by Gary T. Panell
You may be surprised to find that the word beer is used in the Bible. In the New International Version of the Bible the Hebrew word “shakar” is translated as “beer”. In the King James versions of the Bible the Hebrew word “shakar” is translated as “strong or intoxicating drink.” They made these drinks from dates or other fruits (grapes excepted) or barley millet, etc.
Drinking alcohol today has become common place, and many Christians see nothing wrong with it. They use the Bible to condone their actions-saying, “Didn’t Paul tell Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach’s sake?” They question, “Didn’t Jesus drink wine?” Then they insist that Jesus made alcoholic wine at the wedding in Cana of Galilee.
These sound like convincing arguments until you understand that the main Hebrew word for “wine” (yayin) or the main Greek word (oinos) can refer to a fermented or unfermented drink. The wine spoken of in the Bible is a generic term. The context in each case indicates whether it was speaking of fermented wine or not.
You might ask, “Could people in Bible times keep their juices from fermenting when there was no refrigeration?” The answer is , “Yes”. To preserve their sweet juices in a hot climate, people often boiled the juice down until it was thick like syrup, and later when they were ready to use it they would add water to it. Also they would boil their juices and, then seal the air out. There were other methods to prevent fermentation like filtration or by drawing off the juice from the subsided yeast, and by the use of sulfur. They could, at times keep juice in a cool place such as in a cave, underground or in running water. For more on this subject read, Bible Wines, by William Patton or Wine In The Bible: A Biblical Study On The Use Of Alcoholic Beverages, by Samuele Bacchiocchi).
So to assume that every time the Bible uses the word “wine”-it is speaking about a fermented drink is not looking at the facts! Isaiah 65:8 says, “Thus says the LORD: As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one says, ‘Do not destroy it for a blessing is in it…” Here the grape juice in the cluster is called ‘wine’ (tirosh). In Isaiah 16:10b says, “.no treaders will tread out wine in their presses.” As soon as the juice was pressed out of the grapes it was called wine. But in Genesis 9:21 it is clear that fermented wine is what Noah drank to get drunk on. (It is well to note, however, how it got him and his son Ham into trouble drinking it!) This should be enough to prove that the word ‘wine’ is a generic term in our Bibles! (See Bible Wines by William Patton)
Now the argument, Paul told Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach’s sake. Yes, Paul told Timothy, “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your often infirmities.” 1 Timothy 5:23 This text clearly implies that Timothy did not drink any wine before this time. The recommendation by Paul was strictly medicinal, so to quote the advice of Paul to Timothy to justify drinking is to distort the intent of the passage! Again because the word “wine” is used many people jump to the conclusion it is fermented, when in fact Paul and the rest of Scripture have already warned against the use of fermented wine.
Then you ask, “was unfermented wine ever used as a medicine?” Yes, Athenaeus states, “Let him take sweet wine, either mixed with water or warmed, especially that kind called protropos (juice coming from the grapes before they are pressed), as being good for the stomach.”(Athenaeus, Banquet 2:24).
The question, “Didn’t Jesus drink fermented wine?” comes from what the false religious leaders said about Jesus in Matthew 11:18,19. “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ “The Son of Man came eating and drinking (Jesus was not fasting like John, and did drink unfermented wine), and they say, “Look, a gluttonous man and a winebibber (wine drinker), a friend of tax collectors and sinners! NKJV
John was a Nazarite and was not to drink grape juice or fermented wine Luke 1:15. Jesus on the other hand had a different type of ministry. Jesus did talk with drinkers who were considered sinners and this made the religious leaders angry. These were the same men who said Jesus was a glutton and had a demon. These leaders were jealous and upset because Jesus was becoming so popular. They were lying about Jesus being a glutton, about Jesus having a demon, and they were also lying when they said Jesus was a winebibber (or alcoholic drinker)!
The Bible says Jesus always did the will of the Father who is in heaven. So He would not disobey God the Father who said by the Holy Spirit, “Do not look on the wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it swirls around smoothly; at the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like a viper.” Proverbs 23:31 and 32 (NKJV)
Now, “Did Jesus make alcohol for the wedding in Cana?” The term used in, John 2:1-11, is “oinos” the generic Greek word for both fermented or unfermented juice. We must determine from the context whether it is a fermented or unfermented drink here.
The person in charge of the wedding party remarked, after he had tasted the wine, “.you have kept the good wine until now.” Good wine was fresh grape juice, the fermented grape juice was considered inferior. Also Jesus would know about Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (being God as well as man), and would not give alcohol to a wedding party, which probably included several pregnant women. No, Jesus did NOT make a fermented wine at this wedding. What He did do was to give a wedding gift of at least 120 gallons of fresh grape juice.
The Hebrew word (chemah) is translated as “poison” when speaking of fermented wine in Deuteronomy 32:33. Alcohol is a toxic mind-altering drug. Alcohol causes ill effects on the digestive, muscular, skeletal, nervous and circulatory systems. It causes cirrhosis of the liver, jaundice, pancreatitis, and blackouts as well as many other sicknesses.
About sixty percent of all traffic accidents and seventy percent of all murders are alcohol related. Then there is the untold domestic violence it has caused. Proverbs 20:1, warns, “Wine is a mocker, intoxicating drink (beer) arouses fighting, whoever is led astray by it is not wise!”
God’s Word is consistent, it does not tell us not to drink fermented wine in one part of the Bible and in another part only to drink a little alcohol. Here are three types of New Testament references that people think are saying it is all right to drink a little fermented wine, beer, etc. First, Ephesians 5:18, in some versions the word “excess” is used. The New King James Version more accurately uses the word “dissipation” (meaning intemperance or the opposite of temperance-which is total abstinence from alcoholic liquors).
Second, in other references such as 1 Timothy 3:2,3 and Titus 1:7, we have the phrase, “not given to wine” this is taken by some to mean, “not to be addicted” to alcohol. But in reality the Greek word used here is, “mee-paroinon”, literally, not at, by near, or with wine (alcohol). According to Paul, total abstinence is an indispensable qualification for a pastor. (See Bible Wines William Patton)
The third type of reference that has caused confusion to some, are the ones like 1 Timothy 3:8 and Titus 2:3.”not given to much wine”. In order to understand these verses we will need to understand a popular vice of that time. That was to drink a lot of unfermented wine. They used various methods to promote thirst. These drinkers might continue drinking all night at their feasts. Excessive drinking, even of non-alcoholic drinks corresponded to gluttony-the excessive use of food. Paul is simply guarding the deacons against a vice of the day. It would be similar in our day to “bulimia” (eating or drinking to the point of being gorged and then vomiting). This is unbecoming behavior for a Christian in any age!
The New International Version in 1 Timothy 3:3 and Titus 1:7 says here, “not given to drunkenness”. This translation does not make sense in light of Proverbs 23:31 and 32 and the rest of the injunctions against any drinking of alcohol. Paul even goes so far as to warn that a person would not be saved if they are drunkards. “…nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:10) So be very careful which versions of the Bible you study!
In Revelation 1:6, we are called kings and priests, according to Scripture kings or princes were not to drink fermented wine or intoxicating drink. In Proverbs 31:4,5 we are also told that priests were not to drink any wine or intoxicating drink when they went into the tabernacle (or temple), Leviticus 10:9 and 10. Then 1 Corinthians 3:16 says, “Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?”
For more study on this subject read also: 1 Samuel 1:13-16, Proverbs 4:14-17, 23:29-35, Isaiah 5:22, 28:7,8 Jeremiah 35:1-6,18,19; Daniel 1:8-16, Amos 2:12 Habakkuk 2:5,15-16; Matthew 24:48 – 51; 1 Peter 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:6-8.
by Gary T. Panell
Download this article as a PDF: Beer and Other Alcoholic Beverages in the Bible
Demetrius says
Thanks for the wonderful manual
Gary Panell says
Thank you
Robert says
Thank you so much for the powerful guide.
Gary Panell says
You are welcome, Robert. Brother, Gary
Lisa Marie Duke says
The Lord Jesus didn’t tell Noah he was “in trouble” for drinking wine.
You added to the scripture and that is forbidden!
You also have spoken against The Lord’s servant Noah!
Ezekiel 14:14
14 though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God
A lot of people also eat too much and are very fat—look up gluttony.
Also
Jeremiah 31, Hebrews 8
The new covenant—The Lord Jesus teaches by His Holy Spirit
Jeremiah 31:
33 but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord
Hebrews 8:
11 and they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Gary Panell says
Hi Lisa, Are you saying that Noah didn’t sin by getting drunk? That is all I was pointing out, I did not add to Scripture, Scripture makes it clear, Noah sinned like all the rest of mankind. That is why Jesus had to die for us. In Christian love, Gary
lsrael ola. says
am blessed with this message, thanks.
Gary Panell says
Thank you Israel.
Kyle says
I respect you all in the tee-totalling camp but often findarguments for it rest on some pretty heavy eisogesis…There would be no point in an other paper to answer this, But three things for consideration:
1) This article mishandles the Wedding at Cana account from John 2:10. The guests clearly define the “fine wine” as being alcoholic..”Every sets out the fine wine first, then AFTER PEOPLE ARE DRUNK, the inferior.” The phrase “after people are drunk” or “have well drunk” if your a KJV guy is “mesysthosin” in Koine and literally means “to become intoxicated.” So the “good wine” has the quality of being intoxicated. After intoxication and impaired judgment the “inferior wine” would be put out. BUT Jesus created “fine wine” as the end of John 2:10 tells us…
2) It also doesn’t deal with the fact that the OT Law encouraged Israelites to drink beer for celebrations (see Deuteronomy 14:26…Strong drink = Hebrew “shekar”=liquor, honestly probably beer) and Yahweh Himself was understood to consume beer via the drink offering (see Numbers 28:7). Israel had fermented drink to offer for one thing. Also, the understanding of the times was that what was offered on the altar was consumed by God as it was consecrated to Him. Either way, alcohol was brewed and used in holy offerings to the Lord and as part of the celebration thereof.
3) The fundamentalist obsession with the evils of alcohol has really no precedent in Christian thinking. Martin Luther was an avid beer brewer. The Pilgrims drank alcohol. It wasn’t until the Twenties and Thirties in the USA that such strong sentiments against alcohol sprung up. It was societal pressure, not Biblical command or precedent that motivated this subset of thought in Christianity. It was also very politically motivated as the largest American brewers were from German families and USA/German relations were too good during these decades. These things are well-documented online so I’ll leave them for the curious seeker.
Blessings!
Gary Panell says
Hi Kyle, Please look at the articles: Myths about Wine and Alcohol in the Bible. Part One and Part Two, you can find these in the search engine or in the resources on Bible Christian.org. Thanks, Brother Gary
Steve says
People never in the history of the world have clamored for grape juice.
The problem is the stoic mindset of the “Evil” world and self-denial which have NO basis in Jewish thought have so permeated Christian we can’t see the forest for the trees.
Look at Romans 14 Paul clearly states drink and eat according to your convictions. I personally drink wine and don’t drink soft drinks and avoid fattening foods. That’s my conviction not to be confused with an all inclusive legalism pertaining to every believer.
Gary Panell says
Dear Steve, Please read these verses: Proverbs 20:1, Proverbs 23:29-35, Isaiah 5:22; 28:7-8; Jeremiah 35: 1-6; Daniel 1:8-16; Matthew 24: 46-51; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Peter 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:6-8. Oh, by the way, I have many Christian friends who see nothing wrong with alcohol and they are still my friends. Also, I do like grape juice, and many other Christians do too. Thanks for writing, Gary
Ash says
Nicely said.
Gary Panell says
Thank you, Ash, God bless you. Brother, Gary
Kyle says
Brother Gary,
I read the two articles referenced and the problem of John 2:10 still stands. The point is made that “oinos” is a generic term for both non-alcoholic and alcoholic wine. That is well and good. It can mean both and not many people who are familiar with Greek would argue any different. The meaning must be determined by context. The problem is that the context undoubtedly points to alcoholic wine being in mind here unless you make significant a priori assumptions, ie, alcohol is bad and absolutely can’t be in view here so we will twist the normative meaning of words to make it fit our pre-conceived biases. The context we have to work from in John 2:10 is that the quality of the “oinos kalos”is such that when it is consumed, people “methysthosyn.” This word, not matter what fancy dancing is done, means “to get drunk.” See here: https://biblehub.com/greek/3184.htm and here https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/methuo and here https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/methuo.html and here http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=mequ%2Fw&la=greek&can=mequ%2Fw0&prior=mequ/skw…Every respected scholar or group of scholars in the business of studying the etymology, historical use and application of Greek words and compiling them into lexicons has a unified position on the meaning of “methuo.” It means to get drunk. To dance around this meaning is to twist the meaning of a word to suit our own purposes. This is eisegesis.
Also, there was no discussion of the other two points I made.
1) Numbers 28:7 tells us that “shekar”(which is not a generic term but a term that specifically means “intoxicating drink”) was poured out before the Lord for His consumption as an offering. Yahweh commanded that this same “shekar” be used as part of the celebration in His Name (see Dt 14:26). I am sure that you are familiar with the ANE concept of how sacrifices and sacrificial meals worked. The LORD was understood to consume the offerings and the people ate and drank “in the presence of the LORD” (see Dt 9:18; 12:7; 14:23 etc). Alcoholic drink (again, probably barley beer) was part of the celebration in the LORD’s presence. Sounds like He’s condoning it.
2) There is no historical precedent for the modern fundamentalist anti-alcohol interpretation of the Bible. I argue that people in the NT church weren’t teetotalers. Neither were the church fathers ( it is ironic that Chrysostom is quoted as scholarly support against the actual meaning of “methuo” even though he wrote in defense of drinking wine!). Neither were the Reformers. Neither are most Christians scattered around the world. It is a recent subset of American Christians who have promoted and propagated this view. It isn’t biblical. In fact, I’m afraid it smacks of legalistic Pharisaism. We are bluntly told not to let anyone judge us by what we eat or drink (Colossians 2:16). This is really the largest reason I felt the need to engage on this issue. It distracts from the core value of the gospel and reduces it to a checklist of “do’s and don’ts” rather than a powerful, mission-centered proclamation of the Living Christ. Christ doesn’t care if you drink, so long as you receive it in thanksgiving and sanctified in prayer (1 Timothy 4:3-5), and so long as it is done responsibly and honorably.
Blessings for your dedication to Christ, His work, and His mission.
Gary Panell says
(The following is paraphrased from an article by Dr. Bacchiocchi, Jesus and Wine. If you want the article with the footnotes and references, please go to his internet site WINE IN THE BIBLE.)
The popular belief that “Jesus was not a teetotaler,” but a moderate drinker of fermented wine who even “miraculously manufactured a high-quality (alcoholic) wine at Cana” has no doubt influenced the drinking habits of millions of Christians around the world more than anything else that the Bible says about drinking.
The reason is simple. The example and teachings of Christ are normative for Christian belief and practice. If Christ made, commended and used fermented wine, then there can hardly be anything intrinsically wrong with a moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages! Simply stated, “If wine was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me!”
The belief that the wine Christ provided in Cana was alcoholic rests on five major assumptions. First, it is assumed that the word oinos “wine” indicates only “fermented-quality grape drink, i.e. wine.” Second, it is assumed that since the word oinos “wine” is used in reference, both to the wine which ran out and the wine that Christ made, both wines must have been alcoholic.
Third, it is assumed that the Jews did not know how to prevent the fermentation of grape juice; and since, as argued by William Hendriksen, the season of the wedding was just before Spring Passover (cf. John 2:13), that is, six months after the grape harvest, the wine used at Cana had ample time to ferment. Fourth, it is assumed that the description given by the master of the banquet to the wine provided by Christ as “the good wine” means a high-quality alcoholic wine.
Fifth, it is assumed that the expression “well drunk” (John 2:10) used by the master of the banquet indicates that the guests were intoxicated because they had been drinking fermented wine. Consequently, the wine Jesus made must also have been fermented. In view of the importance that these assumptions play in determining the nature of the wine provided by Christ, we shall examine each of them briefly in the order given…
…The Meaning of Oinos… (The first and the second assumption are really based on this mistaken view that oinos, Greek for wine, always is fermented.)* A better acquaintance with the use of the word ‘wine,’ not only in the Greek language, but also in old English, Latin and Hebrew, would have saved scholars from falling into the mistaken conclusion that oinos means only fermented wine.
The truth of the matter is…oinos [Greek] is a generic term, including all kinds of wine, unfermented and fermented, like yayin in Hebrew and vinum in Latin. Thus, the fact that the wine made by Christ at Cana is called oinos, offers no ground for concluding that it was fermented wine. Its nature must be determined by internal evidence and moral likelihood. The record of the evangelist, as we shall see, affords information for determining this question.
(The first and second assumptions are discredited by two facts.)* First, as mentioned earlier, the word oinos is a generic term referring to fermented and to unfermented wine. Second, the wine provided by Christ is differentiated from the other by being characterized as ton kalon, ‘the good’ wine. This suggests that the two wines were not identical. The nature of the difference between the two wines will be discussed below.
Preservation of Grape Juice: The third assumption, that it would have been impossible to supply unfermented grape juice for a spring time wedding about six months after vintage, rests on the assumption that the technology for preserving grape juice unfermented was unknown at the time.
The latter assumption is clearly discredited by numerous testimonies from the Roman world of New Testament times describing various methods for preserving grape juice. [This will be discussed in great detail later in this article.]
Preservation of grape juice was in some ways a simpler process than the preservation of fermented wine. Thus, the possibility existed at the wedding of Cana to supply unfermented grape juice near the Passover season, since such a beverage could be kept unfermented throughout the year. [We will give much proof of that fact also latter in this article.]
“High-Quality Alcoholic Wine:” The fourth assumption is that the wine Jesus provided was pronounced ‘the good wine’ (John 2:10) by the master of the banquet, because it was high in alcoholic content. Such an assumption is based on [modern] tastes.
Albert Barnes, a well-know New Testament scholar and commentator, warns in his comment on John 2:10 not to “be deceived by the phrase ‘good wine.’ The reason, he explains, is that “We use the phrase to denote that it is good in proportion to its strength, and its power to intoxicate. But no such sense is to be attached to the word here.”
To the Roman world of the New Testament times, the best wines were those whose alcoholic potency had been removed by boiling or filtration. Pliny, for example, says that “wines are most beneficial (utilissimum) when all their potency has been removed by the strainer.” Similarly, Plutarch points out that wine is “much more pleasant to drink” when it “neither inflames the brain nor infests the mind or passions” because its strength has been removed through frequent filtering.
The wine Christ made was of high quality, not because of its alcohol content, but because, as Henry M. Morris explains, “It was new wine, freshly created! It was not old, decayed wine, as it would have to be if it were intoxicating. There was no time for the fermentation process to break down the structure of its energy-giving sugars into disintegrative alcohols.”
It thus was a fitting representation of His glory, and was appropriate to serve as the very first of His great miracles (John 2:11). Rabbinical Witness: The rabbinical witness on the nature of wine is not unanimous. Rabbi Isidore Koplowitz points out in his introduction to his collection of rabbinical statements on wine and strong drink that “it is true that some Talmudic doctors have sanctioned, aye, even recommended the moderate use of wine.
“But it is equally true that many Talmudic Rabbins have in vigorous words condemned the drinking of wine and strong drinks. Some Rabbis have even ascribed the downfall of Israel to wine. An example of disapproval is the statement, often repeated with minor variations by different rabbis, which says: “When wine enters into the system of a person, out goes sense, wherever there is wine there is no understanding.”
Elsewhere the Talmud indicates that drinking was forbidden to the accompaniment of musical instruments in festive occasions such as weddings (Sotah 48a; also Mishna Sotah 9, 11). .In the light of these testimonies and considerations we would conclude that the wine provided by Christ was described as “the good wine” because it was not intoxicating.
Moral implications: Another reason leading us to reject the assumption that “the good wine” produced by Christ was high in alcoholic content is the negative reflection such an assumption casts upon the wisdom of the Son of God.
The oinos in this case was grape juice. In the light of the whole Old Testament condemnation of wine [that was fermented], it certainly would appear that the beverage was grape juice.”
It is against the principle of Scriptural and moral analogy to suppose that Christ, the Creator of good things (Genesis 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25,: Col 1:16), would exert His supernatural energy to bring into existence an intoxicating wine which Scripture condemns as “a mocker” and “a brawler” (Proverbs 20:1) and which the Holy Spirit has chosen as the symbol of divine wrath.
Scriptural and moral consistency requires that “the good wine” produced by Christ was fresh, unfermented grape juice. The very adjective used to describe the wine supports this conclusion. “It must be observed,” notes Leon C. Field, “that the adjective used to describe the wine made by Christ is not agathos, good, simply, but kalos, that which is morally excellent or befitting. The term is suggestive of Theophrastus characterization of unintoxicating wine as moral (ethikos) wine.
Referring to the nature of the wine produced by Christ, Ellen White says: “The wine which Christ provided for the feast, and that which He gave to the disciples as a symbol of His own blood, was the pure juice of the grape. To this the prophet Isaiah refers when he speaks of the new wine ‘in the cluster,’ and says, ‘Destroy it not: for a blessing is in it.’
“The unfermented wine which He provided for the wedding guests was a wholesome and refreshing drink. Its effect was to bring the taste into harmony with a healthful appetite.”
“Well Drunk.” The final assumption to be examined relates to the expression “well drunk” (John 2:10) used by the banquet master. The full statement reads: “Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now” (John 2:10, KJV).
The assumption is that since the Greek word methusthosin “well drunk” indicates drunkenness and since drunkenness is caused, according to the statement of the banquet master, by the “good wine” customarily served first, then “the good wine” provided by Christ must also have been intoxicating, because it is compared with the good wine usually served at the beginning of a feast.
This reasoning misinterprets and misapplies the comment of the master of the banquet, and overlooks the broader usage of the verb. The comment in question was not made in reference to that particular party, but to the general practice among those who hold feasts:
“Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine.” (John 2:10, RSV). This remark, as many commentators recognize, forms parts of the stock in trade of a hired banquet master, rather than an actual description of the state of intoxication at a particular party.
Another important consideration is the fact that the Greek verb methusko can mean “to drink freely” without any implication of intoxication.
The verb methusko in John 2:10 is used in the sense of satiation. It refers simply to the large quantity of wine generally consumed at a feast, without any reference to intoxicating effects.
Those who wish to insist that the wine used at the feast was alcoholic and that Jesus also provided alcoholic wine, though of a better quality, are driven to the conclusion that Jesus provided a large additional quantity of intoxicating wine so that the wedding party could continue its reckless indulgence. Such a conclusion destroys the moral integrity of Christ’s character.
The Object of the Miracle: The stated object of the miracle was for Christ to manifest His glory so that His disciples might believe in Him. This objective was accomplished: “This, the first of His signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him” (John 2:11).
Christ’s presence at a marriage feast was intended to show divine approval of the marriage institution and of the innocent enjoyments of social life. Yet all of these considerations were subservient to the manifestation of Christ’s glory in fulfillment of His Messianic mission.
The glory of God is revealed especially in His act of creation (Psalm 19:1-2). Likewise, Christ’s “eternal power and deity” (Romans 1:20) through an act of creation: “He made the water wine [grape juice]” (John 4:46).
The wine of the miracle must have been identical to the wine found in the grape-clusters, because this is the only wine that God produces. “There is not a hint,” writes R. A. Torrey, “that the wine He [Christ] made was intoxicating.
Kyle Thompson says
Brother Gary.
This makes the third time that I have read Dr Bacchiocchi’s article. And no matter how many times I read it I can’t see anything that I may have carelessly read over. My argument is not that I haven’t understood Dr Bacchiocchi’s article but rather that I think he is wrong. Specifically, this is the problem section:
“Another important consideration is the fact that the Greek verb methusko can mean “to drink freely” without any implication of intoxication.
The verb methusko in John 2:10 is used in the sense of satiation. It refers simply to the large quantity of wine generally consumed at a feast, without any reference to intoxicating effects.
Those who wish to insist that the wine used at the feast was alcoholic and that Jesus also provided alcoholic wine, though of a better quality, are driven to the conclusion that Jesus provided a large additional quantity of intoxicating wine so that the wedding party could continue its reckless indulgence. Such a conclusion destroys the moral integrity of Christ’s character.”
I won’t restate my points about why he is wrong as I already did before. My point is that “methusko” means to get drunk no matter how much one tries to bend or twist the meaning of the word. And the “good wine” had the quality of being able to produce this effect, and, ergo, was alcoholic wine. There is NOT A SINGLE respected lexicographer who has ever defined this Greek word as anything other than “to get drunk.”
Also, my second two points have not been addressed at all. While the abstainers have pushed the envelop to create ambiguity in the term “oinos” (and they are right at most points on this), they haven’t thought to tackle the Hebrew word “shekar” which always and in every case means “alcoholic drink.” See the passages referenced in my first two posts on this issue.
A new issue that must be addressed I think… This Dr Bacchiocci is a Seventh-Day Adventist theologian. He has a deeply vested interest in defending the total-abstinence from alcohol position because he must do so to validate Ellen White’s position on this issue. Keep in mind he has no issue with twisting biblical passages to defend the position that Christians should be bound to Saturday worship, Sabbath keeping and dietary restrictions. This links closely with my point that any dietary prohibitions hint at legalism and are more rooted in human-made regulations than the Word of God.
Blessings, and I hope to hear from YOU soon rather than having to read Dr Bacchiocci’s material again. I’m afraid that the more I read it the more I am convinced that he has no idea what he is talking about…
Gary Panell says
Hi Kyle, It almost sounds like you think Scripture doesn’t see anything wrong with getting drunk. Do you really think Jesus would encourage drunkenness? If so, please read this: 1 Corinthians 6: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolater, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” Gary
Kyle says
Scripture condemns drunkenness. We are in agreement in this. The debate is prohibition vs abstinence vs moderation. And no, Jesus didn’t encourage drunkenness. That was never my claim. My claim is that Jesus did not prohibit alcoholic drink enjoyed in moderation. I don’t want to rehash my whole position again. But the John 2:10 passage has not been properly exegeted… The fact that Jesus made alcoholic wine does not lead to Him condoning alcoholism or drunkenness. The fact that the wine had the potential to lead to drunkenness doesn’t mean that Jesus or the guests indulged to this point. The “steward” (greek archeetricklinos) only said that the cultural custom to put on the inferior wine at the end, after people had become drunk but that the wine served here was “good wine.” The argument that “good wine” contained no alcohol falls apart when it is seen that “good wine” could make people drunk. To argue that “methueo” means anything other than become drunk is twisting the meaning of a word to suit preconceived purposes. We must let the text speak for itself even when (maybe even especially when) we are uncomfortable with what it says. Drunkenness, gluttony, materialism, pornography, sexual immorality are all sins. But the proper and moderate use of alcohol, food or material blessings are not sinful. Sex isn’t evil. Abusing it is. There is no reason to condemn alcohol en toto because it is abused by some. Should we all abstain from meat? Or candy? Or Pepsi? Or coffee? Or sex (even when married)? Or dancing? Or playing cards? Or listening to music? Or watching TV? All these can be and have been abused to the point of sin. Many have led to negative health epidemics. But the Scriptures do not condemn these in their proper use. Same goes for alcohol. A drinker in moderation is not a drunkard or a sinner. We are not at liberty to prohibit what the Scriptures do not prohibit lest we become Pharisees.
Gary Panell says
Since you seem like you want to debate this subject of wine in the Bible, give me your take on Proverbs 23: 29-33. Gary
Kyle says
First it is a Proverb. The nature of a proverb is to promote wise and God-focused living. Proverbs are not promises neither are they commands and point to life as it generally is and are not meant to be a check-list manual or law. An example of this point is Proverbs 22:6. This is a great principle to promote what should and often does happen as far as child-rearing. But as any parent knows this is not a promise from God that if you teach your kids about him they will not depart from Him. Understanding the nature of a proverb, then, is key, as well as the fact that this is not a command against drinking but a warning against drunkenness.
That ties into the second point. This warning is meant to lead one against over-indulgence of wine (drunkenness). A drunkard “lingers long over wine” (Heb “achar”…see here: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/309.htm). Also, a drunkard “goes looking for wine” as an object in itself. This phrase contains a Hebrew participle (labbaim…see here: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/935.htm)… participles signify ongoing, continued action generally. The warning is against over indulging to the point where one “sees strange things” and “utters strange words.” A drunkard also isn’t content with drinking in moderation but is always seeking another drink (per verse 35).
So it is a proverb warning against drunkenness by marking its foolishness and dangers. It is not a command that prohibits alcohol. Drunkenness is the issue here, not moderate drinking.
It is clear, here, that the word “wine” (Heb Yayin) has alcoholic wine in mind, or else the warning becomes non-sense. If that is conceded it shows that one need not assume that the general usage for this word means “non-alcoholic wine.” I ask you, then, your take on Psalm 104:15 that tells us that God gives us wine to “gladden the hearts of men.” The word for “wine” is the exact same as in Proverbs 23:35 but is here connected with a blessing. Is there any reason to assume a different meaning for “yayin” in each passage apart from a priori bias against fermented wine?
And, still, what about the “shekar” of Dt 14:26?
Blessings to you and yours this Thanksgiving!
Gary Panell says
Hi Kyle, Sometimes people have to just agree to disagree in the love of Christ. Brother Gary, I trust that you and your family had a nice Thanksgiving too.
Kyle says
We did have a nice Thanksgiving. Thank you! I just wanted to engage on this issue because I have seen it abused by several legalistic churches and the Christians that constitute these churches. It is one thing to argue for abstinence… One may see it wisest to abstain from alcohol for a variety of reasons that can be deduced from the Scriptures. But the arguments for prohibition spill over into the realm of Scripture twisting. I don’t accuse you of this. You simply quoted others who were guilty of it. You also don’t write with an air of arrogance and condemnation and are open to dialogue. This shows you to be a genuine and devoted disciple of Jesus Christ. I respect that you can be good with Christians who “agree to disagree in the love of Christ.” I will continue to seek the Scriptures to see if my position needs modified. I do urge you to revisit the subject and consider possibly moving into the realm of arguing for abstinence as a wise Christian choice (for which one could find Scriptural grounding) and away from prohibition from alcohol (for which one cannot find Scriptural grounding unless one does violence to the Scriptures.) Blessings to yours and yours.
J. Lanier says
It’s amazing how little people use their God-given common sense. There’s no way that the references to drinking wine in the Bible refers to grape juice. The grape harvest in Palestine occurs around Sep./Oct. Any grape juice left until Passover woukd have long since spontaneously fermented into either wine or vinegar. What about the scribes and Pharisees accusing Jesus of being a glutton and a wine bibber? Was he drinking too much grape juice? It was until Mr. Welch found a way to pasteurize grape juice that many evangelical churches started using grape juice for Communion. This happened to coincide with the temperance movement. So yes, Virginia, they drank adult beverages in Bible times and Jesus turned the water into the real thing–fine wine.
Gary Panell says
You can cause people to think that drinking is fine, I will stick by the truth of God’s Word, and not teach others to drink, as you think is fine to do.