washing their garments. Clearly, there was never such abundance in Israel’s history. This does not diminish the fact that God desired to pour out His blessings on His obedient people. And these blessings could be manifested in an abundance of grape juice.
One of the clearest descriptions of “wine” as a symbol of divine blessing is found in Isaiah 65:8: “Thus says the Lord: As the juice /tirosh/ is found in the cluster of grapes, then they say, ‘Do not destroy it, for a blessing is in it’; so I will do for the sake of My servants, that I may not destroy them all.” Two facts in this text deserve attention. First, the “juice” /tirosh/ found in the cluster of grapes is undoubtedly unfermented grape juice. Second, because of its nature, this “juice” contains a blessing within itself. Undoubtedly, the blessing contained in grape juice is both literal and symbolic: literal, because grape juice provides nourishing food; and symbolic, because it represents the divine blessing of prosperity. The Bible’s approval of wine in these passages clearly refers to unfermented grape juice, not fermented wine.
“Wine” as a Conditional Blessing.
The divine blessing of grape juice was conditional by nature. To receive the blessing of bread, grape juice, and oil, each generation of Israelites was called to obey God. For example, Moses, exhorting the Israelites, said: “If you will diligently obey My commandments which I command you today, to love the Lord your God and serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul, then I will give rain for your land in its season, the early rain and the latter rain; and you will gather your grain, your wine, and your oil.” /Deut. 11:13–14/.
Here it is evident that wine /tirosh/ and grape clusters correspond to fresh grape juice, since they were gathered during the harvest together with grain and oil. We noted earlier that tirosh /“grape juice”/ is often mentioned together with grain and oil as a reference to products threshed and pressed during the harvest. The blessings received through these products were not automatic. Each generation was required to obey in order to receive from God an abundant harvest of grain, grape juice, and oil.
An example of the conditional nature of God’s blessings is found in the prophet Hosea. The prophet speaks of God’s rebuke to the Israelites for ignoring the fact that it was He, not Baal, who gave them “grain, wine, and oil.” “For she did not know that I gave her grain and wine /tirosh/ and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold, which they used for Baal” /Hos. 2:8/.
The Removal of “Wine” as a Divine Curse.
God said through the prophet Hosea to the Israelites that He would keep His promises given to their fathers, expressed in an abundance of grain, grape juice, and oil, and likewise of silver and gold. But because they attributed these blessings to the pagan gods of the land, He would remove these blessings from them: “Therefore I will take back My grain in its time and My wine /tirosh/ in its season, and will take away My wool and My flax, with which she covers her nakedness” /Hos. 2:9/.
Here both “grain” and “wine” /tirosh/ are directly created by God, who established their season of ripening. It would be difficult to find stronger evidence that “wine” /tirosh/ refers to grape juice gathered during the harvest, since God Himself threatened to remove it “in its season.”
Another striking example of divine judgment poured out on His erring people, manifested through the removal of the blessings of “wine,” is found in the prophet Joel. The prophet vividly describes the effect of God’s judgment in these words: “The field is ruined, the land mourns; for the grain is destroyed, the grape juice /tirosh/ has dried up, and the olive tree has withered” /Joel 1:10/. Here we find even more convincing evidence that “wine” /tirosh/, as used in the Old Testament, refers to the actual fruit of the vine. Because of their natural and nourishing properties, grape clusters and grape juice could effectively symbolize both the granting and the removal of God’s blessings from His people.
“Wine” as a Symbol of Messianic Blessings
Renewed Blessings. It is highly encouraging that in the Bible, God’s warnings about removing the blessings of the harvest are often followed by His promises to restore such blessings to His people. This restoration is usually associated with the prophetically promised Messianic age of peace and prosperity.
For example, the same prophet Joel, who vividly described God’s judgment in terms of the destruction of grain, wine, and oil, proclaims the restoration of these blessings: “Then the Lord will be zealous for His land and spare His people. The Lord will answer and say to His people: Behold, I will send you grain and wine /tirosh/ and oil, and you will be satisfied with them; I will no longer make you a reproach among the nations” /Joel 2:18–19/
Jeremiah proclaims, in a similar spirit, the future messianic restoration: “He who scattered Israel will gather him and will watch over him as a shepherd watches his flock; for the Lord will redeem Jacob and deliver him from the hand of one stronger than he. They will come and shout for joy on the heights of Zion; they will stream to the goodness of the Lord—to the grain, new wine /tirosh/, and oil, to the lambs and oxen; their souls will be like a well-watered garden, and they will sorrow no more” /Jer. 31:10–12/.
Here the glorious triad of natural products /bread, wine, and oil/ appears again and is significantly called “the goodness of the Lord,” which God’s people will enjoy in perfect peace, evidently because all three are nourishing natural products.
Messianic prosperity.
Amos envisioned another vivid example of the use of “wine” as an appropriate symbol of the fruitfulness of the messianic age: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when the plowman will overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes the sower; the mountains will drip with grape juice /aziz/, and all the hills will flow with it. I will restore the fortunes of My people Israel, and they will rebuild the desolate cities and inhabit them; they will plant vineyards and drink their wine /yayin/, and make gardens and eat their fruit” /Amos 9:13–14/.
Here the fruitfulness and abundance of the messianic age are presented through images of agricultural activities following one another in rapid succession without exhausting the soil. In this context, “wine” is mentioned twice. The first reference speaks of mountains dripping with “grape juice” /aziz/. Since grapevines were planted on mountain slopes, the prophet depicts the fruitfulness of the vines through a vivid metaphor in which the mountains drip with streams of sweet, fragrant juice contained within bursting clusters of grapes. Clearly, “grape juice” /aziz/ here is sweet grape juice flowing from ripe clusters of grapes.
The second reference speaks of planting “vineyards” and “drinking wine” /yayin/. Since this phrase is paired with the statement “they will make gardens and eat their fruit,” “wine” here probably means the natural product of the vineyard—grape juice—just as “fruit” is the natural product of “gardens.” Thus, in both references, God’s approval and blessing in the sense of “wine” refers here to unfermented grape juice.
The Offer of Divine Grace.
Since unfermented wine is used to symbolize God’s blessings for His people, both in the present and in the future messianic age wine should likewise effectively represent God’s free offer of His grace to His people. We find this use in Isaiah 55:1, where God says: “Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no silver, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine /yayin/ and milk without silver and without price.”
Here God’s free offer of His grace is compared to freely receiving three natural products: water, wine, and milk. It is difficult to believe that in this context “wine” /yayin/ refers to fermented, intoxicating wine. The fact that “wine” /yayin/ is placed alongside milk, a natural, nourishing product, emphasizes that “wine” refers to nourishing, beneficial grape juice.
It is interesting to note that “milk and wine” also appear together in Song of Songs 5:1: “I have come to my garden, my sister, my bride; I have gathered my myrrh with my spices, I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey, I have drunk my wine with my milk. Eat, friends; drink and be filled, beloved.” In this love poem, “wine” /yayin/ must refer to grape juice, at least for two reasons. First of all, pure grape juice forms a fitting companion for itself—this beverage is fresh milk—and both drinks can be consumed “to satisfaction” without harming body or mind.
Second, it is hardly likely that Solomon could have encouraged anyone to drink intoxicating wine when, in Proverbs, he strongly condemns wine as “a mocker” (Prov. 20:1), and says that “at the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like an adder” (Prov. 23:32). If one believes that Scripture does not contradict itself, the only correct conclusion we can draw is that “wine” (yayin) in Song of Solomon 5:1 refers to unfermented grape juice. Robert Teachout convincingly demonstrates that “wine” (yayin) throughout the Song of Solomon means unfermented grape juice. For example, he noted that intoxicating wine can hardly be compared with the genuine love of two lovers: “Far from elevating love by comparison, the very mention of love and intoxicating fermented wine together—in a favorable light—should discredit both” (Robert Teachout, n. 2, p. 276). This use of “wine” to mean unfermented grape juice should explain why it is paired with milk, since both are natural, nourishing products that can respectively represent both genuine love between lovers and God’s loving mercy toward His people.
“Wine” as a Wholesome Beverage
The primary purpose of vineyards. “Wine” as unfermented grape juice is approved in Scripture as a wholesome beverage. Robert Teachout said: “Scripture clearly emphasizes that the primary reason for God’s purpose in creating grapevines in our world was not for eating the fruit, but so that people might have a delightful beverage” (Robert Teachout, “Wine: The Biblical Case for Total Abstinence,” 1983, p. 27).
Teachout emphasized two lines of biblical evidence for this conclusion. “First of all,” he said, “it is most likely grape juice, rather than the grapes themselves, that is always mentioned in passages of Scripture concerning God’s blessings for His people” (Ibid.). Various passages confirm this argument. For example, Amos 9:14 says: “And I will restore the fortunes of My people Israel, and they shall rebuild the desolate cities and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and drink their wine (yayin), and make gardens and eat their fruit.” The purpose of planting vineyards is stated here: “to drink their wine.” As we noted earlier, “wine” (yayin) here likely means grape juice as the natural product of the vineyard, since it is placed in parallel with “fruit” as a natural product of gardens.
The second line of evidence presented by Teachout emphasizes that the primary purpose of cultivating vineyards—to produce a wholesome beverage, grape juice—is statistical in nature. Teachout says: “Throughout the entire Old Testament, there are no more than thirteen references to bunches of grapes being eaten in various forms—fresh or dried. In contrast, the same Old Testament contains 238 references to grape beverages.” All this indicates that God intended the grapevine not merely for consuming dried or ripe grapes, but primarily for producing grape juice—a wholesome and satisfying beverage in addition to water.
“Wine” to Gladden the Heart
God’s purpose in providing us with “wine” is to give us a wholesome, delightful beverage that gladdens our hearts rather than taking away our joyful spirit. This thought is expressed in Psalm 104:14–15: “You cause grass to grow for the livestock and plants for people to cultivate—bringing forth food from the earth: wine (yayin) that gladdens human hearts, oil to make their faces shine, and bread that sustains their hearts.”
In this song of thanksgiving, the psalmist lists generous gifts for the needs of His creatures. He refers to grass growing for the benefit of livestock and to plants planted for us to provide us with food. From the same source comes “wine,” grape juice that gladdens the human heart. Here, “wine” /yayin/ means grape juice, which is credited with the ability to gladden the heart. “You have filled my heart with joy since their grain and ‘wine’ /tirosh/ have increased” /Ps. 4:7; compare Judges 9:13/.
The word /tirosh/, translated as “wine,” is a term that, as we have seen, is clearly used in many passages to refer to grape juice. What does the psalmist want to say here? While the wicked find their greatest joy in an abundance of grain and grape juice, the believer experiences his greatest joy when he receives light from the presence of God. The truth expressed in this passage differs from that recorded in Psalm 104:14–15; nevertheless, it shows that bread and grape juice were commonly regarded as sources of joy. This gives us reason to believe that the “wine” /yayin/ mentioned in Ps. 104:15 is identical to the unfermented “wine” /tirosh—grape juice/ in Ps. 4:7, since in both passages reference is made to a product that gladdens human hearts. /p. 86/.
Nourishment and sweetness.
In Ps. 104:14–15, a contrast seems to be presented between plants in general, which provide us with necessary food, and grapevines in particular, which provide us with wine as a drink that gladdens our hearts. This does not mean that the psalmist was referring to pleasure under the influence of intoxicating wine. The effect of the latter is sometimes expressed in Scripture by a verbless formula: “the heart will rejoice … with wine”
/2 Samuel 13:28; Esther 1:10/. In contrast, the beneficial joy provided under God’s provision by grape juice is expressed in a verbal formula: “Wine that gladdens the heart of man.”
It is important to remember, as we will see in Section IV, that many ancient peoples loved sweet drinks. Although today many believe that milk and grape juice as beverages belong to children, while coffee and wine are drinks for adults, in biblical times milk and grape juice were desirable, beneficial drinks for young and old. In my homeland, Italy, most adults drink coffee rather than milk for breakfast. To offer a glass of milk to an Italian—a habitual consumer of coffee and wine—is to treat him or her as an infant. In the ancient world, this attitude had no meaning, because, as we will see in Sections IV and VII, people loved sweet drinks. Pliny tells us that people sometimes added a certain amount of honey to grape juice to make it even sweeter. /Pliny, Natural History 14.11.85/.
The contrasting ideas in Ps. 104:14–15 are nourishment and sweetness. God has provided us with substantial, satisfying food and a sweet, delightful drink, grape juice. The problem is that God’s beneficial gift—grape juice—was corrupted through fermentation. And today the result is evident: millions of people, including many Christians, do not seek natural enjoyment in consuming beneficial, satisfying fruit juices such as grape juice, but rather superficial stimulation by consuming alcoholic wine and liquor. The effect of the latter is temporary relief from tension, dulling of the senses and, consequently, a reduced ability to consciously enjoy God’s provision—natural products.
“Wine” as Tithes or Offerings
Acknowledgment of God. Grape juice, being blessed by God as a gift to humanity, can be effectively used to express grateful appreciation to its source—God Himself. Thus, it should not be surprising that in the Old Testament God invited His people to acknowledge His gifts by returning to Him, as tithes or offerings, a portion of the produce of the land, such as bread, wine /p. 87 of the original/ and oil. These products were intended to support the priests and Levites.
Numbers 18:12 clearly says: “All the best of the oil and all the best of the new wine /tirosh/ and grain, their firstfruits, which they give to the Lord, I have given to you.” Here again, “wine” /tirosh/ is presented together with oil and bread, since these three were the most valuable natural products.
Several reasons suggest that “wine” /tirosh/ in this context means unfermented grape juice. First, the trio—oil, wine, and bread—clearly refers to the harvest of these products. Second, verse 13 plainly says: “All the firstfruits of their land which they bring to the Lord shall be yours.” This statement clearly shows that oil, wine, and bread were among the first ripe fruits of the land. Third, verse 27 explains: “And your heave offering shall be reckoned to you as though it were the grain of the threshing floor and as the fullness of the winepress.” In this context, it is absolutely clear that all of this was brought as a tithe to the sanctuary “as the fullness of the winepress.”
This conclusion is supported by the Talmud, by Rabbi Jose, who teaches: “One may bring one kind of fruit to the holy Temple as an acknowledgment of gratitude, but no one is permitted to bring intoxicating beverages” /Talmudic and Midrashic Studies on Wine and Strong Drinks, Detroit, 1923, p. 42/.
Partaking of the Tithe before the Lord.
Tithes and offerings were brought to the sanctuary, and the people consumed part of them before the Lord: “And you shall eat before the Lord your God in the place which He chooses to make His name abide there, the tithe of your grain, your new wine /tirosh/, and your flocks, that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always” /Deut. 14:23; compare 12:17–18/.
Here the triad of products is repeated again, and “wine” /tirosh/ again occupies second place. Based on the meaning of tirosh /“grape juice”/ established above, it becomes evident that what was consumed before the Lord was not intoxicating wine, but unfermented grape juice. It may seem that this conclusion contradicts Deuteronomy 14:26, which speaks of “wine and strong drink” being consumed before the Lord. This difficult passage will be examined in Section IIV, specifically devoted to studying some commonly misunderstood passages.
The passages of Scripture examined above clearly show God’s desire for His people to acknowledge His gift to them of nourishing grape juice by returning a portion of it to the sanctuary for the benefit of the priests and Levites, who through their ministry could not actively participate in harvesting grain, grape juice, and oil.
“WINE” AS A DRINK OFFERING
The Wine Offering. Several Old Testament passages speak of the drink offering of “wine” /yayin/, which was part of a burnt offering or grain offering /Ex. 129:40; Lev. 23:13; Num. 15:5, 7, 10; Num. 28:14; 1 Chron. 9:29; Hos. 9:4; 14:7; Deut. 32:38/. The proportion of wine in these offerings was determined by the type of animal brought as a burnt sacrifice. The drink offering was poured over the burning sacrifice, which was to be consumed by fire as a pleasing aroma to the Lord /Ex. 29:40; Num. 15:10/.
Fermented or unfermented grape juice
This is an important question: what beverage is designated by the word “wine” (yayin) mentioned in the drink offerings? Was it fermented or unfermented grape juice? To some, this may seem like an academic dispute, since the God of Israel did not drink the drink offering, as pagan gods supposedly did. However, the subject of the dispute is not merely academic, because the God revealed in Scripture is concerned with details. Since He gave precise instructions regarding the kinds of animals to be offered in sacrifice, we must agree that He also had specific beverages in mind for drink offerings.
This raises the question: how can we determine whether the prescribed “wine” for the drink offering was fermented or unfermented? Unfortunately, the context of all the passages mentioning “wine” for the drink offering offers us no help. Therefore, the answer must be found by considering the broader biblical teaching on this subject.
First of all, if God expects His people, as we have already shown above, to consume grape juice and bring grape juice as tithes and offerings at the sanctuary, it seems logical to assume that He would not allow them to offer fermented wine as a drink offering to Him.
It must not be fermented. Second, Leviticus 2:11 forbids bringing grain offerings onto the altar with chametz, that is, anything leavened or fermented, and burning any se'or, that is, anything leavened, on the altar. This prohibition emphasizes that God could hardly have permitted the use of fermented wine in a drink offering on the altar. Some medieval rabbis attempted to evade this prohibition and justify the use of fermented wine during Passover by arguing that only grain-based beverages were fermented. Fruit beverages, including grape juice, they claimed, supposedly did not undergo fermentation. /For a discussion of the distinction made by some rabbis between grain beverages, regarded as fermented, and grape beverages, regarded as unfermented, see Frederick Lees and Dawson Burns, “The Biblical Commentary on Abstinence,” London, 1894, pp. 28, 281–286/. As Lewis Ginzberg, a renowned Talmudic scholar, points out, this attempt reflects the general tendency of rabbinic Judaism to give religious sanction to purely secular actions” /Lewis Ginzberg, “Response to the Question of Whether Unfermented Wine May Be Used in Jewish Ceremonies,” American Jewish Year Book, New York, 1923, p. 402/.
The incompatibility of the rabbinic view, which excludes the possibility of grape juice fermenting, is exposed by an ancient tradition mentioned by Maimonides, according to which the wine used for the offering had to be “wine fresh from the press” /Maimonides, “Maimonides’ Code,” Treatise III, Drink Offerings 5, 25/.
Only natural products.
A third reason supporting the use of unfermented wine for drink offerings is the fact that the products used for offerings—flour, oil, sheep, goats, and bulls—were all natural products blessed by God. Therefore, as Tichout rightly observes, “natural products must undoubtedly be followed by the natural product of the grape harvest—grape juice rather than wine, a product altered by the process of fermentation” /Robert P. Tichout /n. 2/ p. 299/.
In light of the foregoing considerations, we must conclude that the “wine” (yayin) used for the drink offering was unfermented grape juice. Scripture’s silence on this matter may simply mean that the use of unfermented grape juice was so obvious that no special instruction was necessary.
CONCLUSION.
A study of the biblical use of the word “wine” reveals a consistent, enduring pattern: all positive references to “wine” concern unfermented, non-intoxicating grape juice. We found that, because of its natural and nutritional properties, grape juice was appropriately used to represent the divine blessings of material prosperity, the blessings of the Messianic age, God’s free offer of saving grace, and the beneficial joy of God through the use of grape juice as tithes, offerings, and drink offerings.
Chapter 6: Biblical Disapproval of Fermented Wine
In Chapter 5, we established that God sincerely approves the use of unfermented, nutritious grape juice. In Chapter 6, we will see that God strongly disapproves of fermented, intoxicating wine. We need to recognize that the same words defining “wine” /yayin and oinos/ are used in Scripture and secular literature. Therefore, we must examine the context to determine whether “wine” is fermented or unfermented. In our study, we will now cite passages of Scripture expressing God’s disapproval of the use of “wine”; in these cases, the context leaves no doubt about the intoxicating nature of the “wine” mentioned.
Biblical condemnation of the use of intoxicating wine is expressed in various ways. Some texts openly condemn the use of wine. Other texts explain the physical and moral consequences of using intoxicating wine. Still others illustrate the tragic results of drinking alcoholic wine in the lives of prominent people. There is also a group of texts that firmly prohibits the use of wine by certain people called to perform a special task.
An attempt will be made to categorize some significant ways in which Scripture condemns the use of alcoholic beverages. We believe this overview will help clarify, among other matters, that Scripture condemns not only the abuse of alcoholic wine and strong drink, but also their use itself.
Prohibition of the Use of Intoxicating Wine
Proverbs 23:29–35. The clearest biblical prohibition against the use of intoxicating wine, and at the same time the most dramatic description of its harmful effects, is found in Proverbs 23:29–35: The wise man says: “Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has disputes? Who has grief? Who has wounds without cause? Who has bloodshot eyes? Those who linger long over wine, those who go to seek mixed wine. Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it goes down smoothly; afterward it bites like a serpent and stings like a viper; your eyes will look upon strange women, and your heart will utter perverse things; and you will be like one sleeping in the midst of the sea, and like one sleeping at the top of a mast. And you will say, ‘They struck me, but I was not hurt; they beat me, but I did not feel it. When will I wake up? I will seek it again.’”
This passage of Scripture is divided into three parts:
A description of the internal and external effects of intoxicating wine.
An emphatic exhortation to abstain completely from drinking wine.
A warning about what will happen if this exhortation is ignored.
In the first part, lovers of intoxicating wine and strong drink experience all kinds of misfortune: weeping, sorrow, disputes, wounds without cause, and bloodshot eyes / Proverbs 23:29–30.
Exhortation to abstain.
To avoid such shame and suffering, Solomon, in the second part, categorically exhorts us not only not to drink, but even “not to look at wine” /Prov. 23:31/. The reason for such an absolute prohibition undoubtedly lies in the fact that looking at something attractive is the first step toward participating in it. A Chinese proverb says: “A journey of a thousand kilometers begins with a single step.” And drunkenness begins with the first glass. Stephen Reynolds, one of the translators of the Bible—the New International Version—convincingly demonstrates that since the verb “itgam adam” (“red”) reflects a Hebrew phrase, it should be translated as “it became red.” The meaning of this phrase is illustrated in Prov. 23:29, which refers to “bloodshot eyes”—the result of intoxication from alcoholic wine. Apparently, this characteristic effect of alcoholic wine, used idiomatically, refers to alcohol itself. Thus, the phrase means: “Do not look at wine when it is alcoholic.”
The Talmud quotes Rabbi Isaac: “Do not look at wine that makes the faces of the wicked in this world red, and then makes them pale /with shame/” /Sanhedrin 70a/. Although the meaning “red face” cannot legitimately be derived from the biblical text, Rabbi Isaac is right in understanding that “red” does not refer to the color of the wine itself, but to its intoxicating nature.
The next two phrases further clarify the alcoholic nature of the wine in question: “how it sparkles in the cup, how it goes down smoothly.” This describes the effect produced by fermentation, which makes wine bubbly or sparkling in the cup and pleasant to drink.
Warning about the consequences.
So that a person will not be enticed by the attractiveness of fermented wine, Solomon, in the third part, describes its deadly nature by comparing it to the poisonous bite of a snake and the sting of an asp. /Prov. 23:32/. Disregarding such wise counsel, a person will fall into deception like someone asleep in the middle of the sea atop a mast. When he finally awakens from his lethargy, he again seeks the cause of all his misery.
/Prov. 23:33–35/.
This biblical view of wine as deadly poison is supported by its metaphorical use in Deut. 32:33, where the sinful deeds of apostate Israel are compared to snake venom: “Their wine is the poison of dragons and the deadly venom of asps.”
Abuse or use of wine.
Some argue that Solomon is warning here against drunkenness, not against the moderate use of alcohol. In other words, the abundant consumption of alcoholic beverages is condemned here rather than their use as such. It may be admitted that this passage dramatically describes the effects of drunkenness. However, Solomon resolves the problem of excessive drunkenness by calling not for moderation, but for complete abstinence. Why? Because he sees the source of all misery and suffering in intoxicating wine and strong drink—not in excessive use of them, but in the very nature of alcoholic wine: it can cause harm, like the bite of a snake and the sting of an asp /Prov. 23:32/.
When we accept the biblical teaching that alcoholic beverages dishonor us, we will not argue for their virtues. Solomon understood the fundamental truth that the problem with alcoholic beverages lies not merely in their abuse, but in the beverages themselves. The nature of intoxicating wine and strong drink is to deceive and harm a person; therefore, we should neither desire nor drink them. A person may misuse something that is good, but what is bad will harm him or her. Therefore, the only safe course is to abstain from every intoxicating drink.
Prov. 20:1
The Book of Proverbs contains several other passages that condemn the use of intoxicating wine and strong drink /Prov. 31:4–5; 20:1; 23:20; 4:17/. One of the clearest passages is Prov. 20:1: “Wine /yayin/ is a mocker, strong drink is raging; and whoever is led astray by them is not wise.” This text is divided into two parts. The first describes the nature of wine and strong drink, while the second advises against consuming them.
The inherent properties of intoxicating drinks are clearly set forth here. Intoxicating wine is “a mocker” /letse/, probably in the sense that it makes a drunkard frivolous about serious matters /Prov. 9:7–8; 13:1; 14:6; 15:12/, or perhaps in the sense that it makes him scoff at good decisions. “Strong drink /shekar/ is raging” /chomeh/, meaning that it causes unrest in those who drink it, followed by inner conflict in the family and society. Therefore, it is not wise to be led astray by alcoholic beverages.
In the context of the Book of Proverbs, stubbornly rejecting wise counsel means sinning: “The devising of foolishness is sin” /Prov. 24:9; compare Prov. 1:7, 10/. This means that the warning is intended not only to encourage acceptance of wise counsel—to eliminate alcoholic beverages—but also obedience to a moral principle.
We should also take into account the fact that God’s condemnation in this passage, as in Prov. 23:31, is directed not merely against excessive consumption of alcoholic beverages, but against the beverages themselves. The text clearly states that wine itself “is a mocker,” regardless of the amount consumed.
Hab. 2:5.
We find a similar condemnation of alcoholic wine in Hab. 2:5, where the prophet says: “The proud man, like wine that betrays, does not rest.” Here intoxicating wine is described as “betraying.” The Hebrew word “boged” emphasizes the idea of one who secretly deceives. This characteristic of wine provides the basis for comparison with “the proud man,” who in his treacherous greed “gathers to himself all nations and takes captive all peoples” /Hab. 2:5/.
Habakkuk’s statement that “wine betrays” is confirmed by Solomon’s view that “wine is a mocker.” These biblical condemnations of intoxicating wine place upon it a stigma of disgrace that no social flattery or sophistry can erase.
Eph. 5:18.
In the New Testament, we find a similar condemnation of intoxicating wine in Eph. 5:18, where the apostle Paul says: “And do not get drunk with wine, in which is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit.” In the Revised Standard Version, drunkenness rather than the wine itself is presented as the cause of debauchery. However, the original Greek text allows another reading, namely: “And do not get drunk, in which there is debauchery.” The antecedent of “in which” may be the preceding word “wine” or the expression “to get drunk” in the preceding clause. This means that the second clause may be read either as “in which /wine/ there is debauchery,” or “from which /the state of drunkenness/ comes debauchery.”
This alternative has not enabled most English translators, including those involved in the Revised Standard Version, to provide the correct translation, which reads: “And do not permit drunkenness while drinking wine, for in it there is debauchery.” Ernest Gordon correctly noted in his book Christ, the Apostles and Wine that this is not a translation, but an erroneous interpretation that vindicates wine and condemns drunkenness. It abandons the translation adopted since Jerome /A.D. 382/. Thus, the Latin translation /Vulgate/ reads, “Et vino in quo est luxuria” /“wine in which there is debauchery”/, and in Jerome’s writings this meaning is interpreted accordingly” /Ernest Gordon, Christ, the Apostles and Wine, Philadelphia, 1947, p. 31/.
Gordon presents many examples for consideration—not only from the writings of Jerome, but also of Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, all of whom quoted Paul’s statement that the very nature of wine is associated with debauchery. Gordon then cites four classic translations—French, German, English [the Catholic Douay translation], and Spanish—all of which speak of wine, rather than drunkenness, as the cause of debauchery. These and other translations, as well as the testimonies of the Church Fathers, will be cited in Section VII, where this passage will be examined in much greater detail. Such references will show that many translators and commentators understood Ephesians 5:18 as a biblical condemnation concerning wine itself, not merely drunkenness.
The Bias of the Translators
In light of the foregoing considerations, it is surprising that most English translators and commentators have chosen to translate or interpret Ephesians 5:18 as presenting drunkenness, rather than wine, as the cause of debauchery.
Perhaps the reason was the translators’ own fondness for wine, which may have influenced them “to save wine’s face and condemn drunkenness,” as Ernest Gordon observed (Ibid., p. 31). This supposition will be supported in Section VII, where we will examine the meaning of the Greek words “nepho” and “nephalios,” usually translated “to be sober, temperate.” We will see that the primary and essential meaning of these words is “to abstain from wine.” This meaning, however, is absent from most Bible translations and commentaries, apparently precisely because the translators’ and commentators’ love of wine prompted them to interpret these terms figuratively—as mental alertness rather than physical abstinence—in order to justify their habit of drinking.
Moderation or Abstinence?
Some argue that because the Apostle Paul said, “Do not get drunk with wine,” he actually sanctioned moderate wine consumption. This is a superficial assumption. If a preacher said to people today, “Do not use a lot of cocaine!” would he mean that moderate cocaine use is acceptable? Moreover, if the words “in which is debauchery” are connected with the word “wine,” as they appear in the Greek text and in many significant past and present translations, then Ephesians 5:18 becomes a strong condemnation of wine itself, rather than merely of drunkenness.
In any case, “debauchery,” the translation of the Greek word “asotia,” which literally means “absence of salvation,” is connected either with “wine” as its source and active cause, or with “drunkenness” as the condition of body and mind that puts debauchery into action; thus, the fact of the connection remains. Furthermore, regardless of how the sentences are structured, as Lees and Burns point out, “the passage of Scripture in its entirety does not recommend an intoxicating beverage, nor does it imply that its use in the slightest degree is beneficial or safe” (Lees and Burns, n. 13, p. 354).
Some commentators see a possible connection between Ephesians 5:18 and Luke 1:15, which says of John the Baptist: “He shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit.” In both Luke 1:15 and Ephesians 5:18, following the expression “not to drink wine” comes the consequence—being filled with the Holy Spirit. The parallelism between these two passages emphasizes that abstinence from wine and strong drink keeps the mind free from intoxicating influences and therefore makes a person more receptive to the inner work of the Holy Spirit.
CONCLUSION
The preceding study of these biblical passages prohibiting the use of wine reveals two facts:
1. “Wine,” whose use is prohibited, is unquestionably alcoholic.
2. The biblical condemnation is directed not against the abuse of alcoholic beverages, but rather against their use, regardless of the amount consumed.
Consequences of Consuming Alcoholic Wine
The Bible not only does not approve of consuming alcoholic beverages, but also informs us of the various consequences of their use. In light of Scripture, readers will be shown six different consequences resulting from the consumption of intoxicating alcoholic beverages.
Alcoholic beverages distort one's perception of reality.
Many passages of the Bible emphasize that consuming alcoholic beverages distorts one's perception of reality. For example, the prophet Isaiah gives a vivid picture of the influence of intoxicating drinks on the mental and moral sphere: “But these also stagger from wine /yayin/, and reel from strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment” /Isa. 28:7/.
In this passage of Scripture, “the priest and the prophet” are singled out because, as representatives of God, they were called to be examples of purity and godliness. Instead, having become addicted to intoxicating wine and strong drink, they became clouded in consciousness, mistaken in vision, and stumbling in judgment. Their perception of reality was distorted. They erred in vision, mistakenly taking the imaginings of their distorted perception for divine revelations. They stumbled in judgment, failing to perform their duties, which required clear, perceptive thinking. The priests, in particular, by consuming alcoholic wine and strong drink, violated their vow of abstinence /Lev. 10:9/ and defiled the holiness of their ministry.
Another vivid description of how intoxicating wine distorts reality is found in Prov. 23:33, where Solomon, speaking of lovers of wine and strong drink, observes: “Your eyes will see strange women, and your heart will utter perverse things.” Here the influence of alcohol is described in terms of its harmful effects on the mind and nervous system, causing, among other things, impaired vision, speech, and thought processes. “Your heart will utter perverse things”—it will have a highly distorted view of the world around you.
Alcoholic beverages dull one's mental faculties.
An important reason why the Bible forbids the consumption of alcoholic beverages such as wine is that their use weakens the ability to think, the ability to distinguish between justice and injustice, and consequently to make responsible moral decisions. Rabbi Meir expressed this truth in these concise words: “Whenever wine enters a person, his mind becomes clouded” /quoted by Rabbi Isidor Koplowitz /no. 12/, p. 39/. We find this truth expressed in Isa. 28:7, where the priests and prophets are condemned for consuming wine and strong drink: “They err in vision, they stumble in judgment.” The Talmud presents this truth most vividly, saying: “When wine enters a person, he loses understanding; wherever wine penetrates, there is no understanding” /Midrash Rabbah Nasso, 10, quoted by Rabbi Isidor Koplowitz /no. 12/, p. 33/.
Precisely because of this concern, God gave Aaron these specific instructions regarding the priests: “Do not drink wine /yayin/ or strong drink, you or your sons with you, when you enter the tent of meeting, lest you die. It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations. You are to distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean, and to teach the people of Israel all the statutes that the Lord has spoken to them through Moses” /Lev. 10:9–11/.
A particular reason for forbidding priests to drink alcoholic beverages was that they weakened their ability to distinguish between the holy and the common and to teach people God’s commandments. This same reason is repeated in Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple, where the priests were instructed to abstain from intoxicating wine so that they would be able to “teach My people the difference between the holy and the common, and show them how to distinguish between the unclean and the clean” /Ezek. 44:23/.
In both passages, it is clearly stated that maintaining a distinct holiness before God requires abstaining from alcoholic beverages. The fact that priests were required to abstain from alcohol in order to preserve the sanctuary as sacred and holy implies that, in Scripture, alcohol is regarded as a defiling, pagan, and unholy beverage. The basis for this is found both in the inherent nature of alcohol—its power to intoxicate /Prov. 23:29–31; Prov. 20:1; Hab. 2:5/—and in its effects, namely, its ability to weaken the distinction between what is holy and what is pagan and unholy, and between what is righteous and unrighteous. In view of the fact that, as Christians, we are a “royal priesthood” /1 Pet. 2:9/ and are called to be sober-minded and watchful” /1 Pet. 4:7/ amid a world that is often foolish and self-indulgent, God’s command to abstain from alcoholic beverages in order to preserve our moral distinctiveness is especially relevant today.
Some argue that since priests were required to abstain from alcoholic beverages when they served in the sanctuary /Lev. 10:9; Ezek. 44:21/, this implies that they could drink them when they were free from their duties. Such an assumption is unwarranted, for the priest was a teacher in Israel, called to live a consistent, exemplary life.
In his commentary on Lev. 10:9, Rabbi Simeon says: “Can anyone permit himself to conclude that if drinking wine and strong drink is forbidden only when they enter to serve in the tent of meeting, it is permitted to drink before entering the sanctuary? The following text in Lev. 10:10 says, ‘That you may distinguish between the holy and the unholy, and between the unclean and the clean’; therefore, such a conclusion is not justified” /Talmud, Bavli Bava Metzia, 90b, cited by Rabbi Isidore Koplowitz /note 12/, pp. 44, 45/. The obvious reason is that priests /and all believers/ must be able to discern God’s will at all times.
The use of alcoholic beverages corrupts morality.
The use of alcoholic beverages is closely associated with the weakening of moral discernment and the resulting weakening of moral sensitivity. Of course, the classic example of this phenomenal influence is the case of Noah: “And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he lay uncovered within his tent” /Gen. 9:21/.
Another illustration is the case in which Lot’s daughters used wine to weaken their father’s moral vigilance: “Let us make our father drink wine /yayin/, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father” /Gen. 19:32/.
Lot’s daughters’ example of using wine to weaken sexual restraint has had countless followers throughout the ages.
This tendency is widely accepted today, when in most television soap operas sexual encounters are preceded by drunken orgies. In ancient Israel, this occurred without any prompting from television soap operas. Habakkuk, for example, condemned such social evil, saying: “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!” /Hab. 2:15; compare Lam. 4:21/.
In the same spirit, the prophet Isaiah pronounced woe on those who inflame themselves with wine and are indifferent to spiritual realities: “Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, and wine /yayin/ inflame them! And the harp, and the viol, the tabret, and pipe, and wine /yayin/, are in their feasts: but they regard not the work of the Lord, neither consider the operation of his hands” /Isa. 5:11,12/.
The rabbis recognized the potential for immorality in alcoholic beverages. For example, Rabbi Isaac said: “The evil spirit enters a person only when he eats and drinks, and when he becomes merry with wine, then the evil spirit secretly influences him… The drinking of wine awakens sinful tendencies within a person” /Midrash Ne’elam, cited by Rabbi Isidore Koplowitz /note 12/, p. 53/.
Alcoholic beverages are a cause of disease.
Modern medical research tells us that consuming alcoholic beverages significantly affects the human body, especially the liver, brain, stomach, heart, and reproductive system. The Holy Scriptures, in simple yet powerful expressions, suggest the harmful physical effects of alcoholic beverages. We have already noted that the intoxicating effect of wine is compared to the bite of a serpent and the sting of an adder /Prov. 23:32/.
Hosea reminds us how wine made the princes sick on an occasion that may have been a coronation or the king’s birthday: “The day of our king!” the princes say, inflamed to sickness by wine /yayin/ /Hos. 7:5/. The term “inflamed” is translated from the Hebrew word “chemah,” often used to describe the burning, poisonous influence of wine /Deut. 32:33; Jer. 51:39/. For example, in Deut. 32:33, the term “chemah” is translated as “poison”: “Their wine is the poison of serpents and the deadly venom of asps.” Thus, in Hosea, the princes’ sickness is attributed to the poison of wine: “inflamed to sickness by wine.”
This description of wine as poison causing sickness shows that the Holy Scriptures do not hesitate to portray the danger of intoxicating wine in frightening terms. The prophet Isaiah compares God’s punishment of Egypt with the affliction caused by wine: “You have shown Your people hard things; You have made us drink the wine of bewilderment” /Ps. 60:3/.
The Jews understood, although they often disregarded, the physical harm caused by consuming alcoholic beverages. This is noted in the teaching of the highly respected Rabbi Yehudah, who said: “In Hebrew, wine is called ‘yayin,’ and in Aramaic, ‘chemer.’ The word ‘chemer’ has a numerical value of 248, corresponding to the number of joints in the human body. Wine consumption adversely affects every joint, weakens the body, and impairs judgment. When wine enters the body’s system, judgment departs” /Yalkut Shimoni, Shemini 9, quoted by Rabbi Isidor Koplowitz /n. 12/, p. 61/.
The biblical warning against the mental and physical dangers of consuming intoxicants is especially significant for us as Christians. We believe that our bodies are God’s handiwork /Gen. 2:7; Ps. 139:13–15/ and the temple of the Holy Spirit /1 Cor. 3:16–17; 1 Cor. 6:19–20/. To destroy our health through intoxicating alcoholic beverages and narcotic substances means destroying God’s temple within us, for God’s temple is holy, and that temple is you” /1 Cor. 3:17/.
Consuming alcoholic beverages deprives a person of the ability to serve in civic leadership.
One of the clearest biblical teachings is that alcohol consumption deprives a person of the ability to serve as a civic or religious leader. Wise Solomon clearly declared that kings and rulers should not drink, indulging in wine: “It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine /yayin/, nor for princes to drink strong drink” /Prov. 31:4/. The precise reason is given immediately: “Lest they drink and forget the law, and pervert the justice of any of the afflicted” /Prov. 31:5/.
As in the case of the priests we examined earlier, kings and rulers are instructed to abstain from alcoholic beverages because they may forget the laws and consequently become weakened in their ability to fulfill their legal responsibilities, which kings often neglected in ancient times.
This passage is another example of the Holy Scriptures making a valuable judgment about alcoholic wine itself rather than about the quantity consumed. The text does not say, “It is not for kings to drink much wine.” Rather, it says, “It is not for kings to drink wine.” Here, as elsewhere in the Holy Scriptures, what is forbidden is not, as many assume, excessive alcohol, but its actual consumption.
If consuming intoxicating drinks is sinful for rulers because of their harmful effects by nature, then it is also sinful for everyone, since they produce the same effects on all human faculties, although the consequences for society are more noticeable when national leaders are involved.
Alcohol consumption makes people unfit for church ministry
The abstinence from intoxicating wine revealed in Scripture is required not only of official civil authorities, such as kings and rulers, but also of religious leaders, such as priests in the Old Testament and bishops, elders, and deacons in the New Testament. We have already noted that in the Old Testament, priests were strictly required to abstain from alcoholic drinks so that their ability to discern and teach God's holy commandments would not be impaired /Lev. 10:9–11; Ezek. 44:21–23/.
It is noteworthy that abstinence from alcoholic drinks is also required of church leaders in the New Testament. In listing the qualifications for the ministry of a bishop in 1 Tim. 3:2–3, the apostle Paul says: “For a bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate /nephalion/, sober-minded, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to wine /me paroinon/.” In his letter to Titus, the apostle repeats the qualifications for the ministry of an elder or bishop /these two terms are used interchangeably in Titus 1:5, 7/. He mentions that an elder or bishop must be “not given to wine” /me paroinon/ and “self-controlled” /enkrate/ /Titus 1:7–8/.
The Greek terms “nephalion” and “me paroinon” have been translated by most English translators, respectively, as “temperate” or “vigilant,” rather than as “a drunkard” or “one who drinks much wine.” Such translations suggest that church leaders should be moderate consumers of alcoholic wine rather than abstainers. This position is not supported by the primary meaning and usage of the Greek terms “nephalios” and “paroinos.” In Section VI, we will show that nephalios literally means “physical abstinence, especially from wine,” while me paroinos means “not near or alongside wine.” For example, Josephus, a contemporary of the apostles, said: “Priests, respecting purity and abstinence in all things /nephalion/, will not allow themselves to drink wine when they wear priestly garments” /Josephus, The Jewish Antiquities, 3.12.2/.
The ancient word paroinos referred to a person accustomed to visiting drinking establishments and was therefore closely associated with wine. When the apostle Paul used the words “nephalios” /temperate/ and “me paroinos” /not given to wine/, he meant that a church leader must not only abstain from drinking alcoholic wine but also keep away from drinking establishments. This instruction agrees with the apostle Paul's general exhortation in 1 Cor. 5:11, where he says: “But now I have written to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother and is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.”
The New Testament's teaching on abstinence from alcoholic drinks will be examined in much greater detail in Section VI in connection with the apostolic exhortation to sobriety and abstinence. Our study of the primary meanings of the Greek words used in such exhortations will show that Peter and Paul called not only for mental alertness but also for physical abstinence. In light of these considerations, we conclude that in its requirements for church leaders, the New Testament follows the principles of the Old Testament—the principles of abstinence from alcoholic drinks.
CONCLUSION
Our review has shown that the Bible’s approval or disapproval of “wine” is determined by the nature of the wine itself. All positive references to “wine” concern unfermented, non-intoxicating grape juice. In contrast, all condemnations of “wine” concern alcoholic, intoxicating wine. The use of such wine is condemned regardless of the amount consumed.
We have seen that consuming alcoholic beverages distorts one’s perception of reality, diminishes the ability to make responsible decisions, weakens moral sensitivity and self-control, causes physical illnesses, and renders one incapable of fulfilling both civic and religious duties. In light of such solemn biblical warnings, we must respect the guidance given by God by abstaining from alcoholic beverages and every intoxicating substance.
Section IV: The Ancient Art of Preserving Food
Preserving Fruit
Introduction.
The main objection to the view that Scripture approves the use of unfermented grape juice rested on the claim that it was impossible to preserve unfermented grape juice in biblical times. Burton Scott Easton stated this objection most clearly in his article “Wine” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: “Unfermented grape juice is extremely difficult to preserve without the aid of modern antiseptic precautions, and its preservation under the warm and none-too-clean conditions of ancient Palestine was impossible.” /The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, article “Wine,” Burton Scott Easton, vol. 5, p. 3086/.
The Purpose of This Section
The purpose of this section is to determine whether preserving grape juice in its unfermented state was possible or impossible in biblical times. Our study will show that ancient people were more familiar with the art of preserving fruit and wines than is commonly supposed.
This section consists of two chapters. Chapter Seven describes the methods used by the ancients to preserve fruit and wines in general, while Chapter Eight discusses the methods used specifically to prevent grape juice from fermenting.
Chapter 7. The Ancient Art of Food Preservation
Preserving Fruit
A Remarkable Ability. Considerable information exists concerning the remarkable ability of ancient people to preserve fruits and juices. An example is the account given by the Roman captive of the fortress of Masada, Josephus Flavius. He tells us that the fruit and grain the Romans discovered in the fortress were still fresh, although they had been stored many years earlier: “The quantity and the long preservation of the provisions stored inside were astonishing. The fortress contained so much bread that it could have lasted for a long time, as well as a considerable quantity of wine and oil; there were also dates and leguminous fruits in abundance. When Eleazar and his Sicarii seized the fortress by trickery, he found all these provisions fresh, as though they had only just been stored; yet nearly a century had passed between the storing of these provisions and the Roman conquest. The Romans likewise found the remaining provisions unspoiled. The cause of such long preservation must unquestionably be attributed to the nature of the air, which, because of the fortress’s elevated location, was free from all earthly and impure mixtures.” /Josephus Flavius, The Jewish War, pp. 514–515/
Josephus Flavius’s statement that the Jews at Masada preserved grain and fruit for nearly a hundred years is clearly exaggerated. However, this statement indicates that the art of preserving food was well known to the Jews. Unfortunately, Jewish sources tell us nothing about the technology used for such preservation.
Classical Writers.
However, some classical writers offer us considerable insight into the methods used by the ancients to preserve grains, fruits, vegetables, and wines. One of them was Columella, a famous agronomist who lived in the first century AD. In his treatise On Agriculture and Trees, Columella discusses at length various methods used by different people to preserve such products as lettuce, onions, apples, pears, berries, plums, figs, olives, unfermented grape juice, and fermented wine. We will briefly summarize what he said, first about preserving fresh produce in general, and then specifically about preserving fermented and unfermented wines. This information should dispel the mistaken notion that it was impossible to preserve grape juice unfermented in biblical times.
First, Columella describes a method for preserving berries and plums: “Cornelian cherries, which we use instead of olives, as well as wild plums and onyx-colored plums, should be picked while still firm and not fully ripe; however, they must not be too unripe. They should be dried in the shade for one day. Then vinegar and must—that is, grape juice boiled down to half or one-third of its original volume—should be mixed and poured into a vessel containing the berries or plums; a little salt must also be added so that no worm or any other form of animal life can develop in them” /Columella, On Agriculture, 12.10.3; translated by E. S. Forster and Edward H. Heffner, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1955. All quotations from Columella are taken from this edition. In subsequent references, only the title of Columella’s work will be given/.
Methods of Preserving Fruit.
A similar method was used to preserve other kinds of fruit. Columella explains: “Before pears ripen, but when they are not yet fully mature, examine them carefully to ensure that they are sound and free from blemishes and worms, and then arrange them in an earthenware vessel that has been treated with pitch and fill it with raisin wine or must boiled down to one-third of its original volume, so that all the fruit is submerged; then cover the vessel with a lid and seal it” /Ibid., 12.10.4/.
Columella goes on to explain that instead of boiled must, some people use a solution of honey and water or beeswax and water to preserve fruit /Ibid., 12.10.1–2; 12.12.3/. Submerging fruit in liquid honey is regarded as one of the safest preservation methods because, as Columella observes, “such is the nature of honey that it stops all decay and does not allow it to spread” /Ibid., 12.47.4/. Today, we use a similar method when we submerge candied fruit in thick sugar syrup.
Another method was to place fruit in a barrel between layers of sawdust and, when the barrel was full, seal its lid carefully with modeling clay /Ibid., 12.46.4/. Yet another method consisted of “coating fresh fruit with thickly kneaded potter’s clay and, when the clay dries, placing the coated fruit in a dry, cool place. Then, before eating the fruit, it should be soaked in water, and the clay will come off. This process preserves the fruit as fresh as if it had just been picked from the tree” /Ibid., 12.46.5/.
Preserving Grapes.
Several methods were used to preserve grapes in a fresh state. One involved cutting grape clusters with long branches and coating the cut end of the branch with pitch. The grape clusters were then placed in vessels filled with dry chaff. Columella explains: “If you want grape clusters to remain even for a year, you must store them as follows. When you cut from the vine a branch bearing clusters… immediately treat the cut end of the branch with thick pitch; then fill a new earthenware vessel with the driest chaff, which should be sifted so that it contains no dust, and place the grape clusters on it. Then cover it with another vessel, seal the vessels tightly all around with clay mixed with chaff, and after placing these vessels together in an attic or hayloft, cover them with dry chaff” /ibid., 12, 44.1/.
According to Columella, other people preserved grape clusters by immediately dipping their cut ends in boiling pitch and then placing them in layers inside a barrel containing boiled-down, evaporated must /ibid., 12, 44.2/. Some people used layers of barley bran and layers of grape clusters instead of must, alternating them. Finally, they closed the barrel with a lid and stored it in a very dry, cool place in the attic” /ibid., 12, 44.3/.
Columella continues by describing similar methods used by other people. “Some people,” he says, “following the same method, preserve green grape clusters in dry poplar or fir sawdust; others carefully cover grape clusters that they cut from the vines before they were fully ripe and wrap them in dry gypsum powder. Others, when selecting a bunch of grape clusters, cut off all defective clusters and then hang them in a barn, beneath which there are bins of wheat. But this method causes the grape clusters to begin drying and become as sweet as raisins /ibid., 12, 44.4/.”
After describing several other methods used by various people to keep grape clusters fresh, Columella concluded: “Different methods suit different regions, according to local conditions and the quality of the grape clusters” /ibid., 12, 44.8, p. [page number]/.
Columella’s contemporary, the Roman scholar and naturalist Pliny, briefly describes other methods of preserving grapes in his Natural History: “Some grapes will keep throughout the winter if the clusters are hung by a string from the ceiling; others are preserved simply in their natural position by placing them in earthenware jars with special stoppers and seals” /Pliny, Natural History, 14.3.16. Translation by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1960. All quotations from Pliny will be taken from this edition/.
Pressed grape clusters.
The fact that ancient people knew ways to preserve grape clusters fresh until the next grape harvest highlights that unfermented grape juice could be obtained at any time of year simply by pressing grape clusters into a cup. This practice is confirmed in both rabbinic and Christian literature. For example, Halakhat Gedalat—the earliest record in the Talmud—states: “One may press a cluster of grapes and pronounce kiddush /the blessing recited when sanctifying the Sabbath or a feast/ over the juice, since grape juice is considered wine in connection with the law of the Nazirite” /quoted by Louis Ginzberg, “Response to the Question: May Unfermented Wine Be Used in Jewish Ceremonies?”—American Jewish Year Book, 1923, p. 409/. The apocryphal book “The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew,” a document in circulation during the second and third centuries of the Christian era, testifies to the use of freshly pressed grape juice in celebrating the Lord’s Supper: “Bring an offering of holy bread; and, having pressed three clusters of grapes directly into the cup, partake with me, as the Lord Jesus showed us how to do this when He rose from the dead on the third day” /“The Acts and Martyrdom of Saint Matthew the Apostle,” Ante-Nicene Fathers, translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, 1978, vol. 8, pp. 532–533/. This clear and positive testimony concerns not only the practice of making grape juice by pressing grapes, but also the use of unfermented grape juice in celebrating the Lord’s Supper.
There are indications that the practice of pressing preserved grape clusters and pouring the juice directly into the cup for the Lord’s Supper continued for centuries. For example, the Third Council of Braga /A.D. 675/, in its report of Cyprian’s accusation against those “who presented no other wine /vinum/ in the holy cup of the Lord, but that which they pressed from grape clusters” /Joseph Bingham, “The Antiquities of the Christian Church,” London, 1852, vol. 2, p. 760/. It is noteworthy that in this passage fresh grape juice is called “wine” /vinum/. The accusation in this case was not directed against the use of unfermented grape juice as such, but against a deficiency: the grape juice had not been mixed with water.
The practice of mixing wine with water evidently arose, as Leon C. Field indicates: “There is no need to dilute alcoholic wines, but there is a need to dilute boiled wines and thick juices from pressed grape clusters” /Leon C. Field, “Oinos: A Discussion of Questions Relating to Biblical Wine,” New York, 1883, p. 91/. Instruction concerning this had already been given three centuries earlier by Pope Julius I /A.D. 337/ in a decree stating: “But if it is necessary to press grape juice into the cup, it must be mixed with water” /Gratian, De Consecratione, Part Three, quoted by Leon C. Field /M/ n. 18/, p. 91/. Additional historical evidence will be presented in the next section in connection with our study of the wine used in Communion. Such evidence will show that grape clusters preserved fresh were used throughout the year to prepare pressed grape juice.
PRESERVING FERMENTED WINE.
The Prevailing Misconception. It is widely believed that in the ancient world it was much easier to preserve fermented wine than unfermented grape juice. This view is based on the mistaken assumption that preserving fermented wine was a simple process requiring only that pressed grape juice undergo natural fermentation. The truth is entirely different. Fermented wines are subject to a whole range of infections, causing them to become acidic, foul-smelling, and moldy. The ancients were well aware of these problems. Pliny, for example, openly acknowledged that “a characteristic of wine is moldiness or turning into vinegar; entire volumes have been written full of instructions on how to remedy this” /Pliny, Natural History, 14.26/.
Columella similarly noted that fermented wine and unfermented boiled must /grape juice/ were equally subject to spoilage: “Boiled must, although thoroughly boiled, is prone to oxidation, just like wine” /Columella
On Agriculture, 12.20.1/. He further says: “All this happens in this way; therefore, let us be careful to preserve our wine as boiled must of one year’s aging, whose durable freedom from fermentation has already been tested” /ibid./.
Here Columella emphasizes that unfermented, boiled grape juice, which is generally preserved better than fermented wine, should be aged and old in order to keep better. Before discussing some of the technical methods used in the ancient world to preserve wine, it is important to note how significant the process of preserving wine was in those days. The main reason was the lack of precise technology for controlling fermentation.
The Discovery of Pasteurization.
At the end of the nineteenth century, Louis Pasteur, the great French chemist, discovered the cause of fermentation and a means of controlling it known as pasteurization. Pasteur’s renowned research work, Études sur la bière /1876/, was actually conducted at the request of beer and wine producers, who asked him to find a way to prevent the infection that spoiled their products and caused them enormous financial losses. This research led Pasteur to discover that fermentation occurred through the multiplication of microorganisms rather than through a chemical change. To prevent or control fermentation, Pasteur discovered the method of “pasteurization” in 1876. It consists of destroying certain bacteria by heating liquids /wine, milk, beer/ to a specific temperature for a certain period of time.
Today, through boiling at a specific pressure, filtration using separators, sophisticated refrigeration systems, and pasteurization, the wine industry /known as oenology/ is able to control the fermentation process. Such control becomes especially necessary when must contains too much water and too little sugar because of a cold or rainy season or moist soil in which the grapes grew. In such cases, winemakers today correct the must’s imperfect chemical composition by adding sugar and reducing its water content through artificial evaporation. These modern technical procedures free grape growers from the constant fear that their grape harvest may spoil. Without such technical knowledge and means, ancient winemakers faced the constant risk of losing their grape harvest.
The Problems of Preserving Wine.
Marcus Porcius Cato /234–149 BC/, who was considered the father of Latin prose and agricultural literature, referred to certain problems related to preserving fermented wine. In chapter 148 of his work On Agriculture, Cato alludes to these problems when he discusses the “Sale of Wine in Jars.” One condition was that “only wine that had not turned sour or become moldy could be sold. For three days the wine was submitted for examination by an honest man, and if the buyer failed to find any defect, the wine was considered tested; but any delay in testing caused by the owner allowed the buyer to extend the testing period” /Marcus Cato, On Agriculture, translated by William Davis Hooper, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1960/. The fact that the buyer was given the opportunity to test the wine for three days after purchase shows how quickly wine could turn sour or become moldy.
Cato mentions several precautions to prevent wine from oxidizing or becoming moldy. Divide the grapes gathered each day after cleaning and drying them equally among the jars. If necessary, add one-fortieth of boiled must from discarded grapes to the new wine, or 600 grams of salt per one standard measure of liquid /culleus/. If you have used marble dust, add 400 grams per culleus; mix it with the must in a vessel and then pour it into the jar. If you use aromatic resin, grind it thoroughly—three pounds per culleus of must—place it in a basket, and suspend it in the jar of must; shake the basket thoroughly so that the resin can dissolve. When using boiled must, marble dust, or resin, stir frequently for 20 days, pressing it down daily” /ibid., 23/.
In this statement, Cato provides for the complete incorporation of various substances used to preserve fermented wine: boiled must, salt, marble dust, and resin. Later we will see that Columella mentions other preservatives as well. Despite the use of such preservatives, problems with fermented wine still remained.
In chapters 107–110, Cato refers to some of these problems. One was a bad smell emanating from the wine and absorbed by the walls of the jars. Another was that the wine itself became sour or developed an unpleasant odor. To remedy the foul-smelling interior of the jar, Cato prescribed preparing a cream consisting of boiled must, crushed iris, and Campanian clover. All these ingredients had to be mixed and simmered over low heat. This cream was then used to coat the walls of the wine jars /ibid., 107/.
Apparently, this treatment did not always keep the wine from turning sour. To restore sweetness to the wine, Cato proposed the following recipe: “Take four pounds of vetch flour and mix four measures of wine with boiled must; form small bricks from this mixture and let them soak for a day; then dissolve them in wine in the jar and, after 60 days, seal it” /ibid., p. 109/. This procedure was intended to make the wine “sweet” and have a “pleasant aromatic smell.”
Apparently, this process did not always produce the desired results, for in the following chapter Cato gives another recipe for eliminating the bad smell of wine: “Heat a clean piece of roofing tile thoroughly in the fire; while hot, coat it with resin /pitch/, attach a cord, lower it gently to the bottom of the jar, and leave the jar sealed for two days. If the bad smell disappears during this time, the result will be excellent; if not, repeat the process until the bad smell disappears” /ibid., 110/.
The examples above of ancient remedies for problems involving fermented wine show how mistaken it is to assume that preserving fermented wine was a simple process in the ancient world. Available sources indicate that the process was far from simple. The various remedies used to prevent wine from deteriorating and spoiling reveal the winemakers’ confusion and uncertainty about how to avoid a decline in the quality of fermented wine. To better appreciate the complexity and intensity of this problem, we will briefly examine some of the methods used to preserve fermented wine.
Preserving Wine with Boiled Must.
In the ancient world, boiled unfermented must was used not only as a beverage diluted with water, but also as a preservative for fermented wine. Columella, the renowned Roman agronomist, discusses at length how boiled must should be used to preserve wine. He urges: “Let us take care to preserve our wine with a year-old boiled must whose strength has already been tested” /Columella, On Agriculture, 12.20.1/.
Not all wines require preservation with boiled must or other preservatives; such treatment is especially needed for wines made from grapes grown in new vineyards or in vineyards located in less-than-ideal places. Columella says: “We regard as the very best wines of every kind those that can be preserved without any preservatives” /ibid., 12.19.3/. However, such wines were evidently rather rare, since Columella discusses how to preserve wines produced from different types of vineyards or under varying seasonal conditions.
Preparing boiled must for preserving fermented wine was a very labor-intensive process. It involved not only gently and slowly boiling the must until it was reduced to half or one-third of its original volume, but also adding preservatives such as resin and turpentine resin. Spices were also added, including “nard leaves, costus [an aromatic Indian plant], dates, jointed reed and sweet cane…. fragrant myrrh, cinnamon, balsam, and saffron” /ibid., 12.20.5/.
For it ultimately to remain preserved, this elaborate preparation was mixed with the wine. Columella explains it this way: “It is not known how much of this preparation should be added to 48 sextarii [0.55 liters], since the proper amount must be determined by the quality of the wine; care had to be taken so that the aroma of the preservatives would not be noticeable, since this repelled buyers.”
“Personally, if the grape harvest is wet, I usually mix three preservatives into two amphorae; if it is dry, into four.” /ibid., 12.20.6/.
Preserving Wine with Salt.
Another significant method of preserving wine was to add salt or seawater to the must during the first few days of fermentation. Evidently, this method was widespread, for Columella said: “Some people—and indeed almost all Greeks—preserve must by adding salt or salt water” /ibid., 12.25.1/.
If powdered salt was used, it first had to be diluted with water and then poured into the fermenting wine. If salt water was used, it had to be “boiled down to one-third of its original volume” /ibid., 12.25.4/, then poured into the must and finally transferred into fumigated jars. The use of salt was widely recommended to prevent wine from developing a moldy taste. Columella advises: “If possible, each type of grape harvest should be salted with this same quantity of solution, for this will prevent any moldy taste in the wine” /ibid., 12.23.3/.
Preserving Wine by Adding Resins.
Another substance used to preserve wine was resin, in both liquid and solid form. Columella devoted three chapters—22–24—in his work On Agriculture to a discussion of the various types of resin used to preserve wine. Usually, the resin was dissolved in salt water, which was then evaporated. This solution was poured into the wine, subjecting it to the resin’s effects. The amount of solution used depended on the condition of the wine.
To those who wished to preserve the entire grape harvest by adding resin, Columella offered the following advice: “But if you wish to preserve the entire grape harvest with the same resins in such a way that it would be impossible to tell from its taste that it had been preserved with resin, it will be sufficient to mix six scruples /a scruple equals 1.14 grams/ of this resin with 45 sextarii /a sextarius equals 0.55 liters/ of wine when it has finally ceased fermenting and the sediment has been cleared” /Ibid., 12, 23, 2/.
The preceding discussion of the various methods used by the ancients to preserve fermented wine is not exhaustive. Other preservatives were also used, such as marble dust, lime, fumigation with sulfur, or crushed iris. These examples are sufficient to show that preserving fermented wine in the ancient world was a more complex process than is usually suggested. In fact, in some places the risk involved in preserving fermented wine was so great that, as we will see later, the entire grape harvest was boiled and preserved as sweet, unfermented grape juice.
Chapter 8: Preserving Grape Juice
The Fermentation Process. The ancients were familiar with the fact of fermentation, even though they did not understand its causes. Precisely what occurred when grape juice was transformed into wine remained unclear until 1860, when Louis Pasteur began studying fermentation. The ancients, however, knew some methods of preventing fermentation.
Grape juice consists of two principal ingredients: glucose, or grape sugar, and protein. Both contribute to the fermentation process. Protein, found in the skin and seed covering of the grape, promotes the formation of microscopic organisms that are the agents causing fermentation, known as enzymes or yeast.
The breakdown of proteins in grape juice creates favorable conditions for the multiplication of yeast microbes, which in turn combine with microbes present in the air and release chemical enzymes capable of breaking grape juice down into two elements. One is ethyl alcohol, a colorless liquid that mixes freely with water and remains dissolved in the wine. The other is carbon dioxide, which appears as tiny bubbles, especially when boiling. /For information about the wine fermentation process, see: Robert Razor, The Alcoholic Distiller’s Handbook, San Antonio, Texas, 1980, pp. 104–105./ The fermentation process occurs only when certain conditions are present, such as moderate temperature, moisture, and air in the grape juice. There are four main methods by which these conditions can be altered or eliminated. In this way, grape juice will be preserved fresh and unfermented. We will now examine each of these four methods; all were known to the ancients.
Preserving Grape Juice by Boiling.
Moisture and heat. Fermentation of grape juice can be prevented by sufficiently removing its moisture, heating the grape juice to a high temperature. The secret lies in the fact that the growth of yeast microbes, which are the agents of fermentation, slows down or stops completely when the moisture content of grape juice is eliminated at 7–85 degrees Celsius. At this temperature, most enzymes are destroyed. Both results are achieved by boiling the grape juice.
During boiling, water evaporates from the grape juice, microbes and mold are destroyed, the sugar content increases, and microbial growth is thus inhibited. This method of preserving grape juice unfermented by thorough boiling and turning it into syrup was common and successfully practiced in the ancient world. If desired, this syrup could be diluted with water. Several sources confirm this practice.
Ancient Evidence.
The most celebrated Roman poet, Virgil /70–19 BC/, depicts a housewife in his work Georgics as follows: “She boils away the moisture from the sweet must with fire and skims the leavening, agitated foam from the boiling cauldron” /Virgil, Georgics I, 295–296/. This method was widely used, as noted in Columella’s extensive description of successfully preserving must by boiling. He wrote: “Take care to such an extent that the must, when pressed, may be preserved for a long time, or at least until it is sold” /Columella, On Agriculture 12.19.1/.
Columella explains that, to ensure preservation of the juice, “some people place must in lead vessels and reduce it by boiling to one-fourth, others to one-third. There is no doubt that anyone who evaporates must to half its volume will produce a thicker form of must” /ibid. 12.19.1/. Must boiled down to one-third of its volume was called defrutum: “The sweetest possible flavor of must is obtained when it is evaporated to one-third of its original volume; then it will be called defrutum” /ibid. 12.21.1/.
Pliny, unlike Columella, calls must evaporated to half its volume defrutum, and must evaporated to one-third sapa. Discussing various kinds of “sweet wine” /vinum dulce/, he wrote: “Siraeum, called by some hepsema and in our country known by the word sapa, is a product of art, not nature; it is must evaporated by boiling to one-third of its quantity, while must boiled down only to half its quantity is called defrutum” /Pliny, Natural History 14.11.80/. The difference in names given to various kinds of boiled must merely confirms the widespread use of this beverage.
Preserving must by boiling required careful attention. Columella gives us the following vivid description: “First we heat the oven with a low fire and a very small amount of wood, which country people call brushwood, so that the must may boil gently. The person entrusted with the boiling must prepare filters made of reeds and a broom of broom-corn, but the latter must be fresh and unprocessed, so to speak, not hard, so that it does not strike like a hammer. He must thoroughly stir any sediment that settles on the bottom and, by stirring, bring it upward; then he must remove with a filter any scum remaining on the surface; he must filter the mixture until the must is cleansed of all sediment” /Columella, On Agriculture 12.19.3–4/.
Safe Preservation.
After the necessary care has been taken, boiled grape juice can be safely preserved for a long time. This required prolonged boiling and careful removal of all scum, as Columella says: “If there is plenty of wood, it is better to boil the must and remove all the scum and sediment; if this is done, one-tenth will be lost, but the rest will keep well and forever” /Ibid., 12.20.8/.
Columella especially recommended this method of preservation for “any estate where wine frequently turns sour.” In this case, all the must must be poured into a kettle and boiled until one-tenth of it has evaporated. “Afterward, when the must has cooled, you must pour it into vessels, cover and seal them; in this condition it will keep longer without any deterioration” /Ibid., 12.26.1/.
Widespread use of boiled grape juice.
In the Middle East and Mediterranean countries, the practice of preserving grape juice by boiling it and turning it into syrup has continued throughout the centuries. This beverage is known as vino cotto /boiled wine/ in Italy, vin cuit in France, nardenk in Siberia, and dibs in Arab countries. In his article on “Wine,” John Kitto quotes several nineteenth-century historians from the ancient but renowned Encyclopedia of Biblical Literature regarding the use of boiled grape juice in the Middle East. One of them, Dr. A. Russell, writes in his Natural History of Aleppo: “Concentrated grape juice, sapa vini, called dibbs here, is brought into the city in skins and sold in the public markets; it closely resembles simple honey, is sweet to the taste, and is widely consumed by people of all classes” /John Kitto, Encyclopedia of Biblical Literature, 1845, article “Wine,” vol. 2, p. 956/.
Similarly, Cyrus Redding stated in his History of Modern Wines: “In the mountains of Lebanon, in Kesrouan, good wines are made, but they are mostly vins cuits /boiled wines/. Such wine is preserved in jars” /Ibid./. D. D. Paxton, who witnessed the grape harvest in Lebanon, also says: “This juice was extracted when I visited the place where the winepress was located; it was not wine /as we now call it/, but what we now call dibs” /Ibid./. The widespread use of unfermented “boiled wine” in the Middle East in the nineteenth century was also attested in the reports of several travelers. /These reports by travelers in the Middle East are cited by William Patton in his work Biblical Wines: The Laws of Fermentation, Oklahoma City, pp. 30–32/.
Henry Homes, an American missionary in Constantinople, presents the following account of his observations in his article on wine, published in the journal The Holy Library /May 1848/: “Ordinary grape juice, without the addition of any neutralizing agents against oxidation, was boiled for four to five hours and consequently reduced to one-fourth of its volume. After boiling, to preserve it in a cool place and make it less susceptible to fermentation, it is poured into clay /earthenware/, but not wooden, vessels, which are tightly covered with leather so that no air can enter. Usually having no intoxicating properties, it is freely consumed by both Muslims and Christians. Some jars that I personally held had already been preserved for two years without undergoing any change” /Quoted by William Patton, n. 48/, p. 32/.
Diluting boiled grape juice with water.
It was common practice in ancient times to dilute both fermented and unfermented wines with water. In Rome, a public establishment known as a Thermopolium existed specifically for this purpose. It supplied its patrons with both cold and hot water for diluting wine. As Sir Edward Berry noted in his treatise “A View of the Wines of the Ancients”: “It was often necessary to dilute the thicker, condensed, and older wines” /Sir Edward Berry, “A View of the Wines of the Ancients,” London, 1775, p. 165/.
Dilution was especially necessary for wines that had been boiled down and reduced by boiling to the consistency of thick creams. Aristotle, the famous Greek philosopher who lived in the fourth century BC, said that Arcadian wine was so thick that it had to be scraped from the sides of the vessel in which it was kept, and the pieces dissolved in water /Aristotle, “Meteorology” 4.10/. Egyptian Theniotic wine was much the same. Athanasius, a Greek grammarian who lived in the second century AD, says of it: “The wine was so thick that when water was added, it gradually dissolved, just as Attic honey dissolves readily” /Athanasius, “The Banquet” 1.25/.
Several ancient authors also refer to the practice of diluting fermented wines. “Hesiod prescribed, during the summer months, three parts water to one part wine. Nicochares considered two parts wine to five parts water the proper proportion. However, according to the unanimous opinion of Homer, Pramnian, and Meronian wines, they required 20 parts water to one part wine. Hippocrates considered 20 parts water to one part Thracian wine a proper beverage” /Robert H. Stein, “Drinking Wine in New Testament Times,” Christianity Today, June 20, 1975, pp. 9–11/.
It seems reasonable to assume that the wines cited above, which were diluted with 20 parts water to one part wine, were boiled grape juice of excessive density. Lovers of fermented wine would hardly have enjoyed drinking wine diluted with 95% water! Thus, the wines requiring the dilution of dense must were primarily unfermented grape juice, heavily concentrated by boiling.
Boiled Grape Juice Among the Jews.
Several reasons have led us to believe that boiling grape juice to preserve it was probably also the most common practice in ancient Israel. The art of making and preserving wine was widespread throughout the Mediterranean countries, where grape cultivation prevailed, and this practice has survived to the present day. There is evidence that the ancient Jews preserved wine by boiling it. John Kitto’s Encyclopedia of Biblical Literature states: “The Mishnah says that the Jews were accustomed to use boiled wine.” They did not boil the wine of the offering, “for boiling reduces it” and consequently thickens it, thus requiring water to be mixed with the wine when necessary; but they added water at once: “Rabbi Judah permitted this, because water improves the wine” /Terumot, Pereq 10, 11. John Kitto, Encyclopedia of Biblical Literature, 1845, article “Passover,” vol. 2, p. 477/.
In the Talmudic tractate entitled “Avodah Zarah,” there is an extensive discussion of how certain rabbis considered the use of boiled wine. One question was whether a Jew could drink wine that he had entrusted to a Gentile for safekeeping. The concern was that the Gentile might offer it to an idol. Rabbi Ashi, rejecting this concern, said: “Our boiled wine, which is kept by Gentiles, does not require a double seal. For as to the concern that the wine might be offered to an idol—it is not offered in that condition” /Avodah Zarah 30a, Epstein’s translation, “The Babylonian Talmud,” 1936, p. 148/. The reason is noted in a footnote, which explains that Gentiles used only unboiled wine for their sacrificial offerings. Boiled wine was unacceptable for their sacrifices, and therefore there was no need to fear that it would be offered to an idol” /Ibid., note 2/.
Another question under discussion was whether boiled wine, left uncovered, was fit for consumption. The famous Rabbi Hiyya answered thoughtfully: “Boiled wine does not become unfit when left uncovered” /Ibid., p. 149/. The reason is given in a footnote: “The snake does not drink it” /Ibid., p. 148, note 8/. The generally accepted view is that snakes were found in fermented wine but did not touch boiled wine. Therefore, fermented wine had to be covered so that it would not be poisoned by snakes, whereas boiled grape juice could remain uncovered, since snakes would not touch it. These incidental notes provide indirect yet convincing evidence that boiled wine was produced and consumed by Jews.
Was boiled grape juice found in ancient Israel?
It is difficult to say how widely boiled wine was consumed in ancient Israel. But there is also no reason to doubt that it was used. Some biblical references to “honey”—debash—may refer to sweet grape syrup. The Hebrew word debash corresponds to the Arabic dibs, a common term for sweet syrup made from raisins and dates. In his article on “Honey” in The Interpreter’s Bible Dictionary, D. I. Ross writes: “In the Bible, honey was used in three different senses:
Thick grape syrup /Arabic dibs/.
Wild honey.
Honey from domesticated bees” /The Interpreter’s Bible Dictionary, 1962, article “Honey,” vol. 2, p. 639/. Some theologians support the view that certain Old Testament passages refer not to bee honey but to grape syrup. For example, in the Bible Dictionary, D. A. de Bost stated: “Some authors believe that several Old Testament passages, namely Gen. 43:11; Ezek. 27:12; Jer. 41:8, refer not to bee honey but to a sweet drink, a syrup prepared from ripe dates. /The authors mentioned are Jewish theologians—Maimonides, Josephus, Hiller, Celsius, Geddes, and others/. Among other arguments, they point out that the Hebrew word debash, meaning honey, means dates in Arabic. Other theologians maintain that the word must be understood as honey from grape clusters—that is, grape juice boiled with or without sugar until it becomes as thick as syrup /Rosenmüller/. Even today, such a drink is made in Siberia and Palestine /Shaw, Russell, Burckhardt/. From 150 kg of grapes, 50 kg of this drink is produced, called dibs /the Hebrew name is debash/. Diluted with water, it is used instead of sugar. For the poor, it replaces oil, and for the sick, wine. The Greeks and Romans knew of this grape honey” /Bible Dictionary, second edition, 1865/.
The account of the spies in Numbers 13 supports understanding debash as grape honey. The spies “came to the Valley of Eshcol and cut down from there a branch with one cluster of grapes, and carried it between two of them on a pole; they also took pomegranates and figs” /Num. 13:24/. At the forefront of all the fruit the spies brought as evidence of the land’s fertility was a huge grape branch, along with pomegranates and figs. They said: “We went to the land where you sent us; it truly flows with milk and honey /debash/, and these are its fruits” /Num. 13:28/. Since the fruits show that the land abounded in milk and honey”—and the grape branch was especially enormous—honey in this case may refer to boiled grape juice, known as “honey clusters—dibs,” a special grape product, while milk may signify green pastures fragrant with cows producing milk. The emphasis seems to be on the land’s especially valuable natural products.
The Bible Encyclopedia notes in this regard that “in the latter case the Hebrew word is defined, and in the Old Testament debash may also have been used to denote certain artificial preparations made from the juices of various fruits by condensation, similar to modern dibs. The theory has already been mentioned that the ‘honey’ flowing through the land of Canaan was condensed syrup; and that the honey intended for transport /Gen. 43:21; 1 Kings 14:3/ and export /Ezek. 27:17/ should likewise be understood in this way” /The Bible Encyclopedia, edited by T. K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black, 19—, article “Honey,” vol. 2, p. 205/.
Speaking of grape juice, the article further states: “The ancient inhabitants of Canaan, nevertheless, were undoubtedly familiar with the production of grape juice, as Bliss assures us. His excavations at Tell el-Hesi /Lachish/ uncovered two wine presses with apparatus /as he believes/ for boiling and filtering the juice into grape syrup” /Ibid./. The foregoing observations give us reason to believe that boiling was most likely used by the ancient Jews to preserve grape juice without fermentation.
Preserving Grape Juice by Filtration
Separation of Protein. Another method by which fermentation can be prevented in grape juice is to remove the protein located in the grape skin and the seed coating from the other elements. Protein, as we noted earlier, promotes the multiplication of microorganisms known as ferments or yeast. Through careful procedures, grape juice can be separated from the fermenting pulp. The ancients understood this principle and applied it in two processes: 1. Gentle pressure. 2. Filtration.
Gentle, Light Pressure
The grape clusters were brought in from the vineyard and placed in wine vats. According to Pliny, the first juice that flows before pressure is applied to the grapes is called protropum. He explains: “This name is given by some people to must that flows naturally before the grape clusters are pressed” /Pliny, Natural History 14.11/. This juice, which flows spontaneously from the grapes, consists almost entirely of the grape’s sugary component. The high sugar content of the juice, combined with its relative freedom from yeast, would make preserving it in an airtight vessel comparatively easy.
In this particular passage, Pliny mentions that protropum was capable of fermentation. But this was not always the case. Other evidence will now be considered, emphasizing that the first juice, and the juice that subsequently flowed from the gentle pressing of the grapes, was preserved without fermentation.
After discussing the two “Sweet Wines,” namely sapa and defrutum, made by boiling must down to one-third and one-half of its volume respectively, Pliny mentions raisin wine, known as passum, which was well known under various names in most Mediterranean countries. This unfermented grape juice was made by drying grapes in the sun and then gently pressing out the juice. Pliny explains: “Some people make this wine from any sweet white grape clusters that ripen early. They dry them in the sun to about half their weight and then extract the juice by gentle pressure” /Leniter exprimunt. /Ibid./.
By gently pressing the sun-dried grapes, only the rich juice needed to be extracted. Because of its high sugar content and the absence of fermentable pulp, this juice was more readily suited for /p. 122, original/ preservation. Sometimes the sugar level was increased by adding honey. Speaking of “honey wine,” Pliny says: “It differs from the honey drink because it contains must, in the proportion of 17 liters of dry-quality must to 3.5 liters of honey and a cup of salt; all this must be mixed before boiling.”
Polybius, a second-century B.C. historian, tells us that “among Roman women there was a prohibition against drinking /fermented/ wine; they drank wine called passum, made from raisins, and many sampled it like sweet wine /gleukos/ in Crete and other countries. It was with such drinks that they quenched their thirst. But it was almost impossible for them to drink wine without being noticed” /Polybius, “Fragments” 6.4/6.2/. Therefore, it is noteworthy that unfermented grape juice made from sun-dried grapes was a special drink among women in Roman society.
Columella also emphasized the importance of gently pressing the grapes to prevent protein from escaping: “Press them by quarters each day and pour off the must, which must no longer be pressed” /Columella, “On Agriculture” 12.37.1/. The Latin verb used for “press” is calcato, literally meaning “to tread with the feet.” Thus, the juice was removed after the grape clusters had been trodden underfoot and before they were pressed with a heavy beam /torculum/. The latter was intended to release the pulp and seeds, which promoted the formation of fermenting elements. To prevent fermentation, gently pressed grape juice had to be properly poured into sealed jars, which were to be stored in a cold, dry place. Columella gives us an informative description of how this was done: “So that the must might always remain as sweet as when fresh, proceed as follows. Before placing the grape clusters with their skins under the press, take the freshest must from the vat and pour it into a new wine jar; then coat it all around and carefully cover it with pitch /var/, so that no water could penetrate it. Then submerge the jar /flask/ in a basin of cold, fresh water, so that no part of it remained above the surface. After 40 days, remove the jar from the water. The must will remain sweet for a year” /Ibid. 12.29.1/.
The importance of storing the juice in a cold place will be discussed later. At this point, it is important to note the precaution of using “the freshest must,” which flows before the grape clusters with their skins are pressed. This was intended to ensure that the juice would be relatively free from the fermenting agents found in the skins and the coating of the grape seeds.
Filtration.
When fermented pulp is pressed together with sugary juice, the separation of the two is still possible through filtration. Of course, ancient filtration methods were far less sophisticated and effective than those used in the wine industry today. Their primary method involved using a sack called a sacco, in which the grape clusters were placed. A vessel was positioned beneath the sack to collect the juice that dripped out. Several Latin writers refer to the use of such filters in winemaking.
The Roman poet Virgil /70–19 BC/ mentions sackcloth as one of the standard pieces of equipment of the wine press /prelum/. As Pliny observes, its purpose was to remove fermenting substances from grape juice: “Wines become most beneficial when all their strength is removed by a filter /sacco/. We must remember that wine is grape juice that acquires strength through fermentation” /Pliny, Natural History 23.24/. In this statement, Pliny clearly explains that the purpose of the filter /sacco/ was to remove the fermenting substances that give wine its alcoholic strength.
Undoubtedly, grape juice was filtered in order to deprive it of the intoxicating strength caused by fermentation. Plutarch, the first-century Greek biographer and moralist, after giving an extensive account of the filtering press, similarly to Pliny, says: “Wine becomes old or weak in strength after repeated filtration. Thus, its strength is removed; the wine does not inflame the mind, fill the intellect and passions, and is much more pleasant to drink” /Plutarch, Symposiacs 8.7/.
Plutarch’s noteworthy observation is that filtered, non-alcoholic wine was “more pleasant to drink” than the alcoholic variety. This observation may help us understand the nature of the “good wine” produced by Christ at the wedding in Cana of Galilee /John 2:10/.
According to Pliny, the reason for filtering wine was to enable people to drink a beverage that did not lead to intoxication: “What enables us to accomplish something more important—we deprive wine of its strength through a linen filter” /Pliny, Natural History 14.28/.
In this connection, the comment in the Delphin edition on Horace’s words, “The filter purifies the wine,” is especially significant. It says: “The ancients repeatedly filtered and purified must before it could ferment; thus, the sediment that nourished the wine’s strength was removed. They produced a wine that was itself thinner, weaker, lighter and sweeter, and more pleasant to drink” /Horace, Carminum Liber 1.11.6/.
A Biblical Allusion.
Isaiah 25:6 contains an allusion to the biblical practice of filtering must. We read: “And the Lord of hosts will prepare on this mountain for all peoples a feast of rich foods, a feast of wines on the lees, of well-refined wines.” The word “wine,” presented in the two phrases “wines on the lees” and “well-refined wines,” does not appear in the Hebrew text. Instead, it uses the Hebrew term shemarim, meaning “preservation,” which may refer to a product made from grapes. Thus, a more accurate translation may be “a feast of grape produce” and “a feast of well-refined grape produce.” This is how it reads in the Vulgate: “a feast of grape produce /convivium vindemiae/, and a feast of well-refined grape produce /vindemiae defaecatae/.”
In this verse, God compares the blessings of the Gospel feast with the two great festive delights He has provided: rich foods—from the fat of the bones—and sweet delicacies such as jelly and syrup. The former may have served as an example of the purest condition. “Well-purified grape juice, which, because of its purity and sweetness, as we have already seen, was regarded as the most pleasant drink. This harmless, nourishing beverage corresponds well to the symbol of the blessings of salvation that God here promised to all the redeemed.”
Preserving grape juice through cold storage.
Below four degrees Celsius. Fermentation of grape juice can also be prevented by keeping it below four degrees Celsius. Nearly all fermentation processes cease at around four degrees Celsius. Fermentation is possible only between four and 27 degrees Celsius. The lower threshold is inactive, while the upper threshold marks the beginning of the vinegar-making process. When the temperature is lowered to 4 degrees, the protein settles at the bottom, and the juice does not ferment.
The ancient method.
The ancients were familiar with this method of preservation. When they wanted to preserve grape juice in its sweet, unfermented state, they had to take an amphora and coat it with resin inside and out. Then they filled it with must—liquividium must, the juice that flowed out before the grape clusters were pressed by a heavy beam—and sealed it carefully by covering it with resin. The amphora was then immersed in a pool of cold water or a cistern and left there for six weeks or two months. After this process, the grape juice could be preserved unfermented. From then on, it was called semper mustum, meaning “constant must.”
We quote the earliest description of this process, as presented by Columella. To keep the must semper dulce, “always sweet,” Columella prescribed the following procedure: “Before placing the grape clusters with their skins under the press, take the freshest must from the vat and pour it into a new wine jar; then coat it all around and cover it thoroughly with resin/pitch/, so that no water can enter it. Then immerse the jar/flask/ in a pool of cold water so that no part of it remains above the surface. After 40 days, remove the jar from the water. The must will remain sweet for a year.” /Columella, On Agriculture 12.29.1/. Columella continues, saying that “as long as it remains in a suitably cold condition, it will remain in good condition” /Ibid. 12.30.1/.
In the method described by Columella, fermentation was stopped in two ways:
By excluding access to air.
By lowering the temperature.
Yeast microbes begin to act when air reaches the fermenting juice.
Thus, by placing grape juice in an airtight wine amphora, fermentation will not occur, especially if the amphora is lowered into the cold water of a pool or cistern.
Pliny provides a similar description of this process. Speaking of the sweet wine that the Greeks called aigleucos and the Romans called semper mustum—“constant must”—he says: “Care must be taken in its production so that the must is not allowed to become agitated/fervere, to ferment/, which is the term the Romans used to describe the transformation of must into wine. Therefore, as soon as the must is taken from the vat and placed in barrels, the barrels should be placed in water until midwinter arrives and the regular cold weather is established” /Pliny, Natural History 14.11/.
This method of preserving grape juice—must—was already in use long before the time of Pliny and Columella, for Cato (234–149 BC) mentions it two centuries before them: “If you wish to preserve grape juice throughout the entire year, place the grape juice in an amphora, seal it tightly by coating it with pitch, and place it in a pond (basin). Remove the amphora from there after 30 days. The juice will remain sweet for a year” (Marcus Cato, On Agriculture, 120.1).
The wine cellars of Gibeon.
It seems reasonable to assume that the Jews knew and used the Roman method of preserving grape juice in airtight, hermetically sealed vessels kept in a cool place. Various technical means of making and preserving wine, according to the Roman authors cited earlier, seem to have been well known throughout the Mediterranean lands. However, as far as Palestine is concerned, precise information is lacking.
Some indirect information is provided by James B. Pritchard, who took part in excavations of the ancient city of Gibeon. There, 63 wine storage facilities were discovered, capable of holding 25,000 gallons (one gallon equals 3.78 liters). His reconstruction of the winemaking process as it took place at Gibeon includes filtering the pressed juice in two cylindrical tanks, each 60 cm in diameter and 60 cm deep. After filtration, the wine was stored in cool cellars in large amphorae sealed with olive oil. (James B. Pritchard, Gibeon: Where the Sun Stood Still, Princeton, 1962, pp. 90–98.) Pritchard conveys the advice of a local winemaker that, to prevent wine from turning into vinegar, it should be stored in a cellar sealed with olive oil. The archaeologists kept a vessel of wine, sealed with a thin layer of olive oil, in the cellars of Gibeon for a month. To their amazement, at the end of the month they found that the wine had been perfectly preserved (ibid., 94–95). The reason was that the olive oil acted as a practical barrier preventing the wine from oxidizing.
The success of this experiment suggests that this method could be used to preserve unfermented grape juice. Freshly pressed grape juice, after being filtered and cleared of its viscous material, can be stored in cool cellars in vessels sealed with a thin layer of olive oil. To some extent, my father used this method when I was still a boy. I remember helping him filter grape juice through thick linen cloth and then pouring the juice into vessels that were sealed with a thin layer of olive oil and tightly closed with a stopper. The vessels were stored in a cool cellar. Today, with lids that hermetically seal various containers available, my father used the simplest procedure. He boils the must and pours it into glass containers, which he immediately seals with a canning machine. He then lowers all the containers of juice into a cool cellar.
The frequent pairing of olive oil and wine in the Old Testament may testify not only to the widespread use of these two products, but also to the possibility that the former was used to preserve the latter.
Preserving Grape Juice by Fumigation with Sulfur.
Fumigation with sulfur. The fermentation of grape juice can also be prevented by using the process of fumigation with sulfur. This method consists of almost completely filling jugs with fresh, unfermented grape juice. The remaining space at the top is then fumigated with burning sulfur, and the vessels are tightly sealed. Alternatively, must is poured into vessels heavily fumigated with sulfur. Sulfur replaces the oxygen in the air and inhibits the growth of yeast microorganisms. Fumigation with sulfur is widely used today in the wine industry to combat certain infections to which wine is susceptible.
Ancient Use of Sulfur.
The ancient world knew a method of preserving wine by fumigating it with sulfur. In the chapter devoted to the use of various methods for preserving wine, Pliny speaks of Cato, who “mentions sulfur” /Pliny, Natural History 14.25.129/. Horace alludes to this practice in a poem celebrating a joyful anniversary: “On this festive day, recurring each year, when the tightly sealed stopper is drawn from the jar, to inhale the scent of fumigated wine in the days of Tullus” /Horace, Carminum Liber 3.8.9–12/. The following stanza emphasizes that this fumigated wine was unfermented, since hundreds of cups could be drunk without “noisy quarrel and anger” /ibid. 3.8.6/.
In his book Roman Antiquities, T. S. Carr says that “the use of the fumarium” /fumigation with sulfur/ for the maturation and aging of wines was borrowed from the Asians; thus, evaporation was to continue until the wine was reduced to a syrup-like state” /quoted in John Kitto’s Encyclopedia of Biblical Literature, 1845, article “Wine,” vol. 2, p. 956/. Commenting on this statement, John Kitto’s Encyclopedia of Biblical Literature says: “The Mishnah then prohibited the fumigation of wine used in offerings /Menachot… 6 et. Commentary/. This reference primarily concerned the Roman practice of fumigating with sulfur, in which the vapors absorbed oxygen, thereby stopping fermentation. The Jews categorically refused to use wine and vinegar prepared by the Gentiles” /ibid./.
CONCLUSION.
The study presented in this section of ancient methods for preserving fermented wine and unfermented juice should help dispel two major misconceptions:
In the ancient world, it was easy to preserve fermented wine, since all that was required was to allow pressed grape juice to ferment naturally.
In the ancient world, it was impossible to preserve grape juice because people lacked the technical knowledge and means to prevent fermentation.
We have found that neither of these popular opinions is supported by the evidence. The problems encountered by the ancients in preserving fermented wine were extremely great, if not greater than those encountered in preserving unfermented grape juice. To protect wine from oxidation, mold, or unpleasant odors, numerous preservatives were used. Such substances as salt, brine, liquid or solid resin, boiling of must, marble dust, lime, sulfur fumigation, and crushed iris were employed.
Compared with preserving fermented wine, preserving grape juice from fermentation was a relatively simple process. This was achieved simply by boiling the juice down to a syrup or by separating the fermented pulp from the grape juice through filtration. Alternatively, the grape juice could be placed in a tightly sealed vessel and immersed in containers of cold water, or the vessel could be fumigated with sulfur before being tightly sealed. The use of such technical means clearly testifies that methods for preserving grape juice unfermented were known and used in the ancient world.
The fact that the documentation comes predominantly from the classical world rather than the Old Testament world does not mean that the art of preserving grape juice was unknown in ancient Israel. The Jews were no less familiar with preserving fruit, grain, and juices than the peoples around them. According to the accounts of Josephus, we find that the Romans were amazed to discover wine, olive oil, fruit, and grain preserved in fresh condition in the fortress of Masada, although they had been stored several years earlier /see note 2/. In addition, rabbinic sources specifically mention the use of boiled wine.
The reason for the silence of Scripture regarding the means used to preserve grape juice is found in the nature of the Bible itself—it is a book concerned with the history of salvation. In the Bible, as among classical writers, we find no treatises on agriculture. The reason is not a lack of interest in or knowledge of agriculture, but an unwillingness to deal with questions unrelated to the religious life of God’s people. The Bible also does not mention the means used to prevent fermented wine from spoiling, yet the Jews must have known about them. The same is true of unfermented grape juice. The Bible testifies that God’s people possessed and used unfermented grape juice. We cannot say how the Jews kept grape juice unfermented. We have reason to believe that they knew some preservation methods that were known and used in the ancient world. This conclusion will be confirmed in the following two sections, which will examine the teaching of Jesus and the apostolic Church regarding alcoholic beverages. /p. 135 orig./
Section V: Jesus and Wine
/ p. 136 orig./
Introduction
Many well-known Christians find fundamental justification for moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages in the teaching and example of Jesus Christ. For example, in his book “The Christian and Alcoholic Beverages,” Kenneth L. Gentry, defending moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages, appeals first of all to Christ’s example: “Above all, we should remember that the Lord and His apostles drank /fermented/ wine, despite the fact that sinful people indulge in it to their own harm and degradation” /Kenneth L. Gentry, “The Christian and Alcoholic Beverages,” Grand Rapids, 1986, p. 108/.
It is claimed that Christ not only drank fermented wine, but also produced it in large quantities at the wedding feast in Cana of Galilee and gave it to His disciples at the Last Supper. Norman L. Geisler, for example, states clearly in his article “A Christian Perspective on the Use of Wine”: “It is false to say that Jesus made unfermented wine. In fact, He made wine that the people present at the wedding feast in Cana of Galilee tasted and found better than the wine they had been drinking previously. Surely they could not have said this if it had tasted worse to them. In fact, in John 2:9–10 it is called ‘wine’ /oinos/ and ‘good wine’ /kalon oinon/. These same words are used to describe fermented wine everywhere in the New Testament” /Norman L. Geisler, “A Christian Perspective on the Use of Wine,” Bibliotheca Sacra, January–March 1982, 49/.
The popular view that “Jesus was not a teetotaler,” but a moderate drinker of fermented wine who even “miraculously produced” high-quality /alcoholic/ wine at Cana /Kenneth L. Gentry /n. 1/, p. 50/, and instituted the Last Supper with alcoholic wine /ibid., p. 54/—this view has undoubtedly influenced the consumption of alcoholic beverages by millions of Christians around the world more than anything else said in the Bible about drunkenness. The reason is simple. Christ’s example and teachings are foundational and normative for Christian faith and practice. If Christ Himself made, recommended, and drank fermented wine, then there can hardly be anything substantially sinful about moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages! The simple definition is: “If wine was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me!”
Purpose and Procedure of the Study. In view of the fundamental importance and far-reaching consequences of Christ’s example and teachings regarding the use of alcoholic beverages, in this section we will thoroughly examine what the Gospels say about Jesus and wine. Our main purpose is to determine whether the teaching and example of Jesus Christ truly sanctioned the consumption of fermented wine.
/ p. 137 of the original /
This section contains five chapters dealing with the following stories or statements of Jesus concerning wine.
Chapter 9: The Wedding at Cana of Galilee
The Significance of the Miracle.
The view that Christ’s miraculous transformation of water into wine during His presence at the wedding feast in Cana of Galilee supports moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages is the main evidence that Jesus approved the use of alcohol. Its proponents argue that if Jesus miraculously made between 450 and 600 liters of high-quality alcoholic wine for the wedding couple and guests in Cana, then He obviously approved its moderate consumption.
The belief that the wine created by Christ at Cana was alcoholic rests on five main assumptions. First, it is assumed that the word oinos /wine/ refers only to “fermented high-quality grape beverage, that is, wine” /Kenneth L. Gentry /n.1/, p. 50/. Second, it is assumed that since the word oinos /“wine”/ is used both for the wine that ran out and for the wine Jesus made, both wines must therefore have been alcoholic. Third, it is assumed that the Jews did not know how to preserve grape juice from fermentation and, as William Hendriksen argues, since the wedding took place before Passover /compare John 2:13/, that is, six months after the grape harvest, the wine served at Cana had already had sufficient time to ferment. /William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary on the Gospel of John, Grand Rapids, 1973, p. 115/. Fourth, it is assumed that the description given by the master of the feast concerning the wine provided by Christ was that he regarded it as “good wine” /Kenneth L. Gentry /n.1/, p. 52/. Fifth, it is assumed that the expression “when they have drunk freely” /John 2:10/, used by the master of the feast, means that the guests were already intoxicated because they had been drinking fermented wine. Therefore, the wine Jesus made must also have been fermented. In view of the importance of these assumptions—for they play a major role in determining the nature of the wine made by Christ—we will briefly examine each assumption in the order presented above.
The Meaning of the Word Oinos.
The popular assumption that, in both secular and biblical Greek, the word oinos exclusively means fermented grape juice has already been thoroughly examined in the second section. We cited numerous examples of both pagan and Christian authors who used the Greek word oinos to refer to both fermented wine and unfermented grape juice. We also noted that the word oinos is used at least 33 times in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew word tirosh, which there denotes grape juice.
A better understanding of the use of the word “wine” not only in Greek but also in ancient English, Latin, and Hebrew should save scholars and theologians from the erroneous conclusion that oinos means only fermented wine. The truth of the matter, as we have already shown, is that oinos is a general term encompassing all kinds of wine—unfermented and fermented—just as the Hebrew word yayin and the Latin vinum do. Thus, the fact that the wine made by Christ at Cana is called oinos provides no basis for concluding that it was fermented wine. Its nature must be determined by external evidence and moral probability. The Evangelist John’s account, as we will see, provides information for resolving this question.
Is Oinos Always an Alcoholic Beverage?
The second assumption—that both the wine that ran out and the wine created by Christ were alcoholic—depends entirely on the first assumption, namely, that the word oinos means exclusively alcoholic wine. As Kenneth L. Gentry stated: “The word oinos is used in reference to both kinds of wine. This word denotes the fermented quality of the grape beverage, that is, wine” /Kenneth L. Gentry, /n1/ p. 50/.
This assumption is refuted by two facts. First, as mentioned earlier, the word oinos is a general, generic term referring either to fermented or unfermented wine. Thus, the fact that the same word oinos is used for both wines does not mean that both wines were alcoholic. In his treatise “Christ, the Apostles, and Wine,” Ernest Gordon, responding to a similar tendency concerning this assumption, said: “In response to the objection that the word oinos, wine, is used both for the intoxicating wine at the wedding feast and for the wine made by Christ, and therefore that both must have been intoxicating, one should quote Abbott’s Dictionary of Religious Knowledge: ‘It is perfectly clear that the word “wine” does not necessarily imply fermented wine. It denotes only the making of wine.’ The eminent Hellenist Sir Richard Jebb, formerly Professor of Greek at Cambridge University, declared oinos to be ‘a general term that may include all kinds of beverages’” /Ernest Gordon, “Christ, the Apostles, and Wine,” Philadelphia, 1947, p. 13/.
Second, the wine created by Christ was distinguished from the others by the characteristic phrase ton kalon—“good” wine. This word emphasizes that the two wines were not identical. The nature of the difference between the two wines will be discussed below.
Preserving Grape Juice.
The third assumption—that in the spring it was impossible to supply a wedding feast with grape juice, six months after the grape harvest—rests on the claim that technology for preserving grape juice in an unfermented state was unknown at that time.
This claim is disproved by abundant evidence from the Roman world of New Testament times describing various methods of preserving grape juice. In Section IV, we saw that preserving grape juice was, in some respects, a simpler process than preserving fermented wine. Thus, at the wedding in Cana of Galilee, it was possible to replenish the guests’ supply with unfermented grape juice—even as the time drew closer to the Passover season—because such a beverage could be kept unfermented for a year.
“High-Quality Alcoholic Wine.”
The fourth assumption is that the wine made by Jesus was called “good wine” by the master of the feast because, supposedly, it had a high alcohol content. This assumption is based on twentieth-century tastes.
Albert Barnes, a well-known theologian and New Testament commentator, warned in his commentary on John 2:10: “Do not be deceived by the phrase ‘good wine.’” The reason, according to his explanation, is that “we use the phrase to determine that wine is good in proportion to its strength and its power to intoxicate. But this is not the meaning of the adjective ‘good’ here” /Albert Barnes, “Notes on the New Testament, Luke–John,” London, 1875, vol. 2, p. 197/.
In Section IV, we noted that in the Roman world of New Testament times, the best wines were those whose alcoholic strength had been removed by boiling or filtration. For example, Pliny said that “the most beneficial wines /utilissimum/ are those whose entire strength has been removed by filtration” /Pliny, “Natural History,” 23–24. Translated by W. H. S. Jones, 1961/. Similarly, Plutarch indicates that wine is “much more pleasant to drink” when it “does not inflame the brain or affect the mind or passions” /Plutarch, “Symposiacs,” 8.7/.
Referring to some of the same ancient authors, Barnes says: “Pliny, Plutarch, and Horace, when describing wine as good or as the very best, meant wine that was harmless and innocent—vinum innocens. The most beneficial wine—utilissimum vinum—was wine that had little strength; and the healthiest—saluberrimum vinum—was wine to which nothing had been added to the must or juice. Pliny expressly said that ‘good wine’ is wine free of alcohol” /Lib. IV, ch. 13/. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that “good wine” was stronger than other wine; it was probably weak. Certainly, it could have been the very best wine. This wine was used everywhere in Palestine. It was pure grape juice.
It was not brandy wine; it was not narcotic wine; it was not wine made from various substances, such as the wine we drink in our country. The common wine drunk in Palestine was simply grape juice” /Albert Barnes, note 11, p. 197/.
The wine Christ made was of high quality, not because of its alcohol content, but, as Henry Morris explained, because it was “new wine, freshly created! It was not old, decaying wine, as it would have had to be if it were intoxicating. There had not been time for the fermentation process to transform its energy-preserving substance—sugar—into alcohol. Thus, a portrayal of His glory was created, appropriately serving as the very first of His great miracles /John 2:11/.” /Henry M. Morris, The Bible Has the Answer, 1971, p. 163/.
Rabbinical Testimonies.
Rabbinical testimonies concerning the nature of wine are not unanimous. Rabbi Isidore Koplowicz states in his introduction to a collection of rabbinical statements about wine and strong drinks: “Indeed, some doctors of the Talmud permitted, and unfortunately even recommended, moderate use of wine. But equally, many Talmudic rabbis condemned the use of wine and strong drinks in the strongest terms. Some rabbis even attributed Israel’s downfall to wine” /Rabbi Isidore Koplowicz, On Wine and Strong Drinks, Detroit, 1923, p. 7/. An example of disapproval is a statement often repeated, with slight variations, by various rabbis: “When wine enters a person’s system, common sense departs; wherever wine appears, understanding is absent” /Midrash Rabbah Nasso 10; cited by Isidore Koplowicz, note 16, pp. 33, 39/.
Such an awareness of the harmful influence of alcoholic wine explains why some rabbis recommend drinking boiled wine. The Mishnah says of such wine: “Rabbi Judah permitted it /boiled wine as an offering/, because boiling improves its quality” /quoted in John Kitto’s Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature, 1845, article “Wine,” vol. 2, p. 951/. Such wine, the Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature notes, “was regarded /among the Jews/ as the richest and finest wine” /ibid./. Elsewhere, the Talmud also emphasizes that the use of alcoholic beverages by those playing musical instruments during wedding celebrations was prohibited /Sotah 48a; also Mishnah Sotah 9:11/. The latter statement is confirmed by rabbinical testimonies quoted later in this section in the discussion of Passover wine. In light of this evidence and discussion, we must conclude that the wine created by Christ was described as “good wine” because it was not intoxicating.
Moral Responsibility.
Another reason compelling us to reject the assumption that the “good wine” created by Christ had a high alcohol content is that such an assumption reflects negatively on the wisdom of the Son of God. If, in addition to the amount of alcoholic wine already consumed, we add the 450 to 600 liters of alcoholic wine miraculously created by Christ for the men, women, and children gathered together at the wedding feast, then Christ would bear moral responsibility for continuing and increasing their drunkenness. In that case, His miracle could only serve as approval of excessive consumption of alcoholic beverages. If this conclusion is true, it destroys the sinless nature and teachings of Christ.
Joseph P. Free rightly observed that the large quantity of wine miraculously created by Christ toward the end of the wedding celebration proves either:
1. Excessive alcohol consumption was permissible and lawful, or
2. Oinos in this case means grape juice.
“In light of the entire Old Testament, which condemns wine, this beverage was undoubtedly grape juice” /Joseph P. Free, “Archaeology and Biblical History,” Illinois, 1950, p. 355/.
It is contrary to the principle of Scripture and moral analogy to maintain that Christ, the Creator of all that is good /Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25; Col. 1:16/, could manifest His
supernatural power to bring into existence intoxicating wine, which
Scripture condemns as “a mocker” and “a brawler” /Prov. 20:1/ and which the Holy Spirit chose as a symbol of divine wrath.
Biblical and moral consistency require that the “good wine” created by Christ was fresh, unfermented grape juice. The adjective used to describe the quality of the wine supports this conclusion. “It should be noted,” emphasizes Leon C. Field, “that the adjective ‘good,’ used to describe the wine produced by Christ, is not agathos, simply good, but ‘kalos,’ that which is morally excellent or appropriate. This term emphasizes Theophrastus’s characterization of non-intoxicating wine as moral /ethikos/ wine” /Leon C. Field, “Oinos: A Discussion of Biblical Wine,” New York, 1883, p. 57/.
Referring to the nature of the wine, Ellen White says: “The wine which Christ created at the feast, and the wine which He gave to His disciples as a symbol of His blood, was pure grape juice. This is what the prophet Isaiah meant when he spoke of the juice in the cluster and said: ‘Do not destroy it, for there is a blessing in it…’ The unfermented wine which He provided for the wedding guests was a wholesome, refreshing drink that produced a healthy appetite” /DA, p. 149/.
“When they have become drunk.”
The final assumption to be examined concerns the expression “When they have become drunk” /John 2:10/. It was spoken by the master of the feast. The full statement reads: “Every man serves the good wine first, and when they have become drunk, then the inferior; but you have kept the good wine until now” /John 2:10/. The assumption that, because the Greek word methusthōsin—“to drink freely”—emphasizes drunkenness, and because drunkenness is the reason, according to the master of the feast’s statement, that “good wine” is usually served first, then the “good wine” created by Christ must also have been intoxicating, since it is compared with the good wine usually served at the beginning of the feast.
Some regard this meaning of the Greek verb metusko—“to make drunk”—as irrefutable evidence of the alcoholic nature of the wine created by Christ. For example, in a scholarly review of John Ellis’s book The Wine Question in the Light of the New Testament, the reviewers state: “There is other irrefutable evidence /of the alcoholic nature of the wine created by Christ/ contained in the text itself; the Greek word metusko means ‘to make drunk’; this term is never used to describe the effects of anything other than intoxicating beverages” /as quoted in John Ellis, “A Reply to the Scholarly Review of My Book, The Wine Question in the Light of the New Testament,” New York, 1883, p. 182/.
This explanation of the banquet master’s comment, incorrectly interpreted and applied, overlooks the verb’s broader usage. The comment in question does not refer to this particular group, but to the general practice among those who host banquets: “Every man serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the worse” /John 2:10, Revised Standard Version/. This observation, as many commentators acknowledge, describes the customary practice of a professional banquet steward rather than the actual state of intoxication of a particular group. /See, for example, John Charles Ellicott, “The Four Gospels,” in Ellicott’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Grand Rapids, 1954, vol. 6, p. 394/.
Another important fact should also be considered: the Greek verb metusko can mean “to drink freely” without any implication of drunkenness. In his article on this verb in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Herbert Preisker observed that “metuo and metuskomai” are used predominantly in the New Testament literally to mean “to be drunk” and “to become intoxicated.” Metuskomai is not used in John 2:10 for ethical and religious reasons, in connection with the custom that inferior wine was served only when the guests had drunk freely” /Herbert Preisker, “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,” Grand Rapids, 1967, vol. 4, p. 545/.
Parkhurst’s Greek lexicon cites the use of the word metuo in the Septuagint as illustrating the meaning “to drink freely”: “Metuo… generally means to drink wine or strong drink more freely than usual, and this may or may not refer to intoxication. Passively, to drink freely, to rejoice without intoxication /John 2:10/. In this sense the verb was clearly used in the Septuagint in Genesis 43:34” /John Parkhurst, “A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament,” London, 1817, entry “Metuo”/.
The verb metusko in John 2:10 is used in the sense of satiation. It simply refers to the large quantity of wine customarily consumed at a banquet, without reference to an intoxicating effect. Those who insist that the wine served at the banquet was alcoholic and that Jesus also made alcoholic wine, though of better quality, are led to conclude that Jesus produced a large additional quantity of intoxicating wine, enough for the wedding party to continue its reckless indulgence. Such a conclusion removes the moral purity of Christ’s character.
The Purpose of the Miracle.
The stated purpose of the miracle for Christ was to reveal His glory so that His disciples might believe in Him. This purpose was accomplished: “This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him” /John 2:11/. Christ’s presence at the wedding banquet was intended to show divine approval of the institution of marriage and the innocent joys of social life. Yet all these considerations served as means of revealing Christ’s glory in the fulfillment of His mission. The glory of God was especially revealed in His act of creation /Psalm 19:1–2/. Likewise, “the eternal power and Deity of Christ /Romans 1:20/” were manifested at the beginning of His miracles through an act of creation: He “turned water into wine” /John 4:46/.
The wine produced by a miracle must have corresponded to the wine found in grape clusters, for that is the only wine God creates. R. A. Torrey writes: “There is no suggestion that the wine created by Christ was intoxicating.”
It could not have been intoxicating until the fermentation process developed over time. Fermentation is a process of decomposition. There is not the slightest indication that our Lord produced alcohol, which is a product of decomposition, decay, and death. He produced living wine, untouched by the harmful effects of fermentation” /R. A. Torrey, “Difficult Passages in the Bible,” Chicago, 1907, pp. 96–97/.
“I am very pleased,” declared William Pettingill, “that the wine made by Christ bore little resemblance to the wine described in the Word of God: ‘It bites like a serpent and stings like an adder’ /Prov. 23:29–32/. Undoubtedly, it was more like the heavenly fruit of the vine that He will drink—new wine with His redeemed in the Kingdom of His Father /Matt. 26:29/. It is not surprising that the master of the feast at Cana called it the finest wine, kept until the end. Never before had he tasted such wine, and he never would again” /William L. Pettingill, “Answers to Bible Questions,” Illinois, pp. 223–224/.
Christ’s miracles were always directed toward beneficial and merciful purposes. He “did not come to destroy people’s lives but to save them” /Luke 9:56/. If it were true that Christ miraculously produced intoxicating wine, then this miracle could be a remarkable exception among His miracles. It could have been a malicious manifestation of His power. In that case, shame rather than glory would have been revealed.
Christ was aware of the powerful influence of His example, both on His contemporaries and on future generations. If, with all His knowledge, He had produced alcoholic wine, He would have demonstrated demonic rather than divine power and glory. His disciples could hardly have believed in Him if they had seen Him performing a miracle to encourage drunkenness.
Leon C. Field appropriately noted that Christ “was not Muhammad, captivating people with the allure of a sweet, sensual paradise, but the ‘Man of Sorrows,’ whose strict demands on all who followed Him were to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow Him /Matt. 16:24/. And all this through personal embodiment and practical encouragement of self-denial and abstinence, not through the example or approval of extravagant pleasures and self-indulgence, by which He gained followers and achieved His victories” /Leon C. Field, /n. 21/ p. 63/.
Chapter 10: New Wine in New Wineskins
The importance of this statement. Christ’s references to wine in Matt. 9:17 and Luke 5:39 are viewed by advocates of moderate alcohol consumption as indicating His approval of moderate consumption of alcoholic wine. While the miraculous production of wine at the wedding in Cana is asserted to prove that Jesus made alcoholic wine, the two statements cited above are supposedly presented for examination as showing that Jesus commanded moderate consumption of alcoholic wine. The first statement appears in three parallel passages /Matt. 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37–38/. The second statement is found neither in Matthew nor in Mark. Since Luke combines both statements, we will limit ourselves to this passage:
“And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and spill, and the skins will be ruined. But new wine must be put into new wineskins, and both are preserved. And no one who has drunk old wine immediately desires new, for he says, ‘The old is better’” /Luke 5:37–39/.
“New Wine”—Fermented or Unfermented? The phrase “new wine” /oinos neos/ occurs in the New Testament only here and in the parallel passages. We must consider the nature of “new wine.” Fermented or unfermented? A widely held view identifies it as recently pressed wine that is already actively fermenting. It is said that such wine can be safely placed in new wineskins, since only they are sufficiently elastic to withstand the pressure of fermentation, which releases gases.
For example, this view is expressed by Jimmy L. Albright in his dissertation “Wine in the Biblical World.” He writes: “The biblical reference to wineskins bursting /Matt. 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37/ shows that gas-producing fermentation occurs in wines made in Israel—the chemical action begins within a few hours after the grapes are pressed. The juice begins to ferment while it is in the vats below the presses, but it is soon poured into jars or wineskins… New wine is poured into new wineskins; old wineskins may burst under pressure” /Jimmy L. Albright, “Wine in the Biblical World: Its Economic, Social, and Religious Relevance to the New Testament,” Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1980, pp. 129, 137/.
R. C. H. Lenski comments on this passage similarly: “When leather is fresh, it stretches to some extent, but when it is old, it becomes hard and inflexible and quickly bursts under pressure. Therefore, people never pour new wine, which is still fermenting and creating pressure, into old, already dried wineskins” /R. C. H. Lenski, “The Interpretation of the Gospel of John,” Columbus, Ohio, 1942, p. 318/.
This popular interpretation is highly imaginative, but not realistic. Anyone familiar with the pressure produced by fermentation and the release of gas knows that no containers, whether made of glass or leather, could withstand such pressure. Job knew this when he said: “Behold, my belly is like wine that has no vent; it is ready to burst like new wineskins” /Job 32:19/. The Bible Encyclopedia acknowledges this fact, stating: “It is impossible that must could ever be poured into wineskins to endure the entire fermentation process, as is usually claimed; the action of the gas released in the early stages of the process is so violent and powerful that no wineskins can withstand it. Where large quantities of grapes are pressed, the wine vats /cisterns/ must be emptied immediately by pouring the must into earthenware jars; among the Jews, such vessels were very diverse” /The Encyclopedia Biblica, T. K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black, 1903, article “Wine and Strong Drink,” vol. 4, p. 5315/.
Unfermented Grape Juice
“The difficulty associated with this figurative expression,” as Alexander B. Bruce put it, “is not critical or exegetical /that is, related to interpretation/, but scientific. The direct question is: Could even new, strong, pliable wineskins withstand the fermentation process?” The answer is undoubtedly negative. Thus Bruce himself observed that “Jesus never meant fermented, intoxicating wine at all, but ‘must,’ a non-intoxicating drink that could be safely preserved in new leather wineskins, but not in old wineskins that had previously contained ordinary, normal wine, because particles of protein adhering to the leather could initiate fermentation and the release of gas under enormous pressure” /Alexander B. Bruce, “The Synoptic Gospels in the Explanation of the Greek New Testament,” Grand Rapids, 1956, 500 pp./ A similar argument is also presented by Ernest Gordon /n. 10/, p. 20/.
Some argue that the “new wine” here is must that has not fully fermented but is already close to completing the process, and that it can safely be poured into new wineskins, whose elasticity may be sufficient to withstand the “post-fermentation” process that may follow” /Horace Bumstead, “The Bible Sanction of Wine,” in The Sacred Library: January 1881, p. 82/. This hypothesis has a twofold weakness. First, wine that is approaching the end of the fermentation process can safely be poured into old wineskins, since their neck openings should allow for the appropriate release of the remaining fermentation gases. Second, when fermentation is permitted, it takes place not in wineskins but in large jars known as a hebit in Hebrew and a dolium among the Romans. /See Biblical Encyclopedia /n. 32/, p. 5315, vol. 4/.
The only “new wine” that can safely be poured into new wineskins is unfermented must after filtering or boiling. A wineskin must be prepared like an amphora, being coated with honey or special resin /turpentine/; only then is the must poured in, tightly closed, and sealed. The reason new wineskins are required for “new wine” is that old wineskins may almost inevitably contain, as Lees and Burns explain, “some decomposing protein substances firmly adhering to the walls of the leather wineskin” /Frederick Richards Lees and Dawson Burns, The Bible Commentary on Abstinence, London, 1894, p. 266/. This may cause the new wine to ferment. On the other hand, if new wineskins are used to store unfermented new wine, there will be no fermentation-causing agents in the wineskins themselves. Thus, the wine will be preserved from fermentation, and the wineskins from bursting.
The Testimony of Pagan Authors.
It is highly significant in this regard that Columella, the famous Roman agronomist and a contemporary of the apostles, emphasized the need to use new amphorae, /p. 147 in the original/, to preserve fresh must unfermented: “In order that must might always remain as sweet as it was when fresh, the following procedure was used. Before placing the grape clusters with their skins under the press, take the freshest must from the vat and pour it into a new wine jar; then coat it all around and carefully cover it with resin /pitch/, so that no water could penetrate it. Then immerse the entire jar /flask/ in a pool of cold water, to such a depth that no part of it was above the surface. After 40 days, remove the jar from the water. The must will remain sweet for a year” /Columella, On Agriculture 12.29/.
A similar method was used with new wineskins, which were prepared like amphorae: they were coated with honey or special resins, then filled with must, tightly and hermetically sealed, and buried in the ground. Any of the processes described in the previous section, such as filtration, boiling, air removal, fumigation with sulfur, and lowering the temperature below 4 degrees Celsius, may be regarded as reliable methods for preserving “new wine” unfermented in “new wineskins.” Any two methods, or all of them, may be combined to ensure that fermentation does not occur.
The Meaning of Christ’s Statement.
This interpretation is further confirmed by the symbolic meaning of Christ’s statement. Consider new wine in new wineskins as the goal of the lesson on revival. As Ernest Gordon aptly explains: “The old wineskins, with their alcoholic residue at the bottom, represent the decaying nature of the Pharisees. The new wine of the Gospel cannot be poured into them. They will cause it to ferment. ‘I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’ The latter, through conversion, will become new vessels capable of preserving the ‘young wine’ without damaging it through fermentation. /Mark 2:15–17, 22./ Thus, by comparing intoxicating wine with unregenerate Pharisaism, Christ clearly indicated whom, in His opinion, intoxicating wine represented” /Ernest Gordon /no. 10/, p. 20/.
It should be noted,” Ernest Gordon continues, “that in this incidental illustration, Christ fully identified wine with unfermented wine. Fermented wine received no approval. It could be poured into any wineskins, however miserable and spoiled they might be. But new wine, like a new garment that is too good to be used for mending old rags, is a pure and beneficial product requiring proper purification through filtration. The natural way in which this illustration is used emphasizes, at least, the universal understanding among His Jewish listeners that the actual fruit of the vine, ‘good wine,’ was unfermented” /Ibid., p. 21/.
Chapter 11: Is Old Wine Better?
After Christ’s statement in the Gospel of Luke about “young wine” in new wineskins comes a similar yet different statement: “And no one, having drunk old wine, immediately desires new; for he says, ‘The old is better’” /Luke 5:39/. Although this statement is not found in the other Gospels, it forms an integral part of the narrative. Moderationists in the debate over wine attach fundamental importance to this statement because, in their opinion, it contains Christ’s expressed recommendation to drink alcoholic wine. For example, Kenneth L. Gentry speaks of “the widespread practice of people preferring old /fermented wine/ to new /unfermented/ wine. The Lord Himself referred to this common attitude in Luke 5:39: ‘And no one, having drunk old wine, immediately desires new; for he says, “The old is better”’” /Kenneth L. Gentry /no. 1/, p. 54/.
Everett Tilson considers Luke 5:39 one of the most challenging texts for those who favor abstinence. He writes: “This attempt to defend Jesus’ preference for ‘new’ /unfermented/ wine at the expense of ‘old’ /fermented/ wine falls victim to Luke 5:39—one of the most difficult passages for biblical literalists /advocates of a literal understanding of the texts/ who favor abstinence. Without a word of criticism, as though recording a universally known commonplace with which he himself agrees, Luke portrays Jesus as saying: ‘And no one, having drunk old wine, immediately desires new; for he says, “The old is better.”’ Why?—‘The old is better,’ He replied /Luke 5:39/, although it is far more likely that both kinds were fermented and intoxicating!” /Everett Tilson, Should Christians Drink? New York, 1957, p. 31/.
The Meaning of Young Wine.
The first question in our study of this passage concerns whether “young wine” here has the same meaning as in the two preceding verses. Some believe it does not. They view “young wine” in verse 38 as wine that has not fully fermented, and in verse 39 as fully fermented wine lacking the maturity and aging that come with time. Lees and Burns, authors of the Bible Commentary on Abstinence, favor the view that “young wine” in verse 38 is “identical in nature and represents the same Christian blessings as ‘old wine’ in verse 39—being new, preserved, and improved through age” /Lees and Burns /no. 36/, p. 295/.
The meaning of “new wine” in this passage cannot be determined by its general usage in Scripture, for in the Septuagint /the Greek translation of the Old Testament/ the phrase oinos neos—“new wine”—is used to translate fermented wine in Job 32:19 and unfermented grape juice in Isa. 49:26. In the latter case, it is translated from the Hebrew asis, which means unfermented grape juice.
The passage under consideration legitimately means that “new wine” has the same meaning throughout the text, since it is used without any indication of a change in meaning. The metaphors in both statements are used without confusion or contradiction. This means that if the “new wine” in verse 38, as shown above, is unfermented grape juice, the same must be true of the “new wine” in verse 39.
The Meaning of “Old Wine”.
Before discussing whether Christ expressed His judgment that “old wine” was superior in quality to “new wine,” it is important to determine whether “old wine” was fermented or unfermented. From the standpoint of quality, age “improves” the taste not only of fermented wine but also of unfermented grape juice. Although no chemical changes occur, grape juice acquires a better flavor as its finer, more delicate particles separate from the protein matter and other sediment. Thus, highly regarded “old wine” may refer to grape juice preserved and improved with age.
The context, however, favors the meaning of fermented wine, since Christ used the metaphor of “old wine” to represent the old forms of religion and “new wine” to represent the new forms of religious life that He taught and solemnly inaugurated. In this context, fermented old wine better represents the decaying forms of the old Pharisaic religion.
Is “Old Wine” Better?
In light of this conclusion, it remains to determine whether Christ, through His statement, expressed an evaluative judgment about the superiority of “old /fermented/ wine” over “new wine.” A careful reading of the text emphasizes that the one who says “old is better” is not Christ, but someone else who drinks “old wine.” In other words, Christ did not express His own opinion, but the opinion of those familiar with the taste of “old wine”—those who would have no interest in “new wine.” We know this principle. Drinking alcoholic beverages creates an appetite for alcoholic drinks, not for alcohol-free juices.
Christ’s statement does not express His personal judgment that old fermented wine is superior. Several commentators emphasize this fact. In his commentary on the Gospel of Luke, Norval Geldenhuys said: “The point at issue here has nothing to do with the comparative merits of old and new wine, but refers to the preference for old wine shown by those accustomed to drinking it” /Norval Geldenhuys, “Commentary on the Gospel of Luke,” Grand Rapids, 1938, p. 198/.
The same view is emphasized by Henry Alford in his Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. He says: “It should be noted that there is no objective comparison here between old and new wine; the whole matter centers on desire, and the meaning of ‘better’ is subjective: it reflects the view of the one who says it” /Henry Alford, “The New Testament for English Readers,” Boston, 1875, vol. 1, p. 324/. R. C. H. Lenski expressed the same truth most concisely: “It was not Jesus who called old wine ‘better,’ but the one who drinks it. The condition of old wine is exceedingly poor, for it has not been properly prepared; age is one fact, while superiority—with age—is an entirely different matter” /R. C. H. Lenski, “The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel,” Columbus, Ohio, 1953, p. 320/.
In a similar vein, Dr. Jack Van Impe wrote: “Did Jesus not say /in Luke 5:39/ that old wine is better? No, certainly not. Here the Lord’s understanding of the influence of habit-forming alcoholic beverages is shown. His statement remains true today. Try to sell grape juice… and you will probably have no buyers. Those who drink old wine /intoxicating wine/ prefer it. They have become addicted to it… The secondary message of this passage truly demonstrates the superiority of young, unfermented wine, using it as a picture of salvation” /Jack Van Impe, “Alcohol: The Beloved Enemy,” Royal Oak, Michigan, 1980, pp. 121–122/.
The context of “old wine.”
The view that old fermented wine is better than young wine must be false, even if everyone on earth believed it! In the passage we are examining, this view contradicts both the context in which it appears and the entire purpose of the illustration. In the immediate context, Jesus used the same word /palaios/ for the old garment, which He clearly does not regard as better than the new one. The statement about “old wine” seems to contradict the preceding statement about the “old garment,” but the contradiction disappears when the purpose of the illustration is understood.
In his article on “oinos” /“wine”/ in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Heinrich Seesemann noted the contradiction and the importance of the context: “Luke 5:39 seems to contradict what was said previously, since it favors the old. However, in Luke’s context, it is understood as a warning against overestimating the old” /Heinrich Seesemann, “Oinos,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, 1968, vol. 5, p. 163/.
The purpose of the illustration is not to praise the superiority of old wine, but to warn against overestimating the old forms of religious thought promoted by the Pharisees. As noted in verse 33, this religiosity consisted in observing such outward ascetic practices as frequent fasting and public prayer. To justify the fact that His disciples did not follow such outward religious forms, Christ used four illustrations: guests at a wedding feast do not fast in the bridegroom’s presence /vv. 34–35/; a patch is not taken from a new garment and attached to an old one /v. 36/; new wine is not poured into old wineskins /vv. 37–38/; and new wine is not preferred by those accustomed to drinking old wine /v. 39/.
The common purpose of all four illustrations is to help people accustomed to old forms of religion and unfamiliar with new forms of religious life learn from Christ and recognize that the old seems good only until a person becomes accustomed to the new, which is better in itself.
In this context, old fermented wine seems good only to those who do not know the better young wine. In his book Alcohol and the Bible, Stephen Reynolds insightfully pointed to the broader significance of Christ’s illustration concerning old wine. He said, “Christ warned against overestimating Pharisaism /old wine/, but the figure of speech conveys more than the thought that the Gospel should be regarded more highly than Pharisaism. It also strongly emphasizes that those receptive to truth prefer the new wine /unfermented grape juice/ over the old wine. Only a carnal person with a corrupted taste thinks otherwise” /Stephen M. Reynolds, Alcohol and the Bible, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1983, p. 42/.
Chapter 12: Was Jesus a Glutton and a Drunkard?
The importance of the text. More than nineteen centuries ago, Jesus Christ was described as follows: “Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners” /Matthew 11:19; compare Luke 7:39—the English translation of the verse/. This accusation is still repeated today: Jesus was a drunkard! Those who love alcoholic beverages like to claim that Jesus was a drinking man in order to shelter themselves under the cover of His example.
The full passage reads: “For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ And wisdom is justified by all her children” /Luke 7:33–35/.
Advocates of moderate drinking attach fundamental importance to this text. Their reason for doing so is clear. They believe that this text contains irrefutable proof that Jesus drank alcoholic wine. In their view, at the wedding feast in Cana of Galilee, Christ clearly produced fermented wine, and in His parables about new wineskins and old wine He recommended alcoholic wine; in describing His lifestyle, He openly allowed the consumption of alcoholic wine.
Kenneth Gentry clearly presented this argument, saying: “Jesus Himself drank wine. In fact, in Luke 7:33–35 He referred to His customary drinking of wine as a striking illustration of the distinctive difference between Himself and His forerunner—John the Baptist” /Kenneth L. Gentry /n.1/ p. 48/.
Horace Bumstead expressed the same view even more emphatically, saying: “The Bible approves the use of wine, following Christ’s example. This approval is unmistakable and emphatic. It is unmistakable because of the fact stated in Christ’s own words; emphatic because of His example as a wine consumer, in marked contrast to His forerunner John the Baptist, who, being a Nazarite, abstained from wine” /Horace Bumstead, /n.34/ p. 86/.
Irving Raymond views Christ’s contrast with John as “direct evidence” of His habit of drinking alcohol. He wrote: “Jesus Christ undoubtedly followed the ordinary customs of His time and drank wine with daily meals and at various celebrations. There is direct evidence of this both in what others said about Him and in His own statements. In contrast to John the Baptist, ‘The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and they say, “Look, a man who is a glutton and a winebibber.”’ This reference constitutes for Raymond ‘sufficient grounds… to assert that Jesus Christ Himself not only drank and approved the use of wine, but also saw nothing sinful in wine’ /Irwin W. Raymond, ‘The Teaching of the Early Church on the Use of Wine and Strong Drink,’ New York, 1927, p. 81/.
Two Different Lifestyles
The reasoning that “John did not drink wine, whereas Christ did; therefore, we will drink too” overlooks several decisive considerations. First of all, the phrase “eating and drinking” is used idiomatically to describe not so much a significant difference in their eating and drinking habits as a difference in their social lifestyles.
Christ’s lifestyle was conspicuously social; therefore, in the common speech of that time, He came “eating and drinking,” even though in matters of food and drink He depended on the gracious hospitality of His friends. John the Baptist’s lifestyle was fundamentally that of a recluse—away from society, in a desolate, isolated, and wilderness place; therefore, in common speech, “John came neither eating nor drinking” /Matthew 11:18/. These two phrases serve to emphasize the contrast between John’s lifestyle,
marked by complete social isolation, and Christ’s lifestyle of free social interaction. The emphasis is not on alcohol but on social lifestyle.
Ernest Gordon accurately described the contrast implied in Christ’s statement, saying: “This is the contrast between John’s isolated life and Christ’s public character. John was a prophet of the wilderness. He neither ate nor drank with others and avoided human company. The mentally ill and demon-possessed flocked to desolate places. Hints came from everywhere that he himself belonged to this class. Our Lord freely associated with others during meals and on other occasions. In slander, He was called a glutton and accused of oinopotēs—drinking alcoholic wine. But there is no evidence that this was so.” /Ernest Gordon /n. 10/ p. 19/.
Two Different Missions
The difference in lifestyle between Jesus and John the Baptist highlights their different missions. John was called to prepare the way for Christ by preaching a message of repentance and reformation. To fulfill this mission, he was called to rebuke the excesses of his time by living a restrained life in the wilderness, away from the crowds. Jesus was anointed for a different mission, which included proclaiming the Kingdom Gospel. To fulfill this mission, Christ did not withdraw into the wilderness but met people in their homes, cities, and villages.
Just as John the Baptist’s ascetic lifestyle prompted his critics to accuse him of having “a demon” /Matt. 11:18/, so Jesus’ public lifestyle led the same critics to accuse Him of indulging sensual pleasures—that He was “a glutton and a drunkard.” Both accusations were groundless, for both Jesus and John lived exemplary, self-denying lives. They followed different lifestyles because of their distinct missions.
John the Baptist—A Nazarite
An important reason for Jesus’ statement about John the Baptist—“he drinks no wine” /Luke 7:33/—is that John was a Nazarite from his mother’s womb. This is how most commentators interpret Luke 1:15, where the angel instructs Zechariah concerning John, saying: “For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; he shall drink neither wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.” Nazarites were people wholly devoted to God, abstaining not only from “wine and strong drink,” but also from grape juice and the fruit of the vine. /Num. 6:1–4/.
Jesus, not being a Nazarite, was not obligated to abstain from drinking grape juice pressed from the fruit of the vine. We know that He drank wine at the Last Supper. There is no need to assume that if Jesus, unlike John the Baptist, “drank wine,” He drank every kind of wine, both fermented and unfermented. If this was true of drinking, the same must be true of eating. Yet no one can prove that Jesus consumed every kind of food, both good and bad, clean and unclean.
All the food and drink the Lord consumed was beneficial, serving to meet His physical needs—not to satisfy desires. Jesus said: “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to finish His work.” /John 4:34/. It is difficult to believe that Jesus, desiring to do His Father’s will, could have consumed intoxicating wine, which Scripture condemns. Thus, the unfounded assumption that the food and drink Christ consumed were intended to satisfy an immoderate appetite limits Him in pure mental perception and spiritual influence.
No Mention of the Word “Wine”
Another significant fact that is often overlooked is that Jesus did not mention the word “wine” in describing His lifestyle. Whereas Jesus said of John the Baptist, “John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine” /Luke 7:33/, of Himself He simply said, “The Son of Man has come eating and drinking” /Luke 7:34/. Some argue that the directly opposite parallelism, in which the intended first statement contrasts with the opposite in the second statement, “requires that ‘wine’ be understood as implied in the second part of the statement.” /Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., p. 49/.
This argument seems plausible, but the fact remains that if Jesus needed it to be known that, in contrast to John the Baptist, He was a drunkard, He could have repeated the word “wine” for emphasis and clarity. By refusing to specify what kind of food and drink He consumed, Christ deprived His critics of any basis for their accusation of gluttony and drunkenness. Reading “bread” and “wine” into the second statement /Matthew omits them from both statements/ exposes the absurdity of their accusation. In other words, Jesus seems to have said: “My critics accuse Me of gluttony and drunkenness, but I do not eat in seclusion; I often eat in the presence of other people. I eat in company. But my critics essentially do not know what I eat.”
Did Jesus Drink Grape Juice?
Some insist, “If Jesus did not drink wine, how can it be proven that He was a drunkard?” /Ibid./ The assumption that Jesus could never have been accused of drunkenness for the simple reason that, if He did not drink alcoholic wine, grape juice does not make a person a drunkard.
The weakness of this assumption lies in failing to recognize that the accusation was false, based not on factual observations but on fiction fabricated by unscrupulous critics. Assuming that His critics actually saw Jesus drinking something, they were already prepared to accuse Him of drunkenness, even if they saw Him drinking grape juice or, for example, water. On the Day of Pentecost, as we will see in section VI, the critics accused the apostles of being drunk on grape juice—they had drunk too much sweet wine /gleukos—Acts 2:13/. All this is cited to show that it did not matter what Christ drank—His unscrupulous critics could slander Him as a drunkard.
The Critics’ Accusations
To conclude that Jesus undoubtedly drank wine because His critics accused Him of being a “drunkard” means accepting the words of Christ’s enemies as truth. On two other occasions, His critics accused Jesus, saying, “You have a demon” /John 7:20; 8:48/. If we believe that Christ drank alcoholic wine because His critics accused Him of being a drunkard, then we must also believe that He had an evil spirit because His critics accused Him of having a demon. The absurdity of such reasoning shows that the accusations made by the critics are not a reliable basis for determining biblical teaching.
Jesus answered the baseless accusations of His critics, saying, “Wisdom is justified by all her children” /Luke 7:35/. The textual evidence is divided between “children” and “works,” but the meaning of this enigmatic statement remains the same: wisdom is justified by its results. The wisdom of God is justified by the good works it produces. Thus, to conclude from the slander of His critics that Jesus drank wine indicates a complete lack of wisdom. The results of His self-denying life speak for themselves.
Chapter 13: Wine at the Lord’s Supper
The significance of this episode. Since Christ used “wine” at the Last Supper to represent His redeeming blood /Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24/, this fact is regarded by advocates of moderate alcohol consumption as convincing evidence that the Lord approves its use. Horace Bumstead emphatically expressed this conviction, saying: “To ensure the continuity of His example regarding /alcoholic/ wine even to the most remote parts of the earth and to the very last period of history, He /Christ/ chose wine as one of the elements to be used in His memorial feast in all countries and throughout all ages” /Horace Bumstead/ no. 34/pp. 86–87/.
At the Last Supper, fundamental importance is attached to “wine,” for Christ not only used it but even commanded its use. However, the sequence in which the episodes involving “wine” will be examined in this section reflects the importance of chronological order, to which advocates of moderate alcohol consumption attach such significance. They claim that at the wedding feast in Cana Christ made alcoholic wine; in the parables of the new wineskins and old wine He recommended alcoholic wine; in His description of His lifestyle /“eating and drinking”/ He permitted the use of alcoholic wine; and in the account of the Last Supper He commanded the use of alcoholic wine until the end of time.
The first three claims have already been examined and found to be unfounded. Now the final claim remains to be examined. This is what we will do by considering two main arguments.
Is “the fruit of the vine” alcoholic wine?
“The fruit of the vine.” After offering His disciples the cup as a symbol of His blood of the New Covenant, Jesus said: “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s Kingdom” /Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18/. Advocates of moderate alcohol consumption claim that the phrase “fruit of the vine” is a figurative expression used as “functionally equivalent to /fermented wine/” /Kenneth L. Gentry, /no. 1/ p. 54/. Therefore, the cup Jesus offered His disciples contained alcoholic wine.
Indeed, the phrase “fruit of the vine” is sometimes used as equivalent to oinos /wine/, but this does not mean that the wine used at the Last Supper must have been fermented. As we have already examined in Section II, oinos, like the Hebrew yayin, was a general, ordinary term for grape juice—fermented or unfermented. The Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, uses oinos to translate yayin and tirosh in passages such as Jer. 40:10–12 and Judges 9:13, where the idea of fermentation is excluded.
The Testimony of Josephus
Even more significant is the fact that the phrase “fruit of the vine” was used to denote fresh, unfermented grape juice. A clear example is provided by the Jewish historian Josephus, a contemporary of the apostles. Describing the dream of Pharaoh’s cupbearer, who was imprisoned with Joseph, he said: “He therefore said that in his dream he saw three clusters of grapes on three branches of a vine… and that he squeezed them into the cup which the king held in his hand; and when he had strained the wine, he gave it to the king to drink” /Josephus, “The Antiquities of the Jews,” 2.5.2/. Interpreting the dream, Josephus said to the cupbearer: “Hope to be released from your bonds within three days, for the king has decided to restore you to your service; he allowed him to know that God grants the fruit of the vine for the benefit of humanity; this benefit is in the wine poured out for him and serves as a pledge of faithfulness and mutual trust among people” /Ibid./.
Two facts are significant in this description. First of all, Josephus calls the juice pressed from three clusters of grapes /gleukos/, which William Whiston translated as “wine,” since at the time of his translation, namely in 1737, “wine” meant grape juice—fermented or unfermented. In this case, the context clearly emphasizes that gleukos is freshly pressed grape juice. Secondly, Josephus expressly calls freshly pressed grape juice “the fruit of the vine” /gennēma tēs ampelou/. This proves beyond any shadow of doubt that the phrase “fruit of the vine” was used to designate sweet, unfermented grape juice.
Considering how often the New Testament writers mention the Lord’s Supper, their complete avoidance of the term oinos /wine/ in connection with the Supper is remarkable. Instead of the word “wine,” two terms are used: “cup” and “fruit of the vine.” The consistent avoidance of the term “wine,” especially by the apostle Paul in his extensive description of the Lord’s Supper /1 Cor. 11:17–34/, emphasizes that they may have wished to distinguish the contents of the cup from everything commonly known as fermented wine.
A Natural Product
Christ called the contents of the cup “the fruit of the vine” /gennēma tēs ampelou/. The noun gennēma /fruit/ derives from the verb gennaō—“to give birth or produce”—and means something produced in its natural state, that is, freshly gathered. For example, in Luke 12:18, a rich man who had an abundant harvest said, “I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain /ta gennēmata/ and all my goods.” The basic meaning of gennēma, both here and in other examples in the Septuagint /Gen. 41:34; 47:24; Exod. 23:10/, is emphasized: the natural fruit or produce of the land.
In our particular case, “the fruit of the vine” applies best to grape juice—as the natural product of the grape, which is “the fruit of the vine.”
As we have already seen, Josephus provides us with a clear example of this meaning. Fermented wine is not “the fruit of the vine,” but an unnatural product of fermentation and decay. To apply the phrase “the fruit of the vine” to alcoholic wine, which is a product of fermentation and decomposition, “is as absurd as calling death the fruit of life,” as Frederick Lees put it /Frederick Richard Lees, The Temperance Text-Book, London, 1869, p. 50/. It is equally absurd to suppose that “the fruit of the vine” which Christ promised to drink with His followers in the Kingdom would be fermented alcoholic wine. We have reason to hope that the new earth will be free from intoxicating substances.
It seems that in His divine wisdom Christ chose to designate the contents of the cup, the memorial of His redeeming blood, as “the fruit of the vine,” so that future generations of Christians would not be able to find approval in His words for the use of alcoholic wine at the Lord’s Supper.
It is also noteworthy that the word “wine” is used only twice in the Gospels, and both instances occur in the context of the Last Supper: the first appears in the account of the celebration of the Last Supper, as already noted, and the second in Christ’s farewell counsel to His disciples after the Supper /John 15:4–5/. In the latter example, Christ presented Himself as the true, living Vine and His disciples as branches, dependent on Him for spiritual life and fruitfulness. The sequence emphasizes that after Jesus offered His disciples the natural “fruit of the vine” as a memorial of His redeeming blood, He presented Himself as “the living vine, to encourage His disciples to abide in Him as branches abide in the vine,” so that, as participants in “the fruit of the vine,” they too might bear “much fruit” /John 15:5/. “Fruit” in both instances is a fresh, natural product, which can scarcely be identified with fermented wine.
Was the Passover wine alcoholic?
Jewish Practice. The second main argument used to defend the alcoholic nature of the wine contained in the “cup” of the Last Supper is the appeal to the prevailing Jewish custom of drinking fermented wine during Passover. Everett Tilson states: “If the Jews who were contemporaries of Jesus knew of a prohibition against drinking ordinary wine during this period, it seems strange that the Mishnah, in its six thousand words containing instructions for observing Passover, contains no hint of this matter” “/Everett Tilson/ n. 41/p. 33/.”
This argument deserves the most serious consideration, for if it were indeed true that in Christ’s time the Jews drank only fermented wine from the customary four cups during the Passover meal, it would have been possible, though not inevitable, that Jesus drank fermented wine at the Last Supper.
We should never forget that Christ’s teachings and practices were not necessarily determined by prevailing customs. Jesus often acted contrary to prevailing religious customs concerning fasting, handwashing, and carrying burdens on the Sabbath. In fact, His independent spirit was revealed in the very institution of the Lord’s Supper. He offered His disciples the symbolic cup only once instead of the customary four times, and He used only bread as a symbol of His body, leaving the roasted lamb and bitter herbs as symbols of the ritual. Thus, it should not be surprising if Christ acted contrary to prevailing custom by using unfermented grape juice, especially since He regarded leaven as a symbol of moral corruption /Matt. 16:6, 12/.
No Preference Was Given to Fermented Wine
But Jesus did not need to act contrary to prevailing custom. There is evidence that there was no unanimity among the Jews regarding the use of Passover wine. This lack of uniformity is also found among modern Jews. Louis Ginzberg /1873–1941/, a distinguished Talmudic theologian who served for nearly 40 years as head of the Department of Talmudic and Rabbinical Studies at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, conducted perhaps the most comprehensive analysis of Talmudic references concerning the use of wine in Jewish religious rites. He concluded his study with these words: “We thus prove, on the basis of the principal passages in both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, that unfermented wine may be used le-khatḥila /as a valid first choice/ for kiddush /sanctification of festivals by means of a cup of wine/ and other religious rites outside the Temple. In the
Temple, its use is approved only bediavad /after the fact/. In reality, in no sense was fermented wine given preference over unfermented wine in rites outside the Temple. Raba well summarizes the law in the following statement: ‘One may press grape juice and immediately pronounce kiddush over it’” /Louis Ginzberg, American Jewish Year Book, 1923, p. 414/.
After examining the views of two Jewish legal codes concerning the use of fermented wine in Jewish religious rites, Ginzberg again concluded: “Thus, it is evident that according to the views of the two most widely accepted Jewish legal codes, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, nowhere do they give any preference to fermented over unfermented wine. Even mitzvah min ha-muvhar /preferred commandments/ do not give preference to the use of fermented wines” /Ibid., p. 418/.
Ginsberg’s conclusion is confirmed by the Jewish Encyclopedia. In its article on Jesus, it states: “According to the Synoptic Gospels, on Thursday evening during the last week of His life, Jesus entered Jerusalem with His disciples to eat the Passover with them in the holy city; if this is so, then the unleavened bread and wine of the Mass or Communion service, which He established as a memorial, must have consisted of unfermented bread and unfermented wine. /See Bickell, ‘Mass and Passover,’ Leipzig, 1872. Jewish Encyclopedia, 1904 edition, article ‘Jesus,’ vol. 5, p. 165.”
John Kitto’s Encyclopedia of Biblical Literature also refers to the use of unfermented wine at the Passover: “The wine used must have been unfermented, but it is uncertain whether it was always freshly pressed grape juice or the ‘blood of grapes’ /Deut. 32:14/. The Mishnah states that the Jews had a custom of using boiled wine: ‘They did not boil the wine of the offering, for boiling reduces it,’ and consequently thickens it, thus requiring water to be mixed with the wine when necessary; but they added water immediately—Rabbi Judah permitted this, because water improves wine” /Terumot, ch. 10, §11. John Kitto, Encyclopedia of Biblical Literature, 1845, article ‘Passover,’ vol. 2, p. 477/.”
Rabbinical Forgeries
The evidence presented above clearly exposes the claim that only fermented wine was used during Christ’s time at the Passover. It appears that unfermented wine was also used at Passover. The references to fermented wine cited by Lees and Burns are not found in the text of the Mishnah itself—the collection of Jewish interpretations and customs compiled around A.D. 200 by Rabbi Judah—but in later annotations to the Talmud: “The Talmud was extensively annotated by Maimonides and Bartenòra, famous rabbis of the Middle Ages; and it was from their comments, not from the text of the Mishnah, that the references to the intoxicating nature of Passover wine were extracted” /Lees and Burns /n. 36/ p. 279/.”
The Mishnah expressly states that the examination concerning leaven on the Passover night extended to the cellars, where all fermented beverages made from grain products were excluded. These instructions excluded kutakh from Babylon, shekar from Media, and chametz from Idumea. Maimonides and Bartenòra, prominent Spanish rabbis of the twelfth century, argued in their commentaries on the Mishnah that the prohibition of fermented beverages applied only to liquors made from grain, not from fruit. Maimonides’ reason was that “fruit liquors do not undergo fermentation, but only oxidation” /Chametz u-Matzah 5:1–2/.
It is difficult to imagine that some rabbis could sincerely believe that fruit beverages do not ferment. One wonders whether such fanciful, imaginary arguments were fabricated to justify the consumption of alcoholic wine. If so, they served only to show that the rabbis understood well the Passover law forbidding the consumption of “anything leavened” /Exod. 13:7/ during the seven days of the feast, which included fermented wine.
Later Evidence
There is considerable evidence that among the Jews, the practice of drinking unfermented wine at Passover survived throughout the centuries. Arda Turim, a handbook of Talmudic law compiled in the thirteenth century by Rabbi Jacob ben Asher, speaks of the four Passover cups: “If necessary, he must sell what he owns in order to observe the sages’ requirement. Let him sell what he has until he obtains yayin or zimmoogim—wine or raisins” /quoted in Lees and Burns /n.36/, p. 282/. Raisins were used to make Passover wine by boiling crushed raisins in water and then filtering the juice. Rabbi Manasseh ben Israel, in his book Vindicia Judaeorum /The Claims of the Jews/, published in Amsterdam in 1656, says of Passover: “During this festival, all the preparation of sweets /matzot/ must be pure, so as not to allow any fermentation or anything else that would be ready to ferment” /ibid/.
In his book Modern Judaism, published in 1830, J. Allen wrote concerning Passover wine: “They /the Jews/ forbid drinking any alcoholic beverage made from grain or that has undergone fermentation. Their drink is either pure water or raisin wine, prepared by themselves” /John Allen, Modern Judaism, London, 1830, p. 394/.
Rabbi S. M. Isaac, a prominent nineteenth-century rabbi and editor of The Jewish Messenger, said: “During their festivals, for sacred purposes, including wedding feasts, the Jews never used any fermented beverages. In their sacrifices and drink offerings, both privately and publicly, they enjoyed fruit wine—that is, fresh grape juice, unfermented grape juice—and raisins as a symbol of blessing. For them, fermentation was always a symbol of decay” /quoted by William Patton, Biblical Wines: The Laws of Fermentation, Oklahoma City, p. 83/.
Rabbi Isaac’s statement is not entirely accurate; Jewish sources are not unanimous regarding the type of wine used during Passover. The eighth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica /1859/ explains the reason for these differing views: “Each person must drink from four to five cups of wine. Considerable debate arose over which wine should be used on this occasion—fermented or unfermented—in short, ordinary wine or pure grape juice. Those who favor unfermented products focus primarily on the expression ‘unfermented products,’ reflected in the word ‘unleavened bread.’ The rabbis interpreted the command ‘there shall be no leaven found with you’ as applying to Passover bread and wine. Accordingly, modern Jews generally use raisin wine in accordance with rabbinic prescription” /Encyclopaedia Britannica, 8th ed., 1859, article “Passover”/.
The last statement is not entirely accurate, since we have not found that all rabbis extend the law concerning the removal of leaven to wine. Two different interpretations of Moses’ law concerning the “absence of leaven” /Exodus 13:7/ reflect different religious traditions among the Jews. “Orthodox and Conservative Jews primarily use unfermented wine, while Reform, or liberal, Jews primarily use fermented wine.”
In the preface to his compilation of Talmudic statements concerning wine and strong drink, Rabbi Isidore Koplowitz, an Orthodox Jew, said: “The four cups of wine consumed at the table on Passover night, in keeping with the Passover symbols according to the ritual, were not prescribed in the Bible as part of family worship. Moses, the prophets in Israel, and the men of the Great Assembly never prescribed or commanded the drinking of wine or any other intoxicating beverage… This custom is merely a rabbinic ordinance.”
“However, the greatest rabbinical authority in Orthodox Israel today, namely the Shulchan Aruch, clearly and explicitly permitted the use of ‘boiled wine’—raisins boiled in water—for the four cups of wine at the Passover table.”
“It is permitted to recite the Kiddush /sanctification/ ordinance on Passover night over boiled wine and wine mixed with honey” /Rabbi Isidor Koplowicz/ no. 16/ p. 12/.
The ancient and modern testimonies cited above have sufficiently refuted the claim that only fermented wine was used during Christ’s time at the Passover celebration. In their practice, Jews approach this issue differently, depending on which of the two rabbinical interpretations of Moses’ ordinance concerning the removal of leaven they follow.
Our primary concern is not to determine Jewish custom, but Christ’s practice. Regarding this, as we shall see, there can be no dispute. Christ did not disregard the law concerning fermentation /Ex. 13:6–7/—He did not celebrate Passover with fermented wine, which cannot properly represent His incorruptible, life-giving blood.
Jesus Used Unfermented “Fruit of the Vine”
The preceding discussion dealt with the two main arguments advanced in favor of the fermented nature of wine. Another important argument—namely, the claim that fermented wine was used exclusively for the Lord’s Supper throughout Christian history—will be examined later in this section. At this point, I wish to present four important reasons supporting the Savior’s use of unfermented “fruit of the vine” during the Last Supper.
Obedience to the Law of Moses
Jesus used unfermented grape juice at the Last Supper because He understood and observed the Law of Moses, which required abstaining from all leavened products that produce fermentation during the Passover festival. The law prohibited the use and presence in the home of seor /Ex. 12:15/, which means leaven or any agent that produces fermentation. Leon K. Feld explains: “This literally means ‘fermenting agent’ and applies to any substance capable of producing fermentation—all yeast or decomposing protein substances—which many translate as ‘enzyme’” /Leon K. Feld/ no. 21/ p. 74/.
Everything subject to seor—leaven, which is fermented—was forbidden. It was called chametz and translated in some Bibles as “leavened bread” /King James Bible, Ex. 12:15; 13:7/. However, the word “bread” is absent from the original text, so a more accurate translation is “leaven.” For seven days, the Jews were to eat “unleavened bread” /Ex. 13:6–7/.
The Russian Bible translates very well the passages directly related to removing leaven from homes and from the foods consumed: “And this day shall be to you for a memorial; and you shall keep it as a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; you shall keep it as a feast by an ordinance forever… Seven days there shall be no leaven found in your houses; for whoever eats what is leavened, that person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a stranger or a native of the land” /Ex. 12:14, 19/. “Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a feast to the Lord. Unleavened bread shall be eaten for seven days; and no leavened bread shall be seen among you, nor shall leaven be seen among you within all your territory” /Ex. 13:6–7/.
Agreement with the Law of Moses requires the exclusion of fermented wine. The rabbis reasoned about this issue at length, and as we see, some circumvented the law by arguing that
The juice of such fruits as grapes does not ferment. There is no reason to believe that Jesus, who came to fulfill the law /Matt. 5:17, could have violated the Passover law concerning the use of leaven, especially since He recognized and affirmed the moral symbolism of fermentation when He warned His disciples: “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” /Matt. 16:6/. By “leaven,” Christ represented the corrupting nature and teachings, as the disciples later understood /Matt. 16:12/.
The apostle Paul gives “leaven” the same symbolic meaning when he warns the Corinthians: “Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” /1 Cor. 5:7–8/.
The removal of leaven during the Passover festival did not merely remind the Israelites of their hurried departure from Egypt /Deut. 16:3/, when they had no time to put leaven in their dough. This is evident from Ex. 12:8, 39, where the command to eat unleavened bread was given before their departure from Egypt, while there was still sufficient time for the dough to rise.
The main purpose of the law against using leaven lies in the symbolic meaning that Scripture assigns to leaven; as we have already seen, it represents sin and corruption. Ellen White explains this purpose of the law, saying: “Among the Jews leaven was sometimes used as a symbol of sin. During the Passover, they were directed to remove all the leaven from their houses, symbolizing the removal of sin from their hearts” /COL 95–96/. If fermentation, a symbol of corruption and insincerity, was removed during the Jewish Passover, how much more inappropriate must it be in the Christian Lord’s Supper!
The symbolic, moral meaning attributed to leaven is further emphasized by its exclusion from the grain offering /Lev. 2:11/, the sin offering /Lev. 6:17/, the offering for consecration /Ex. 29:2/, the offering at the completion of the Nazirite vow /Num. 6:15/, and the showbread /Lev. 24:5–9/. Salt, however, representing preservation from corruption, was expressly required for the sacrifices: “With all your offerings you shall offer salt” /Lev. 2:13/. If leaven was not permitted in sacrifices that symbolized the atoning blood of Christ, how could it represent His atoning blood!
Jesus understood the meaning of both the letter and the spirit of the Mosaic law regarding “leaven,” as noted in His teaching /Matt. 16:6, 12/. This gives us reason to believe that the cup He “blessed” and gave to His disciples contained nothing “leavened” that Scripture forbids. We cannot imagine our Lord disregarding a biblical command by choosing fermented wine to commemorate His sacrifice, of which all other sacrifices were only a type.
The Correspondence of the Symbol
The second reason for believing that Jesus used unfermented wine at the Last Supper is the correspondence and beauty of the symbol of blood, which fermented wine cannot properly represent. As we have already seen, Christ used leaven to represent the corrupting teachings of the Pharisees. In Scripture, leaven is regarded as a symbol of sin and corruption. Could Christ have offered His disciples a cup of fermented wine to symbolize His spotless blood, shed for the forgiveness of our sins? Can the redeeming and cleansing blood of Christ be appropriately represented by an intoxicating cup, which in Scripture is a symbol of human depravity and divine wrath?
We cannot imagine Christ bowing in prayerful thanksgiving to bless a cup containing alcoholic wine! Scripture commands us not even to look at such wine! /Prov. 23:31/. The cup that intoxicates is a cup of cursing, not the “cup of blessing” /1 Cor. 10:16/; it is the cup of demons, not the cup of the Lord /1 Cor. 10:21/.
Until a certain point, the redemptive blood of Christ was represented by the blood of bulls and goats /Heb. 9:13–14/; therefore, in the New Testament, the new symbol should be the wine of the Lord’s Supper. Christ’s blood was free from defilement and decay. There was not even a stain of sin in His veins. “He whom God raised from the dead saw no corruption” /Acts 13:37/—whether in life or in death. To symbolize the purity of His blood, shed for the forgiveness of sins, Jesus took the cup and, regarding its contents, declared: “This is My blood” /Matt. 26:28/. The contents of this cup could hardly have been fermented wine, for the latter could not properly symbolize the incorruptible and “precious blood of Christ” /1 Pet. 1:18, 19/.
Fermented wine is an appropriate symbol of decay and death, for fermentation destroys the most nutritious elements found in grape juice. On the other hand, unfermented grape juice, with its pure and nourishing properties, is an appropriate symbol of the blessings of salvation and immortal life granted to us through the blood of Christ. Scripture says that His blood “cleanses our conscience from dead works” /Heb. 9:14/, while fermented wine weakens our moral faculties and awakens our lower passions, thereby defiling our conscience. How can such a product properly represent the cleansing power of Christ’s redemptive blood? It hardly can. It is more suitable for representing moral disease and guilt than forgiveness and cleansing.
The value of a symbol is determined by its ability to help us understand and experience the spiritual reality it represents. Grape juice untouched by fermentation supplies life-giving nutrients to our bodies; thus, it enables us to understand and experience the assurance of salvation represented by Christ’s blood. Ellen White accordingly emphasizes: “Christ was at the table where the paschal meal had been spread. Before Him lay the unleavened bread, and the unfermented paschal wine stood on the table. Christ used these symbols to represent His own spotless sacrifice, since everything subjected to fermentation was a symbol of sin and death and could not represent” the spotless and pure Lamb” /1 Pet. 1:19; DA, p. 653/.
The Linguistic Form of the Statement at the Last Supper
The third reason for believing that Jesus used unfermented wine during the Last Supper is emphasized by the linguistic form in which its institution is recorded. In the Synoptic Gospels, these words are preserved with remarkable uniformity and in almost the same form in Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians. We will briefly consider three phrases in this account.
After blessing and breaking the bread, Jesus “took the cup” /Matt. 26:27; Mark 14:23; compare Luke 22:17; 1 Cor. 11:25/. Most authorities emphasize that this refers to the third of the four cups of the Passover meal, called the “cup of blessing” /Kos ha-Berachah/. This cup, through which the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper was instituted, retains its designation as the “cup of blessing” /1 Cor. 10:16/. Evidently, this name derives from the blessing Christ pronounced over its contents. Such a blessing could never be pronounced over intoxicating wine, which is clearly not approved in Scripture. As mentioned above, we cannot imagine Christ bowed in prayer to bless a cup containing intoxicating wine. The assumption is blasphemous. Such a cup would be more likely to be a cup of cursing than a cup of blessing, a “cup of demons” rather than “the cup of the Lord” /1 Cor. 10:21/.
After blessing the cup, Jesus gave it to His disciples and said: “Drink from it, all of you” /Matt. 26:27; cf. Mark 14:23; Luke 22:17/. Christ’s invitation to drink the memorial cup representing His blood extends to everyone without exception. There is no reason to refuse anyone the cup if it contains unfermented, nourishing grape juice. But if it contains fermented, intoxicating wine, many of Christ’s faithful followers cannot and should not partake of it.
The cup Christ offered His disciples contained not a small sip of wine, as modern communion cups do, but about three-quarters of an English pint /0.426 liters/ of wine. According to the Talmud, each person prepared four cups of wine during Passover, though an additional cup was also permitted. Each cup, as Dr. B. Lightfoot says, was to contain “not less than one-fourth of a quarter of a hin, besides the water mixed with the wine” /J. B. Lightfoot, “The Temple Service,” London, 1833, p. 151/. A hin contains 12 English pints, so four cups would contain up to three-quarters of a pint each /that is, 0.426 liters in each cup/.
Three pints of alcoholic wine would be enough to make anyone, except a heavy drinker, extremely drunk. This evidently indicates what could happen to some who drank alcoholic wine during Passover. One example is its effect on Rabbi Judah. He drank wine “only on occasions when religious rites were performed, such as Passover /four cups/. The Passover wine affected him so seriously that he kept his head bandaged until the next festival day, Pentecost” /Jewish Encyclopedia, 1904 edition, article “Wine,” vol. 12, p. 534/.
Imagine Christ approving such a harmful effect of consuming a huge quantity of wine on His disciples; this would amount to destroying the moral purity of His character. Believers who truly accept Christ as their sinless Savior will instinctively recoil from such a thought.
Christ commanded “all” His followers to drink from the cup. If the cup’s contents had been alcoholic wine, not all Christians could have drunk from it. There are people for whom alcohol in any form is extremely harmful. Young men seated at the Lord’s table certainly should not touch wine. Finally, there are those for whom even the taste or smell of alcohol awakens a dormant, hidden, or conquered craving for it. Could Christ, who taught us to pray, “and lead us not into temptation,” turn His Passover memorial table into a place of irresistible temptation for some and danger for all?
This may be why the Catholic Church decided to remove the cup from the laity, restricting it to church ministers. Protestants strongly objected to this practice and restored this visible symbol for participation by ordinary members, from whom it had been withheld for several centuries. However, for safety, they limited the amount of wine. The amount of wine in the tiny cups is so small that they merely touch it. Wine at the Lord’s Supper should never be consumed freely and festively—as long as alcoholic and intoxicating wine is used.
Another significant element in the language of the Last Supper is the phrase “fruit of the vine.” Jesus used it to describe the contents of the cup. Earlier, we noted that this designation is best applied to natural, unfermented juice. Fermented wine is not the natural “fruit” of the vine, but the result of destructive forces. Thus, the specific designation used by Christ
—“fruit of the vine”—supports the idea that the wine used during the Last Supper was unfermented.
A Practice That Has Survived the Ages
The fourth reason to believe that Jesus used unfermented wine during the Last Supper is the continued practice among certain Christian groups or churches. A significant example is the apocryphal work “The Acts and Martyrdom of the Apostle Matthew,” which was in circulation in the third century. A heavenly voice instructed the local bishop Plato, saying: “Read the Gospel and bring holy bread as an offering; and squeeze three clusters of grapes directly into the cup; partake with me, as the Lord Jesus showed us how to do this when He rose from the dead on the third day” (“The Acts and Martyrdom of Saint Matthew the Apostle,” Ante-Nicene Fathers, translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Grand Rapids, 1978, vol. 8, pp. 532–533). This is clear evidence of the use of freshly pressed grape juice in celebrating the Lord’s Supper.
Another important testimony is the view expressed by Irenaeus (A.D. 130–200), bishop of Lyons, that the communion bread and wine are the firstfruits offered to God: “Instructing His disciples to offer the firstfruits of His creation to God… He (Christ) took bread, which is part of His creation, gave thanks, and said: ‘This is My body.’ In the same way, He took the cup, which is part of that creation to which we belong, and declared: ‘This is My blood’” (Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” 4.17.5).
The concept of “firstfruits” applies not only to bread and wine, but also to actual clusters of grapes and grain offered on the altar. In his classic study “The Antiquities of the Christian Church,” Joseph Bingham explains that certain canons of the African Church prescribed that “no other fruits were to be permitted on the altar, but only clusters of grapes and grain, as the source of the material for the bread and wine used in communion” (Joseph Bingham, “The Antiquities of the Christian Church,” London, 1852, vol. 2, p. 755). In some places, the custom developed of distributing natural clusters of grapes and grain together with the bread and wine. To correct this innovation, the Council in Trullo (A.D. 694) desired that people should partake of their firstfruits in church” (Ibid.). Identifying the communion bread and wine with the firstfruits, and dedicating grapes and grain products as firstfruits distributed to the people together with the bread and wine, highlights how the latter was understood as a natural, unfermented product of the earth.
The practice of squeezing juice from stored clusters of grapes directly into the communion cup is attested by the Third Council of Braga (A.D. 675), which noted that Cyprian (died A.D. 258) had condemned those who “used no other wine except that pressed from clusters of grapes that had then been presented on the Lord’s table” (Ibid., p. 760). This practice demonstrates the interest of certain Christians who desired to obey Christ’s words by offering genuine “bread and wine” made from freshly dried clusters of grapes—presented and pressed on the Lord’s table.
Cyprian’s principal condemnation was not of the use of freshly pressed wine (expressum vinum), but of the failure to mix it with water. Evidently, the practice of mixing wine with water arose, as Leon C. Field indicates, “not because alcoholic wines needed dilution, but because boiled wines and thick juices from pressed clusters of grapes needed to be thinned” (Leon C. Field, “Oinos: A Discussion of Questions Relating to Biblical Wine,” New York, 1883, p. 91). This instruction had already been given three centuries earlier by Pope Julius I (A.D. 337) in a decree stating: “But if it is necessary to press grape juice into the cup, it must be mixed with water” (quoted by Leon C. Field, n. 21, p. 91).
Thomas Aquinas /1225–1274 AD/ quotes and supports the decree of Julius, for “must already has the character of wine /speciem vinum/… therefore this sacrament can be made from must” /Thomas Aquinas, “Summa Theologica,” New York, 1947, vol. 2, part 3, question 74, article 5, p. 2443/. The same view is expressed by other Western theologians, such as Jacobus a Vitriaco, Dionysius Bonzalibi, and Johannes Beletus. /These and other authors are cited by Leon C. Field /n. 21/, pp. 91–93/. The latter speaks of a custom “well known in some places” of celebrating the Lord’s Supper, especially on the day of the Transfiguration, August 6, with new wine or freshly pressed grape juice: “Let us observe that on this very day the blood of Christ flows from new wine, if it can be found, or from ripe clusters of grapes pressed into the cup” /cited by Leon C. Field /n. 21/, p. 92/.
The use of unfermented wine is well documented, especially among the Eastern churches. Leon C. Field, G. W. Samson, Frederick Lees, and Dawson Burns provided valuable information in their respective studies of churches such as the Abyssinian Church, the Nestorian Church of Western Asia, the Christians of Saint Thomas in India, Coptic monasteries in Egypt, and the Christians of Saint John in Persia—all of them celebrated the Lord’s Supper with unfermented wine made from fresh or dried grapes. /Leon C. Field/ n. 21, pp. 91–94/. G. W. Samson, “The Divine Law in Regard to Wines,” New York, 1880, pp. 205–217; Lees Burns /n. 36/, pp. 280–282/. The reader may consult these authors for documentation and information concerning these Eastern churches.
Our examination of several aspects of sacramental wine—such as Jewish Passover wine, the linguistic form of the saying at the Last Supper, the Passover law concerning “leaven,” the correspondence between symbol and practice, and the practice that has survived through the centuries—namely, the use of unfermented grape juice during the Lord’s Supper—all shows that our Lord used and commanded the use of unfermented, nourishing grape juice to continually remind us of His blood shed for the forgiveness of our sins.
CONCLUSION:
We have examined at considerable length the principal narratives concerning wine, or sayings of Jesus, that are commonly used to prove that our Savior made, recommended, used, and commanded the use of alcoholic wine until the end of time. We found that these claims rest on unfounded assumptions, lacking textual, contextual, and historical support.
The “good wine” made by Jesus in Cana was “good” not because of its high alcohol content, but because it was fresh, unfermented grape juice. The “new wine” that Jesus recommended through the parable of the new wineskins was unfermented must, whether boiled or filtered, because even new wineskins could not withstand the pressure of gas produced by the fermentation of new wine. Jesus’ own statement that He “eats and drinks” does not imply that He consumed alcoholic wine, but that He freely associated with the people, sitting at table with them and sharing other situations. The “fruit of the vine” that Christ commanded to be used in remembrance of His redeeming blood was not fermented wine, which in Scripture represents human depravity and divine wrath; rather, unfermented, pure grape juice is the appropriate symbol of the spotless blood shed for the forgiveness of our sins.
The claim that Christ consumed and approved the use of alcoholic beverages proved untenable. The evidence presented for consideration showed that Jesus abstained from all intoxicating substances and did not encourage His followers to use them.
Section VI: Wine in the Apostolic Church
Introduction
The teaching and practice of the apostolic Church are of fundamental importance, for as the mother church of Christianity, it serves as a model for Christian churches and Christians in general. The Reformation movements of the sixteenth century, for example, aimed to reform the Church in order to regain what had existed in the teaching and practice of the apostolic Church.
The apostolic Church placed great emphasis on teaching concerning the use of alcoholic beverages. The way the apostles understood, preached, and put into practice the teachings of Jesus and the Old Testament regarding alcoholic beverages not only provides a basis for far-reaching conclusions but also clarifies whether we modern Christians should support moderate alcohol consumption or abstinence.
Our purpose and approach. In this section, we will examine apostolic teaching regarding the use of wine in particular and intoxicating substances in general. There are only 13 specific references to “wine” /oinos/ outside the four Gospels, eight of which
occur in Revelation, where the word “wine” is used primarily symbolically to represent either human depravity or divine judgment. This calculation shows that we have only five texts /Rom. 14:21; Eph. 5:18; 1 Tim. 3:8; 1 Tim. 5:23; Titus 2:13/ with which to determine the position of the apostolic Church regarding alcoholic beverages.
However, in reality, the New Testament provides considerably more information on this subject through more than 20 passages urging Christians to be “sober” or “temperate.” As we will see, these exhortations in most cases directly concern the use of alcoholic beverages. Thus, our understanding of New Testament teaching regarding the use of such beverages must be based both on specific texts that speak directly about wine and on texts offering general exhortations concerning sobriety and abstinence.
This section consists of four chapters, three of which concern texts that speak directly about wine, while one chapter discusses the exhortation to sobriety and abstinence. The outline of this section is as follows:
Chapter 14: Acts 2:13. “They have had too much sweet wine”
The importance of this text. The apostles had scarcely begun their messianic proclamation when they were accused of drunkenness. On the day of Pentecost, the first community of believers received the gift of tongues, enabling them to preach the Gospel in the languages of the nations gathered in Jerusalem for the feast. While thousands believed in Christ as a result of this miracle, others mocked the disciples, saying: “They have had too much sweet wine” /Acts 2:13/.
Some interpret this text as emphasizing the practice of drinking alcoholic wine in the earliest apostolic community. This interpretation rests on three main assumptions.
The mockers could not have accused the Christians of being drunk if they had not seen some Christians drinking on previous occasions. /See Stephen M. Reynolds’s discussion, “Alcohol and the Bible,” Little Rock, Arkansas, 1983, p. 52/.
2. “New wine” /gleukos/ was “sweet wine,” alcoholic by nature, which caused intoxication when large quantities were consumed. /See, for example, the Greek dictionaries of E. Robinson and Dean Alford, under “gleukos”/.
3. Third, Peter denied the accusation in his reply, saying: “How can we be drinking when we are non-drinkers—abstainers?” But he pointed to the early hour of the morning: “These people are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning” /Acts 2:15/.
An Unacceptable Interpretation. This interpretation is unacceptable for three main reasons. It assumes that the mockers’ accusation was based on an actual observation of Christians drinking. This is an unfounded assumption, since the mockers did not necessarily base their slander on an actual observation. If they did observe anything, what they may have seen was that the Christians were under the influence of the Holy Spirit rather than alcoholic spirits. What they saw may have misled them. The Jewish philosopher Philo, who lived at that time, tells us that the most sober individuals—“abstainers”—when under the influence of divine inspiration, appeared to others to be intoxicated. /Philo, “On Drunkenness,” 36/.
This, however, hardly seems acceptable here, for if the mockers really wanted to accuse the disciples of drunkenness, they would have accused them of being drunk with “wine” /oinos/, not “grape juice” /gleukos/. The term “gleukos” was used to denote unfermented grape juice. For example, Pliny clearly explains that the Greek name “aigleukos” is our unchanging must. He then goes on to describe how to prevent it from fermenting.
The Meaning of the Word “Gleukos”
Several Greek dictionaries and scholars acknowledge that gleukos exclusively means unfermented grape juice. /See, for example, Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, 1968, entry “Gleukos”/. Horace Bumstead, the author of one of the most scholarly defenses of moderate alcohol consumption, also offers the following clear and decisive explanation: “Gleukos is the classical Greek word corresponding to the Latin mustum; it means freshly pressed grape juice and therefore has a less extensive meaning than /the Hebrew/ tirosh or asis. It occurs only once /Acts 2:13/, and I see no need to attempt to prove its intoxicating effect, as some do, including Robinson… It seems to me that Alfred and others who try to prove that gleukos, as sweet wine, is intoxicating, have lost sight of the classical distinction already mentioned between gleukos—equivalent to the Latin mustum, that is, sweet because unfermented juice—and oinos glukus, sweet wine, so called because, although fermented, it contains an abundance of sugar” /Horace Bumstead, “The Biblical Sanction of Wine,” Bibliotheca Sacra 38, January 1881, p. 81/.
Earlier, in his lengthy article /page 71/, published in Bibliotheca Sacra, Bumstead explains more fully that “in the Greek language, the product pressed from grapes may be sweet in three different senses: first, as gleukos /corresponding to the Latin mustum, when it is sweet because of insufficient wine fermentation; second, as oinos glukus, when it is fermented but sweet because of the presence of a significant amount of unconverted sugar; and third, as oinos hedus, when it is sweet because of the absence of acid fermentation” /ibid., 62/. This means that when gleukos occurs without any additions—by itself, as noted in Acts 2:13—it refers exclusively to unfermented grape juice.
An Ironic Accusation
In view of the meaning of gleukos as non-intoxicating grape juice, the irony of the accusation is quite evident. What the mockers meant was: “These people, too temperate to touch anything fermented, have become drunk on grape juice.” Or, as Ernest Gordon paraphrased it in modern language: “These advocates of prohibition have become drunk on a weak drink” /Ernest Gordon, “Christ, the Apostles and Wine,” 1947, Philadelphia, p. 70/. Boomstead perceptively asks: “If this was not the basis of the mockery, how could they have used gleukos instead of the ordinary oinos?” /Horace Bumstead /n. 7/, p. 81/. The inadequacy of the reason is evident, for grape juice, in order to produce the effect—that is, intoxication—must be supplemented by a mocking joke. It is hardly possible to overlook the implication in the accusation that the apostles drank grape juice /their usual beverage/ as indirect yet important evidence of their temperate lifestyle and, consequently, the temperate lifestyle of their Teacher.
Historical Confirmation
In his sermons, Peter, who served as the preacher of the Jerusalem Church in the first 12 chapters of Acts, alludes, as we will see later in this section, to the practice of abstinence in the apostolic Church. Later historical confirmation of this practice is found in the testimony of Hegesippus, a church historian who, Eusebius tells us, lived immediately after the apostles /Eusebius, “Ecclesiastical History” 2.23.4/. Describing the person of “James, the brother of the Lord, who inherited the governance of the Church together with the apostles,” Hegesippus says: “He was holy from his mother’s womb; he drank neither wine nor strong drink and ate no meat” /quoted by Eusebius in “Ecclesiastical History,” 2.23.4 /n. 11/, p. 125/. We may suppose that James’s strict temperate lifestyle, as the chief minister of the Jerusalem Church at one time, served as an example for Christians of the apostolic age to follow.
A study of early Christian sources concerning the lifestyle of such Jewish-Christian sects as the Ebionites, Nazarenes, Elkesaites, and Encratites may provide substantial support for abstinence from fermented wine in the apostolic Church. /See G. W. Samson, “The Divine Law as to Wines,” New York, 1880, pp. 197–210/. The fact that some of these sects went to extremes, completely rejecting both fermented and unfermented wine and using only water even in celebrating the Lord’s Supper, underscores the existence of a prevailing interest in abstinence in the apostolic
Church. This attitude evidently involved fanatical forms among certain religious groups. I intend to pursue this study further, if time permits, and publish it as an additional section in a future edition of this book. The limited time available does not allow me to undertake this study now.
Peter’s Answer
The assumption that Peter’s answer to the accusation of drunkenness implies that the apostles drank some kind of fermented wine, because he did not categorically deny the accusation, is eliminated by two main considerations. Peter used an argument best suited to the character of the mockers. If he had said, “How can we be drinking when we have never drunk?” the mockers would have replied, “Except when no one saw you!” Appealing to their temperate lifestyle might have been useless, since it had already been challenged. Thus, Peter met them on social ground, challenging the plausibility of their assumption. In fact, he replied: “How can your assumption be correct when it is now nine o’clock in the morning?” This response corresponded to reality and exposed the mockers’ argument as untenable.
The second reason why Peter could not categorically deny that they had been drinking at all is underscored by the word gleukos used by the mockers. As we have already noted, this word means unfermented grape juice, which Christians, with the exception of Nazirites, generally drank. To deny that Christians drank at all would mean denying that they drank gleukos, or “grape juice,” but that would not be true.
Conclusion
Summarizing all the statements regarding Acts 2:13, there is indirect evidence here that the apostles abstained from alcoholic beverages. Ernest Gordon said: “There is no reference to unfermented wine as the source of drunkenness and strange subsequent behavior, if there were not also a general understanding that the apostles did not use intoxicating wine” (Ernest Gordon, n. 9, p. 20). Quoted in Charles Wesley Ewing’s “The Bible and Its Wines” (Denver, 1985, p. 107).
Chapter 15: 1 Corinthians 11:21. “One remains hungry, while another gets drunk”
The significance of this text. Advocates of moderate alcohol consumption see the Apostle Paul’s reference (“one is drunk”) at communion in the Christian Church as irrefutable proof that alcoholic wine was used in the apostolic Church, both privately in the home and publicly at the Lord’s Supper. Paul’s statement reads as follows: “When you come together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper; for in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk” (1 Cor. 11:20–21).
The argument of advocates of moderate alcohol consumption was that the problem of drunkenness in Corinth can be explained only by their use of alcoholic wine. Someone stated: “How could the Corinthians get drunk during communion if the wine was not fermented?” (Ibid.). Furthermore, it is “significant to note that even in light of their drunkenness Paul did not command them to ‘stop drinking alcohol’” (Kenneth L. Gentry, “The Christian and Alcoholic Beverages,” Grand Rapids, 1986, p. 56). The argument is clear. Paul condemned excessive drinking in Corinth, but not alcoholic wine. We will examine this claim by considering three significant facts:
The nature of the feast.
The meaning of the verb metuo.
The relevance of Paul’s exhortation.
THE NATURE OF THE FEAST
The selfish love feast. To understand the problems that occurred in Corinth in connection with the Lord’s Supper, we need to understand the social customs of the time. It was customary for groups of people belonging to secular or religious organizations to meet together for a shared meal. In Corinth, there was a special type of fellowship called an eranos, in which each participant brought food to share in a common meal. The early Church approved this custom and developed it into a form of fellowship known as agape, or the love feast. All the church members brought to the feast whatever they could, and then, when all the food had been gathered together, everyone sat down at a common table. It was a pleasant way to eat one’s fill while enjoying genuine Christian fellowship. Many churches practice something similar today when they share a meal after a church service.
In the Corinthian church, as we will see later, the love feast was held together with the Lord’s Supper. However, it degenerated into a selfish feast. The practice of sharing equally with everyone was lost. The rich did not share their food with the poor but ate it in their own small, closed groups. As a result, some were hungry while others were full. Class distinctions, which should have been abolished at the communion table, were instead emphasized. Good order and propriety were neglected, and the solemnity of the service was lost.
Paul decisively and uncompromisingly exposed this state of affairs, first reminding the Corinthians of the purpose of their gathering together—namely, to partake of the Lord’s Supper: “When you come together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper; for in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others, and one is hungry while another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the Church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? I do not praise you. For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you.” /1 Cor. 11:20–23/.
A Private Supper or the Lord’s Supper?
Paul’s rebuke emphasizes that the Christians in Corinth had foolishly mixed the Lord’s Supper with a communal meal; perhaps they had even turned the Lord’s Supper into a public festival similar to those celebrated among the Greeks. The latter interpretation seems more likely, since the text of Scripture does not emphasize that a communal meal preceded the actual Lord’s Supper.
Paul’s statement, “When you come together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper” /1 Cor. 11:20/, clearly emphasizes that the purpose of the gathering was to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, which, however, had been turned into an ordinary festival, probably modeled on feasts held in honor of idols. This leads us to the following conclusion: everything that was taking place in Corinth was wrong and inappropriate. The Christians had completely misunderstood the nature of the sacred observance of the Lord’s Supper, turning it into a secular festival in which even intemperance prevailed.
Many assume that the communal meal in Corinth had its roots in the Last Supper, which Christ instituted after eating the Passover with His disciples. But it must be noted that the Passover was never regarded by Christians as an appropriate preparatory practice—a fellowship meal followed by the Lord’s Supper. Neither the Epistle to the Corinthians nor any other place in the New Testament provides evidence that the Lord’s Supper was celebrated with a communal meal. This means that everything taking place in Corinth was wrong, inappropriate, and contrary to the specific instruction that Paul “received from the Lord” and “delivered to the Church” /1 Cor. 11:23/.
In light of this fact, any mention of “drunkenness” occurring during communion in the Corinthian Church can hardly serve as evidence that alcoholic beverages were consumed in the apostolic Church. Local distortions can hardly be regarded as indicators of universal Christian practice. Moreover, if the Corinthians had deviated from the instructions “delivered” to them, then their wrong behavior is more a warning than an example for us.
THE MEANING OF THE VERB METUO
It is generally assumed that alcohol was consumed during communion in the Corinthian Church. But is this really so? Those who believe this base their conclusion on the usual translation of the verb metuo, namely, “to get drunk.” The entire phrase reads as follows: “So that one is hungry while another is drunk” /1 Cor. 11:21/. Based on this translation, many reason that if intoxicating wine was consumed by the Corinthians without apostolic rebuke, then Christians may consume it today as well.
The fundamental error in this reasoning is that it assumes metuo means “to get drunk.” But our study of its use in John 2:11 shows that the verb metuo does not always mean intoxication and drunkenness. Its precise meaning is determined by the context. In this case, metuei is used in direct contrast to peina—“hungry”—and its meaning should therefore be understood in the broad, general sense of “satisfied” or “filled,” rather than in the narrow sense of “drinking to excess.” Leon C. Field expresses this fact clearly and convincingly: “Methuei in this case is plainly contrasted with peina, which is correctly translated ‘hungry.’ The antithesis therefore requires that the former verb be understood in the broad, general sense of ‘satisfied,’ and not in the narrow sense of ‘drink to excess.’ A person who is full is compared with one who is not sufficiently filled; one who is satisfied with one who is hungry. This interpretation is approved by a large number of commentators—ancient and modern” /Leon C. Field, “Oinos: A Discussion of Biblical Wine,” New York, 1883, p. 60/.
Support from Theologians
Among the commentators cited by Field are John Chrysostom, Bengel, Grotius, Wycliffe, Quenelle, Billroth, McKnight, Newcome, Bloomfield, Clarke, Lightfoot, Dean Stanley, and Whedon. /Ibid., p. 60, note 1/. Another who may be mentioned is Clement of Alexandria, who lived only a century and a half after Paul. In his book “The Instructor” /Book 2, 1/, Clement, as A. W. Samson points out, draws attention to the contrasting statement concerning the use of intoxicating wine. He emphasizes that it refers to food rather than wine at the feast, as the apostle Paul mentions, and that he rebukes them for “being filled to excess” /G. W. Samson, n. 13/, p. 201/.
Adam Clarke makes the same observation in his commentary on this passage: “People gather together, bringing food with them; some bring much, others less; some eat until they are full, while others have barely enough to satisfy their needs. One is hungry, while another takes in more and more until full—he is satisfied; this is the meaning of the word in many places in Holy Scripture” /Adam Clarke, “The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” New York, 1938, vol. 2, p. 254/.
The Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, provides many examples in which metuo is used in the broad, general sense of “being filled to fullness.” One such example is Psalm 23:5: “My cup overflows.” Another example is Psalm 65:10: “You enrich it abundantly” /Metguson/. One more example is Jeremiah 31:14: “I will nourish the priests’ souls with abundance” /metchuzo/—“satisfy them.” Examples such as these clearly show that metuo is often used in Holy Scripture in the broad, general sense of expressing complete satisfaction and fullness.
What Is Meant by the Apostle Paul’s Exhortation?
There is no hint of drunkenness. The apostle Paul’s rebuke and exhortation emphasize that drunkenness was not a problem at communion in the Corinthian Church. Here are his words of rebuke: “Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink?” /1 Cor. 11:22/. If drunkenness had been the problem, Paul could presumably have said, “Do you not have houses in which to eat and get drunk?” The fact that Paul makes no reference to drunkenness in his rebuke emphasizes that the problem in Corinth was not intoxication from alcoholic wine, but rather excessive indulgence in food and drink.
If the Corinthian Christians had truly been guilty of the terrible sin of drunkenness while celebrating the Lord’s Supper, Paul could have condemned their blasphemous behavior in stronger terms. In the previous chapter, Paul did not hesitate to call the participation of some Corinthians in pagan religious meals “communion with demons” /1 Cor. 10:20/. He then added: “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and the table of demons” /1 Cor. 10:21/. Earlier in this epistle, the apostle Paul categorically stated that “drunkards… will not inherit the Kingdom of God” and warned the members “not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother but remains… a drunkard” /1 Cor. 6:10; 5:11/. In light of this admonition, it is frightening to suppose that if some had been getting drunk at the Communion table, Paul might have ordered them removed from among the believers.
What should we understand by this admonition?
Paul does not use strong language in condemning the abuses that occurred during the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. He simply warns the Corinthians to satisfy their hunger at home, so as to avoid both improper behavior and the condemnation that had clearly manifested itself among them: “Therefore, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you may not come together for condemnation” /1 Cor. 11:33–34/. This warning emphasizes that the problem in Corinth was more likely overeating than drunkenness from alcoholic wine. If the members of the Corinthian Church had been getting drunk at the Communion table, Paul could hardly have said earlier in his epistle that some of them had formerly been drunkards, “but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” /1 Cor. 6:11/.
Conclusion
In light of the considerations above, let us conclude that the apostle Paul’s reference to “getting drunk” during Communion in the Corinthian Church provides no support for the moderate use of alcoholic wine, whether privately at home or publicly during the Lord’s Supper. First, everything that occurred in Corinth was a deviation from the instructions Paul had “delivered” to the church and, therefore, their actions serve as a warning rather than an example for us. Second, as we have already established, the problem at the Communion table was not drunkenness from alcoholic wine, but overeating.
Chapter 16: Eph. 5:18. “Do not get drunk on wine”
The meaning of the text. After warning the Ephesians to abstain from immorality and impurity, Paul specifies his admonition, saying: “And do not get drunk with wine, which leads to debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit” /Eph. 5:18/. Advocates of moderate alcohol consumption see in this text clear biblical approval of the moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages. They argue that the apostle Paul condemned improper use here, not the moderate use of alcoholic wine: “Condemnation of the improper use of alcoholic beverages” /Mark Bart, “Ephesians, Translation and Commentary, Chapters 4–6,” New York, 1974, p. 581/.
If Paul had intended to completely prohibit the consumption of alcoholic wine, he would have had to say, as Kenneth Gentry puts it: “Do not drink wine at all.” Instead, he said: “And do not get drunk with wine” /Eph. 5:18; Kenneth Gentry, n. 16, p. 47/. The following phrase, “which leads to debauchery,” is interpreted similarly as referring to the state of drunkenness, rather than to wine as an active principle of debauchery. Horace Bumstead, for example, maintains that “to connect en ho /in which/ with oinos /wine/, as some do, rather than joining it with methuskethe oino /get drunk with wine/—is incompatible with such a strong word as methuskethe /get drunk/” /Horace Bumstead, n. 7, p. 88/.
We will examine the claims presented above through five main responses:
The structure of this passage of Scripture.
The relative clause.
Ancient and modern translations. The meaning of the word asōtia.
Rabbinical Testimonies.
The Structure of This Passage of Scripture
Two Controlling Statements. This passage consists of two main statements placed in contrast to each other: “Do not get drunk with wine,” but “be filled with the Spirit.” The contrast emphasizes that it is not between moderate and excessive alcohol consumption, but between the fullness of wine and the fullness of the Spirit. The two statements point to the inherent incompatibility in the nature and effect of the sources of such fullness—namely, intoxicating wine and the Holy Spirit. The fact that intoxicating wine and the Holy Spirit mutually exclude each other, since no one can be half-filled with both, is what rules out approval of moderate consumption of intoxicating wine.
This point becomes even clearer when the preceding text is quoted: “Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is” /Eph. 5:17/. In other words, we are to be filled not with intoxicating spirits, but with the Holy Spirit. Thus, the structure of this passage emphasizes that Paul does not recommend safe and moderate wine consumption, but being completely filled with the Holy Spirit. It is hardly compatible for a person “filled with the Holy Spirit” to passionately desire intoxicating wine.
Two Similar Passages
Many commentators, not being teetotalers themselves, illustrate this text by referring to two similar passages. The first is found in Luke 1:15, where the angel tells Zechariah concerning John the Baptist: “For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb” /Luke 1:15/. The second passage is from the account of Pentecost and consists of two verses: “They are not drunk” … “they were all filled with the Holy Spirit” /Acts 2:15, 4/.
In both passages, being filled with the Holy Spirit is connected with abstaining from intoxicating drinks. The striking similarity between these two passages and Eph. 5:18 emphasizes that in the latter passage as well, being filled with the Holy Spirit excludes the consumption of alcoholic beverages. In his commentary on Luke 1:15, Hermann Olshausen appropriately noted: “A person feels the need for strengthening through spiritual influence from without; but instead of seeking this in the Holy Spirit, in his blindness he turns for help to the carnal spirit—to wine and strong drink. Therefore, according to the standpoint of the law, the Old Testament recommends abstinence from wine and strong drink in order to keep the soul free from all merely carnal influences and thus make it even more receptive to the work of the Holy Spirit” /Hermann Olshausen, “Biblical Commentary on the New Testament,” New York, 1860, vol. 5, p. 131/.
“He Shall Drink No Wine”
The contrast between wine and the Holy Spirit presented in Luke 1:15 and Acts 2:15, 4 may have been borrowed by Paul to express a similar truth in Eph. 5:18. This may explain why Paul wrote, “Do not get drunk with wine,” rather than “do not drink wine at all.” Like Luke, he wanted to emphasize the contrast between the fullness of wine and the fullness of the Spirit.
Another reason Paul did not write “do not drink wine at all” is highlighted in 1 Tim. 5:23, where he recommends using “a little wine” for medical purposes: “for your stomach’s sake and your frequent ailments.” This text will be examined in Section VII. Paul believed—and this is a fact—that the lawful, though limited, use of “wine” should logically prevent him from categorically prohibiting the use of wine in any form. We must also remember that the generic term oinos /“wine”/, as we established in Section II, can refer to either fermented or unfermented grape juice. If Paul had said “do not drink wine” at all, without specifying its quality, he could have excluded even the use of wholesome, nutritious grape juice.
RELATIVE CLAUSE
The Antecedent of the Relative Pronoun. Paul’s warning, “Do not get drunk with wine,” is accompanied by the exhortation, “in which is debauchery.” Here we must consider the question: “What is debauchery?” Is wine the cause of debauchery or drunkenness, or is drunkenness itself the condition of debauchery? The answer depends on which of these two factors we assign the pronoun “in which” /en ho/. A literal translation of the Greek text reads: “And do not get drunk with wine, in which /en ho/ is debauchery /asotia—literally, lack of morality/.” The construction of this sentence, as Leon Feld points out, “is expressively clear in its assumption that the use of wine is permitted in all other places in the New Testament, rather than being based on any exegetical necessity in the text itself” /Leon C. Feld, n. 17, p. 118/.
From a grammatical standpoint, the antecedent of the words “in which” may be either the preceding word “wine” or the drunkenness mentioned in the preceding clause. This view is accepted by such commentators as R. C. H. Lenski, Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, and Philippians, Columbus, Ohio, 1959, p. 618. Robert Young, author of Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, renders the antecedent relative pronoun “in which” precisely in his Bible translation: “And be not drunk with wine, in which is debauchery, but be filled in the Spirit” /Robert Young, The Holy Bible, Consisting of the Old and New Testaments, Edinburgh, 1911/.
Preference for “Wine”
Historically, many translators and commentators have regarded “wine,” rather than the state of drunkenness, as the antecedent of “in which.” The reason is emphasized by the position of oinos (“wine”), which in Greek immediately follows the verb “get drunk” and precedes the relative pronoun “in which.” Although the immediate placement of “wine” between the verb and the antecedent relative pronoun is not absolutely conclusive, this position strongly suggests that the warning contained in the relative pronoun concerns wine as the active cause of debauchery, rather than drunkenness as the condition of debauchery.
Support for this view is also provided by the fact that the words “do not get drunk with wine” are quoted from Proverbs 23:31 /Septuagint, according to Codex A/. This is stated in The Explanatory Bible commentary. /The Explanatory Bible, New York, 1970, vol. 11, p. 714/. If Paul quoted Proverbs 23:31 from the Septuagint—the Greek translation of the Old Testament—then we have reason to believe that Paul warns against wine as such, since the text in Proverbs condemns the use of intoxicating wine: “Do not look at wine when it is red,” rather than merely condemning its abuse.
Ancient Translations
This understanding of Ephesians 5:18 as condemning intoxicating wine is supported by many ancient and modern translations. Tertullian /A.D. 160–225/, who is considered the father of Latin Christianity, translates this passage as follows: “And do not become intoxicated with wine, in which is debauchery” /Tertullian, “On Modesty,” 17/. In addition to his translation, Tertullian reveals his understanding of the text in his treatise Against Marcion, where he says: “Do not get drunk with wine, in which there is intemperance”—a command emphasized by the prophet when those who led the Nazarites into drunkenness were rebuked: “But you gave the Nazarites wine to drink” /Amos 2:12/. This prohibition was also given to the high priest Aaron and his sons” /Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.18/.
About two centuries after Tertullian, Jerome translated Ephesians 5:18 in exactly the same way in his famous Latin Bible translation, the so-called Vulgate /around A.D. 400/. The Vulgate served for centuries as the official Latin Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.
Jerome’s understanding of this text as a warning to abstain from drinking wine is also underscored by his use of the passage. In a letter to Laeta, a woman who had asked his advice on raising her young daughter, Jerome replied: “Do not let her drink wine, in which there is debauchery” /Eph. 5:18/. In another letter to Eustochium, Jerome told the story of Paula, a noble Roman woman, who, during her visit to the Holy Land, “remembered the cave where Lot found refuge and, with tears in her eyes, warned her young companions to beware of ‘wine, in which there is excess’ /Eph. 5:18/; for it was because of this debauchery that the Moabites and Ammonites came into being” (Jerome, Letter 108 to Eustochium /n. 31/, p. 200). Jerome’s understanding of Eph. 5:18 is highly significant, since he is regarded as the best-known of the early Christian translators of the Bible.
Modern Translations
Several classic and modern translations followed the Vulgate in its precise rendering. For example, the French Synodal translation reads: “And do not get drunk with wine, for wine leads to debauchery.” To eliminate any possibility of misunderstanding, the translators repeated the word “wine” in the relative clause. Other French translators, such as David, Martin, and Ostervald, also established a clear connection between wine and the relative clause. In both, we read: “Do not get drunk with wine, in which there is debauchery.”
In English, it may be argued that the antecedent of “in which” is drunkenness, expressed in the first part of the sentence. This uncertainty is explained by the fact that in English the relative pronoun “which” has no gender and therefore cannot be connected to any particular antecedent. In French, however, “which” is masculine and can refer to “wine,” which is also masculine. The connection between the two is unmistakable in these French translations.
Such a clear connection between “wine” and “debauchery” is found in two Spanish translations, those of Cipriano de Valera /1900 A.D./ and Nácar-Colunga, where the subordinate clause reads, respectively: “in which there is debauchery” and “in which there is excess.” In both cases, the pronoun “which” is preceded by the masculine article el, since it refers to a masculine noun—wine. An even clearer connection appears in the Spanish Catholic translation, which reads: “Wine, which causes harm.” A similar translation is found in the New American Standard Bible, where we read: “Wine, in which is dissipation.”
The German “Good News” Bible provides another clear example in which wine is made the subject of the subordinate clause: “Do not drink, for wine makes a person unstable and immoral” /Stuttgart, 1982/. The Italian Protestant translation by Giovanni Luzzi, as well as the Catholic translation produced by the Pontifical Biblical Institute, follows the strict construction of the French and Spanish translations cited above. Luzzi’s Italian translation reads: “And do not get drunk with wine; it /wine/ leads to debauchery.” The antecedent “it” unmistakably refers to “wine,” since it has the same masculine gender as “wine.”
The examples of ancient and modern translations cited above sufficiently demonstrate that historically many translators understood the subordinate clause in Eph. 5:18 as expressing condemnation not of drunkenness, but of wine itself. If these translations are correct—and I believe they are, for the reasons mentioned above—then Eph. 5:18 contains a strong indictment of its improper use. Examining the noun asotia, translated as “debauchery” in the standard translation under review, will help us assess the nature of this condemnation.
THE MEANING OF ASOTIA
Moral degradation. The noun asotia, used in two other places in the New Testament, namely Titus 1:6 and 1 Peter 4:4, is translated “debauchery” in both passages. The word asotia is composed of the negative a- and a noun derived from the verb sozein—to save. Literally, it means the absence of salvation: a state of hopeless moral depravity. Albert Barnes explains that
Asotia describes one “who is not safe, cannot be converted, lost beyond recovery; then one who leads a profligate life in sensuality and lust; all such people are in moral degradation, debauchery, wild revelry, and dissipation. The meaning here /Eph. 5:18/ is that all this results from the use of wine” /Albert Barnes, “Notes on the New Testament: Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians,” Grand Rapids, 1955, p. 104/.
The possible connection between wine as the cause of drunkenness and asotia—the state of moral degradation—emphasizes that an examination of this passage reveals not only the misuse of wine, but the use of wine itself as an inherent evil. Leon C. Field expresses this view, noting that “it may be difficult to identify any other arrangement of the words in this passage that would express so clearly and forcefully the idea that the inherent sinfulness of wine is its essential, characteristic feature” /Leon C. Field /n. 17/, p. 119/.
Alcohol’s Influence on the Mind
The reason why consuming intoxicating beverages can easily place a person in a state of asotia—that is, in moral degradation resistant to receiving the saving truth—is that alcohol disrupts the functions of the brain, which is the channel through which the Holy Spirit works. That is why the apostle Paul urges Christians to be filled not with wine, but with the Holy Spirit.
“Let Christians,” advises Albert Barnes, “when they indulge in a glass of wine, think of this warning—Eph. 5:18. Let them remember that their bodies should be temples of the Holy Spirit rather than receptacles for intoxicating beverages. Has anyone become a better Christian by using alcoholic beverages in order to counsel a discouraged sinner, pray, or preach the Gospel? Let the history of those who use alcoholic beverages and intemperate ministers answer all these questions
RABBINICAL TESTIMONIES
Condemnation of Wine. Rabbinical literature provides several examples to support and illustrate our interpretation of Eph. 5:18 as condemning not only abuse, but also the use of intoxicating wine. We will cite several examples to dispel the mistaken notion that the Jews, like the biblical writers, saw no inherent evil and nothing sinful in the moderate use of alcoholic wine. This popular view has greatly influenced the interpretation of these biblical teachings concerning alcoholic beverages.
In their comments on the New Testament, based on rabbinical interpretations, Strack and Billerbeck cite many rabbinical statements concerning Eph. 5:18. Let us note the substance of these statements: “In rabbinical writings there are many warnings against wine” /H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, “Commentary on the New Testament in Light of the Talmud and
Midrash, Munich, 1926, p. 609. For our purposes, we quote the following statements by these authors: “Wine separates a person from the path of life and leads him onto the path of death, for wine leads to idolatry. Thus we understand that everywhere the Holy Scriptures speak of wine, you will also find moral corruption… Regarding this, Isaiah said: ‘The strength of the law is in salvation, but the strength of wine is in sorrow. Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine and champions at mixing strong drink’ (Isaiah 5:22). Regarding this we read: ‘Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaints? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? Those who linger long at the wine’ (Proverbs 23:29–30). When wine enters the body, sound judgment departs, and wherever wine appears, there is no understanding” (ibid.).
Similar rabbinic warnings are found in a compilation of Talmudic statements about wine collected by Rabbi Isidore Koplowitz. Here are some of them: “Whenever wine enters a person, his mind becomes darkened” (quoted by Koplowitz, Detroit, 1923, p. 39). Rabbi Isaac said: “The evil spirit tempts a person especially when he eats and drinks and becomes merry with wine; then the evil spirit rules over him… Drinking wine affects the sinful inclinations awakened within a person, as it is written: ‘And they made their father drink wine that night’” (Genesis 19:33; ibid., p. 53).
Constant Appetite
Another statement attributed to Rabbi Eliezer makes the prohibition against drinking wine a permanent law for all time: Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Aaron: “Do not drink wine or strong drink, neither you nor your sons with you” (Leviticus 10:9). It should not be assumed that this prohibition against wine and strong drink applied only in the past, namely, only as long as the holy Jerusalem Temple existed, as it is written: “When you enter the tent of meeting”; rather, you must beware of drinking wine in all times to come, for wine is an omen of cursing” (ibid., p. 61). An extreme example of how sinful intoxicating drinks were regarded by some Jews is the rabbinic statement that Samuel did not pray in a house where intoxicating drinks were present (Talmud, Babylonian Eruvin 65a; ibid., p. 45).
Conclusion
The preceding analysis of Ephesians 5:18 showed that this text does not provide biblical approval for the moderate use of alcoholic beverages. On the contrary, the structure of this passage, as well as the possible connection between “wine” and the subordinate clause—a connection recognized by many ancient and modern translations—makes this text the strongest biblical indictment of intoxicating wine.
Paul’s intention in this passage was to show the contrast between the spirit of fermented wine and the Holy Spirit. In the believer’s life, these two are mutually exclusive. Summarizing the thoughts of Ephesians 5:18–19, they may be paraphrased as follows: “Do not get drunk with wine, for drinking wine brings a person into a state of debauchery, that is, moral corruption, which opposes the reception of saving truth. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. Find pleasure not in the stimulating effect of wine, but in the awakening inspiration of the Spirit, who encourages your heart to sing and make music to the glory of the Lord.”
Chapter 17: Exhortation to Be Sober
The Importance of Two Terms. In their epistles, Paul and Peter made use of two terms (sōphrōn and nēphalios), which are usually translated as “self-control” or “sobriety.” These two terms are not synonyms, since technically speaking, sōphrōn denotes mental sobriety, sound judgment, and balance, while nēphalios denotes physical sobriety or abstinence. Regarding their related characteristics, however, these two terms often overlap or are used interchangeably. This occurs when the same qualities are attributed to each term, although from different points of view.
“Physical abstinence,” explains Leon Field, “is a state of the purest mental sobriety. And mental sobriety is a characteristic feature of the strictest physical abstinence. Therefore, it happens that a term denoting mental sobriety is used metaphorically for physical abstinence and, conversely, in the other direction” /Leon K. Field /no. 17/, p. 119/.
We will now turn our attention to the meaning and use of these two terms separately. A study will show that in both secular and biblical Greek, the primary meaning of these two terms and their derivatives is to abstain from all intoxicating substances. This means, as we shall see, that some apostolic instructions concerning sobriety are chiefly instructions to abstain from intoxicating drinks.
MENTAL SOBRIETY
The meaning of the term sophron. The term sophron and related word groups occur 15 times in the New Testament, 9 of them in the Pastoral Epistles /1 Tim. 2:9; 3:2; Titus 1:8; 2:2, 4, 5, 6, 12; Acts 26:25; Mark 5:15; Luke 8:35; 2 Cor. 5:13; 1 Pet. 4:7; Rom. 12:3/ /196 p., original/.
The word sophron consists of saos, “safe” or “sound,” and phren, “mind.” Thus, the word literally means “sound-minded.” The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament defines it as “rational,” meaning “intellectually sound” /Ulrich Luck, “Sophron,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, 1971, vol. 7, p. 1097/. Arndt and Gingrich define this word as: “To be in the right mental state” /William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, entry “Sophroneo”/. Donnegan translates the word as: “Sound in intellect, unimpaired” /James Donnegan, A New Greek and English Lexicon, 1847, entry “Sophron”/. Green translates it as: “Sound mind, normal, temperate, balanced, abstinent, chaste” /Thomas S. Green, Greek-English Lexicon for the New Testament, 1892, entry “Sophron”/.
Although the central idea of mental soundness remains, sophron and its related words are never separated from the idea of physical abstinence, which provides the foundation for a sound mind. The Romans expressed this in the well-known proverb: “A sound mind in a sound body.”
Classical, Jewish, and Christian Writers
The idea of abstinence was often reflected in the use and interpretation of the word sophron by classical, Jewish, and Christian writers. Aristotle /384–322 BC/ defined sophrosyne in his Rhetoric as “the virtue by which people act with regard to bodily pleasure as the law commands” /Aristotle, Rhetoric 1.9/. In his Ethics he says: “By abstaining from pleasures we shall become sober /sophrones/” /Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 2.9/. And again he states: “The person who abstains from physical pleasures and does so with delight is sober and prudent /sophron/” /Ibid. 2.3.1/.
In the Jewish work The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs /first century BC/, the term sophron is used as an explicit reference to abstinence from wine: “But if you wish to live soberly /sophrosyne/, do not touch wine at all, lest you sin in offensive and outrageous words, take part in quarrels and gossip, violate the commandments of God, and perish before your time” /The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Testament of Judah 16:3, Oxford, 1913, p. 320/.
The Jewish philosopher Philo /c. 20 BC–AD 50/ frequently used an entire group of words meaning abstinence from sensual desires in general and from wine in particular. /See Ulrich Luck /n. 45/, p. 1101./ He viewed sophrosyne as a person who is free from worldly drunkenness. This is especially emphasized by his use of the word opposite to sophrosyne, namely aphrosyne. Thus he describes a person who “is inflamed by wine all his life, drowning in unceasing, endless drunkenness” /Philo, “On Drunkenness,” 95, New York, 1930, p. 367/.
In the writings of the Church Fathers, as in the works of classical authors, sophrosyne is used with reference to physical abstinence. Clement of Alexandria /c. AD 150–215/, for example, in a discussion of young people’s lifestyles, says: “Therefore I admire those who choose an austere life and love water, the remedy of abstinence /tes sophrosynes/, and flee as far as possible from wine, guarding against it as they guard against fire” /Clement of Alexandria, “The Instructor,” 2.2… Grand Rapids, 1979, vol. 2, p. 243/. This meaning of sophron and its derivatives, such as abstinence and chastity, according to Ulrich Luck, was “widespread” /Ulrich Luck /n. 45/, pp. 11–13/, not only among Hellenistic Judaism but also in the writings of the early
Church. His article in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament provides many examples of this usage.
Paul’s Exhortation
In the letters of Paul and Peter, several exhortations to sound-mindedness undoubtedly refer to physical abstinence, upon which sobriety is based and in which it is expressed. This is especially emphasized by their close association with such terms as me paroinos, enkrateia, and nephaleos—all of which, as we will see below, refer primarily to abstinence from intoxicating wine.
In 1 Tim. 3:2–3 Paul declares: “Now the bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, self-controlled, respectable, /honorable/, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent /not quarrelsome/, not greedy for money, but gentle, peaceable, not a lover of money.” The two terms “sober, self-controlled” are used here to convey the meaning of the Greek words nephaleon and sophrona. The former, as we will show below, means “abstinent,” while the latter means “sound-minded” or “sober-minded.” “The order of the terms,” as Lees and Burns observe, “is instructive. The Christian overseer must be nephaleon—‘abstinent’—strictly sober in body, so that he may be sober in mind” /Frederick Richard Lees and Dawson Burns, “The Temperance Bible Commentary,” London, 1894, p. 367/. The two words occur in the same order in Titus 2:2, although the word “serious” is placed between them. In 1 Tim. 3:2–3 the two words stand in close connection with me paroinos, a term that literally means “not near wine.” The meaning of the latter term will be discussed more fully below.
In Titus 1:6–8, where Paul largely repeats what he said in 2 Tim. 3 concerning the qualifications for the office of a bishop—elder—the order is slightly different: “Hospitable, loving what is good, self-controlled /sophrona/, just, devout, temperate /enkrate/”—verse 8. Here sophrona /“sound-minded”/ is translated in the Revised Standard Version as “self-controlled,” followed by enkrate /“temperate”/, a term that, as we will see below, is also used in the sense of abstinence.
Peter’s Exhortation
We find a closer connection between sound-mindedness and physical abstinence in 1 Peter 4:7: “But the end of all things is near. Therefore be sound-minded /sophronesate/ and watchful /nepsate/ in your prayers.” The verb nepsate is the /aorist/ imperative form of nepho, which is etymologically derived in one interpretation from the prefix ne /not/ and pino /to drink/, thus literally “not to drink,” while in another from ne /not/ and /poinos/ for oinos “wine,” thus literally “without wine.”
The primary meaning of the verb nepho, as acknowledged by most of the Greek authorities cited below, is “to be sober—the opposite state being to be drunk.” Thus, 1 Peter 4:7 actually says: “Maintain mental sobriety and physically abstain for the sake of your prayers.” Here it is not difficult to see the connection between mental sobriety, physical abstinence, and the prayer life. People who consume intoxicating drinks weaken their mental alertness and consequently, for sinful purposes, neglect their prayer life.
In conclusion, it should be said that some apostolic exhortations directed toward mental sobriety, expressed through sophron and related words, are clearly connected with physical abstinence, which determines the existence and manifestation of mental sobriety.
PHYSICAL ABSTINENCE
The meaning of the verb nepho. The adjective nephalios and the verb nepho are used in the New Testament primarily to indicate physical abstinence. The adjective nephalios occurs only three times in the Pastoral Epistles and is consistently translated as “sober” /1 Tim. 3:2, 11; Titus 2:2/. The verb nepho occurs six times and is translated five times in the Revised Standard Version as “be sober” /1 Thess. 5:6, 8; 1 Peter 1:13; 4:7; 5:8/ and once as “be watchful” /2 Tim. 4:5/. Before examining the meaning and use of these words in the New Testament, we need to establish how they are defined in Greek dictionaries and used in Greek literature.
As mentioned above, the primary meaning of nepho is abstinence from intoxicating drinks. In his article on this word group in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, O. Bauernfeind stated: “The concept underlying the verb nepho is ‘to be sober,’ and
The entire derived word group is formally negative. It is opposed to “drunkenness” in two senses:
1. In the literal sense of drunkenness from wine.
2. In the figurative sense, a state of intoxication attributed to other causes” /O. Bauernfeind, “Nepho, Nephalios, Eknepho,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, Grand Rapids, 1967, vol. 4, p. 966/.
The Jewish philosopher Philo illustrates this definition with the following words: “Therefore, being too sober /nephein/ is opposed to drunkenness” /Philo, De Plantatione, 172/.
The unanimity among Greek dictionaries regarding the primary meaning of this verb is noteworthy. Liddell and Scott give the first meaning of nepho as “to be sober, not to drink wine.” In his “Patristic and Greek Lexicon,” Lampe translates the word as “to be temperate, not to drink wine” /G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford, 1961, entry “Nepho”/. Lampe’s first example is taken from Origen’s treatise Against Celsus, where the pagan philosopher Celsus accuses a Christian teacher who acts “like a drunken man who, entering a company of drunkards, should accuse those who abstain /nephontas/ from wine.” Origen responds to this accusation, saying: “But let him show, on the basis of Paul’s writings, that the apostle of Jesus opened the way to drunkenness and that his words were not sound and sober” /Origen, Against Celsus 3.76/.
Donnegan defines nepho as “to live temperately, to abstain from wine” /James Donnegan, /n. 47/, “Nepho”/. Green translates it as “to be sober, not to become intoxicated” /Thomas S. Green/ n. 48/, entry “Nepho”/. Robinson translates it as “to be sober, moderate, temperate, especially with regard to wine” /E. Robinson, A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, New York, 1850, entry “Nepho”/. Abbott-Smith translates it as “to be sober, to abstain from wine” /G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, 1937, entry “Nepho”/.
The meaning of the adjective nephalios
The adjective nephalios is defined by these lexicographers in accordance with their translation of the verb. For example, Lampe gives the primary meaning of nephalios as “without wine, abstinent” /G. W. Lampe, p. 60, entry “Nephalios”/. His first supporting example is from Clement of Alexandria, who says: “Therefore I admire those who choose a strict /nephalion, that is, abstinent from drunkenness/ life and who love water, the medicine of abstinence, and flee as far as possible from wine, guarding against it as they guard against fire” /Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 2.2, p. 242/.
Among the other lexicographers not cited above, Hesychius should be mentioned; he gives the primary meaning of nephalios as “not to drink” /Hesychius of Alexandria, Alexandrian Lexicon of Hesychius, 1858, entry “Nephalios”/. In Stephanus’s Thesaurus, nephalios is rendered as “one who abstains from wine” /Stephanus, cited by Leon C. Feld, p. 122/. In the Greek dictionary by Byzantios, published in Athens in 1839, nephalios is defined as “one who does not drink wine” /Demetrios K. S. Byzantios, Dictionary, 1939, entry “Nephalios”/. Bauernfeind similarly defines nephalios: “Uses no wine.” He explains that the word was originally used “for sacrifices without wine” and therefore for “the sober way of life of those who adhere to these principles” /O. Bauernfeind, p. 939/.
Evidence from Hellenistic Writers
Many instances of nepho and nephalios being used to mean abstinence from wine occur in classical Greek literature. /For a fairly comprehensive compilation, see Lees and Burns, p. 362/. For our purposes, it is even more significant to examine how these terms were used by Hellenistic authors. In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, the combination of the verb eknepho and the verbal noun eknepsis is found in Gen. 9:24; 1 Sam. 25:37; and Joel 1:5. In each case, the meaning is to become sober, free from the influence of wine.
For our study, the testimony of two renowned Jewish writers, Josephus and Philo, is significant, since they were contemporaries of Paul and Peter. In his book The Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus writes about the priests: “Those who wore priestly garments had to be without blemish or defect, because of their purity and sobriety /nephalios/, and were not permitted to drink wine as long as they wore these garments” /Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 3.12.2/. Similarly, in his book
The Jewish War, Josephus says of the priests: “They abstained /neophontes/ chiefly from wine, for fear that they might otherwise violate some of the rules of their service” /Josephus, The Jewish War, p. 556/.
Like Josephus, Philo explains in his book De Specialibus Legibus that a priest must officially abstain completely from wine as nephalios, because he follows the requirements of the law and must act as an earthly final judge /Philo, De Specialibus Legibus 4.183/. In his treatise On Drunkenness, Philo speaks of those who “drank wine greedily.” Concerning them he says: “Such people deliberately and without any compulsion put the cup of strong drink to their lips, and in the same way, fully consciously, excluded sobriety /nephalion/ from their souls and chose madness instead” /Philo, On Drunkenness 123, p. 383/.
The Significance of the Evidence
It is natural and necessary to conclude from the many testimonies quoted above that Peter and Paul must have been familiar with the primary meaning of the verb nepho and its adjective forms, nephalios, as abstaining from intoxicating drinks. There were instances when they used these terms in their primary sense, at least in some of their exhortations to sobriety. Even if in some cases they used these terms figuratively to refer to mental rather than physical sobriety, this in no way diminishes the underlying idea of universal abstinence.
Those who interpret the apostles’ exhortations to sobriety as referring to mental sobriety or moderate consumption of alcoholic wine base their interpretation on the assumption that Scripture condemns not the use of wine but its abuse. For example, in Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, they define nephalios as “sober, temperate; complete or absolute abstinence from wine / Josephus, Antiquities 3.12.2 / or, at least, from its immoderate use: 1 Tim. 3:2, 11; Titus 2:2” /James H. Moulton and George Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, 1952, entry ‘Nephalios’/.
But the three texts cited here contain not the slightest hint of abstinence from moderate wine consumption. They simply express Paul’s warning to bishops, women, and older people to abstain /nephalios/ from drinking wine.
If Josephus, Philo, and many other writers used nephalios in its primary sense—“to abstain from wine”—why should Paul not have used it in the same way? Dean Alford argues that this meaning was absolute in the days of the apostles /see the discussion in Lees and Burns, n. 57/, pp. 364–365/. This can hardly be true, as testified above by Josephus and Philo. Moreover, long after the apostolic age, Greek writers continued to use this word in its primary sense of abstinence. For example, the philosopher Porphyry /c. 232–303 AD/ said: “But be sober /nephalion/ and do not drink wine” /Porphyry, De Abstinentia 1.27/.
Translator Bias—Incorrect Translations
The preceding statements have led us to wonder whether nepho and nephalios were translated in the New Testament according to their secondary meanings—“temperance, sobriety, self-control”—rather than their primary meaning of abstinence because of the translators’ bias toward drinking. By interpreting these terms figuratively, translators and commentators were able, as Ernest Gordon observes, “to save the face of wine while at the same time condemning drunkenness” /Ernest Gordon, n. 9/, p. 31/.
A bias toward wine may even be noted in some Greek dictionaries. In addition to Moulton and Milligan, cited above, Liddell and Scott should be mentioned. They defined nepho as “to be sober, not to drink wine,” and provided many supporting references. They then gave the metaphorical meaning as “to be self-controlled, sober, and watchful,” presenting 1 Thess. 5:7 and 1 Pet. 4:7, along with a few passages from pagan literature, as supporting references for the former meaning rather than the latter.
Regarding the adjective nephalios, Liddell and Scott defined it as “a libation without wine… not connected” with wine when the reference is to offerings, and they provided numerous supporting texts. When referring to persons, they translated it as “sober,” citing 1 Tim. 3:2, 11; Titus 2:2 and Josephus’s Antiquities 3.12.2 as supporting texts. The passages in the apostle Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus, as we will discuss them below,
They tend toward the primary meaning of abstinence. Josephus’s statement, as we have already seen, leaves no doubt that for him nephalios means “not allowing oneself to drink wine.” All this shows that none of the references actually supports the symbolic meaning of mental sobriety. It appears that the passages from the Epistles to Timothy and Titus are first translated as meaning “sober” or “moderate” rather than abstinent, and then cited as evidence for this usage. Having examined the meaning of nepho and nephalios as expressed by writers outside the Bible, we will now attempt to determine their meaning in the Epistles of Peter and Paul.
NEPHO AS PHYSICAL ABSTINENCE
1 Thess. 5:6–8. In his Epistle to the Thessalonians, the apostle Paul uses the word nepho for the first time. After warning the Thessalonians about the sudden and unexpected nature of Christ’s coming—“like a thief in the night” (1 Thess. 5:2)—he exhorts them, saying: “So then, let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be sober (nephomen). For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. But since we belong to the day, let us be sober (nephomen), putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and the helmet of the hope of salvation” (1 Thess. 5:6–8).
In this passage of Scripture, Paul twice exhorts the Thessalonians to “be sober” (nephomen). What is the meaning of nephomen in its context? Is Paul exhorting the Thessalonians to do one thing or both? The context supports both meanings—mental alertness and sobriety, as well as physical abstinence.
This passage consists of a series of contrasting parallels: light and darkness, day and night, being sober and being drunk. Since Paul contrasts the sons of the day, who are sober, with the sons of the night, who get drunk at night, it becomes clear that in this context the exhortation to “be sober” means not only to be mentally alert, but also to abstain physically. In Scripture, mental alertness is closely connected with physical abstinence from intoxicating drinks. The unfaithful servant who was not watchful while awaiting his master’s return began to “eat and drink and get drunk” (Luke 12:45).
Another indication that Paul intended the word nephomen to express both a literal and a figurative meaning is the connection between sobriety and watchfulness: “Let us watch and be sober” (1 Thess. 5:6). The first verb, gregoromen, refers to mental watchfulness, while the second, nephomen, refers to physical abstinence. Otherwise, there would be a meaningless repetition—a tautology: “Let us remain awake and be watchful.” Paul undoubtedly connects mental alertness with physical abstinence, since both go together. Mental alertness in the New Testament is often associated with physical abstinence. This will become clearer as we examine other passages related to this question.
1 Pet. 1:13
In addition to 1 Thess. 5:6–8, the verb nepho occurs three times in 1 Peter (1:13; 4:7; 5:8). In the Revised Standard Version, this word is translated “be sober” in all three instances. In the Russian Synodal Bible, it is translated “be watchful” in the first two passages and “be sober, be watchful” in the third. A casual reader might think that Peter’s exhortation to “be sober” (and this is the most accurate translation of the original) means to be cautious, alert, or moderate, without any reference to alcohol. But a more thorough examination emphasizes that, as in First Thessalonians, the verb nepho here refers both to mental alertness and to physical abstinence. It is important to note that in all three passages Peter’s exhortation to “be sober” occurs in the context of readiness for Christ’s imminent return. This implies that Peter, like Paul, grounds his call to abstinence and holy living in the certainty and nearness of Christ’s return.
The first use of nepho occurs in 1 Peter 1:13: “Therefore, beloved, gird up the loins of your mind, being watchful /nephontes—be sober/, set your hope fully on the grace being brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.” Here Peter, like Paul, combines mental alertness /gird up the loins of your mind/ with physical abstinence /nephontes—be sober—in the Russian text, “being watchful”/. Earlier we showed that Greek dictionaries and literature reflect noteworthy unanimity regarding the primary meaning of nepho as “to abstain, not to drink wine.” This pattern of combining mental
sobriety with physical abstinence is found in all three passages where the word “nepho” appears in 1 Peter.
The exhortation to “be sober” in 1 Peter 1:13 implies a radical form, since it is immediately followed by the adverb “teleios,” meaning “perfectly” or “fully.” Thus, the correct translation should read: “be fully or perfectly sober.” Most translators, apparently because of their bias against abstinence, decided to use teleios to modify the following verb elpisate /hope/, thus translating the phrase as “hope fully” or “hope to the end.” But the idiom used throughout the New Testament for “to the end” is not teleios, but consists of the two words “mechri telous” or “heos telous” /Heb. 3:6, 14; 1 Cor. 1:8; 2 Cor. 1:13/.
Grammatically, the adverb teleios /perfectly/ may be used to modify either the preceding verb nephontes /be sober, be temperate/ or the following verb elpisate /hope/, since the Greek language has no punctuation marks separating the adverb from the verb. A similar example appears in Jesus’ statement: “Truly I tell you, today you will be with Me in paradise” /Luke 23:43/. Most translators and commentators decided to place the comma before rather than after “today” because of their belief in the existence of the soul apart from the body at death. Similarly, in 1 Peter 1:13, most translators decided to place the comma before rather than after teleios /perfectly/ because they believed the Bible teaches moderation rather than complete abstinence.
It is noteworthy that in the Vulgate, the well-known Latin translation that served as the official Catholic Bible for many centuries, Jerome translated teleios as modifying nephontes, thus rendering it “sobrii perfecte” /perfect sobriety or abstinence/. In my opinion, Jerome’s translation accurately reflects Peter’s intention, as he repeated his call to sobriety three times in his epistle. Thus, the correct translation should be: “Therefore, gird up the loins of your mind, be fully sober, and set your hope on the grace being brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.”
1 Peter 4:7
The verb nepho is used for the second time in 1 Peter 4:7: “But the end of all things is near; therefore be sound-minded /sophronesate/ and watchful /nepsate/ in your prayers.” We have already noted in our study the term sophron, by which Peter exhorts Christians here to maintain mental alertness and physical abstinence. The meaning of nepho as abstinence from wine is also emphasized by the context, in which Peter contrasts the former way of life—“giving themselves over to impurity, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry” /1 Peter 4:3/—with the new lifestyle of moderation and abstinence. This passage may be paraphrased as follows: “The end of all things is at hand; therefore, be clear-minded and sober in your lives, so that you may maintain a healthy, dedicated life in this critical time.”
1 Peter 5:8
The third use of the word nepho is found in 1 Peter 5:8: “Be sober /nepsate/, be vigilant /gregoresate/, because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.” Just as in the two previous cases, here Peter also combines mental vigilance with physical abstinence, since these two factors are mutually dependent. The style of expression corresponds to 1 Thessalonians 5:6, although Paul mentions mental vigilance first and physical abstinence second. The relationship between these two states is self-evident. Intoxicating drinks weaken the power of conscience and reason, thereby weakening the restraints against the manifestation of evil. The final result is that the devil is better able to “destroy,” literally “swallow” /katapino/, such a person.
The contrast between nepsate /from ne piein, “not to drink”/ and katapiein /from katapien, “to drink down in one gulp, swallow”/ was recognized by Adam Clarke, who comments: “He cannot swallow everyone. Those who are sober and vigilant are inaccessible to him; he cannot swallow them. Those who drink with the world lose their vigilance; he can swallow them. There is beauty and a striking contrast in this verse between the first and last words, which, I believe, has not been noticed: be sober, nepsate, from ne-”
“Ne, and piein, to drink”—that is, not to swallow—and the word katapien, from kata—downward, or to overturn—and piein—to drink. If you swallow strong drink, the devil will swallow you. Listen to this, you drunkards, tipplers, and anyone whose name is known in society or among your friends—sinners—the use of strong drink is not only your way to the devil, but also the devil’s way to you. You are precisely those whom the devil can especially swallow” /Adam Clarke, /vol. 2, p. 869/.
Connection with Luke 12:41–46
Peter’s exhortations to vigilance and abstinence seem to have been inspired by the parable of the drunken servant, which Christ told specifically in response to Peter /Luke 12:41/. In this parable, the faithful steward was commended for his vigilant, caring service in his master’s household, while the unfaithful servant was condemned because he began to “eat and drink and get drunk” /Luke 12:43–45/.
The First Epistle of Peter contains several allusions to this parable. For example, 1 Peter 4:10 says: “Good stewards of the manifold grace of God.” This closely resembles Luke 12:42: “The faithful and wise steward, whom his master will make ruler over his household.” Similarly, 1 Peter 4:5—“They will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead”—seems to echo Luke 12:46—“The master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him…and will cut him in two.” Also, 1 Peter 5:3—“not as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock”—alludes to the unfaithful servant in Luke 12:45, who began to “beat the male and female servants.”
The allusions in the First Epistle of Peter to the parable of the unfaithful servant in the Gospel of Luke, whom his master caught drunk and by surprise upon his return and severely punished, strongly support nepho in its primary meaning—abstinence from wine. Moreover, these allusions help us understand why abstinence in 1 Peter 1:13 is expressed in such radical terms: “nephontes teleios” /“being completely sober.”
Summarizing our study of the five uses of the word nepho—two by the apostle Paul /1 Thess. 5:6–8/ and three by Peter /1 Pet. 1:13; 4:7; 5:8/—we can say that all the examples consistently demonstrate the vital necessity of both mental alertness and physical abstinence. Furthermore, we found that the primary meaning of nepho as abstinence from intoxicating drinks is supported in 1 Thess. 5:6–8 by the contrasting parallel between the sons of the day, who are sober, and the sons of the night, who are drunk. In 1 Peter, support for abstinence as the meaning of nepho comes both from the allusions to the parable of the drunken servant in Luke 12 and from the context of 1 Pet. 4:7, where the apostle refers to a former way of life characterized by “drunkenness” /1 Pet. 4:3/. It is also significant that all five exhortations to abstinence are given in the context of Christ’s imminent return. We will return to this perspective after examining the use of the adjective nephalios.
Nephalios in the Sense of Physical Abstinence
Three Texts. The adjective nephalios occurs only three times in the New Testament. Paul uses it in describing qualities desirable in bishops, women, and older men. The first two examples occur in 1 Tim. 3:2, 11: “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober /nephalios/, temperate /sophron/, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine /me paroinon/… Likewise, their wives must be dignified, not slanderers, sober /nephalios/, faithful in all things.” The third occurrence is found in Titus 2:2: “That the older men be sober-minded /temperate—nephalios/, dignified, self-controlled /sophrones/, sound in faith, in love, and in patience.”
Earlier we noted that nephalios occurs together with sophron in 1 Tim. 3:2 and Titus 2:2—first to indicate physical abstinence and, secondly, mental alertness. Some commentators acknowledge that the connection between these two instances requires a literal interpretation of nephalios as abstinence from the use of alcoholic wine. Adam Clarke, for example, although himself an advocate of moderate alcohol consumption, offered the following commentary on 1 Tim. 3:2: “He must be vigilant, nephalios, from ne, not, and pino, to drink—that is, watchful; for just as one who drinks is liable to sleep, so one who abstains from alcohol is more capable of being watchful, attending to his work, and being aware of his responsibilities” /ibid., p. 595/. Commenting on this same verse, Albert Barnes said: “This word /nephalios/ occurs only here, in verse 11, and in Titus 2:2. It accordingly means ‘sober, moderate, temperate, especially with regard to wine; then, sound-minded, watchful, cautious’” /Albert Barnes, “Notes on the Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon,” New York, 1873, p. 139/.
“Not addicted to wine”
Some argue that the literal interpretation of nephalios—as abstinence—contradicts the word me paroinos, translated “not addicted to wine.” Their reasoning is that the latter negates the former. Paul could not have been satisfied with a bishop who was first abstinent and then became “not addicted to wine”—that is, moderate in his use of wine. This apparent contradiction can be resolved by recognizing that me paroinos does not necessarily imply moderate alcohol consumption. In his detailed interpretation of each word in 1 Tim. 3:2, Jerome interpreted the expression me paroinos as complete abstinence. He wrote: “‘Not addicted to wine’ /non vinolentum/, for he who is constantly in the Holy of Holies and offers sacrifices will not drink wine or strong drink, since wine is debauchery /luxuria—Eph. 5:18; Jerome, “Against Jovinianus” 1.35/.” For Jerome, me paroinos meant that, like the priests of the Old Testament, a bishop should be completely abstinent.
Another solution to the apparent contradiction can be found by recognizing that paroinos does not mean “addicted to drinking wine” /Henry G. Liddell and Robert Scott, “A Greek-English Lexicon,” 1968, entry “Paroinos”/. It carries the additional idea of “being near wine,” that is, near a place where wine is consumed. The word paroinos is composed of para, “near,” and oinos, “wine.” “The ancient word paroinos,” as Lees and Burns explain, “was a person known for frequenting drinking parties and, as a result, became closely associated with strong drink” /Lees and Burns/, n. 57, p. 367/.
Understanding paroinos in this sense does not weaken nephalios. On the contrary, it strengthens it. Paul is saying precisely that a bishop must not only be temperate, but must also avoid places where wine is consumed. This corresponds well with Paul’s admonition in 1 Cor. 5:11: “I wrote to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.”
A similar admonition is found in the so-called Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, compiled in the fourth century from earlier canons. Canon 54 states: “If any church minister eats in a tavern, let him cease doing so, except when he is compelled to stop at an inn during his journey” /Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, 54, Grand Rapids, 1970, vol. 7, p. 503/. The reason for such a regulation was probably concern for the public image of a clergyman meeting people in a tavern to eat, where people often drink. This same concern is evident in 1 Tim. 3:2–7, where Paul mentions qualities that first affect the bishop’s personal example in his family and then his public reputation before the Church and society.
The Twofold Meaning of Paroinos
Albert Barnes, a respected commentator on the New Testament, specifically mentions the twofold meaning of paroinos, saying: “The Greek word /paroinos/ occurs in the New Testament only here, 1 Tim. 3:3, and in Titus 1:7. It properly means ‘by wine’; that is, suggesting something that takes place near or over wine during riotous merrymaking with songs, etc. It then describes, as mentioned here, one who sits near wine; that is, one who has a habit of drinking it… It means that a person who has a habit of drinking wine, or who is accustomed to sitting with those who indulge in wine, should not be admitted to the ministry. The sense in which the apostle mentions this subject should lead us to a fair, impartial conclusion that he does not intend to recommend the use of alcoholic beverages in any sense; that he regards such a course as dangerous and wishes church ministers to avoid it altogether” /Albert Barnes/, n. 83, p. 140/.
The meaning of paroinos as “near wine,” that is, near a place where wine is consumed, is supported by ancient and modern Greek dictionaries. The Alphabeticum Dictionary of the Greek Testament, published in 1660, defines paroinos in Greek and Latin as “para to oino, apud vinum,” which may be translated: “Near or in the presence of wine” /Alphabeticum Dictionary of the Greek Testament, 1660, entry “Paroinos”/. Liddell and Scott define the related word paroinios as “befitting a drunken company” /Henry G. Liddell and Robert Scott, “A Greek-English Lexicon,” 1968, entry “Paroinios”/. My colleague at Andrews University, a Greek by nationality, Dr. Ellie Economou, drew my attention to the fact that this meaning still exists in modern Greek. Her modern Greek-English dictionary defines paroinos as “drunk, to participate [or speak] while drinking at a table” /1971, entry “Paroinos”/. The only example given in the dictionary is “paroinon asma”—a festive, cheerful song /ibid./.
In light of the foregoing considerations, Paul instructs a Christian bishop to be not only nephalios, that is, temperate, but also me paroinon, that is, not to be present in places of drunkenness or among drunken company. A Christian minister must not only abstain personally, but also avoid being present in, or approving of others’ presence in, places and associations that may tempt him or others to abandon temperance.
Some will argue that this conclusion contradicts Paul’s exhortation concerning deacons, who “must not be addicted to much wine” /1 Tim. 3:8; compare Titus 2:3/, and concerning Timothy: “No longer drink only water, but use a little wine” for the sake of your stomach and frequent ailments” /1 Tim. 5:23/. These texts, along with several others, will be examined in Section VII, specifically devoted to analyzing passages that are misunderstood regarding the use of alcoholic beverages. Our study will show that these texts provide sufficient support for, rather than refute, Paul’s exhortations concerning abstinence.
Reasons for Abstinence
The reasons presented by Peter and Paul for abstinence in life and godly living are not exclusively medical, but eschatological. Healthy and holy living is commended in Scripture not merely for personal health and well-being, but chiefly because God desires to dwell in us during this present life /1 Cor. 3:16–17; 6:13/ and to fellowship with us in the life to come. Preparing to live in Christ’s holy presence at His coming requires that we learn to live a pure and godly life now. This is the fundamental reason Paul gives in his letter to Titus for exhorting not only bishops, but also the elderly, young people, and slaves, to live sober and godly lives.
After addressing each group individually, Paul presents this final and fundamental reason for his preceding exhortations: “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people, teaching us that, having denied ungodliness and worldly passions, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, awaiting the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and purify for Himself a special people, zealous for good works” /Titus 2:11–14/.
In this passage, Paul appropriately separates abstinence from worldly passions and connects it with God’s purpose for us: to live soberly /sophronos/, righteously, and godly in the present age. We have already noted the close connection between mental sobriety and physical abstinence from intoxicating beverages, since the latter in turn promotes the former. This is accomplished not merely through human effort, but chiefly through “the grace of God,” which appeared not to encourage indulgence, but to help us avoid everything that interferes with the highest development of Christian character. The purpose of God’s grace, manifested through Jesus Christ, is not merely to “redeem us,” paying the ransom for all our past lawlessness, but also to “purify” us, providing the power “to live soberly, righteously, and godly,” while awaiting the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.
This hope consists in being ready to receive Christ and to be received by Him on the day of His glorious appearing, which should motivate every Christian to “purify himself, just as He is pure” /1 John 3:3/. It was in this hope that Peter appealed when he urged mental watchfulness and physical abstinence in the three passages we considered above. Following his exhortation to “gird up the loins of your mind” and set your hope fully on the grace to be given you “at the revelation of Jesus Christ” /1 Peter 1:13/. Similarly, in 1 Peter 4:7 the exhortation is: “Be sober-minded and self-controlled /sober—abstinent/, bearing in mind the fact that ‘the end of all things is near.’” The same is true of the exhortation to mental and physical sobriety in 1 Peter 5:8, which precedes the hope of receiving “the unfading crown of glory” on the day “when the Chief Shepherd appears” /1 Peter 5:4/.
For Christians such as Seventh-day Adventists, who have accepted the biblical teaching on the Second Coming of Christ more literally than speculatively—that is, as the future fulfillment of our present expectation rather than a present expectation of the future—the apostolic exhortation to abstain from intoxicating beverages carries additional significance. Abstinence is a practical response to God’s invitation to make specific preparation for the actual coming of our real Savior.
Enkrateia as Physical Abstinence
The Meaning of Enkrateia. Closely related to nephalios is the Greek word enkrateia, which is used five times in the New Testament /Acts 24:25; Galatians 5:23; 2 Peter 1:6; 1 Corinthians 9:25; Titus 1:8/. The word enkrateia derives its meaning from the root krat, which “expresses strength or mastery over oneself or someone else” /Walter Grundmann, “Enkrateia,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, Grand Rapids, 1974, vol. 2, pp. 339–342/. This power over oneself is especially manifested in the ability to abstain from every kind of evil.
The Revised Standard Version consistently translates enkrateia as “self-control,” including in 1 Corinthians 9:25, whereas the King James Version translates it as “temperance.” Some advocates of moderate alcohol use find support for their views in these texts. They understand the primary meaning of the Greek word enkrateia and the English word “temperance” to be not “total abstinence,” but “moderate use of alcohol or restraint,” or “resisting every temptation to excess in everything” /Leon C. Field, n. 17, pp. 124–126/.
The true significance of the issue is radically different. Although the term “temperance” means “moderation” in modern English, historically its primary meaning is “abstinence.” This is true of the Greek “temperance,” the Latin “temperantia,” and the Greek “enkrateia.” Leon C. Field provided abundant historical documentation supporting “abstinence” as the primary meaning of “temperance/temperantia/enkrateia” /Ibid., pp. 125–129/. Similar documentation is provided by Walter Grundmann in his article on “enkrateia” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament /Walter Grundmann, n. 94, pp. 339–342/. For a complete review of the documentation, readers may consult these sources. For our immediate purpose, we quote only a few passages by way of illustration.
Examples from Historical Texts
Sir Thomas Elyot, a sixteenth-century English writer, wrote in his “The Governour” /1531/: “He that is temperate fleeth from the pleasures of voluptuousness and sensuality and abstaineth from them with contentment, and from their presence he willingly withdraweth himself” /quoted by Leon C. Field, n. 17, p. 125/. Similarly, the philosopher Thomas Hobbes /1640/ defined “temperance as the habit by which we abstain from everything that tends to our destruction; intemperance, in other words, is vice” /Ibid., p. 125/.
The same meaning is found in Greek sources. Aristotle /384–322 BC/ said: “A self-controlled person /enkrateos/, knowing that his desires are bad, will refuse to follow them on principle” /Aristotle, “Nicomachean Ethics,” 7.1.6/. In the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus there is a section entitled “Self-control /enkrateia/ of the soul,” which begins with these words: “Do not follow your lusts, but restrain your appetite” /Ecclesiasticus 18:30/. Self-control was highly esteemed among the Essenes. Josephus says: “They avoid sensual pleasures as sin, and regard self-control /enkrateian/ and victory over the passions as the greatest virtue” /Josephus, “The Jewish War,” p. 169/. Perhaps the most convincing evidence of self-control, which acquired an additional meaning in the word enkrateia, is the use of the title “enkratites” /the self-controlled/ to designate several early Christian groups that abstained from wine and meat, and some even from marriage. /Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” 1.28/.
Self-Control in Acts 24:25
Through their use of the word enkrateia, the New Testament writers support the idea of self-control. The first occurrence of this word is found in Acts 24:25 as one of the subjects Paul presented to Felix and Drusilla: “And as he reasoned about righteousness, self-control, and the coming judgment, Felix became frightened and answered, ‘Go away for the present; when I have an opportunity I will summon you.’” Felix was an unrighteous ruler, inclined toward licentiousness, and was living in adultery with Drusilla. In view of the well-known cruelty and
licentiousness of this sinful couple, it is clear that when Paul spoke to them about self-control /enkrateia/, he was not speaking of moderation, but of abstaining from all unlawful and sinful practices.
Self-Control in 1 Cor. 9:25
In this same epistle, the apostle Paul uses the verb enkrateuomai a second time in a sense that clearly expresses the idea of self-control: “Every athlete exercises self-control in all things: they do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable” /1 Cor. 9:25/.
Some cite this passage to defend the moderate use of alcoholic beverages. They believe that here the apostle teaches Christians to exercise self-control, that is, moderation in the use of everything, including alcoholic beverages. This incorrect interpretation of the text was probably influenced by inaccurate modern translations. Earlier translations recognize that the true meaning of the verb in this passage of Scripture is abstinence, not moderate consumption of alcohol. In the Latin Vulgate, this passage is translated: “He abstains from everything.” Wycliffe, Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva Bible convey the same meaning.
This meaning is supported by the training practices of athletes preparing for the ancient games. Commentators provide many quotations from ancient authors. For example, Adam Clarke cites the Stoic philosopher Epictetus /around AD 100/, who writes: “Do you wish to win the prize at the Olympic Games? Consider the necessary preparations and consequences: You must follow a strict diet; you must live on food you do not like; you must abstain from all delicacies; you must exercise, enduring heat and cold; you must not drink anything cold; you must not drink wine at all” /quoted by Adam Clarke /vol. 2, note 20, p. 239/.
In his work “Ars Poetica,” Horace wrote well-known lines that Francis translated as follows: “The youth who would win the Olympic prize must endure every discipline and withstand every hardship; he must often test himself in extremes of heat and cold, and remove the enervating pleasures of wine and love /abstinet Venere et Baccho—literally, ‘he must abstain from love and wine’/ /Horace, “Ars Poetica,” line 412/.
In light of what we know about the strict temperate lifestyle of ancient athletes, Paul’s phrase panta enkrateuetai can rightly be translated as “he abstained from all harmful practices.” This meaning is recognized by several commentators. Walter Grundmann explained that the verb under discussion in 1 Cor. 9:25 “simply tells us that for the sake of the goal he was pursuing… he [the athlete] abstained from everything that could cause harm.” F. W. Grosheide, commenting on the meaning of the verb, says: “He trained himself by doing or refraining from anything that could cause harm.” F. W. Grosheide, “Commentary on 1 Cor.” “Temperance occupies an important place in the thought of the apostle Paul. He regards it as the antithesis of drunkenness and often describes this virtue in athletic or military terms” [The Teaching of the Early Church on the Use of Wine and Strong Drink, New York, 1927, p. 87].
In the following verses, Paul illustrates this meaning by making a personal application. Comparing himself to athletes, he says: “Therefore I run not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beats the air: but I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified” [1 Cor. 9:26–27]. Such expressions hardly support a moderate view of abstinence as the prudent use of intoxicating beverages. Rather, they imply strict, self-denying discipline. They imply that, in order to be prepared to be received as citizens of heaven, we must overcome our passionate desires for intoxicating beverages by the power of divine grace [Phil. 4:13].
Abstinence in Other Places in Scripture
The idea of abstinence is also presented in other passages where the word enkrateia occurs. We will make only brief references to them. In Gal. 5:22–23, this word appears as the completion and crown of the fruit of the Spirit: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.” The fruit of the Spirit, including its final part—temperance—is in sharp contrast to the works of the flesh listed in the preceding verses, among which “drunkenness” is prominent. This underscores Paul’s view that enkrateia is the direct opposite of drunkenness.
In 2 Pet. 1:6, enkrateia [temperance] appears among the list of virtues sometimes called Peter’s ladder. The adjective form enkrates occurs once in Titus 1:8, where it corresponds to the word nephalion [“temperate”] in 1 Tim. 3:2.
From this overview it becomes clear that the New Testament’s exhortations to sobriety and abstinence call for moderate use of everything good and complete abstinence from everything harmful. Regarding alcoholic beverages, the New Testament teaches complete abstinence. Our study of the apostolic exhortations to sobriety, expressed through the terms sophron, nepho, nephalios, and enkrateia, has shown that these terms complement one another in emphasizing the Christian calling to mental alertness and physical abstinence.
CONCLUSION
The conclusion drawn from the research conducted in this section concerning apostolic teaching on the use of alcoholic beverages is perfectly clear. Contrary to the prevailing notion, the New Testament is remarkably consistent in its teaching on abstinence from alcoholic beverages.
We found that the passages commonly used to support views advocating moderate use of alcoholic beverages do not support such a view. On the contrary, some of them openly contradict it.
The ironic accusation in Acts 2:13 that the apostles were drunk on gleukos—that is, grape juice, their customary drink—provides indirect but important evidence of their temperate lifestyle and, correspondingly, that of their Teacher.
The apostle Paul’s reference to “drunkenness” at the Lord’s Supper in the Corinthian church /1 Cor. 11:21/ does not support moderate consumption of alcoholic wine, for everything that took place in Corinth was a departure from Paul’s instructions given to the church. Thus, their behavior serves as a warning rather than an example for us. Moreover, our study of the meaning of the verb methuo /“to be satiated”/ and the meaning of Paul’s admonitions makes it entirely clear that the problem in Corinth was satiation rather than intoxication with alcoholic wine.
The purpose of Paul’s admonition in Eph. 5:18—“do not get drunk with wine”—is not to approve moderate consumption of alcoholic wine, but to show the irreconcilable contrast between the spirit of wine and the presence of the Holy Spirit. The structure of this passage, as well as the possible connection between the wine and the subordinate clause—recognized by many ancient and modern translations—makes this text one of the strongest biblical condemnations of intoxicating wine.
The apostolic admonitions to sobriety and self-control call for moderate use of everything good and complete abstinence from everything harmful. Our study of the Greek terms /sophron, nepho, nephalios, and enkrateia/ used in the apostolic admonitions shows how these terms complement one another in emphasizing the Christian necessity of both mental alertness and physical abstinence from intoxicating substances such as alcoholic beverages. The fundamental reason given by Peter and Paul in their call to a vigilant and temperate life is eschatological, namely, preparation for life in the holy presence of Christ at His soon coming.
Section VII: A Look at Some Misunderstood Passages
Introduction
The Bible is a collection of books, not a doctrinal manual in which subjects are presented sequentially and systematically. To determine the teaching of Scripture on any subject, all passages related to that subject must be examined in their immediate context and in the overall biblical teaching.
The Analogy of Scripture. One of the most important safeguards in interpreting the biblical text is respect for the analogy of Scripture. This means that Scripture should serve as a guide to understanding Scripture. No textual issue should be interpreted in isolation, but in light of the teaching based on all Scripture. Interpreting a passage in a spirit
Contrary to all Scripture must be rejected as erroneous. To do otherwise means viewing the Bible simply as a human literary work filled with internally conflicting teachings. This view is rejected by the internal testimony of Scripture, which demonstrates that its content is not the product of personal interpretation: “for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” /2 Pet. 1:20–21/.
Procedure and Method. Our method is to interpret each of the texts proposed for study in this section syntactically, that is, according to the rules of grammar governing the text; contextually, that is, in its immediate and broader context; historically, that is, in light of the circumstances and customs of the time; and analogically, that is, in light of the teaching of all Scripture.
In the preceding sections, we have already encountered several misunderstood passages of Scripture, especially in our study of Christ’s and the apostolic Church’s teachings concerning alcoholic beverages. However, a few texts were intentionally omitted to avoid lengthy discussion and straying from the main subject.
The purpose of this section is to examine five key passages, three from the Old Testament and two from the New Testament. These passages are considered highly significant by those who find in them approval for the moderate use of alcoholic beverages.
This section consists of five chapters, each examining one of the following passages:
Chapter 18: Deut. 14:26. “Whatever your heart desires… wine, strong drink.”
Chapter 19: Prov. 31:6. “Give strong drink to the one who is perishing.”
Chapter 20: Hos. 4:11. “Wine and drink have taken away their heart.”
Chapter 21: 1 Tim. 5:23. “Use a little wine.”
Chapter 22: 1 Tim. 3:8. “Not given to much wine.”
Chapter 18: Deut. 14:26. “Whatever your soul desires… wine… strong drink”
The significance of this passage. Deuteronomy 14:22–26 contains a unique provision concerning the annual harvest festival, during which all Israel gathered at the sanctuary to bring their tithes and celebrate God’s abundant harvest. The provision consisted of a general rule for those living near the sanctuary and a special arrangement for those living far from it. The general rule states: “You shall truly tithe all the increase of your grain that the field produces year by year. And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your wine and your oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks, that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always” / “Deut. 14:22–23.”
The special arrangement is stated as follows: “But if the journey is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, or if the place where the Lord your God chooses to put His name is too far from you, when the Lord your God has blessed you, then you shall exchange it for money, take the money in your hand, and go to the place which the Lord your God chooses. And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or strong drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household” /Deut. 14:24–26/.
The special provision from the “deferred tithe” is regarded by advocates of moderate alcohol consumption as a classic passage in which Scripture clearly approves the moderate use of alcoholic beverages. “The basis of this passage is unequivocal: strong drink was not only permitted for use by God’s people, but they could enjoy it ‘in the presence of the Lord your God’ (v. 23).” /Kenneth L. Gentry, “The Christian and Alcoholic Beverages,” Grand Rapids, 1986, p. 42/.
The Nature of the Problem
It must be acknowledged that this passage presents a problem, since it seems to guarantee God’s permission for pilgrims traveling from distant places to the sanctuary to use part of their tithe money to purchase not only food (oxen, sheep), but also “wine and strong drink” /Deut. 14:26/. The word “strong drink” is translated from the Hebrew
The noun shekhar, a term used 23 times in the Old Testament. Apart from its use in Deut. 14:26 and possibly in several other passages, shekhar refers to an intoxicating beverage not approved by God. /Robert P. Teachout presents compelling arguments emphasizing that in Deut. 29:6 and Num. 28:7, shekhar may mean “satisfying grape juice.” See his discussion of these passages in his doctoral dissertation: “The Use of Wine in the Old Testament,” 1979, pp. 238–240/.
For example, Prov. 20:1 condemns “strong drink” /shekhar/ as “raging.” Similarly, Isaiah proclaimed: “Woe to those who rise early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink” /Isa. 5:11/. “Strong drink,” along with wine, was also forbidden to priests /Lev. 10:9–11/ and Nazirites /Num. 6:2–4; Judg. 13:3–5/. In view of the prevailing divine disapproval of the use of “wine and strong drink,” how can we explain their apparent approval at the annual harvest festival prescribed in Deut. 14:26?
The Solution Proposed by Moderate Alcohol Users
Those who advocate moderate alcohol use attempt to resolve this apparent tension between divine disapproval of the excessive use of “wine and strong drink” and divine approval, or moderate approval. For example, Kenneth Gentry maintains that shekhar /strong drink/ “may be enjoyed before the Lord” /v. 26/ if one remains in the fear of God—“that you may learn to fear the Lord your God” /v. 23/. /Kenneth L. Gentry /n. 1/, p. 42/.
This solution is unacceptable for two reasons. First, the phrase “that you may learn to fear the Lord your God” /Deut. 24:23/ does not directly define the use of “wine and strong drink,” but refers to bringing the tithe during the harvest and eating at the sanctuary the harvest products—“your grain, your new wine /tirosh—grape juice/ and your oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks” /Deut. 14:23/. Second, the use of alcoholic beverages, as we saw in section three, is condemned in Scripture regardless of the amount consumed. This means that the word shekhar is used here differently than usual, or Scripture contradicts itself. The latter would deny the divine revelation and inspiration of the Bible /2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20–21/.
Moses’ Concession
A completely different solution was proposed by Lee Ophniel Caesar in his master’s thesis, “The Meaning of Yayin in the Old Testament,” submitted at Andrews University. Caesar emphasized that “the apparent tension between Deut. 14:26 and the testimony of the rest of Scripture /against the use of alcoholic beverages/ may be viewed as the insightful understanding of Moses, an experienced and compassionate leader, regarding the behavior of his people. The widespread use of alcohol in Israel’s daily life and celebrations appropriately influenced Moses’ insightful decision at a time when it made no sense to use legal force to enforce the divine requirement to abstain from alcohol.” Caesar attempted to resolve the apparent tension between divine disapproval of alcoholic beverages and Moses’ approval expressed in Deut. 14:26. This statement /according to Caesar’s assumption/ was an “insightful” concession by a compassionate leader who knew his people’s inclination to use alcohol. The context of this passage calls the people “you are a holy people to the Lord” /Deut. 14:2–21/, who eat nothing unclean /vv. 3–21/. Could Moses urge the people to live according to their holy calling by abstaining from various kinds of unclean food, and then, at the very climax of his exhortation, guarantee them permission to freely consume intoxicating “wine and strong drink”?
The overall meaning also dictates that if Moses knew of his people’s propensity to drink alcohol, he should not have recommended that they freely use part of their tithe to purchase alcoholic “wine and strong drink.” Such a recommendation would not represent “the discerning understanding of an experienced and compassionate leader,” but the blindness of an incompetent and irresponsible leader.
Caesar’s approach to the problem leaves him no choice but to conclude that “the Old Testament everywhere condemns not only drunkenness but also the consumption of alcoholic beverages as such,” whereas Deut. 14:26 “guarantees permission to consume intoxicating drinks” /Ibid., pp. 183–184/. Such a conclusion is equivalent to claiming that the Bible is contradictory in its teaching about alcoholic beverages. Obviously, this
Conclusion ignores the principle of the analogy of Scripture, according to which a textual problem must be interpreted in the light of all Scripture.
“Satisfying Grape Juice”
Robert Teachout presents a noteworthy solution to the apparent tension in Deut. 14:26. Briefly, in his dissertation Teachout showed that in all instances where yayin and shekar /“wine and strong drink”/ occur together, they convey one meaning—that is, they express the same idea of wine. In most cases, they refer to intoxicating wine, but in Deut. 14:26 these two words, yayin and shekar, together express the single idea of “satisfying grape juice” /Robert Teachout, /n. 2/, pp. 225–240/.
Teachout bases his conclusion on textual and contextual considerations. Textually, he notes that the word shekar, like the word yayin, “may refer to grape juice just as much as to wine” /Compare Deut. 29:6; Num. «*67; Exod. 29:40/. /Robert Teachout, “Wine: The Biblical Imperative—Total Abstinence,” 1986, p. 66/. The verb shakar, which is etymologically related to the noun shekar, primarily means “to drink deeply,” as shown by its use in Hag. 1:5–6 and Song of Solomon 5:1. /Robert Teachout, /n. 2/, pp. 212–214/. Thus, the idea of drunkenness is not inherent in the meaning of the noun or verb but is determined by its context and the beverage consumed.
Contextually, Teachout convincingly argues that “the context requires this understanding, since it specifically notes that the drink was consumed ‘before the Lord.’ To be able to rejoice properly before the Lord over all that He had given, one had to be sober. Since God clearly prohibited priests serving in His presence from consuming intoxicating drinks /the penalty for violation was death—Lev. 10:9/, it could not possibly be in God’s character to command His worshipers to consume these same intoxicating drinks during one of their special appearances before Him, especially when they were in the company of these priests.”
“The context also strongly emphasizes that, in light of the preceding verses, Deut. 14:26 must refer only to fresh grape juice. Deut. 14:23 states very clearly that one was to drink tirosh, not yayin. While yayin may legitimately be regarded to some extent as an ambiguous term /referring either to fresh juice or fermented wine depending on the context/, tirosh refers only to fresh grape juice in each of its 38 occurrences in the Old Testament /Compare p. 83, note 1/.”
“The drink consumed at the feast by those living nearby who brought their tithe of the harvest was undoubtedly fresh grape juice. Therefore, it seems most inappropriate to suppose that those who came from afar, exchanging their tithe for silver, could buy and drink fermented wine instead of grape juice. At the harvest feast, the appropriate beverage had to be fresh. Thus, two factors—the nature of the feast and the participation of the priests /v. 29/—should emphatically underscore the freshness of the beverage in v. 26” /Robert Teachout, /n. 7/, p. 67/.
These deeply insightful observations concerning the meanings suggested by the context are, in my opinion, the final reasons why the phrase “wine and strong drink” cannot refer to alcoholic beverages. Tichout’s suggestion that the two words used together here express one idea—“satisfying grape juice”—deserves serious consideration. The frequent occurrence of yayin and shekar, either together or in synonymous parallelism (Prov. 20:1), underscores the possibility that the two words may indeed refer to an ordinary grape beverage that, depending on the context, could be fermented or unfermented.
“Sweet Drink”
Without rejecting Tichout’s suggestion, I would like to present an alternative proposal: namely, that shekar in Deut. 14:26 may mean a sweet drink made from dates or honey. In that case, the text would read: “And spend the silver on whatever your soul desires—oxen, sheep, grape juice, or sweet drinks.” Support for this proposal comes from the use of the word shekar in Ex. 24:9 and from the root meaning of the word found in languages related to Hebrew.
In describing the effect of divine judgments on the earth, the prophet Isaiah says: “They no longer drink wine (yayin) with singing; strong drink (shekar) is bitter to those who drink it” (Isa. 24:9). The Revised Standard Version translates the word shekar as “strong drink”—this
makes the contrast between “sweet” and “bitter” difficult to understand. The adjective “strong,” although used together with the word shekar, was not part of the word itself but was added to it. This gives modern readers the false impression that people in Old Testament times drank purified, distilled beverages. This is clearly incorrect, since the process of distilling alcohol did not become known until around A.D. 500. Isaiah 24:9 emphasizes that shekar in the Old Testament was a valuable beverage because of its sweetness, a quality that disappeared as the sugar turned into alcohol.
Leon Field correctly observed that “the contrast between ‘sweet’ and ‘bitter’ in Isaiah 24:9 (literally, ‘bitter will be the sweet drink to those who drink it’) shows that shekar was valuable because of its sweetness, a quality diminished by the amount of alcohol it contained. The fact that it was commanded to be consumed ‘before the Lord’ (Deut. 14:26) and offered as a sacrifice (Num. 28:7) emphasizes that it was an unfermented form of fruit juice” (Leon C. Field, “Oinos: A Discussion of Wine in the Bible,” New York, 1883, p. 44).
The Origin of the Word “Shekar”
The origin and later use of the word shekar support the view that it was used to denote a sweet drink. For example, in Arabic, the noun shikra, related to the Hebrew shekar, according to G. R. Driver “denotes various intoxicating liquors, including barley beer and date wine, as well as honey or mixed wine beverages” (G. R. Driver, “Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B.C.,” Oxford, 1965, p. 60). In Akkadian, the noun shikarum means “beer” made from grain. However, beer does not appear to have been popular in Israel. Its production likely involved processes not mentioned in the Bible. Furthermore, as Tichout emphasizes, “every historical instance in the Old Testament mentioning the consumption of intoxicating drinks leading to drunkenness specifically refers to a fermented wine product” (Robert Tichout, n. 2, p. 224). One obvious exception is 1 Sam. 1:15, which, according to Tichout, is a phrase consisting of two words with one meaning, translated as “intoxicating wine” (p. 245).
Given the abundance of palm trees in biblical lands and the ease of producing palm and date wine, it seems likely that shekhar in the Bible refers not to beer but to a date beverage. This view is supported by the use of words related to shekhar in Aramaic, Syriac, and Arabic to designate date wine. Stephen M. Reynolds, one of the translators of the English New International Version of the Bible, noted that “Syriac has a cognate word suggesting that the meaning of the ancient Syriac root š-k-r may be a beverage made from dates or honey. /R. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, Oxford, Clarendon Press/, entry ‘Shakar.’” Intoxicating date wine may have acquired another meaning over time, and the same word may have come to mean beer.
“There is sufficient evidence to refute the unfounded claim that shekhar must necessarily be an intoxicating beverage, and since the circumstances of its use as an intoxicating beverage in Deut. 14:26 are incompatible with God’s command given elsewhere, we must conclude that a non-intoxicating beverage is meant here” /Stephen M. Reynolds, Alcohol and Wine, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1983, pp. 24–25/.
A similar view is expressed in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: “Probably the most common varieties of shekhar used in biblical times were palm wine and date wine. It is not actually mentioned in the Bible, and we do not encounter its Hebrew name en temarin (‘date wine’) until the Talmudic period. From the many references to it in Assyro-Babylonian contractual (cuneiform) tablets, and from other evidence, we conclude that such date wine was well known among the ancient Semitic peoples. Moreover, it is known that the palm tree was very common in biblical times; therefore, there is strong reason to believe that wine made from date juice was a common beverage. /The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1939, entry ‘Strong Drink,’ vol. 2, pp. 879–880/.”
The Bible Encyclopedia edited by T. K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black offers a similar explanation of the original meaning of shekhar: “In Assyro-Babylonian contractual tablets, shikaru designates intoxicating beverages in general, and especially wine made from dates. Indeed, it is highly probable that in prehistoric
times, when the Semitic race was still confined to its original homeland in Arabia, its principal, if not its only, intoxicating beverage was made from fermented date juice” /Encyclopedia Biblica, edited by T. K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black, 1903, entry ‘Wine and Strong Drink,’ vol. 4, p. 531/.
Fermented or unfermented?
The last quotation is an example of the prevailing view that shekhar was an intoxicating beverage, since most of the instances described in the Old Testament refer to intoxicating wine, which God does not approve. However, this assumption is incorrect, because, like the word yayin (‘wine’), shekhar is a general term that may refer either to a sweet, unfermented beverage, as in Isa. 24:9, or to a fermented, intoxicating beverage, as in most other instances (Prov. 20:1; 31:4–6; Isa. 56:12).
John Kitto’s Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature explicitly recognizes the general, generic nature of shekhar, stating: “Shekhar is a general term encompassing palm wine and other sugary (sweet) beverages, excluding those made from wine. This shekhar was made intoxicating by mixing it with a powerful narcotic, as we have seen earlier” /John Kitto’s Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature, 1845, entry ‘Wine,’ vol. 2, p. 953/.
Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate /around A.D. 400/, defines the word “shekar” as a comprehensive term for various types of fermented beverages, excluding grape wine. However, the list he presents also includes some unfermented beverages. In his letter to Nepotian, he writes: “Shekar in the Hebrew language means every kind of intoxicating drink, whether made from grain products or apple juice, or from juices combined with honey and boiled to produce a sweet, wonderful drink, or from palm juices pressed into a beverage, whereby the liquid becomes colored and thick through the boiling of plants” /Jerome, Letter to Nepotian, quoted in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia /n. 14/, p. 879/.
Sweet, reboiled syrup combined with honey could be well preserved and consumed unfermented, especially because of its high sugar content. The same may be true of juice produced from pressed dates. The same method used to preserve grape juice could also be applied to preserving date juice.
In his Analytical Concordance to the Bible, Robert Young expressed the view that shekar means either a fermented or an unfermented beverage. By the expression “strong drink,” Young understands shekar as a “sweet drink”—either a fully satisfying or an intoxicating shekar. /Robert Young, Analytical Bible Encyclopedia, 22nd edition, article “Strong Drink,” p. 273/. This definition emphasizes that shekar may be either fully satisfying or intoxicating, depending on the nature of the beverage. After listing 21 references from the Old Testament, he gives the Greek word sikera, also emphasizing that it may be unfermented: “A sweet drink /often fermented/, sikera; the Hebrew word shekar /ibid./.”
Shekar Through the Ages
Several standard English dictionaries and Bible encyclopedias state that our English words “sugar” and “cider” derive from the Hebrew shekar. If this evidence is accurate, as is most likely, it supports the supposition that shekar originally referred to a beverage distinguished by its sweetness. It is difficult to imagine that the word “sugar” could derive from a term originally associated with an alcoholic beverage that had neither sugar nor a sweet taste.
The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia provides a brief yet comprehensive description of the derivatives of the word shekar in many languages. In its first definition, “strong drink, shekar,” it states:
1. Sweet wine or syrup. Shekar, a juicy, fragrant, sugary drink or sweet syrup, especially date or palm sugar or honey /debash/… However, it seems most likely that palm syrup or honey was called shaukaavr. It was consumed as sweet food and as a beverage, similar to the Hebrew sobhe and the Roman sapa /boiled wine/, diluted with water, like modern grape juice and honey syrup or sherbet /Prov. 9:2, 5/. Derivatives of shekar, originating from its first
The meanings are countless. Spreading eastward and southward, following the routes of Arab and Saracen conquerors, we encounter most of the obvious forms of the Hebrew word for sugar. Thus, we have Arabic sakar; Persian and Bengali shukkur, or our word for rock candy, shukurkund, meaning lump sugar; the common Indian word jaggery or jaggeru; Moorish sekkour; Spanish azucar; and Portuguese assukur (molasses—honey-de-assucar, sweet honey sugar). The wave of migration also carried the original meaning northward, embodying this word in Greek and the Teutonic languages. Hence the Greek word sakchar; Latin saccarum; Italian zucchero; German Zucker and other related forms; Dutch suiker; Russian sakhar; Danish sukker; Swedish socker; Welsh siwgr; French sucre; and our English words succar, sugar, and saccharine. Likewise, in Old English, zuccarde clearly preserves in both meaning and sound the sense of a delicacy, dessert, or sweet dish” (Popular and Critical Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Scripture; 1909, article “Strong Drinks,” p. 546).
The second definition of shekar is given in the same Bible encyclopedia:
2. Date or palm wine. Date or palm wine in its fresh and unfermented state. This meaning corresponds to the context of both passages
Deut. 14:26 and Isa. 24:9. In fact, the latter passage is quoted in the encyclopedia immediately after the definition above: “Bishop Lowth translates Isa. 24:9 as follows: Palm wine will be bitter to those who drink it.” This is the proper meaning of the word shekar, the Greek sikera. All pleasures will cease; the sweetest wine will become bitter to their taste” (ibid.).
After quoting several accounts by travelers in the Near East, which testify that “palm wine, when fresh, is sweet like honey; but if kept, it turns into vinegar,” the article concludes: “In view of the facts presented to us, the language used by the prophet in this majestic chapter quoted above (Isa. 24:9) becomes entirely appropriate. His prediction that ‘the earth is utterly laid waste,’ and that bright joy will turn into gloomy sorrow, is like a sweet beverage that spoils, becoming increasingly acidic and bitter to those who drink it.” This passage clearly emphasizes the nature of the beverage, which was sweet in the state the Jews valued most highly. Therefore, the drunkard is portrayed in Isa. 5:20–22 as one who “calls bitter sweet and sweet bitter” (ibid., 547).
The major English dictionaries, such as the Oxford English Dictionary (1933 edition); Webster’s New International Dictionary (1959 edition); the New American Encyclopedic Dictionary (1906 edition); and the New English Dictionary on Historical Principles (1893 edition), all state that the English words “sugar” and “cider” derive from the Hebrew shekar or related words in the Semitic languages.” (These and other dictionaries are cited in Charles Wesley’s book The Bible and Its Wines, Denver, 1985, pp. 25–34).
Conclusion Regarding Deut. 14:26
The preceding discussion presents five main reasons why the phrase “wine and sikera” in Deut. 14:26 refers to an unfermented beverage. First, the broader context calls the people to be “holy to the Lord” and to abstain from everything unclean (Deut. 14:3–21), thereby eliminating the free use of intoxicating beverages during the solemn feast “before the Lord” (Deut. 14:23, 26).
Second, the immediate context (Deut. 14:23) indicates that the tithe could be used to purchase fresh produce from the harvest: grain, grape juice (tirosh), olive oil (shemen), and the firstborn of cattle and sheep—for those who lived near the sanctuary. When consumed, the grain became bread, and the grape juice (tirosh) became unfermented wine (yayin). Therefore, it is absurd to imagine that the worshipers of Jehovah who lived in the immediate vicinity of the sanctuary and celebrated the Feast of Harvest consumed fresh produce, while those who came from distant places had to consume intoxicating beverages.
Third, the participation of the priests and Levites in the Feast of Harvest (Deut. 14:27) should rule out the consumption of alcoholic beverages (Lev. 10:9–10).
Fourth, the term shekar, like yayin, is a common generic term that could refer to either a fermented or an unfermented beverage. The context favors the unfermented beverage.
Fifth, the origin of the word “shekar,” as well as its use in Isa. 24:9 and in related words in Semitic and Indo-European languages, emphasizes that this word originally meant a sweet beverage that could become bitter after fermentation.
Chapter 19: Prov. 31:6. “Give strong drink to the one who is perishing”
The Importance of This Text. In Prov. 31:6–7, we find this clearly paradoxical advice: “Give strong drink to the one who is perishing, and wine to the bitter in soul; let him drink and forget his poverty and remember his misery no more.” Superficial readers emphasize that this text plainly prescribes the use of alcohol.
Some interpret this text as recommending intoxicating beverages as a sedative to relieve pain, stress, and tension. Does this text have such a meaning? If not, what is the significance of this exhortation? To answer these questions, we will first consider the context and then the text.
Context. The immediate context of verse 6 contains a strong exhortation to kings and rulers to abstain from wine and strong drink, because these beverages can affect their minds—they may pervert justice and consequently impair their ability to act fairly in their judicial responsibilities.
The context makes a valuable judgment regarding alcoholic beverages, prohibiting not merely their improper use, but their actual use. The text does not say, “It is not for kings to drink much wine.” Rather, it says, “It is not for kings to drink wine” (v. 4). In light of the categorical prohibition against drinking wine in Prov. 31:4–5, the inspired writer could hardly have recommended moderate consumption of alcoholic wine to relieve ordinary pain and escape life’s stress and tension.
The Form of the Advice
In light of the immediate context, the command “give” (tenu), which stands first, cannot be regarded as a mandatory command to give alcohol to anyone in grief and distress. The meaning must be: “If you intend to give a strong drink to someone, then ‘give strong drink to the one who is perishing.’”
This view is also supported by the grammatical structure, for it does not say, “Give wine and strong drink to the sorrowful so that he may forget his sorrows.” Rather, it says, “Give wine and strong drink, and let them drink and forget their grief.” This is a manner of speaking common to all languages. For example, we say, “Give some people a meter, and they will make a kilometer out of it.” Thus, this means: “If we give some people a meter, then they will make a kilometer.” This can be defined as a conditional command, in contrast to a compulsory command.
The command “give” can also be viewed as a conditional comparison. Kings and rulers should abstain from alcoholic drinks /Prov. 31:4–5/ so as not to weaken mental clarity and judicial fairness. If alcoholic drinks are unsuitable for responsible people, then for whom are they suitable? Verse 6 adds the answer: “If you intend to give an alcoholic drink to anyone, then give strong drink to the one who is perishing,” to ease his suffering.
In light of the entire context, this passage can be pictured as a medal with two sides. On one side it says: “Alcoholic drinks are unsuitable for responsible, thinking people.” On the reverse we read: “Alcoholic drinks are suitable only for those who are dying without hope.” Verse 6 should therefore be understood as satirical and ironic advice. After warning her royal son about the danger of consuming intoxicating drinks, Lemuel’s mother, speaking ironically, points to the unfortunate dying ones—as the only people for whom alcohol is suitable. Could there be a stronger condemnation of the use of alcoholic drinks?
The Nature of the “Afflicted”
Further light is shed on this passage by noting the nature of the distress experienced by those who are “perishing” /obed/ and “bitter in soul” /marei nephesh/. Both expressions in Hebrew describe a desperate, hopeless condition. In other words, this is not the condition of someone saying, “I am dying of thirst. I must have a drink”; or, “I cannot sleep. Give me a sleeping pill.”
Rather, it is an extremely agonizing condition in which a person cries out in torment: “I am suffering excruciating pain. Give me something to kill this pain.” This is clearly a case of someone dying in extreme agony, as in crucifixion.
The Talmud interprets Proverbs 31:6 as recommending intoxicating substances to deaden the mortal pain of people condemned to death. “Sanhedrin 43a says: ‘Rabbi Echiuzda said: “The one who was executed was given a little frankincense mixed with wine, to deprive him of consciousness”’ /Sanhedrin 43a, quoted by Heinrich Seesemann, article “Oinos,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Heinrich Friedrich, Grand Rapids, 1968, vol. 5, p. 164/. In his article “On Wine” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Heinrich Seesemann relates this passage to “wine mixed with myrrh” /Mark 15:23/, which was offered to Christ on the cross, but He refused to drink it. Seesemann notes that “Jesus refused to drink such a beverage, showing that He desired to accept the sufferings on the cross fully consciously” /Heinrich Seesemann, / n. 24/. If He had not been our redeeming Savior, Christ could have accepted such a drink. Scripture does not prohibit the use of substances that relieve pain. However, the fact that Christ refused to drink intoxicating wine to ease the agony of the cross provides the most compelling evidence of His disapproval of intoxicating drinks. It should also be noted that later, when vinegar /oxos/, a non-intoxicating drink, was offered to Christ, He accepted it /John 19:29–30/.
The Medical Use of Alcohol
Proverbs 31:6 may provide some support for the medical use of alcohol. However, note that this passage of Scripture does not say that those experiencing some discomfort or distress should relieve their condition by consuming alcohol. Rather, it may be “given” to the suffering person as a means of easing pain. Applied to our time, this emphasizes that drugs should be given to patients only by prescription from a qualified physician.
Even when a person is under a doctor's supervision and receiving prescribed treatment, care must be taken when using drugs such as alcohol. Alcohol contains all kinds of drugs, and some of them have harmful side effects. If alcohol is prescribed for medical purposes, its harmful effects are reduced by the fact that the amount is usually small and the patient is confined to bed and therefore least able to make critical decisions that could place the lives of others at risk.
Summing up all that has been said above, Proverbs 31:6 does not recommend moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages for pleasure. Rather, it is an ironic statement emphasizing that alcohol is suitable only for dulling the excruciating pain of those who are suffering.
Chapter 20: Hos. 4:11 “Wine and strong drink have taken possession of their heart”
The importance of this passage. In the context of God's lament over Israel's spiritual apostasy, Hos. 4:11 says: “Wine and strong drink have taken possession of their heart.” Most advocates of moderate alcohol consumption point to this verse to defend their theory that the Bible speaks of only one kind of wine. They cite Hos. 4:11 as evidence that both “wine” /yayin/ and new wine /“strong drink” in the Russian Bible, tirōsh in the Hebrew text/ were fermented and possessed the full intoxicating properties of wine. Referring to this text, Kenneth Gentry said: “The prophet bitterly complains that ‘idolatry, wine, and new wine /tirōsh/ have taken away understanding.’ That is, people become drunk by consuming ‘new wine’ to the same extent as by consuming ‘wine’ /yayin/.” /Kenneth L. Gentry, /n.1/ p. 38/.
The same view is expressed, but even more emphatically, by John Fitzsimmonds in his article “Wine and Strong Drink” in the New Bible Dictionary, where he says: “Tirōsh is sometimes translated as ‘new’ or ‘sweet wine’ and is often regarded as unfermented and therefore non-intoxicating wine, but the example recorded in Hos. 4:11, together with its use in the Talmud, clearly demonstrates its quality of being used in a bad sense, on a par with other examples.” New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. D. Douglas, 1920, article “Wine and Strong Drink”/.
In light of these claims, it is important to answer two questions:
1. Is the “new wine—strong drink” /tirōsh/ here fermented, intoxicating wine?
2. If so, does this passage permit moderate consumption of alcoholic wine?
We will attempt to answer these two questions by examining first the general meaning of tirōsh /“new wine”/ and then its specific use in Hos. 4:11.
The Meaning of Tirōsh
There is considerable disagreement regarding the actual meaning of the word tirōsh. Some define it as “wine in the process of growing and production” /Hortius Bumstead, “The Biblical Permission to Use Wine,” Sacred Library journal, January 1881, p. 66/. For others, it means grapes in their whole form, rather than grape juice—fermented or unfermented. /See Frederick Richard Lees and Dawson Burns, “The Biblical Commentary on Abstinence,” /London, 1894/. For still others, it “invariably refers to fresh, pure grape juice” /Robert Teachout/ n.2/ p. 180/.
This word occurs 38 times in the Old Testament; 19 times it appears in parallel with “grain” /dagan/ and “fresh oil” /yitshar/, usually in the following order: grain, new wine, and oil. /Deut. 7:13; Deut. 11:14; Deut. 12:17; 14:23; 18:4; 28:51; 1 Chr. 31:5; 32:28; Neh. 5:11; 10:39; 13:5, 12; Hos. 2:8, 22; Joel 2:19; Hag. 1:11/. Eleven times it appears in parallel only with the word “grain” /Gen. 27:28, 37; Deut. 33:28; 2 Kings 18:32; Ps. 4:8; Isa. 36:17; 62:8; Hos. 2:9; 7:14; 9:1–2; Zech. 1:17/. And twice with “oil” /Neh. 10:37; Mic. 6:15/. Five times it occurs without any of the above words. /Judg. 9:13; Prov. 3:10; Isa. 24:7; Isa. 4:11; Hos. 4:11/.
By studying the contexts in which these three items—“wine, new wine, and oil”—occur, it becomes clear that these three words refer to an unprocessed natural product of the harvest—threshed or pressed. This is also demonstrated by the fact that three items were used consecutively to denote the final products ready for consumption: “bread” /lechem/, “wine” /yayin/, and “olive oil” /shemen/. /These words occur several hundred times. See Robert P. Teachout’s discussion /n. 2/, p. 195/.
Isaiah 65:8 provides a clear example in which tirosh refers to fresh grape juice: “Thus says the Lord: ‘As the juice is found in a cluster of grapes /tirosh/, then they say, “Do not destroy it, for there is a blessing in it.”’” Obviously, in this passage tirosh means fresh grape juice, since it is described as still being in the grape cluster.
However, other texts emphasize that tirosh refers not only to grape juice but also to whole grape clusters. For example, in Micah 6:15, tirosh denotes pressed grapes: “You shall sow, but not reap; you shall tread olives, but not anoint yourself with oil; you shall press grape juice /tirosh/, but not drink wine /yayin/.” Another clear example is found in Nehemiah, where the people promise to bring a tithe of “the fruit of every tree; we will bring wine /tirosh/ and oil to the priests in the storerooms of the house of our God” /Neh. 10:37/. Here tirosh is clearly presented as the fruit of the vine, which is probably grape clusters rather than wine.
Possibly a broader meaning.
The examples cited above emphasize that tirosh means either pressed grape juice or grapes. But a question arises: does tirosh also refer to newly fermented, not yet fully matured wine? Apart from Hosea 4:11, none of the other 35 passages where this word occurs allows for such a meaning. Whether tirosh in Hosea 4:11 means newly fermented wine must be determined by studying the immediate and broader context. We will soon examine such examples.
It must be acknowledged that in later Jewish history, tirosh was used as a designation for fermented wine. A clear example is a question asked in the Talmud: “Why is wine sometimes called ‘yayin’ and in other cases ‘tirosh’?” The answer follows: It is called ‘yayin’ because it brings calamity into the world, and it is called ‘tirosh’ because whoever indulges in wine becomes poor” /Talmud, Bavli Yoma 76b/.
It is unlikely that tirosh was used to denote fermented wine in the time of Hosea, in the eighth century BC, given the fact that this term was consistently used to denote freshly pressed grape juice or grape clusters. However, considering the argument that tirosh in Hosea 4:11 means fermented wine, this alone may confirm that the term, in its general and common sense, refers to grape clusters, grape juice, and fermented wine. Such general, ordinary usage should not surprise us, since we have found that the term
Yayin /wine/ and shekar /sweet or strong drink/ are also used in a general, common sense.
Those of us who are accustomed to using words precisely, according to their dictionary definitions, may be astonished to see the freer use of words by the ancients, often according to meanings suggested by their imagination. For example, according to the modern understanding of the teacher, Cato’s expression “hanging wine” could be considered incorrect as a term for grape juice. /Cato, “On Agriculture,” 141.1/. Yet in those days no one seems to have been troubled by the author’s freedom in using the word “vinum” to refer to grapes, grape juice, and fermented wine. As applied to our text, we should not be concerned if tirosh in Hos. 4:11 is used to mean “new fermented wine,” while elsewhere tirosh is used to mean “grapes” or “grape juice.”
Charges Concerning “New Wine”
Assuming, without proof, that tirosh means “new fermented wine” in Hos. 4:11, what does this text say? Not that alcohol should be consumed moderately, but that it should be abstained from. Why? Simply because the prophet does not say, “Too much wine and new wine take away understanding,” but simply, “Wine and new wine take away understanding” /The text is quoted from the original—translator’s note/. This statement, like the one in Prov. 23:31–32, is an accusation against “wine and new wine,” regardless of the amount consumed.
The Context of This Passage
However, consideration of the immediate and broader context rules out using the word tirosh as a term for intoxicating new wine. First, because the verb yigga never occurs in the Bible with the meaning “to intoxicate.” Its usual meanings are “to take,” “to bring,” “to rely on,” “to remove,” “to occupy,” “to seize,” “to capture,” and so on” /Lees and Barnes, n. 29, p. 219/. Second, if the prophet intended to list the main intoxicating substances that take away understanding, he would not have mentioned prostitution first, since it does not literally intoxicate a person. Furthermore, why did he use both articles for the same class, listing the weaker of the two, “new wine” /tirosh/, last? It would have been more logical for the prophet to use two articles from different classes, listing the stronger one last, such as “wine” /yayin/ and “strong drink” /shekar/.
The force of this expression was recognized by the translators of the Septuagint and the Vulgate, who departed from the original by translating tirosh with the word “drunkenness”: “Prostitution, wine, and drunkenness have taken possession of their heart.”
The solution to this problem can be found by recognizing that the connection between “prostitution, wine, and grape juice” is not physical intoxication but spiritual apostasy. In his penetrating analysis of this passage of Scripture, Tichout convincingly showed that Hos. 4:11 is built on chapter 2, where, against the painful and tragic picture of Hosea’s unfaithful wife, God grieves that the blessings He gave her—namely, “grain, wine, and oil”—were “used for Baal” /Hos. 2:8/. In chapter 4, the prophet emphasizes the position already taken, namely, “that even the blessings given by the Lord, as a result of perverted theology /which established Baal as the source of fertility and the productivity of the land/, were joined with other more obvious sins in eliminating faithfulness to God. Therefore, ‘prostitution, wine, and even the freshly pressed grape juice of the harvest took away their faithfulness’” /Robert P. Tichout, n. 2, pp. 190–191/. The reason even “grape juice” /tirosh/ took away their faithfulness and understanding is found in the earlier explanation of Hos. 2:8: tirosh was one of the good gifts that Israel, in forsaking God and committing adultery, used in the worship of Baal.
The Meaning of “Prostitution, Wine, and Drinks”
It is noteworthy that the principal understanding of tirosh was presented over a century ago—in 1881—by Horace Bumstead in a work that may be the strongest theological defense of the claim that the Bible approves alcoholic wine. This work was published in the Sacred Library journal (page 71). Despite his view in favor of moderate alcohol consumption, Bumstead acknowledged that tirosh in the Old Testament is “the product of the soil and the press and God’s gift to the farmer” (Horace Bumstead, n. 28, p. 69).
This admission led Bumstead to draw several significant conclusions, which are worth quoting in full: “Since it is consistently used in this sense and is never mentioned in connection with drunkenness except in the few cases already noted, tirosh must naturally be distinguished from the evidence of intoxicating power, which it possesses only in its final stage. For this reason also, I am quite willing to relinquish the single text on which I have relied so heavily to demonstrate the intoxicating character of tirosh: ‘Whoredom and wine (yayin) and new wine (tirosh) take away their heart’ (Hos. 4:11). I am quite willing to accept an interpretation that makes this passage a reference to the abuse of God’s temporal blessings, which, because of their abundance, led the people of Israel to idolatry (whoredom). This passage exactly echoes the description of the prophetic vision in Moses’ swan song in Deut. 32:14–16. In this passage, the prophet Hosea, speaking of whoredom, seems simply to refer to the allurements of idolatrous worship, made more attractive through the use of yayin (fermented wine), consumed abundantly or otherwise—it is not the issue here—and through the use of tirosh, in this case unfermented wine, which the farmer prepared for future use; and both blessings were regarded as gifts to the gods to whom the idolatrous Israelites had turned” (ibid.).
Two years after Bumstead’s theological article was published, L. K. Field presented a similar interpretation of Hos. 4:11 in his book Oinos: A Discussion of Biblical Wine, where he wrote: “‘Take away the heart’—in this text there is no reference to intoxication, but it means, as Bishop Lowth says, ‘to deprive a person of his judgment and cloud his understanding.’ Gifts are said to ‘corrupt the heart’ (Eccl. 7:7). The fact that three distinct things are listed here merely emphasizes their difference. There is no parallelism in this passage of Scripture. Whoredom is not yayin, and yayin is not tirosh. The first was undoubtedly used for unlawful worship or idolatry; the second for sensual gratification; and tirosh for worldly possessions. Three factors diverted their hearts from ‘God as unlimited in goodness and the Source of spiritual joy.’ All three were strikingly fulfilled, as recorded in the prophecy of dying Moses in Deut. 32:14–16. Therefore, regarding tirosh, we conclude that it does not mean fermented wine in any sense or instance, but the natural fruit of the vine in its whole state, regarded as the basis of wine” (Leon C. Field, n. 10, p. 43).
Conclusion
The preceding studies emphasize that Hos. 4:11 concerns not physical intoxication but spiritual apostasy. “Wine and new wine—grape juice,” mentioned as good gifts from God intended for the people of Israel, were abused to betray God, thus leading them into idolatry. This text provides no justification for moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages—first, because the three terms are used figuratively rather than literally; and second, because if “wine and new wine” were alcoholic, they are condemned in the passage, for they took away understanding regardless of the amount consumed.
Chapter 21: 1 Tim. 5:23. “Use a little wine for the sake of your stomach”
Importance of the Text. When the subject of wine in the Bible is raised, it seems that the first passage that comes to most people’s minds is 1 Tim. 5:23, where Paul advises Timothy: “No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent illnesses.” For some, this text means that “alcoholic beverages in themselves pose no danger to health.” For others, this passage is a clear recommendation for moderate alcohol consumption. After arguing that “Paul’s instructions do not prohibit all use of wine, but seek to regulate its use,” Howard H. Charles writes: “Interestingly enough, there is one well-known passage in which its use is recommended… /1 Tim. 5:23/.”
Paul’s advice to Timothy has been used by many people throughout the past nineteen centuries to justify the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Therefore, it is important for us to determine the nature of Paul’s advice and its application for us today.
The Context of This Passage
Some commentators find it difficult to determine how Paul’s advice to Timothy is connected with the preceding and following thoughts. Some of them regard this text as a marginal note rather than an integral part of the original letter. For example, Moffatt leaves this text out of his translation and places it in a footnote.
This difficulty can be resolved by supposing that when Paul wrote in the preceding verse, “Keep yourself pure” /1 Tim. 5:22/, he suddenly remembered Timothy’s strict life of abstinence and his poor health, especially his stomach problems. Thus, he immediately added to his exhortation: “No longer drink only water…” The connection of thought may then be expressed as follows: “Keep yourself pure by every possible means, but do not let your concern for purity keep you from taking a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent illnesses.”
The Nature of Paul’s Advice
Paul’s advice to Timothy should first of all be regarded as an expression of fatherly concern, not as a commanding order. The apostle does not command his beloved son in the Gospel to drink wine freely; rather, he advises him to use a little wine. Paul makes no effort to persuade Timothy to violate his principle and practice of abstinence.
The advice means that it was intended specifically for Timothy and for the reason stated: “for your stomach’s sake and your frequent illnesses.” Paul does not set forth a rule for the whole world to follow, nor does he prescribe wine as a cure-all for every disease. He merely recommends to his beloved fellow worker what he believes might relieve his ailments.
As Albert Barnes appropriately stated, the purpose of the advice “was not to derive pleasure from drinking wine, to produce noisy merriment or excitement, but solely as a necessity for improving health, that is, as a medicinal remedy” /Albert Barnes, Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. New York, 1873, p. 179/. The only proper conclusion that can be drawn from this exhortation is that it presents the appropriate use of a small amount of wine for medical purposes. This conclusion will become clearer later in the discussion of the nature of the wine recommended by Paul.
The Form of the Advice
We must also note the form in which Paul gave his advice. Ferrar Fenton, who earlier in this century translated the entire Bible into modern English, observed that most translators had not conveyed the full meaning of the Greek text. He translated it literally as follows: “Drink no longer water only, but use with a little wine, on account of thy stomach, for thou art often ill” /Ferrar Fenton, “The Bible and Wine,” London, 1911, p. 93/.
As a comment on his translation, Fenton said: “The apostle’s use of the dative case /oino – wine/, translated in English with the preposition ‘with,’ emphasizes that the stomach needs a little wine, as medicine, mixed ‘with water’—similar to the way syrup was prepared in ancient times from grapes and other fruits—to be used as a strengthening remedy for the stomach in cases of dyspepsia—indigestion. Once this fact is known, the absurdity of teaching that this part of the advice is a sacred permission to always drink intoxicating wine instead of water as a beverage becomes quite obvious. Missionaries in heathen countries should especially avoid repeating the false translations of this epistle that, unfortunately, so often fall into their hands.” /Ibid./
The practice of mixing one part wine with two, three, five, or more parts water was common in the ancient world. In the fifth section, we noted that some wines, especially thick grape juice—syrup—were mixed with as many as 20 parts water.
Two other significant forms of advice should be noted in the use of the verb kramoami /to use or take/ and the adjective oligos /a little/. Attention should be drawn to the fact that Paul does not say to Timothy: “Drink, but use.” “Use” is a verb employed by a doctor when prescribing a dosage of medicine to a patient. Likewise, the adjective “a little” implies very
Moderate use of wine. In that case, the advice would not sound like “freely drink wine for stomach problems and frequent illnesses,” but rather, “use a little wine with water…” This sounds more like a doctor’s prescription to a patient than a universal principle for everyone.
The Type of Wine
The prevailing view is that the wine Paul recommended to Timothy was alcoholic. But this is incorrect for two reasons. First, because the term oinos /wine/ was used in the general, customary sense to refer to either fermented or unfermented wine. And second, because of historical evidence describing the use of unfermented wine in the ancient world for medicinal purposes.
Aristotle /384–322 BC/ recommends using sweet grape juice, called glukus in Greek, for, as he says, although oinos is called wine, “it has none of the effects of wine… and does not intoxicate like ordinary wine” /Aristotle, Meteorologica 387, pp. 9–13/. The grammarian Athanasius /AD 280/ recommended specific remedies—using a type of grape juice that some called “sweet wine” /glukon oinon/, while others recommended prodromos or pro tropos /Latin names for unfermented grape juice/ for stomach ailments. He writes: “Let him drink sweet wine diluted with water, or warmed, especially the type of wine called pro tropos, sweet Lesbian glukus, for it is good for the stomach, since sweet wine does not intoxicate” /Athanasius, The Banquet of the Learned 2.24/. Here we have advice strikingly similar to Paul’s, with the difference that Athanasius classifies the type of wine recommended—namely, sweet grape juice called ‘Lesbian—effoeminatum’ because its alcoholic strength had been removed.
Pliny /24–79 AD/, a contemporary of Paul and author of the famous “Natural History,” offers similar advice regarding the medicinal use of wine. He begins this subject by saying: “Countless kinds of artificial wines have been invented, which we will now classify; all of them are used for medicinal purposes” /Pliny, “Natural History,” 14.18/. The first of these wines described by Pliny was called adynamon—it was prepared as follows: “Boil ten quarts /one quart = 1.14 liters/ of white must and half that amount of water until a considerable quantity of the water has evaporated… This beverage is intended for the sick and infirm, who fear that wine may harm them” /ibid./.
Rackham’s translation of the Latin word aegris as “invalids” gives the impression that this special, boiled grape juice could be given only to cripples or incapacitated people, which is obviously incorrect. The word aegrotus, as any Latin dictionary confirms, simply means “sick,” and may refer either to physical illness or mental exhaustion. Thus, the text says that boiled grape juice was given generally to sick people, not merely to disabled or incapacitated patients.
It must be acknowledged that later in his “Natural History,” Pliny also speaks of using fermented wine for medicinal purposes. However, Pliny admits that alcoholic wine is absorbed more quickly and travels “most readily to the head; this should be considered by everyone when using intoxicating alcoholic beverages” /ibid., 23–24/. To avoid the harmful effects of alcoholic wine, Pliny recommends filtered grape juice for medicinal purposes: “Wines are most beneficial when all their strength has been removed by filtration” /ibid./.
All the testimonies of Aristotle, Athanasius, and Pliny quoted above emphasize that unfermented wine was known and preferred to alcoholic wine for medicinal purposes, since it produced no harmful effects afterward. In light of this evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the wine Paul recommended to Timothy was unfermented. Ellen White supports this conclusion, saying: “Paul advised Timothy to use a little wine for his stomach’s sake and his frequent infirmities, but he meant unfermented grape juice. He did not advise Timothy to use what the Lord had forbidden” /E. White, “The Wedding at Cana of Galilee,” Signs of the Times, September 6, 1899, p. 6/.
Timothy was a teetotaler, a Nazirite.
The advice, “Do not continue to drink only water,” implies that Timothy, like the priests and Nazirites, abstained from both fermented and unfermented wine, probably in accordance with Paul’s teachings and example. Thus, the apostle could clearly explain his
position by telling Timothy to keep himself pure without requiring him to drink only water. He could rightly consume some grape juice to improve his stomach and frequent ailments.
From this passage of Scripture, it becomes clear that Timothy normally drank only water. In modern terms, he was a complete teetotaler. If he had been accustomed to drinking wine, Paul would not have exhorted him in this way. Timothy was undoubtedly an exemplary, temperate young man, for whom the authority of the apostle Paul was needed to encourage him to drink a little nonalcoholic wine!
Timothy’s complete abstinence was prompted by various factors. The teaching and example of his mother Eunice and grandmother Lois probably played a role. Perhaps an even greater influence was the teaching and example of the apostle Paul himself, whom the young evangelist followed.
We have reason to believe that Paul instructed Timothy to practice temperance, for earlier in this epistle he tells him that a Christian bishop must be not only temperate /nephalion/, but also not addicted to wine /me paroinon, 1 Tim. 3:2–3/. Paul could not have instructed Timothy—or required temperance of church leaders—without first teaching him this principle. The fact that Timothy drank only water implies that he followed his teacher’s advice very scrupulously.
The Christian minister’s temperance was probably based on the law prohibiting priests from consuming intoxicating drinks /Lev. 10:9–10/. This was only natural, since a Christian leader should be no less holy than a Jewish priest, especially because the reason for the Jewish law remained the same: “that you may distinguish between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean, and that you may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord has spoken to them through Moses” /Lev. 10:10–11/.
This principle of temperance was not violated by the apostle Paul’s recommendation, since the advice to use a little nonalcoholic wine was intended not for pleasure, but for the therapeutic treatment of the stomach.
Conclusion
Properly understood, Paul’s advice to Timothy—to use a little wine for the sake of his stomach and frequent ailments—provides an unassailable defense of the principle and practice of abstaining from alcoholic beverages in the apostolic Church. This position shows that Paul clearly approved of Timothy’s temperate lifestyle. We have found the apostle’s prudent statement, a cautious exhortation, to be highly significant. He did not say, “No longer drink only water, but rather, from now on drink more than water!” He did not say, “Drink wine, but rather use a little wine mixed with water.” He did not say, “For your stomach’s physical pleasure.” Regardless of the type of wine—fermented or unfermented—this text does not support regular wine consumption in any sense.
Chapter 22: 1 Tim. 3:8. “Not given to much wine”
The importance of the text. In a statement concerning the qualifications for deacons, Paul says: “Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money” /1 Tim. 3:8/. Advocates of moderate alcohol consumption attach great importance to the phrase “not given to much wine,” because, in their opinion, this phrase provides clear evidence that Scripture approves the moderate use of alcoholic wine.
The reference to “much” /pollo/ seems most important, for, as Kenneth Gentry explains: “much” refers to the quantity consumed” /Kenneth D. Gentry /n.1/, p. 47/. For Gentry, Paul’s words mean: “Only an excessive quantity of alcoholic beverages is prohibited. /Who can say that he did not forbid ministers to indulge in an abundant consumption of grape juice?/. But the New Testament apostle always commanded adherence to one consistent line: “Not to drink alcoholic wine at all” /ibid./. Similarly, Fred Gealy interprets “not given to much wine” not as an obligation to practice abstinence, but as a warning not to be “notorious
Drunkards” /Fred D. Gealy, “The First and Second Epistles to Timothy,” The Interpreter’s Bible, Nashville, 1960, vol. 11, p. 412/.
In view of the extraordinary significance attributed to this passage, as supposedly providing a clear biblical endorsement of the moderate use of alcoholic beverages, it is important for us to consider the meaning of the phrase “not given to much wine” in light of its context, cultural background, and the overall teaching of Holy Scripture.
The Immediate Context
The immediate context of 1 Tim. 3:8 is often overlooked when interpreting the phrase “not addicted to much wine.” The list of qualities required of deacons follows immediately after the qualities required of overseers, to which they are connected by the adverb “likewise” /hosautos/. This word implies that what is said about the qualities of overseers applies even more broadly to deacons as well.
Regarding the ministry of an overseer, Paul instructs that a person aspiring to such ministry must, among other qualities, be “nephalios,” that is, sober and temperate, and “me paroinos,” that is, not be present at or participate in drunkenness /1 Tim. 3:2–3/. In Section VI, we established that by these words Paul teaches that a Christian minister must not only be temperate, but must not even be present at or approve of places of drunkenness and socializing that could tempt his own temperance or that of others.
In the context of this exhortation for overseers to be sober and temperate, Paul says: “Deacons likewise must be… not addicted to much wine.” This creates a problem. Did Paul present a double standard—sober living for overseers /elders, pastors/ and moderate alcohol use for deacons/? Indeed, some translations give this impression. For example, the New American Standard Bible translates the phrase “me paroinos” as /not addicted to wine/ /verse 3/, and the phrase “me oino pollo prosechontas” as “not addicted to much wine” /verse 8/. Clearly, this translation implies that while an overseer must not be addicted to wine at any time, a deacon may be moderately addicted to wine. This is hardly conceivable. Paul did not create a double standard of moral conduct.
Is it right to be slightly addicted?
Addiction to anything inherently evil is always morally wrong, whether the addiction is moderate or excessive. To argue that “not addicted to much wine” permits moderate addiction to alcoholic beverages is to adopt a dangerous method of interpretation. Such an interpretation rests on the assumption that what is forbidden in excess is automatically permitted in small amounts; what is declared sinful in excess is naturally right in moderate use. Is this assumption true? Anyone can see that this method of interpretation is wholly unjustified. When Peter says that the Gentiles are surprised when Christians do not participate “with them in the same flood of debauchery” /1 Pet. 4:4/, he obviously does not mean that Christians may participate moderately in their debauchery. We cannot automatically assume that what is unlawful in excess is lawful in moderation. The next part of the verse under consideration illustrates this point: “Not greedy for dishonest gain.” Did Paul intend this phrase to approve a moderate desire for unlawful profit? It becomes evident that Paul, while condemning excess in the use of wine and the desire for unlawful profit, was not condemning moderate use of them. Today we use this same form of speech when condemning excess without condemning moderation in the matter. For example, a teetotaler may rebuke someone for frequent visits to bars without condemning occasional visits.
The review conducted in Section VI of the New Testament exhortations to sobriety and temperance shows that Scripture calls us to moderate use of everything good and complete abstinence from everything harmful. Biblical moderation is not merely a matter of degree or quantity, but of nature. If intoxicating wine is sinful by nature, then drinking it in moderation will not make it good.
The Meaning of “Addicted to Much Wine”
We have gone so far in examining the evidence that, in light of the immediate context, the phrase “not addicted to much wine” cannot mean moderation in the use of alcoholic wine, for it contradicts Paul’s requirement that bishops be sober-minded. What, then, does this phrase mean? We find the answer, first of all, by noting that this phrase describes
one of the four qualifications for being a candidate seeking to become a deacon. This means that the primary function of the phrase “not addicted to much wine” is not to establish a basic principle concerning moderate wine consumption, but rather to exclude from the office of deacon anyone who drinks a great deal of wine.
Albert Barnes emphasizes this important detail, saying: “There is no evidence that it would be proper for deacons, any more than for bishops, to indulge in the use of wine in small quantities; but there is evidence that a man who is greatly addicted to the use of wine should not be a deacon” (Albert Barnes, n. 45, p. 144). Barnes goes on to say: “It may here be remarked that this quality has everywhere been regarded as necessary for a minister of religion. Even pagan priests, when entering the temple, did not drink wine (Bloomfield). The use of wine and all kinds of strong drink was absolutely forbidden to Jewish ministers of every rank when they were engaged in the service of God (Lev. 10:9). Why should it be more proper for a Christian minister to drink wine than for a Jewish or pagan priest? Should a minister of the Gospel be less holy than they? Should he have a weaker sense of the purity of his calling?” (ibid.).
“Much Wine” and “Little Wine”
Another important factor that may help us determine the meaning of “much wine” is the reference to “a little wine” in 1 Tim. 5:23. The latter expression is the only other reference to “wine” in 1 Timothy. Our analysis of this passage points to two facts:
1. Paul advises Timothy to use only a little wine, not for pleasure, but for medicinal purposes.
2. The wine Paul recommended was most likely unfermented grape juice, as is evident from pagan authors’ comments on the medicinal use of wine and from Paul’s exhortation to sobriety.
Consistency requires that if Paul approved of Timothy’s abstinence, advising him to use only a little wine for medicinal purposes, then he could hardly have advised deacons to drink alcoholic wine in moderation. In that case, he would have given Timothy the same limitation—“a little”—and the qualified advice—“for your stomach and your frequent ailments.” In light of these facts, the phrase “not addicted to much wine” is most likely a free expression intended to convey abstinence from wine.
To interpret this phrase as implying permission to drink wine in moderation is to place that interpretation in open contradiction with the general teaching of Scripture and with the specific exhortations Paul gave regarding abstinence. This contradiction can be clearly illustrated as follows. As a bishop, you must abstain /nephalios/ from wine and not even go near where wine is being drunk /me paroinon/ 1 Tim. 3:2–3. As a deacon, you may drink wine in moderation /me oino pollo—v. 8/. If you are a woman, presumably a deaconess, you must abstain /nephalious—v. 11/ from wine. If you are an elderly man, you must abstain /nephalious/ Titus 2:2/ from wine. If you are an elderly woman, you must drink in moderation /me oino pollo/ /Titus 2:3/. In that case, what should happen if a woman is elderly and simultaneously serves as a deaconess? Should she abstain one day and drink in moderation the next? Such an absurd contradiction can be avoided simply by recognizing that the phrase “not addicted to much wine” does not imply permission to drink in moderation, but is merely a free form of speech expressing a prohibition against consuming alcoholic wine.
Respect for the Convictions of Others
This conclusion is supported by the general principle Paul stated in his letter to the Romans: “It is better /kalon—morally superior/ not to eat meat, drink wine /oinos/, or do anything else by which your brother stumbles, is offended, or is weakened” /Rom. 14:21/.
The apostle stated this principle as the conclusion of his exhortation—not to eat or drink what is good in itself but may cause others to fall /Rom. 14:21/.
The dispute in Romans 14 between “weak” and “strong” believers regarding diet and days of fasting does not trace back to the Mosaic Law, for nowhere in the Pentateuch is a strictly vegetarian way of life prescribed, nor is there any prescription
regarding days of fasting. That the Mosaic Law is not at issue in Romans 14 is also emphasized by the use of the term koinos /common/, which was used to designate “unclean” food /Rom. 14:24/. This term is radically different from the word akathartos /unclean/, used in the Greek translation /Septuagint/ in Leviticus 11 to designate unlawful kinds of food.
The “food” and “wine” mentioned in Romans 14 were probably food that had been dedicated to idols before being sold in the marketplace. Some firmly believed that such food, although good in itself, should not be eaten by Christians, because doing so would constitute idolatry. Paul discussed this problem in detail in 1 Corinthians 8, where he stated a principle similar to that presented in Romans 14:21, namely: “If food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble” /1 Cor. 8:13/.
Although the principle of abstaining from food and wine stated by Paul in this particular context—offending the conscience of a believer who doubts whether to eat food that had been dedicated to idols—is broad enough to include other circumstances or situations in which the central issue is involved, namely, another person’s temptation and sin. In his commentary on this text, Lyman Abbott said: “So great is the evil of causing temptation for others or ourselves that it is better to eliminate the most innocent pleasures or even useful exercises of God-given strength than to use it ‘to lead ourselves or others into sin’” /Lyman Abbott, quoted in Leon Field /n. 10/, p. 107/.
Applied to a deacon, this principle requires him to abstain from intoxicating drinks so that his example will not tempt others to drink alcoholic beverages against their sound judgment. Respect for the convictions of others is itself a good thing and sufficient reason to abstain from things that may be good in themselves. This principle was especially relevant to deacons who, because of their ministry, were called to visit church members in their homes and people in need in the community. What they drank, and how much they drank during home visits, could easily endanger the convictions of others.
A reference to grape juice is possible
Robert Teachout emphasizes another possible solution to the apparent contradiction between the requirement that bishops be sober and that deacons “not be addicted to much wine.” His emphasis is that the distinction between the two statements “may well point to a different truth,” namely, that bishops are instructed to abstain from alcoholic beverages, while deacons are to be moderate in their consumption of grape juice” /Robert Teachout, Ph.D., pp. 442–443/.
“Although this is a simple solution,” Teachout concedes, “it may initially seem compelling; however, this interpretation must be fully maintained alongside the double legal meaning of oinos and the immediate context. It seems most unusual, for only here /the sole reference in the entire Bible, a fact overlooked by many who hold this position/ is there any emphasis that the secret of drinking wine with God's approval is its quantity. If this contains the key to the matter, it must also apply during the Old Testament period. Yet there God clearly approved yayin /wine/ as a symbol of His blessings for humanity and indicated that it should be drunk to satisfaction /Song of Songs 5:1; Joel 2:18–19/. However, since the context of 1 Timothy 3 places excessive emphasis on self-control and moderation, including the idea of such moderation in the use of God's good gifts—grape juice—is not unexpected, especially if there are cultural reasons for the restriction” /Ibid., pp. 443–444/.
To clarify his interpretation, Teachout gives two examples of biblical exhortations to moderate the use of products that are good in themselves. The first is honey, about which he says: “Honey is a gift from God for enjoyment /with some possible negative secondary meanings/, and is highly commended as a ‘good thing.’ However, Proverbs 25:27 emphasizes moderation even with such a good thing: ‘It is not good to eat much honey’” /Ibid., p. 444/.
The second example is food, which is a good gift from God /Psalm 104:15/. However, as Teachout explains, “gluttony, consuming large amounts of food, is
a sin /Deuteronomy 21:20; Proverbs 23:21/. While some have tried to associate drunkenness with gluttony as sins of the same kind, according to the Bible they are distinct.
Drinking alcoholic wine is sinful for our nature in any quantity, as emphasized in Judges 13:4, 7, 14. Both of these products are naturally sinful according to Scripture /Leviticus 11:44–47/. Therefore, the assumption that 1 Timothy 3:8 allows deacons to drink wine in moderation completely misses this point. Instead, the words requiring sobriety, abstinence, and self-control are often repeated in the context of God's qualities for leaders, including the warning to exercise moderation even in enjoying God's gift, grape juice” /Ibid., p. 445/.
Tichout finds legitimate cultural support for his interpretation in the prevailing intemperance of Greco-Roman society. Excessive drinking is attested both in Scripture /Titus 1:12; 1 Cor. 11:21; 6:10, 11/ and by secular authors. Pliny describes with disgust “drinking contests in which the prize was awarded to those who drank the greatest amount of wine”—“we reduce the strength of wine by filtering it,” says Pliny /ibid./. This statement emphasizes that they sometimes consumed wine whose alcoholic strength had been removed by filtering must—a procedure described so clearly in Section IV. In some cases, people filled their stomachs with pure grape juice; then they expelled it by using an emetic and repeated the contest. Lucian of Samosata /approximately A.D. 115–200/, a pagan satirist, referring to this custom, said: “I have come… like those who drink grape juice /gleukos/, filling and emptying their stomachs by using an emetic” /Lucian of Samosata, “Philopatris,” 39/.
House Visits
A cultural factor not mentioned by Tichout, yet supporting his interpretation, is highlighted by the unique nature of the deacon’s ministry. Deacons were responsible for bringing the church’s assistance everywhere—to those in need—and for collecting offerings from house to house. This required deacons to visit homes, often under the official direction of church leaders. In carrying out this unique ministry among families, a deacon was expected to fulfill each of the four qualities Paul gave as necessary for such ministry. /1 Tim. 3:8/.
The first quality is “seriousness,” because a deacon must properly represent the holiness of his ministry.
The second quality is that deacons must not be “double-tongued,” because when visiting families, a deacon must not tell different stories to church members in an attempt to please everyone. He must uphold the truth. The third quality is “not given to much wine.” When visiting members in their homes, a deacon would usually be offered unfermented grape juice. The fourth quality is “not greedy for dishonest gain,” since the deacon was responsible for collecting offerings from house to house and distributing them among those in need. These qualities were necessary for deacons to “hold the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience” /1 Tim. 3:9/.
Christians who had been taught by Paul to abstain from alcoholic beverages could quite naturally offer a deacon, when he visited their homes, unfermented grape juice, which might be fresh, boiled and diluted with water, or made from raisins. It was customary in those days, as it still is today, to offer a drink as a welcome to a visitor. In light of this cultural custom, Paul would have had to urge deacons to be moderate in drinking grape juice when visiting members, in order to preserve their reputation and the image of the church. A deacon who drank several cups of grape juice in the homes he visited could soon become known for his excess and be nicknamed a glutton.
When understood in this way, Paul’s admonitions are consistent and positive. Christians, and especially church leaders, were expected to abstain from fermented wine. Deacons, who were often invited to visit church members in their homes, were expected to be moderate in consuming unfermented wine, in order to protect their reputation and, equally, that of the entire church.
Summary
The preceding analysis of 1 Tim. 3:9 emphasizes that the phrase “not given to much wine” does not imply approval of moderate consumption of alcoholic wine. This conclusion
It rests on five main reasons. First of all, this interpretation contradicts Paul’s requirement of sobriety for bishops, deaconesses, elderly men, and women; thus, the double standard becomes absurd. Second, even today, a law implying consent means that what is forbidden in large quantities is automatically approved in small quantities.
Third, the main function of this phrase is not to approve moderate wine consumption, but rather to exclude from the diaconate any person who drinks much wine. Fourth, Paul’s advice to drink only a little wine for medical purposes rules out any possibility that the apostle could have recommended that deacons drink intoxicating wine moderately for pleasure.
Finally, fifth, the immediate context, as well as cultural considerations, emphasizes the possibility that this phrase may represent a recommendation to be moderate in drinking grape juice when visiting homes, in order to protect one’s reputation and that of the church.
CONCLUSION
In this section, five passages relating to wine were examined. These passages are often used to obtain biblical approval for the moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages. Our study of each of these texts in light of their immediate and broader context, the historical customs of the time, and the overall teaching of Scripture showed that none of these texts contradicts the biblical command to abstain. On the contrary, we found that all of them legitimately agree with the entire teaching of Scripture. Some of them indirectly but convincingly supported abstinence from alcoholic beverages. For example, Proverbs 31:6 emphasizes, in an ironic tone, that alcoholic beverages are suitable only for relieving the extreme pain of the dying. Likewise, Hosea 4:11 condemns not excess, but the use of “wine and drink” that take away understanding.
In a different yet equally convincing way, 1 Timothy 5:23 supports the principle of abstinence by the fact that Paul recommended that Timothy drink only a little wine, not for physical pleasure or to satisfy his stomach, but for his stomach’s medical needs. Thus, summarizing our study of the biblical teaching on the use of alcoholic beverages, we can say that Scripture is consistent in teaching moderate use of wholesome, unfermented beverages and abstinence from intoxicating fermented drinks.
Section VIII: Ellen White and Alcoholic Beverages
Introduction
The biblical principle of abstinence from alcoholic beverages, approved by the Seventh-day Adventist Church as a fundamental belief, is largely attributable to the influence of Ellen White. Her dedication to the cause of abstinence encompassed all the years of her ministry. Abstinence was a favorite subject in Ellen White’s writings and discussions. Four years before her death, looking back on the past, she wrote in 1911: “I rejoice in the privilege of bearing my testimony on the subject of abstinence before crowded gatherings in many countries. Many times I have spoken on this subject to multitudes at our camp meetings” /E. White, Letter 78, 1911/.
Ellen White regarded abstinence as her “beloved” subject /Abstinence, p. 260/, and spoke about it so often that she became known as an “abstinence lecturer” /Ibid., p. 259/.
Her lectures on temperance drew the largest audiences. Thus, in the summer of 1876, special trains brought 20,000 people to Groveland, Massachusetts, to hear her. /M. E. Olsen, “A History of the Origin and Progress of Seventh-day Adventists,” Washington, D.C., 1925, p. 283/. Her first fully documented sermon was preached on March 6, 1869, in her home church in Battle Creek on the subject “Christian Temperance.” /This sermon is printed in Testimonies, vol. 2, pp. 354–376/. Throughout her public ministry, she conducted temperance campaigns in large halls, tents, Protestant churches,
prisons, temperance societies, rehabilitation centers, camp meetings, and various interested groups throughout North America and abroad. /See Horace John Shaw /n. 5/, pp. 200–210/.
The Purpose of This Section
In view of the fundamental role Ellen White played in advancing the cause of temperance, and to determine its significance and relevance to the mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, this section examines her understanding of the importance of Christian temperance in general and abstinence from alcoholic beverages in particular.
This study is divided into two chapters. Chapter Twenty-Three identifies Ellen White’s theological foundations for placing great importance on abstinence from intoxicating beverages and narcotics. Chapter Twenty-Four presents her views on the personal and social consequences of consuming alcoholic beverages.
The primary source for this study is the book “Temperance as Set Forth in the Writings of Ellen White,” commonly known simply as “Temperance.” This book is a compilation prepared by the Ellen White Publications office from all her writings on temperance.
Some of her writings included in this now-published book are as follows: “Health, or How to Live” /1865/; “Christian Temperance and Bible Hygiene” /1890/; “Special Testimonies” /1892–1912/; and “Drunkenness and Crime” /1907/. This user-friendly compilation greatly facilitated the study. I wish to express my gratitude to the trustees of the Ellen White Publications committee for their insight and efforts in assembling such a valuable compilation.
Chapter 23: Ellen White’s Theology of Abstinence
The Meaning and Importance of Temperance
The Meaning of Temperance. The comprehensive “Ellen G. White Writings Index” contains a list of 17 references under the general heading “Total Abstinence” and more than four pages of references under the heading “Temperance.” The disproportion between these two subsections of references may give an uninformed reader the impression that Ellen White’s interest lay in promoting moderation rather than abstinence from alcoholic beverages. This misconception is immediately dispelled upon examining how she used the term “temperance.”
In keeping with the biblical meaning of the term “temperance,” as we established in Section VI, Ellen White uses this term to define moderation in the use of everything beneficial and total abstinence from everything harmful. In her book “Christian Temperance and Bible Hygiene,” she writes: “Those who desire to preserve their powers in their entirety for the service of God must practice strict moderation in the use of His generous blessings and, to the same degree, complete abstinence from all harmful and degrading pleasures,” p. 27.
Abstinence from alcoholic beverages was a fundamental aspect of temperance for Ellen White. In 1899 she wrote: “True temperance calls for total abstinence from intoxicating beverages. It also calls for reform in eating, dress, and sleeping habits” /Temperance, p. 196/. In this statement, she lists the components of temperance in order of priority, placing total abstinence from alcoholic beverages first.
Temperance and Abstinence
The emphasis on the ultimate connection between temperance and abstinence is expressed in Ellen White’s reference to “temperance,” which was the leading thought in her mind. She wrote: “The only way” anyone can guard against the power of intemperance “is to wholly abstain from wine, beer, and strong drinks” /Te 186/. However, intemperance extends far beyond the use of alcoholic beverages, including indulgence of “appetite or passions.” In 1890 she wrote in the Signs of the Times: “Intemperance is not restricted to the use of intoxicating drinks; its meaning is much broader, including harmful indulgence of appetite and passions” /Te 137/.
Although Ellen White acknowledged that “temperance” has a broader meaning, with its spiritual dimension and moderation in the use of what is beneficial, she repeatedly emphasized the idea of abstinence. In a lecture on temperance presented in
Australia in 1893, she said: “Your motto should be: ‘Do not touch, do not taste! You should be temperate in eating. But alcoholic beverages—leave them alone. Do not touch them. There can be no temperance in their use’” /Te 289/. The admonition “not to touch, not to taste,” not to handle wine or strong drinks, appears frequently in her writings. For example, she says: “Before you are the terrible results of indulgence in intoxicating drinks, and how can any man or woman professing faith in the Word of God dare to touch, taste, or handle wine or strong drinks?” /Te 42/.
Ellen White’s use of the term “temperance” primarily included “abstinence,” which was consistent with the common usage of her time. This meaning is also emphasized by the purpose of various temperance societies, namely, to stop the production and distribution of alcoholic beverages. Referring to these objectives, she wrote: “The advocates of temperance do not do their duty until they exert their influence … in favor of prohibition and total abstinence” /Ellen White, “Temperance and the License Law,” Review, November 8, 1881, p. 290/.
The statements quoted above are equivalent in showing that for Ellen White, “temperance” primarily meant abstinence from intoxicating substances such as alcoholic beverages, and only in a secondary sense meant moderation in the use of what is good and beneficial. This means that many of her statements on temperance directly address the issue of abstinence, since the latter is manifested as an integral part of the former. Accordingly, we will use her statements on temperance in discussing her views on abstinence, unless the context emphasizes another meaning.
The Importance of Abstinence
Ellen White attached great importance to promoting and practicing abstinence; this is noted in her writings in many different ways. To pastors who complained that they had no time to preach on temperance, she advised them to “shorten their sermons by one third” so they would have time to speak on this important subject” /Te 237/. In 1909 she wrote: “The subject of Christian temperance should find a place in our sermons in every city where we labor” /Te 239/.
Church members were strongly urged to sign the temperance pledge, both inside and outside the Church. In 1884 she wrote: “According to the light given me by God, every member among us should sign the pledge and unite with the temperance society” /Temperance, 197/. She encouraged “temperance workers… to urge drunkards to sign the pledge that they will no longer use intoxicating liquors” /Temperance, 198/. She also insisted that prominent people be invited to sign a pledge of total abstinence: “We should give people in high positions an opportunity to sign a pledge of total abstinence, persuading them to invest the money they would otherwise spend on harmful indulgence in alcoholic beverages and tobacco in establishing educational institutions where children and youth could be prepared to occupy a useful place in the world” /Testimonies, vol. 7, p. 58/.
One of the most significant indications of the great importance Ellen White placed on total abstinence is the fact that she encouraged Seventh-day Adventist Christians to unite with and participate in temperance societies whose primary purpose was to expose the tragic consequences of using alcoholic beverages. She often mentioned the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, whose principal aim she approved. Thus, she held this organization in high esteem, stating: “No one who claims to be engaged in the work of God should lose interest in the grand object of this organization in the cause of Temperance” /E. White, Review, November 8, 1881/. In 1908 she repeated: “The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union” is an organization with whose efforts to promote temperance we can sincerely unite… By uniting with them in favor of total abstinence, we do not change our position regarding the observance of the seventh day, and we can show our appreciation of their position on the subject of temperance” /Temperance, 222–223/.
2. THEOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING OF ABSTINENCE
Abstinence as Part of the Three Angels’ Message. The reason temperance in particular and health reform in general were vitally important to Ellen White and
the Adventist pioneers is that these principles were viewed not merely as physiological truths, but primarily as biblical truths that must be proclaimed as part of the three angels’ message. The latter expression comes from the angel flying in the midst of heaven in Revelation 14:9, proclaiming the final warning message in preparation for the Second Coming. Adventists see in this angel’s mission a prophetic representation of their own prophetic mission—to warn the world and prepare people for the soon coming of Christ.
J. H. Waggoner expressed this concept in 1866 in a statement that became famous. Speaking of the principles of health reform, of which temperance was a fundamental aspect, he said: “Being placed on the level of the great truths of the three angels’ message through the endorsement of the authority of the Spirit of God, and thus proclaimed as a means by which weak people may become strong to overcome; and our bodies may be cleansed and prepared for the change—then temperance will come to us as a necessary part of present truth, which may be received as a blessing from God or rejected, to our destruction” /J. H. Waggoner, “Present Truth,” Review, August 7, 1866, p. 77/.
Waggoner’s understanding of temperance as part of the three angels’ message was fully endorsed and repeatedly affirmed by Ellen White. In 1888, she said: “Brethren and sisters, we need to see the importance of the temperance question, and we want our workers to take an interest in it; we should know that temperance is just as closely connected with the three angels’ message as the right arm is with the body” /Temperance, 238/. Again she wrote: “Every true reform has its place in the three angels’ message. This is especially true of the temperance reform, which demands our attention and support” /6T, 110/.
Temperance—A Part of the Gospel
Since the three angels’ message is part of the “everlasting gospel” /Rev. 14:6/, Ellen White insisted that total abstinence be presented as part of the Gospel: “When temperance is presented as a part of the gospel, many will see the necessity of reform in their lives. They will see the harm of intoxicating drinks and understand that total abstinence is the natural basis upon which God’s people can stand with a clear conscience” /7T, 75/.
For Ellen White, the Gospel was the good news that Christ not only paid the ransom—the penalty for our past sins—but also provided power through His Spirit to overcome present sins and thus gradually restore God’s moral image in us. Within this context, temperance is viewed as an important part of the restoration process through receiving the power of the Gospel. She wrote: “This was exactly what happened with our first parents: intemperance in desire led to the loss of Eden. And our return to Eden depends far more on temperance in all things than people think” /MH, p. 129/.
Again she writes: “Adam and Eve fell through indulgence of appetite. Christ came and endured Satan’s fiercest temptations and, for the human race, conquered appetite, thereby proving that human beings could also conquer! Just as Adam, through indulgence of appetite, lost blessed Eden, so Adam’s children, through Christ, can conquer appetite and, by temperance in all things, regain Eden” /3T, 161–162/.
Temperance as Preparation for Christ’s Coming
The statements quoted above clearly indicate that Ellen White understood temperance as a real manifestation of the restoration of God’s moral image in people through Christ’s power. This restoration was regarded as a necessary part of preparation for Christ’s coming. In the book The Desire of Ages, she writes: “Everyone who desires to perform holy deeds in the fear of God must learn temperance and self-control. Desires and passions must be controlled by the higher powers of the mind. Self-discipline is essential for attaining the mental strength and spiritual discernment that enable us to understand and obey the sacred truths of the Word of God. This is why temperance is necessary in preparation for Christ’s Second Coming” /DA, p. 101/.
In Section VI, we noted that most of the apostles’ exhortations to mental vigilance and physical temperance were given in the context of preparation for Christ’s soon return. Similarly, Ellen White finds in the nearness of Christ’s return a compelling incentive for temperance. Speaking about “the sin of using
Alcohol,” she declared: “If these questions were presented in connection with the evidence of Christ’s soon coming, people would be awakened. If we showed zeal proportionate to the importance of the truths entrusted to us, we could become instruments in saving hundreds, even thousands, from destruction” /6T, p. 111/. Statements such as this will cause surprise if the reason Seventh-day Adventists are not “shaken” by the use of intoxicating drinks and narcotic substances is that they have lost their sense of the urgent need to prepare for Christ’s near coming.
Ellen White regarded the practice of strict abstinence as especially necessary for the final crisis. In a dream, she saw a divine messenger reproving some who had refused to sign a temperance pledge, saying: “You did not see the necessity of health reform, but when the plagues of God are poured out around you, you will then see the principles of health reform and strict abstinence in everything—that temperance alone is the basis of all qualities that come from God, the foundation of all victories gained” /Temperance, 201/. Again she says: “For the one who has loved these stimulants—alcoholic beverages—and has become accustomed to using them, it is impossible to grow in grace” /Temperance, 93/.
Theological Understanding of Temperance
From the preceding discussion, it becomes evident that Ellen White viewed temperance in general, and abstinence in particular, as moral and theological truths, rather than merely physiological and social issues. It was precisely her theological understanding of temperance that made her public presentations on this subject markedly different from those of most speakers addressing the issue of abstinence. While the latter filled their speeches with medical information, statistical data, and various stories, Ellen White and her husband “addressed the people, proclaiming Christian temperance from the Bible standpoint” /James White, “Health Reform,” Health Reformer, No. 4, February 1871, p. 152/.
Ellen White wrote: “At all our large gatherings we should present the subject of temperance to our audiences in the strongest appeals and by the most convincing arguments. The Lord gives us a work—to teach Christian temperance from the Bible standpoint” /Temperance, 239/.
A broad theological approach to the subject of temperance is readily discernible when reading her discussions of temperance. She herself summarizes her approach as follows: “My subject was temperance, presented from the Christian standpoint: the fall of Adam, the promise given in Eden, the coming of Christ to our world, His baptism, His temptation in the wilderness, and His victory. And all this presents to man a second probation, giving man an opportunity to overcome in his own behalf, on his own account—through the merits of Jesus Christ. Christ came to give man moral power, that he might come off victorious in temptations concerning appetite and become strengthened in moral power as a man… This was so different from all they had ever heard on temperance that they were as if enchanted” /Temperance, 264–265/.
The seven main points of Ellen White’s theological approach to abstinence that are most evident in her writings can be summarized as follows:
1. By indulging the appetite, our first parents fell and the antediluvian world was destroyed.
2. The Bible teaches universal abstinence through warnings and examples.
3. A significant warning is often presented, referring to God’s punishment of Nadab and Abihu, for their minds were so darkened by intoxicating drink that they offered “strange fire” /Lev. 10:1–8/.
4. The most frequently cited examples of abstinence are the instructions given to Manoah’s wife, the examples of Daniel and John the Baptist, and above all, Jesus Christ.
5. In the wilderness of temptation, Christ endured the test concerning appetite in which our first parents fell.
6. Through Christ’s power, we can overcome the desire for intoxicating beverages, even good ones, and the moral image of God can be restored in us.
7. Preparation for Christ’s imminent coming calls us to holy living and abstinence.
The Moral Foundation of Abstinence
Ellen White’s theological understanding of intemperance as a result of our fallen nature, and temperance/abstinence as a fruit of redemption, emphasizes her view that the use of alcoholic beverages is a moral rather than a medical problem—or, we might say, a problem of sin rather than disease. This view is unpopular today because alcoholism is regarded as a disease, thereby freeing people from any active responsibility for the crimes they commit. The cause of this problem is usually attributed to certain physical, cultural, or psychological factors—an disturbance of peace within the human organism.
This model of alcoholism, which attributes it to disease, weakens the individual’s resolve to accept responsibility and subtly encourages the same behavior, since the person knows that he or she will be excused for it and will not bear direct responsibility. This model of alcoholism as a disease is foreign to Ellen White’s teachings. She advises those who recognize their inability to break free from alcoholism to “plant their feet firmly on the principle—to decide not to touch or use alcoholic beverages or tobacco.” She continues: “They are poisons, and their use is a violation of God’s law” /Temperance, 103/.
More will be said later about Ellen White’s counsel on overcoming this harmful habit. Here it is important to note her fundamental conviction that the use of intoxicating substances, such as alcoholic beverages, constitutes “a violation of God’s law.” Recognizing this fact was important to Ellen White because she believed that “the foundation of permanent reform is the law of God. We are called to point out clearly and distinctly to people the need for human beings to obey this law” /MH, 129/. This conviction stems from her understanding that the Holy Scriptures clearly prohibit the use of alcoholic beverages and, consequently, that their use violates the moral principle established by God for our physical and spiritual well-being.
She emphatically stated: “In His Word the Lord has given specific instructions regarding wine and strong drink. He has prohibited their use and reinforced His prohibitions with strong warnings and threats. But His warnings against the use of intoxicating beverages are not the result of arbitrary authority. He warns people so that they may avoid the sin that results from indulgence—the use of wine and strong drink” /Temperance, 42/.
The Weakening of Conviction
Ellen White’s clear conviction that God has forbidden the use of alcoholic beverages and “reinforced His prohibition with strong warnings and threats” seems to have weakened in the Adventist Church today. This is evident not only in the increasing number of Adventists who occasionally consume alcoholic beverages, but also in the uncertainty expressed by many pastors and members. During 1988, I had the opportunity to attend and discuss biblical teachings concerning alcoholic beverages at many Adventist gatherings in North America, Australia, England, and Bermuda. To my surprise, I found that not only some church members but even some pastors were uncertain on this issue. Some sincerely believed that the Bible teaches moderate use rather than abstinence from alcoholic beverages.
Uncertainty regarding biblical teaching about alcoholic beverages can sometimes also be found in Adventist literature. For example, the February 25, 1982, special issue of the Adventist Review, devoted to temperance, states: “More and more we seem to be a people facing difficulties, both within and outside the church, that require us to demonstrate that Scripture is definite regarding total abstinence. And if we do not prepare carefully, we may find ourselves on the defensive. The truth is that the Bible does not contain the typical pattern of a brief and precise statement prescribing total abstinence that many of us would like to see” /James Coffin, “Does the Bible Condemn the Moderate Use of Alcoholic Beverages?” Adventist Review, February 25, 1982, p. 4/. The same thought is repeated in the following paragraph: “Total abstinence is only one of the areas in which the Bible does not give precise instruction” /ibid./.
Our study shows otherwise. Scripture gives clear instructions even “not to look at wine” /Prov. 23:31/ and to be completely temperate /Lev. 10:9; Prov. 31:4; 1 Thess. 5:8;
1 Pet. 1:13; 4:7; 5:8; 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 2:2/. We found that part of the problem lies in the fact that some decisive biblical texts were mistranslated, probably to save face for those who defended moderate alcohol consumption while condemning drunkenness.
A Clear Biblical Conviction
There was no doubt in Ellen White’s mind that the Bible clearly condemns the use of alcoholic beverages. In her book The Ministry of Healing, she writes: “Nowhere does the Bible approve of the use of intoxicating wine. The wine that Christ made from water at the wedding feast in Cana was pure grape juice. It was the ‘new wine found in the cluster,’ of which Scripture says: ‘Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it’ /Isa. 65:8/ /p. 333/.
Ellen White continues, saying: “It was Christ who in the Old Testament gave Israel the warning: ‘Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise’ /Prov. 20:1/. It was Christ who commanded John the Baptist not to drink wine or strong drink. It was He who gave the same instruction to the wife of Manoah. Christ never contradicted His own teaching. The unfermented wine that He made for the wedding guests was a wholesome and refreshing beverage. This is the wine that our Savior and His disciples used at the first Supper” /Ibid./.
Commenting on Lev. 10:9, where God said to Aaron, “Do not drink wine or strong drink, neither you nor your sons with you,” Ellen White says: “Here we have the clearest instructions from God and His reasons for forbidding the use of wine: so that their powers of discernment and judgment might be sound, and they might always distinguish between the clean and the unclean. Another very important reason why they were to abstain from everything intoxicating is also given. It required the full use of an undimmed mind to present to the people of Israel all the statutes that God had commanded them” /The Desire of Ages, p. 44/.
In this statement, Ellen White explains why God prohibited the use of alcoholic beverages: they weaken “the power of discernment and perception” and, to the same extent, the ability to teach the principles God has revealed. Ellen White found support for her belief in universal, complete abstinence in numerous passages of the Bible. In her tract “Drunkenness and Crime,” she writes: “The Scriptures contain many serious warnings against the use of intoxicating alcoholic beverages” /“Drunkenness and Crime,” p. 4/. She continues by quoting the following texts: Deut. 29:6; Prov. 20:1; 23:29–32; 31:4; Amos 6:6; Eccl. 10:17. She concludes with these words: “The Lord has given specific instructions in His Word regarding the use of wine and strong drink. He has forbidden their use and strengthened His prohibition with solemn warnings and threats” /Temperance, pp. 53–54/.
The foremost example of abstinence, often cited by Ellen White, is that of Daniel and his three companions. She writes: “These young men not only refused to drink the king’s wine,” but also abstained from his luxurious table. They were obedient to both natural and moral law” /True Temperance, “The Indictment Against the Liquor Traffic,” Nashville, p. 14/. The lesson she drew from this example was that “those who desire to preserve their powers unimpaired for the service of God should observe strict temperance in the use of all His bountiful gifts and, to the same extent, practice complete abstinence from everything harmful or degrading” /Ibid., p. 15/.
Summarizing all that has been said, Ellen White firmly believed that complete abstinence is a principle clearly set forth in Scripture through warnings and examples. Disregarding these principles is a violation of God’s law. Obedience to these principles, through the effective power of Christ, contributes to the restoration of God’s moral image in us. Complete abstinence is part of the Gospel and, in a special sense, part of the three angels’ message. This means that abstinence is part of the restorative process carried out through the power of the Gospel—a restoration that is an essential part of preparation for Christ’s coming.
Chapter 24: The Consequences of Alcohol Use
Ellen White discussed at length the deeply sad consequences of alcohol consumption for the individual, the family, and society as a whole. In view of the fact that some
of these aspects will be addressed in the following section, we will limit ourselves here to a brief summary of her comments.
Alcohol and the Individual
The Effect on the Mind. Ellen White repeatedly and emphatically speaks of alcohol’s adverse effect on the mind. Her concern appropriately stems from the fact that everything that weakens the mind also diminishes our ability to act as rational, moral, and spiritual beings. Some of the expressions she used to describe alcohol’s effect on the mind include: “The brain’s perceptive faculties are benumbed, the mind no longer controls the person, for it has been sacrificed to sensual desires” /AH, 755/. “The wine they drink weakens the memory. They become like aged persons. When required, the brain is unable to reproduce its rich treasures” /Te, p. 36/. “Alcohol robs people of their reasoning powers” /Te, p. 187/. “The nervous system is disordered” /Te, p. 93/. “The free use of wine beclouds the mind” /Te, p. 50/. “Wine affects the intellect—it clouds the understanding” /Te, p. 92/.
These simple statements emphasize the well-known truth that alcohol weakens the brain’s reflex functions, thereby reducing a person’s ability to make responsible decisions. Modern research has sufficiently demonstrated that alcohol affects the brain in an especially harmful way. It is a well-known fact that alcohol damages cells in various parts of the brain and disrupts communication between nerve cells. All of this weakens the powers of reason, as well as vision and hearing.
The Effect on Morality
The influence of alcohol on the mind is closely connected with, and dependent upon, its influence on the moral nature. By weakening the brain’s mental functions, alcohol dulls a person’s moral sensitivity and self-restraint. Ellen White expresses this truth in various ways. Speaking of those who drink alcoholic beverages, she states: “Their mental faculties are paralyzed, their moral powers weakened, their sensibilities blunted, and they do not realize the claims of God and heaven; eternal truths have no value for them. The Bible says that drunkards shall not inherit the Kingdom of God” /Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 30/. Again she says that as the inclination toward alcoholic beverages develops and increases, “Satan keeps the mind in a feverish unrest, and the poor victim, imagining himself perfectly safe, continues to go farther and farther, until at last he passes the bounds where every principle is sacrificed. The strongest resolutions are overturned, eternal interests are too weak to keep the perverted appetite under the control of reason. Some are never actually drunk, but are always under the influence of alcoholic beverages” /Temperance, p. 93/.
The most serious moral consequence of consuming alcoholic beverages is their ability to weaken moral self-restraint and thereby remove all substantial restraints. Ultimately, this can lead a person to commit unexpected sinful acts. Emphasizing this danger, Ellen White says: “Immorality, adultery, and every kind of vice are the result of indulging the appetite for wine and [alcoholic] cider” /The Signs of the Times, 755, par./. She further says: “The person who considers himself religious while at the same time loving these stimulating drinks and becoming accustomed to their use will never grow in grace. He becomes coarse and lustful; lower tendencies gain the ascendancy over the higher powers of the mind, and he no longer cherishes virtue in his soul” /The Signs of the Times, 755, par./.
Influence on Physical Health
Ellen White discusses at length and in detail the various effects of alcohol on the body, without using modern medical research. She says that, among other things, alcohol “corrupts the blood” /Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 30/, harms “the digestive organs and the mind” /Counsels on Health, p. 463/, destroys “the nervous system” /Temperance, pp. 93, 278/, weakens the body’s ability “to resist disease” /Medical Ministry, p. 11/, “has a deleterious effect upon the stomach” /The Signs of the Times, p. 411/, causes “mental and physical deterioration” /Temperance, p. 174/, and “causes all manner of diseases” /Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 30/.
In the simplest, nontechnical language, Ellen White explained more than a century ago what modern medical research has confirmed precisely. In the following
section, we will see a brief account of alcohol’s effects on the liver, brain, stomach, heart, and reproductive system.
ALCOHOL AND THE FAMILY
The family is deprived of life’s necessities. Ellen White affirms that alcohol consumption causes serious harm not only to the individual but also affects his or her family. She writes: “As a result of consuming these poisons, thousands of families are deprived of comforts and even of the basic necessities of life; acts of violence and crime multiply, while disease and death send multitudes of alcohol’s victims to the grave. /Evangelism, p. 386/. Again she writes: “Look at the drunkard’s home. Note the wretched poverty, the misery, the indescribable sorrow that reigns there. Look at the once-happy wife fleeing from her maniac husband… Day after day, from the lips of the drunkard’s wife and children, an agonizing cry rises to heaven” /Temperance, p. 31/.
Children Neglected
Children are among alcohol’s innocent victims. They often suffer from abuse and neglect not only from their father but also from their mother. Ellen White sadly notes: “More and more women are becoming accustomed to the use of intoxicating drinks. In many families, little children, even innocent and helpless infants, are daily in great danger because of the neglect, abuse, and depravity of drinking mothers. Sons and daughters grow up under the shadow of this terrible vice. What does the future hold for them except that they will sink lower than their parents?” /MH, 339/.
Domestic Violence
The sad influence of alcohol is that it removes the restraints governing behavior and thus causes a drunkard’s tendency toward violence to become increasingly apparent. Ellen White views this effect as an expression of Satan’s violence: “Thus he [Satan] works when he tempts people to sell their souls for intoxicating drinks. He takes possession of the body, mind, and soul, and it is no longer the person who acts, but Satan. In this case, Satan’s cruelty is expressed when the drunkard raises his hand to strike the wife whom he promised to love and cherish for the rest of his life. The drunkard’s actions are an expression of Satan’s violence” /MM, 114/.
C. ALCOHOL AND SOCIETY
In her writings, Ellen White shows particular interest in alcohol’s influence on society, addressing it in terms of crime, economic cost, accidents, public health, and the responsibility of leadership. Her comments on alcohol’s influence in each of these areas are presented below.
Causes of Crime
Crime, as far as its causes are concerned, is closely connected with alcohol consumption. Ellen White says that under the influence of alcohol, “the mind is paralyzed, the conscience is darkened, the animal passions are aroused, and as a result, the most terrible crimes are committed” /3T, 561/. Describing the results of drunkenness, she says: “Terrible murders are committed as a result of the use of intoxicating drinks. How often it is found that theft, arson, and murder are committed under the influence of alcohol. Yet the curse of alcohol is legalized, and it works in countless, incalculable ways, bringing ruin through the hands of those who destroy not only themselves but their entire families” /Te, 24/.
The Economic Problem
The economic cost of alcohol to society is measured not only in money but also in terms of the poverty, disease, and degradation it causes. Ellen White refers specifically to these consequences: “Millions of liters of intoxicating beverages are consumed every year. Millions of resources are spent to purchase misery, poverty, disease, degradation, lust, crime, and death. For the sake of profit, manufacturers of intoxicating drinks enslave their victims, whose minds and bodies are corrupted and destroyed. They bring poverty and misery upon the drunkard’s family” /Te, 28/.
Our society could undergo a radical change if the money spent on intoxicating drinks were used to establish schools, feed the hungry, and support missions. She writes: “The cry of hungry millions in our world could soon be silenced if the money flowing into the pockets of liquor sellers were spent to
Relieve the needs of suffering humanity” /Te, 29/. “Think of the thousands and millions of dollars invested in alcoholic beverages, which have made human beings like animals and destroyed their minds… All this money could accomplish incalculable good if it were used to support missions in the dark places of our world. God is robbed of what rightfully belongs to Him” /Te, 29/.
Cause of Accidents
Cars were unknown during most of E. White’s lifetime. “Transportation accidents” in her day primarily included railroad, maritime, and ocean disasters. Referring to them, she wrote: “How many terrible incidents occur because of the influence of alcohol… How much of this terrible intoxicating drink can a person consume and remain safe while coming into contact with people’s lives? He can be safe only by abstaining from alcohol. His mind must not be impaired by the use of alcoholic beverages /Temperance, p. 36/.”
God holds a drunkard responsible for all the actions he commits, notes Ellen White: “Should the people who operate large ocean liners and railroad transportation be strictly temperate? Are their minds free from the influence of alcohol? If not, then the incidents that occur while they are operating the vehicles will be charged to them as a crime by the God of heaven, whose property the affected men and women are” /Temperance, p. 35/.
The Problem of Public Health and Responsibility
Ellen White also noted the influence of alcohol on public health—how it affects various social classes and professions. She wrote: “Among the victims of intemperance are representatives of all classes of society and all professions. People occupying high positions, possessing outstanding talents, and achieving success indulge their appetites until they become completely unable to resist temptation. Some who were once wealthy have now lost their homes and friends and are utterly alone in their suffering, poverty, illness, and moral degradation. They have lost self-control. Unless a helping hand is extended to them, they will sink to the lowest depths of life, from which there is no return. With such people, indulgence of their weaknesses is not only a moral vice but also a physical disease” /The Ministry of Healing, p. 172/.
In no uncertain terms, Ellen White held lawmakers and manufacturers of alcoholic beverages responsible for the suffering and misfortune caused by the alcohol trade. Of the former she said: “Are not the rulers of the earth chiefly responsible for the increasing crimes and the present deadly evil resulting from the liquor trade? Is it not their duty, and is it not within their power, to eliminate this deadly evil?… By legalizing the sale of alcoholic beverages, the law gives its approval to ruin and refuses to stop the trade that has flooded the world with evil. Whether lawmakers take notice of this or not, it endangers human life and physical and mental powers—and all this inevitably. Is it necessary to destroy human life?” /Temperance, pp. 38–39/.
Responsibility for social problems caused by alcohol also falls on manufacturers and sellers of alcoholic beverages, for Ellen White says: “It makes no difference whether he has received permission under the law of the land to sell poisonous beverages to his neighbors or not—in the light of heaven he is responsible for the degradation of the soul that was redeemed by Christ… The rum seller will bear responsibility for the misery brought into the homes of those who became morally weak and fell through temptation by indulging in alcoholic beverages. They will be charged with the poverty, suffering, and hopelessness—the misery of the world caused by the sale of alcoholic beverages. They will answer for the grief and want of mothers and children who suffer without food, clothing, or shelter and who die without hope or joy” /Temperance, pp. 40–41/.
The Responsibility of Society’s Leaders
Religious and civic leaders are called in a special sense to live temperately, abstaining from intoxicating substances and accepting this as a responsibility entrusted to them. Regarding ministers, Ellen White wrote: “Everything in food or drink that disqualifies and renders the mental faculties unfit for useful and active service is an aggravating sin in the sight of God. This applies especially
to those who serve in the holy place, who must at all times be an example to the people and be able to instruct them properly /Temperance, p. 45/.”
The same standard of strict temperance applies to civic leaders. Ellen White clearly stated this argument: “Those who make laws to govern the people should, above all others, be obedient to the higher laws that are the foundation of every government among nations and families. How important it is for those who hold the reins of government to realize that they are under higher control and authority. They can never realize this as long as their minds are weakened by indulgence in narcotics and strong drink. Those entrusted with making and enforcing laws must have all their powers in active, vigorous operation. By practicing temperance in all things, they will be able to maintain a clear distinction between the sacred and the common and have the wisdom to deal fairly and honestly with what God prescribed for ancient Israel” /Temperance, pp. 46–47/. Again she says: “Only those who are strictly temperate and honest should be admitted to our legislative halls and elected to preside in our courts” /Temperance, p. 47/.
Helping Those Addicted to Alcohol and Tobacco
In her writings, Ellen White expresses genuine concern and compassion for those addicted to alcoholic beverages and tobacco. In fact, she offered various recommendations on how to help them. Although her recommendations are not presented in a logical sequence like the Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous, they are sensible and timely. The order of the five recommendations described below does not necessarily represent the sequence she chose.
Present the Requirements of God's Law
Ellen White wrote: “In our work for the fallen, the requirements of God's law and the need for faithfulness to Him must be impressed upon the mind and heart. Never show that the law makes a distinction between those who serve God and those who do not serve Him. God is love, but He cannot excuse willful disregard of His commandments” /Temperance, p. 106/. We have already noted that Ellen White clearly defined the use of alcoholic beverages as “a violation of God's law.” Furthermore, she believed that “the foundation of all enduring reform is the law of God. We are to present in clear, distinct lines the necessity of obedience to this law” /The Ministry of Healing, p. 129/.
This means that the first step in helping people addicted to alcohol is to show them, in Christian love, that their addiction to alcohol is not merely a bad habit or an illness, but a sin—a sin that God, being faithful and just, will forgive and cleanse if we confess it before Him /1 John 1:9/. Recognizing this fact is the first step toward restoration, because accepting divine truth has a convincing and reforming power that influences the human heart. Ellen White emphasized this thought, saying: “When people who have indulged in wrong habits and sinful practices surrender themselves fully to the power of divine truth, receiving that truth into the heart, it will revive the moral powers that appeared to be paralyzed” /Temperance, p. 108/.
Determination to Abstain
After helping those addicted to alcohol recognize the demands of God’s law, they must be challenged to decide, with the help of God’s grace, to abstain from alcoholic beverages. Ellen White writes: “Those who have become the victims of evil habits should be aroused to see the necessity of making an effort for themselves. Others may make the most earnest endeavor to restore them to a moral life, the grace of God may be freely offered, Christ may plead, His angels may minister, but all will be in vain unless they themselves arouse to battle for themselves” /MH, 174/.
Ellen White repeatedly emphasized the vital role of the will: “The tempted one needs to understand the true force of the will. This is the governing power in the nature of man—the power of decision, of choice. Everything depends on the right action of the will… Many go down to ruin while intending to overcome their evil habits. They do not yield the will to God. They do not choose to serve Him. /MH, 176/.
It should be noted that recent research has challenged the popular view of alcoholism as a disease that disables the drinker’s will, showing instead that “the drinker can and should assume some responsibility for change, even
assuming that committing the act will not lead to dangerous consequences” /Herbert Fingarette, Heavy Drinking—The Myth of Alcoholism as a Disease, University of California Press, 1988, p. 79/. This research fully confirmed the counsel Ellen White gave to those addicted to alcohol.
Convincing Them of Divine Forgiveness and Power
It is not enough to persuade a drunkard to decide to abstain from alcohol; we must also convince him/her of divine forgiveness and help. Ellen White wrote: “The very first and most important thing is to soften and subdue the soul by presenting our Lord Jesus Christ as the sin-bearer, the sin-pardoning Saviour, setting forth the gospel in all its clearness. When the Holy Spirit is working among us… souls unprepared for Christ’s coming are convicted of their sinfulness… The tobacco users sacrifice their idol, and the drunkard his liquor. But they could not do this if they had not by faith grasped the promises of God for the forgiveness of their sins” /Evangelism, 264/.
Ellen White also emphasized the need to encourage people: “Encourage the people by words; pray for them to God. Many who are overcome by temptation are humiliated by their failures, and they think it is in vain for them to try to reach God; but this thought is the suggestion of the enemy. When they have sinned and feel that they cannot pray, tell them that it is just then that they should pray. They may be ashamed and deeply humbled; but as they confess their sins, He who is faithful and just will forgive their sins and cleanse them from all unrighteousness” /MH, 181–182/.
Personal Interest
Recovery programs for alcoholics emphasize the importance of providing personal or group support for those with alcohol dependence. Ellen White emphasized this same point, sharing a personal experience: “I recalled an occasion when a man approached me at a meeting. By abusing strong drink and tobacco, he had damaged himself, his body, and his mind—he had so ruined his health that he was barely alive. A dissolute lifestyle had stooped him. His clothing also fully corresponded to his pitiful state of health. Everything indicated that he was far from recovery and salvation. But when I addressed him, urging him to resist temptation through the power of the risen Lord, he rose trembling and said, ‘You showed an interest in me, and I became interested in myself.’ Six months later, he came to my home. I did not recognize him. His face shone with joy; his eyes were full of tears. He took my hand and said, ‘You apparently do not recognize me, but do you remember the man in the old jacket who rose at the meeting and declared that he had tried to reform his life?’ I was extremely astonished. He stood upright and looked at least ten years younger. After returning home from that memorable meeting, he spent the entire night in prayer. It was a night of struggle, but praise God—he came out victorious” /MH, 109/.
Instruction in the Principles of Healthy Living
The problem of drunkenness is often related to unhealthy eating habits. Ellen White advises: “Those who are struggling against appetite should be instructed in the principles of healthy living, showing them that violating the laws of health, sustaining their existence through artificial, morbid efforts, and gratifying unnatural desires lays the foundation for the habit of using alcoholic beverages. Only by being guided by health principles will they have hope of freedom from dependence on unnatural stimulants. Since only divine power can break the chains of appetite, they must cooperate with God by doing His will and obeying His laws, both moral and physical” /MH, 176–177/.
The recommendations mentioned above are merely some representative examples rather than exhaustive counsel from Ellen White on how to help those struggling with alcohol dependence. Readers who are deeply interested in this subject are advised to read the chapter “Dealing With the Intemperate” from the book The Ministry of Healing.
CONCLUSION
Our study showed that for Ellen White, the temperance message was a fundamental part of the Gospel and the mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This message urges people to practice moderation in the use of what is beneficial and to abstain from using
harmful substances, such as alcoholic beverages. The basis for the importance of temperance and health reform is that Ellen White presented these two factors as biblical principles given by God to restore His moral image in people and prepare a holy people for Christ’s Second Coming.
The use of alcoholic beverages can have serious harmful effects on individuals, families, and society as a whole. According to the negative effects mentioned by Ellen White, those who consume alcoholic beverages will experience adverse mental, moral, and physical consequences. Mentally, the brain’s thinking functions will weaken, and consequently the ability to make responsible decisions will diminish. Morally, alcohol dulls moral sensitivity and weakens moral restraints against doing evil. Physically, the use of alcoholic beverages has harmful effects on the brain, nervous system, digestive organs, circulatory system, and resistance to disease.
Regarding the family, Ellen White noted that the use of alcoholic beverages often deprives the family of its necessities, leads to violence, mistreatment, and abuse of children. Referring to society, Ellen White found that alcohol consumption is a motivating factor in crime, a leading cause of accidents, and a source of problems affecting public health.
Ellen White emphasized our responsibility as Christians to help people overcome alcohol addiction. We can do this most effectively by lovingly presenting them with the requirements of God's law; showing them their need to resolve to abstain from alcohol; convincing them of divine forgiveness and help; instructing them in the principles of healthy living; and showing them our personal interest and love.
In my view, Ellen White's theological convictions and practical advice regarding the use of alcoholic beverages will stand because of their biblical consistency and practical relevance to our time.
Section IX: Alcohol in America
Introduction
On the day of his death, Lincoln stated: “Slavery has been abolished. After reorganization, the next great question will be the elimination of the liquor trade. My head and heart, my hands and money will be devoted to this work. Less than a quarter of a century ago, I predicted that the time would come when there would be neither a slave nor a drunkard in this country. I have lived to see, thank God, one of these prophecies fulfilled. I hope to see the other fulfilled as well.” /Quoted from Walter B. Knight, Knight's New Illustrations for Teaching, 1956, p. 671/.
If Lincoln were to rise from his grave, what astonishment, what shock he would experience upon discovering that his prophecy—that America would ultimately become a country free not only from slavery but also from drunkenness—had all proved to be an illusion! Lincoln would shake his head in disbelief upon finally realizing that nearly 18 million American adults today, more than half the population of his time /31 million in 1860/, are drunkards, and that more than 10 million of them are alcoholics/. These are figures from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, published in U.S. News & World Report, November 30, 1987, p. 56/.
Why did Americans succeed in abolishing slavery, while nearly 18 million of their citizens became slaves to alcohol? The answer lies partly in the differing moral perceptions of these two issues. Most Americans gradually came to view slavery as racial discrimination—as a moral and social evil that had to be fought and eliminated. However, regarding alcoholic beverages, with the exception of the brief period of Prohibition /1919–1933/, most Americans approached the issue of alcohol by accepting it as a beloved enemy that should be restricted but not destroyed. As we have already seen, this view was encouraged by the belief that the Bible approves of moderate drinking.
The lack of a clear moral conviction that consuming alcoholic beverages is sinful because of their ability to intoxicate the body. Regardless of the amount consumed, most Christians in America and around the world believe that churches, schools, the media, and governments are responsible for teaching people moderate alcohol use rather than abstinence. Paradoxically, there is significant opposition from various interest groups, even to police projects and initiatives designed to prevent alcohol abuse. The only reason, as Steve Olson and Dean R. Gerstein point out in their book Alcohol in America, subsidized by the National Academy of Sciences, is “a conflict of values” among the American people. The conflict is caused by the fact that, as they explain, while “many people view drunkenness as a fundamental immorality, or at least as a moral weakness, others view drinking alcoholic beverages as a sign of liberal values or as a traditional means of socializing. The conflict between these two views can paralyze policy decisions, leaving prevention initiatives immobilized” (Steve Olson and Dean R. Gerstein, Alcohol in America, Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1985, p. 29).
The consequences of this position are obvious: nearly 18 million Americans, initially moderate drinkers, became alcoholics, costing society $117 billion over the course of a year and claiming 100,000 lives annually (ibid., p. 56). The reason for these tragic results is simple: alcohol is a drug that not only intoxicates but also makes people addicted. For some people, it becomes the only drink they consume every day, eventually making them perpetually dependent on alcohol. “We must also remember,” writes Sidney Cohen, a consultant to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, “that even two drinks a day are too much for some people. There are people who are highly sensitive even to small amounts of alcohol” (Sidney Cohen, The Alcoholism Problem, Selected Topics, New York, 1983, p. 125). Do not be surprised by the biblical warning: “Do not look at wine” (Prov. 23:31).
The Purpose of This Section
The purpose of this section is twofold:
1. To briefly note the consequences of drunkenness in American society.
2. To synthesize and sometimes “translate” into simpler language information from medical studies on alcohol’s effects on health.
The content of this section is not original. It is simply an attempt to summarize in an organized way the main information found in numerous scientific studies examining alcohol’s effects on the human body.
The reason for including this section on the medical aspects of alcohol is to explain why the Bible condemns the consumption of alcoholic beverages. The author hopes that this review of medical facts concerning alcohol’s effects will help the reader appreciate the soundness of the conclusions of this study.
Chapter 25: Consequences of Alcohol Use
Given the fact that about two-thirds (68%) of adult Americans consume alcohol, it is not surprising that alcohol is America’s No. 1 public enemy—claiming, at least, “100,000 lives a year, 25 times more than all illegal drugs combined.” (Data from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 1986 report, p. 56.) To gain an understanding of the cost of drinking alcoholic beverages to American society, we need to briefly note the following:
1. Personal costs.
2. Economic costs.
3. Crime and alcohol.
4. Health and Alcohol.
Personal Costs
The personal cost of alcohol is extraordinarily devastating. The 1986 report of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism emphasizes that “alcohol is a factor in nearly half of all American deaths resulting from homicide, suicide, and accidents,” claiming at least 100,000 lives a year.
Accordingly, 30,000 Americans die each year from cirrhosis of the liver. Most victims of this disease would not have developed it if they had not consumed alcohol. It is worth noting that, according to one study, “fully half of those who died from cirrhosis had alcohol use as their primary diagnostic criterion” /Steve Olson and Dean R. Gerstein, /no. 3/, p. 14/.
Another major type of alcohol-related death is traffic accidents. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, about 15 million people are affected in one way or another by motor-vehicle accidents each year. In 1987, these accidents resulted in 50,000 deaths and approximately 3 million injuries. Accordingly, half of all these incidents resulted from drivers under the influence of alcohol.
Many people also die each year in other types of incidents, such as falls, fires, and drownings. Since it is impossible to test people who died in such circumstances for the presence of alcohol in their blood, it is difficult to determine what percentage of these deaths can be attributed to alcohol. “But studies have shown that alcohol was the cause of death in 40% of such cases—equivalent to the deaths of 20,000 people” /ibid., p. 15/.
Another major source of death is alcohol overdoses. According to Olson and Gerstein, “about 10,000 people die annually for this reason—half from alcohol alone and the other half from a combination of alcohol and other drugs. In the latter cases, 40% of the deaths followed suicide attempts. Clearly, alcohol is strongly connected with suicide. One-third of the nearly 30,000 suicides in the United States each year involve alcohol in the blood before death. Among the 200,000 to 400,000 people who attempt suicide each year, alcohol problems were five times more common than among those who did not belong to the suicide-attempt group.”
To this can be added approximately 10,000 homicides that occur each year in situations involving alcohol. There is also alcohol’s statistically undetermined contribution to deaths and suffering caused by fetal alcohol syndrome, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and organic brain syndrome. The total number of deaths involving alcohol, according to Dean Gerstein of the National Research Council, may be as high as 150,000 people per year. This figure is based on data from a 1975 study conducted by a public research group at the University of California. /Steve Olson and Dean R. Gerstein, /no. 3/, pp. 16–17/.
In 1986, when basketball star Len Bias died from a cocaine overdose, Americans launched an energetic anti-drug campaign. Yet that same year, as U.S. News & World Report noted, “Alcohol claimed more than 100,000 lives—25 times the estimated number of victims of cocaine, heroin, and all other illegal drugs combined. This government estimate was based primarily on death certificates. A recent study emphasizes that many death certificates note alcohol’s involvement in the death. This explains why Dean Gerstein gives a higher figure for alcohol-related deaths than the official government statistics.”
The Incalculable Human Cost
The real human cost of alcohol exceeds any statistical estimate of deaths and disasters. Who can assess the cost of caring for infants and children when one or both parents drink, or the cost of violence against children, spouses, or others caused by alcohol use? Who can calculate the cost of schoolchildren who cause trouble and eventually become drunkards, adopting the habits of their drinking parents? Who can calculate the cost of the disproportionate increase in hospital beds and medical resources used to treat alcohol users? Who can calculate the cost of losses caused by alcohol-related accidents involving land, sea, and air transport? Who can calculate the cost of alcohol in terms of lost productivity, lost hours of schooling, and absenteeism from work?
Statistics on deaths show only the most tragic consequences of alcohol use. The actual number of people directly or indirectly affected by alcohol-related problems is much larger. In 1987, the Gallup Institute noted that one in four families experiences grief caused by alcohol—“the highest rate
of drinking problems in the past 37 years.” Applying this percentage to the contemporary U.S. population—more than 246 million (December 1988)—means that more than 61 million Americans live in families affected by alcohol’s destructive influence.
Today, the idea that alcohol use affects the entire family is firmly established. “At present,” notes U.S. News & World Report, “seven million children under the age of 18 live in alcoholic families.” Specialists working with the National Association for Children of Alcoholics say that alcoholism most severely affects their emotions, producing guilt and self-hatred; such children usually live by three rules: “Don’t talk! Don’t trust anyone! Don’t feel!” (Coping with Alcoholism, No. 2, p. 61).
The report continues, stating that “an additional 21 million Americans are known as ‘adult children of alcoholics.’ Some of them behave well. But many do not.” These are “people who already have adult bodies and minds, but the wounded feelings of children.” A special therapeutic program can help some of them heal their emotions.
Alcohol and the Family
Alcohol has a profoundly adverse and harmful effect on the American family. The first Special Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health, issued by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, states: “The evidence indicates that the divorce rate among alcoholics and their spouses is seven times higher than among the rest of the population (Paolino and McCready, 1977). Forty percent of families have legal problems involving alcoholism in some way (Jacob and Seilhamer, 1982).” (Fifth Special Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health, December 1983, p. 89).
The report continues by noting that alcohol plays a major role in affecting children and spouses. It concludes: “Most studies cite alcohol or excessive drinking in 45 to 60% of marriages.”
In summary, the human cost of alcohol is beyond measure. It affects the lives of 61 million Americans today, leaving many of them with lasting bitterness and physical scars.
The Economic Cost
The economic cost of alcohol consumption to the American people is staggering. According to the 1986 report of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the economic cost of alcohol abuse to society is estimated at $117 billion per year. This includes $18 billion related to premature death; $66 billion lost as a result of reduced work performance; and $13 billion spent on treatment. /“The Fight Against Alcoholism,” /no. 2/, p. 57/. To this figure must be added the $66 billion that the American people paid in 1984 for the purchase of alcoholic beverages /Annual Statistical Report 1984–1985. Distilled Spirits Production/. Add all the costs associated with alcohol consumption to its purchase price, and you arrive at a staggering total of $184 billion. This sum could have been used to improve the living conditions of young Americans by improving their housing, building new schools, and improving education; it could have provided food for the hungry and homes for the homeless.
The other side of the coin is the economic revenue received by the Federal Government, state governments, and local governments from the production and sale of alcoholic beverages. The Distilled Spirits Council reported that in 1984, its industry paid more than $12 billion in taxes to various levels of government. /Ibid./ The value of this revenue should be weighed against the $184 billion cost to society, including all the illnesses, accidents, violence, and deaths caused by alcohol.
Crime and Alcohol
Alcohol’s involvement in crime is clearly demonstrated by several reports. The 1986 report of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism notes that alcohol is a cause of death. /Quoted in “The Fight Against Alcoholism,” /no. 2/, p. 56/. The Third Special Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare offers the clearest picture of alcohol’s involvement in various types of crime. The following quotation is taken directly from that report: “The relationship of alcohol to criminal behavior varies according to the type
of crime and the roles of the participants in criminal events. Most alcohol-related crimes involve both an intoxicated offender and his or her victim.”
“Robbery.” Estimates of alcohol involvement rise as high as 72% of all robberies.
“Rape.” Estimates of alcohol involvement are 50% among sexual offenders and 31% among rape victims. Most extensive American studies on this subject indicate that in 63% of alcohol-related rapes, both parties—the victim and the offender—were intoxicated. Another important finding was that the type and duration of alcohol involvement in rape were related to the interpersonal relationship between the victim and the offender.
“Assault.” Estimates of alcohol involvement in assault reports vary widely, reaching 72% among offenders and 79% among their victims.
“Homicide.” Studies based on reports by investigators handling violent or sudden-death cases, as well as detailed studies, emphasize that a large percentage of offenders and victims were intoxicated at the time of the crime. Most studies have shown that 40 to 60% of homicide victims and up to 86% of offenders were intoxicated when the homicide was committed. Alcohol appears to have been most likely present in homicides in which:
1. The victim was stabbed with a dagger or knife. 2. Violence was involved. 3. The victim was knocked to the ground by the murderer. /The Third Special Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health, June 1978, p. 64/.
A significant aspect of this report that is often overlooked is that a large percentage of rape, assault, and murder victims were also drunk at the time of the crime. This implies that some crimes would not have been committed if their victims had not been drunk. The report also states that 83% of prisoners were under the influence of alcohol when they committed their crimes—not only against persons, but also against property.
The Beloved Enemy
What terrible destruction alcohol brings to America! If alcohol consumption could be eliminated, the rate of theft, rape, assault, and murder could be reduced by more than 50%. How much human pain, sorrow, violence, and death could be removed from our society! Despite this obvious reality, experience tells us that politicians, sociologists, and scientists combat alcohol-related crime by planning new studies, building new prison facilities, hiring additional police forces, and providing more judges, instead of eliminating the real criminal—His Majesty Alcohol.
Why are our political, civic, and religious leaders reluctant to act together to eliminate the real public enemy No. 1 of American society? The answer is simple. Too many of them, as Jack Van Impe says, “are having love affairs with alcohol and do not want to touch their beloved” /Jack Van Impe, “Alcohol—The Beloved Enemy,” Royal Oak, Michigan, 1980, p. 61/. Van Impe continues: “Trying to fight crime without confronting the nature of alcohol face-to-face is working blindly. Even if we had the most ideal correctional system, we would not be able to stop the aggressive waves of crime, because the influence of alcohol is enormous and devastating. If we had the most compelling sentencing system combined with perfect police work and a flawless prison punishment system, the best we could accomplish would be only a fraction of the overall crime problem if the primary root—the use of alcohol—remained untouched. Most crime would continue year after year.” /Ibid/.
Health Care and Alcohol
Alcohol also has a significant impact on the American health-care system. Some studies estimate that 30% of hospitalized persons have serious alcohol problems. /Steve Olson and Dean R. Gerstein /n.3/, p. 17/. “The Veterans Administration estimates that 50% of all veterans occupying hospital beds have alcohol problems” /Jean Kinney and Gwen Leaton, “Escape from the Deadly Grip,” Journal of Alcohol Information, St. Louis, Missouri, 1983, p. 28/.
In terms of health-care costs, alcohol-related expenses stand out among our nation’s annual medical expenditures. Medical care is estimated to account for $13 billion of all expenditures for adult health /Ibid., see Note 12, p. 57/.
Jean Kinney and Gwen Leaton note that “a large-scale study of hospital patient costs revealed that only a small portion of patients—just 13%—accounted for a hospital bill equal to that of the remaining 87%. The only distinguishing characteristic of this high-cost group was not age, sex, economic status, or ethnic background. These individuals were either chronic alcoholics or heavy smokers” /Jean Kinney and Gwen Leaton /n.24/, p. 28/.
Problems Among Moderate Drinkers
Referring to “chronic drinkers” may suggest that alcohol-related problems occur mainly among this group. But this view is incorrect. Studies have shown that alcohol-related problems are widespread among the population that consumes alcohol. Mikhail Polish and Bruce Orvis surveyed 3,078 U.S. Air Force personnel, dividing them into various categories of alcohol use. Their survey showed that chronic drinkers accounted for only one-quarter of all those surveyed who had two or more alcohol-related problems. /D. M. Polish and B. R. Orvis, “Alcohol Problems: Patterns and Prevalence in the U.S. Air Force,” Santa Monica, 1979/.
These findings were confirmed by a national household survey conducted by Walter Clark and Lorrie Midanik. They found that heavy drinkers /defined as those who consumed alcohol an average of more than twice a day/ accounted for less than half of all health and social problems related to alcohol. /W. B. Clark and L. Midanik, “Results of the 1979 National Survey,” University of California, 1980/.
These studies emphasized that alcohol-related problems exist throughout the population that consumes alcohol. As Olson and Gerstein noted, this means “that even if America’s 15 million chronic drinkers stopped drinking tomorrow, a substantial portion of the country’s alcohol problems would remain” (Steve Olson and Dean R. Gerstein /n. 3/, p. 24). Similarly, Mark Moore of Harvard University states: “Most alcohol-related problems are caused by people who have never thought of themselves as problem drinkers” /quoted in Olson and Gerstein /n. 3/, p. 24/.
The results of these studies are highly significant. If America wishes to deal effectively with alcohol-related problems, it must strongly promote abstinence from alcoholic beverages through political, social, educational, and preaching initiatives and programs. The hope that this might happen is faint, because too many people love alcohol and too many are unwilling to accept the biblical admonitions.
Chapter 26: Alcohol and Health
The enormous cost of alcohol-related problems, affecting millions of individuals, families, and society as a whole, raises a fundamental question: How can alcoholic beverages, which seem so harmless to most people who consume them, cause so much misery, ruin, and death in our society? The answer can be found in the various harmful effects of alcohol on the human body. We will attempt to describe these effects as clearly and accurately as possible.
How Does the Body Process Alcohol?
Definition of Alcohol. Alcohol is a harmful drug found as an ingredient in beer, wine, and distilled beverages such as whiskey. Alcohol has no natural odor and mixes directly with water or other liquids. Some define it as food, but it is “poor food,” because it contains no minerals, vitamins, or proteins, only what some describe as “empty calories” /Jean Kinney and Gwen Leaton /n. 24/, p. 32/.
Contrary to popular belief, alcohol is not a stimulant but a depressant, anesthetic, and narcotic. Once ingested, alcohol interferes with the progressive and predictable stages of functioning, affecting the normal functions of the brain of every person it contacts—whether an alcoholic or not.
Absorption
Alcohol does not require digestion, as most food products do. Surprisingly, alcohol absorption begins immediately, with a very small amount being absorbed through the tiny capillaries in the mouth and the walls of the digestive tract. About 20% of consumed alcohol is absorbed directly from the stomach. The remaining alcohol passes into the small intestine, where most absorption takes place. Thus, the stomach and small intestine are the main sites where alcohol is absorbed. Alcohol does not remain in the stomach and small intestine for long, because its absorption rate is very high. /For a more thorough description of the alcohol absorption process, see Kinney and Leaton /ref. 24/, pp. 32–33/.
The absorption of alcohol into the bloodstream is influenced by several factors. The higher the alcohol concentration in a drink, the faster it is absorbed. This explains why distilled spirits produce a more pronounced “stimulating” effect than wine or beer. The amount of food in the stomach is also an important factor in determining the rate at which alcohol is absorbed into the bloodstream. Champagne and other sparkling or carbonated wines, although they do not have a higher alcohol content than regular wines, cause intoxication more quickly because they contain carbon dioxide, which increases the rate of absorption. Another factor affecting the absorption rate is how quickly the alcohol is consumed. Swallowing alcoholic beverages rapidly rather than sipping them slowly contributes to faster absorption into the body.
Once absorbed through the small blood vessels into the bloodstream via the walls of the stomach and small intestine, alcohol circulates freely throughout the body. The blood alcohol level is proportional to the amount of alcohol in the blood relative to the total blood volume. For example, a blood alcohol level of 0.15% equals 1.5 parts of ethyl alcohol per 1,000 parts of blood.
Breakdown and Elimination
The elimination of alcohol from the body begins as soon as alcohol enters the bloodstream. A small amount, about 5%, leaves the body unchanged through perspiration, urine, or breathing. The remainder must be chemically altered through metabolism. This process is called oxidation, and it occurs in three phases.
The liver plays a key role in this process because it is the only organ capable of handling the first phase. The presence of a large amount of alcohol does not cause the liver to work faster. The average amount of alcohol processed by the liver is about 14 grams of pure alcohol per hour, equivalent to 250 grams of beer consumed. Unprocessed alcohol remains “waiting in line,” circulating in the bloodstream. Thus, this process continues until all the alcohol has been eliminated from the body. Responsibility for alcohol’s intoxicating effects rests with the concentration of alcohol in the blood and, consequently, in the brain. The next section will provide specific information on how alcohol affects the functions of various organs.
The Effects of Alcohol on the Body
Brain. The brain is the organ most sensitive to the presence of alcohol. The most immediate and dramatic consequence of consuming any amount of alcohol is a reduction in the efficiency of the brain and the entire central nervous system dependent on it. This impaired state produces “reduced inhibitions, less effective vision and hearing, slurred speech, difficulty with activities involving motor skills, impaired judgment, an increased perception of time, and a general feeling of euphoria” /Charles R. Carroll /ref. 32/, p. 42/.
The degree and duration of mental impairment depend on the blood alcohol level. Studies emphasize that some impairment begins at approximately 0.03%, reached by consuming 12 ounces of beer /one ounce equals 31.1 grams/ or 5.5 ounces of ordinary wine for an average person weighing 60 kg.
A chart of the equivalent of one drink of various alcoholic beverages in the human body:
1.5 ounces /45 grams/ of whiskey… equal one drink
3.5 ounces of fortified wine /109 grams/… equal one drink
12 ounces of beer /373 grams/ equal one drink
Is moderate alcohol consumption safe?
One drink usually produces a blood alcohol level of 0.03% in an average person weighing 60 kg. Two drinks will undoubtedly produce 1%. Kenney and Lithson note that at a blood alcohol level of 0.05%, “the newer parts of the brain that control judgment are impaired.” This becomes evident as a person “begins to talk loudly, behave noisily, make various outbursts, and say and do things that they would normally condemn. Such actions are mistakenly attributed to alcohol’s role as a stimulant” /Jean Kinney and Gwen Lithon, /no. 24/ p. 39/. The authors explain that this is not a system that stimulates, but one that suppresses and restrains.
Medical authorities acknowledge that even one drink can impair the judgment of some individuals. In his book “The Study of Alcohol,” Francis Todd writes: “The higher faculties of judgment, concentration, and understanding are affected first. After even a small amount of alcohol is consumed, this effect will occur, and everything will follow as quickly as the alcohol becomes concentrated in the blood and its level rises with continued consumption” /Francis Todd /no. 32/ p. 68/.
Giorgio Lolli cites studies emphasizing that although most people do not feel mentally impaired by one drink, “a significant minority, however, may be adversely affected by a blood alcohol concentration even below 0.02–0.03%, resulting in impaired attention, judgment, and emotional balance” /Giorgio Lolli /no. 36/ p. 39/. Lolli further states: “The functions of judgment and self-control rank among the highest faculties of the human mind; they may be adversely affected by a much lower blood alcohol concentration and lead to loss of vision, hearing, and muscular coordination” /Ibid., p. 41/.
The Effects of One Drink
It is important to note that even one drink can adversely affect your brain. William Terhune expressed this very clearly: “Every time you consume one alcoholic drink, you put some of your brain cells out of action. Indeed, if alcohol has this effect, you should never drink it” /William B. Terhune, “A Safe Way to Drink Alcohol: How to Prevent Alcohol Problems Before They Begin,” New York, 1968, p. 24/. Even one drink is enough to weaken a person’s inhibitions, which function as a “moral brake,” and reduce the ability to think effectively.
William Terhune noted an experiment conducted to demonstrate the effect of one drink on mental performance: To demonstrate alcohol’s effect on the mind to future physicians, many medical institutions follow this procedure. They administer two written examinations on consecutive days, using the same questions. Students take the first examination under normal circumstances without consuming alcohol. Before the second examination, each student is given one bottle of beer /370 grams/. The results of the two examinations were evaluated by individuals unfamiliar with the purpose of the experiment. At the end of the second examination, the students were asked the following questions:
1.Which exam was easier, more difficult, or the same as yesterday’s?
2.Did you do your work better, worse, or the same as yesterday?
Most students answered that the second test was easier and that their grades were better. However, their scores on the second exam were actually 17% lower. This shows that even a single intake of alcohol impairs the mind’s thinking abilities and reduces its performance” /ibid., pp. 27–29/.
It is noteworthy that even among those involved in alcohol production, some warn of the danger of consuming even one drink before driving. In an eight-page public-service advertising brochure published in Seagram’s August 1985 Reader’s Digest, the well-known rule that drinking alcohol and driving are incompatible was emphasized: “A safe rule for you and others: Don’t drink—on the road!” If alcohol weakens the mental reflexes of people driving on earthly roads, does it not also weaken the mental responses of Christians traveling on the path to the Kingdom? Weakening our moral judgment by consuming alcohol means destroying the awareness of right and wrong that God has built into our bodies.
The Liver
The liver is very sensitive to the harmful effects of alcohol. Some studies show that “consuming even a relatively small amount of alcohol—one or two ounces, that is, 30–60 grams—by individuals who do not normally drink alcohol can lead to the accumulation of fat in liver cells” /Jean Kinney and Gwen Leaton /no. 24/, p. 37/.
One vital function of the liver is to maintain the proper blood-sugar level, which is the main source of energy used by brain cells. When alcohol is present in the bloodstream, the liver devotes all its efforts to metabolizing it. In carrying out this task, the liver may sometimes be unable to supply the brain cells with enough glucose. When this happens, hypoglycemia—a condition involving an abnormally low concentration of sugar in the blood—may occur. In this condition, the blood-sugar level is below normal, and the brain is therefore deprived of adequate nourishment. Symptoms include sweating, headache, trembling, hunger, and nervousness.
The most serious liver disease—cirrhosis—is caused by alcohol consumption. This is a disease in which liver cells are destroyed, and the organ is therefore no longer able to carry out its metabolic process—releasing nutrients into the bloodstream. “About half of those who develop cirrhosis will die within five years” /“The Alcoholism Battle”/ /no. 2/, p. 60/. Accordingly, 30,000 Americans die of cirrhosis of the liver each year.
In the past, cirrhosis was usually associated with binge drinking. However, “recent studies conducted in France noted that men who consumed three standard drinks of alcohol per day and women who consumed half that amount could already be in an elevated risk category for developing cirrhosis of the liver.” /Ibid/.
The Stomach
Swallowing alcoholic beverages stimulates the secretion of gastric juices. Alcohol can irritate the stomach lining, triggering a prolonged painful condition known as gastritis. Gastric ulcers often occur among people who drink alcohol. Excessive amounts of stomach acid lead to ulcers, causing pain and slowing the healing process.
The presence of alcohol in the stomach causes excessive secretion of gastric juice, which in turn may bring digestion to a virtual standstill. The movement of food from the stomach into the small intestine slows, and the rate at which various nutrients are absorbed into the intestinal tract decreases. “Such effects, combined with alcohol’s negligible nutritional calories, appetite suppression, and disruption of normal digestive functions, are common among chronic alcoholics; taken together, they lead to the persistent malnutrition so often observed in alcoholics” /Charles R. Carroll /no. 32/ p. 49/.
Heart
Alcohol use also adversely affects the heart through potentially high blood pressure and an increased risk of stroke and heart attack. “Experimental evidence reveals,” writes Charles R. Carroll, “that intoxicating amounts of alcohol increase the heart muscle’s need for oxygen consumption and ultimately increase the heart’s mechanical activity” /Ibid./ Carroll continues: “Although this is not widely accepted by authorities on alcohol, some studies emphasize that the red blood cells in an alcoholic’s capillaries tend to cluster, thereby hindering the proper movement of oxygen to the body’s cells” /Ibid./.
The exact mechanism by which alcohol harms the heart /p. 299, original/ is unknown; however, various defects in heart function caused by alcohol become apparent over time. Some of them are as follows: heart failure, irregular heartbeat, enlarged neck veins, abnormal pulse and blood pressure, and swelling of the hands and feet” /Ibid./. “In addition, alcohol inhibits the production of red and white blood cells, which may result in anemia and reduced resistance to infectious diseases” /“The Fight Against Alcoholism” /no. 2/ p. 60/.
Cancer and Alcohol
Alcohol apparently increases the risk of developing certain types of cancer. Sidney Cohen, a nationally recognized authority on alcohol use, says: “The use of alcoholic beverages leads to an increased risk of cancer in various parts of the body” /Sidney Cohen, “The Nature of Alcohol Abuse: New Findings for the 1980s,” New York, 1983, vol. 2, p. 119/. Some of the parts mentioned are: “the tongue, mouth, throat, larynx, esophagus, and liver” /Ibid./.
The overview above mentions only briefly some of the effects on the human body. Many other medical consequences of alcohol use can be identified, such as its effects on the reproductive system, esophagus, pancreas, kidneys, muscles, lungs, thyroid gland, and so on. These examples are sufficient to show that alcohol use has a seriously harmful effect on the human body.
CONCLUSION
The cost of alcohol use to the American people is extraordinarily high. And this cost is paid by all of us not only in the amount of 117 billion dollars annually to our economy, but also in terms of pain, misery, violence, child and spousal abuse, divorce, crime, illness, and death.
“It is incomprehensible,” writes Sidney Cohen, “that an advanced, prosperous society could tolerate the tragedy of alcohol” /Sidney Cohen /No. 5/ p. 12/. What we need is, once again, to apply Cohen’s words: “a wholly new cultural attitude toward alcohol, in which we must acknowledge what it is— a dangerous drug” /Ibid./. We believe that such a new cultural attitude toward alcohol can best be developed by revealing the biblical command to abstain. Only when Christians recognize and accept the position that consuming alcoholic beverages not only harms physical health but also morally leads to sin will they feel the need to abstain from intoxicating substances.
Download the book: “Samuel Bacchiocchi, Wine in the Bible”: vine.rar
