Jude 2

Paul told Timothy, “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities” (1 Tim. 5:23)

In Response to this verse, JohnDB on a thread in the Doctrine forum wrote:The wine that they had in Bible days wasn't like what we have today called wine...although that kind was there as well.

One was wine as we know it today...mildly alcoholic but usually much sweeter than what we drink today...was mixed with water to flavor the water and steralize it somewhat. Could also be used to mix with spices...some were somewhat hallucinogenic or numbing in nature. (I.E. Nutmeg or cloves)

Okay, first I am not necessarily saying that there weren't 3 types of wine. Even today there are multitudes of various forms of fermented beverages, so various forms of alchohol is not out of the realm of possibility.

As far as a wine mixed with water, the Scripture both acknowledges the practice, and speaks against it at the same time. “How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers. Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water: Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them...” (Isa. 1:21-23).

JohnDB wrote:another type of wine was pretty much liquor. It was used in drink offerings to God often...after a burnt offering...as part of a meal. It was often consumed as an aperitif or after dinner drink.

Third kind was very similar to jelly. It was used by Jesus at the end of the Passover meal.

All were called wine.

Even if JohnDB's definition of wine is accurate, what makes one think that the "jelly wine" is what was at the Passover meal? The Passover meal tradition is a practice that pre-dates Jesus, and continued long after.

Why is it assumed that He didn't drink regular wine? Is it because we just can't picture it? While He was from Nazareth, Jesus had not taken the vow of a Nazarite (as Samson). If He had, He could not have eaten grape leaves, let alone drunk wine in any form.

Jesus said, “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children” (Matt. 11:18-19).

Were the Pharisees bent out of shape because Jesus was eating grape jelly at the local tavern?

Bibleguy,

I think there are some assumptions in your comments that need ot be addressed:

1. Scripture does not speak against or oppose the dilution of wine with water. The verse you cite is not condemnatory (btw, I like this word, thx for sharing it) of the practice. rather it merely uses the practice as a metaphor.

BTW, all forms of wine in Bible days were typically and normally diluted in -- both fermented and unfermented. I have well documented in previous threads that knowledge and practice existed among ancient Mediterranean cultures for preserving and making unfermented juice of the grape, and that such was equally called wine in those cultures.

2. Scripture never shows nor indicates that Jesus frequented what could be construed as a tavern or bar (places of excess, drunkenness, and other associated vileness). I'm sure you are probably using your wit and writing ability to express a thought creatively to instigate dialog. Still, I cannot in good conscience let the charge that Our Lord was a bar sot go unchecked.

Poimen wrote:Bibleguy,

I think there are some assumptions in your comments that need ot be addressed:

1. Scripture does not speak against or oppose the dilution of wine with water. The verse you cite is not condemnatory (btw, I like this word, thx for sharing it) of the practice. rather it merely uses the practice as a metaphor.

BTW, all forms of wine in Bible days were typically and normally diluted in -- both fermented and unfermented. I have well documented in previous threads that knowledge and practice existed among ancient Mediterranean cultures for preserving and making unfermented juice of the grape, and that such was equally called wine in those cultures.

2. Scripture never shows nor indicates that Jesus frequented what could be construed as a tavern or bar (places of excess, drunkenness, and other associated vileness). I'm sure you are probably using your wit and writing ability to express a thought creatively to instigate dialog. Still, I cannot in good conscience let the charge that Our Lord was a bar sot go unchecked.

Thanks bro. I do love you, you know!

First, yes the Isaiah passage is applying metaphor, but in that He uses the mixed wine principle in this way (and for the metaphor to follow on to its implied conclusion), shows that, at least in some ways, mixing wine with water is not good. You know, if in a tirade, He had said, "Thou has brushed thy teeth," the metaphor would not hold water, as brushing teeth is a practice with nothing but positive connotations (except maybe for some parts of the South he he he).

Second, I didn't mean to imply that our Lord frequented seedy establishments. Although I would be open to the idea that he did go into places that also served alchohol. Like the pubs of Ireland. No doubt some people do drink to excess there, but it's more of a meeting place common place. Some of the most pious American Christians ever -- the Pilgrims -- did not see drinking alcoholic beverages as "sin." Likewise, consumption of alchohol is not viewed as a vice in many cultures, including Jewish orthodoxy, while drunkenness/alchoholism is deemed a vice almost universally.

Third, I'm glad you like the word condemnatory. Although, I will have to admit that after you expressed your feelings about it, I had to go confirm that it actually was a real word. Just looked it up, and :whew: it is! I didn't make it up, although I had my doubts there for a second.

I'll drink to that!

Jesus said, “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children” (Matt. 11:18-19).


How could John not eat nor drink? The point is the Pharisees are wrong on both.

What percent of alcohol were wine the fermented type?
Stong Drink 7-10 Alcohol

The book of 2 Maccabees, which was written somewhere around the end of the 2nd century BC and the first half of the 1st century BC, speaks of diluted wine as "a more pleasant drink" and of both undiluted wine and unmixed water as "harmful" or "distasteful."

Jesus also diluted wine or made water into wine.
John 2:

Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved." MATTHEW 9:17

The dried skin-bottles used in the time of our Lord were however admirably suited to the purpose of preventing fermentation. With their seams well pitched with tar to exclude the air and its yeast spores, fermentation could not take place. It was imperative that new, perfectly clean skins be used, as any dregs left clinging to the inside of the old skins would soon set up a ferment sufficient to ruin the "new wine" being poured in, and burst the bottles.

Here, "New wine" is the translation of the Greek words "oinos neon" which is equivalent to the Hebrew "tirosh" and means fresh grape juice. All this was common knowledge to Jesus' listeners, hence it is clear that when He said, "Fresh skins for new wine", He was not primarily concerned with the quality of wine, but with the necessity of keeping His new teaching pure from the corroding ferment of the conservatism and self-righteousness of the Pharisees. A "fresh skin", a new attitude, was required for the "new wine" of the Gospel.

Wine juice, when pressed, would begin fermentation within three hours.

Yes, it would foam up from the Carbon dioxide being formed. New wine skins had the resilience needed to keep them from bursting...old wine skins didn't have the elasticity needed and would burst.

And the Jelly made from grapes did not ferment...the acids and the sugars that would be in high concentration from the must would prevent the juice from fermenting.

It was after the dinner that Jesus took the Nazarite vows...not before.

The cup which Jesus offered his disciples (there are four different cups that are drunk during a traditional sader) had strong drink in it. (aperitif type liquor) and then made his wedding request of the disciples.

Not that Jesus was homosexual...far from it...he was saying that God wanted as close or closer relationship with them as a woman does with her husband. Not as a distant ruling authority who only sometimes intervenes in the lives of men and always by an intermediary...but an intimate and close relationship with them. That concept in those days was way outside the box.

It's amazing how many differing "facts" we have just in this thread. Makes me want to be a Christian. ooops I already made that choice but not because some knowledgeable person convinced me; thank God for the Holy Ghost!!!!!

Not trying to stifle the discussion, but I wanted to link to a couple of previous threads that dealt with aspects of this subject that I think valuable to reconsider.
They deal with what wine is to the Bible and wine preservation methods in Bible times and cultures.

Okay, well, the wife just called us to stuff our faces, so I'll catch y'all later.

John 2:
7Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
8And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.
9When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
10And saith unto him, 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.

What I gather from this miracle of turning water into wine is there were used two different "wines" one of "good wine" and the other "worse wine"

I state that because some debate that there was only fermented wine....

How do we interpet these two? To me the good wine is fresh pressed grapes unfermented, then that would make the worse wine that of older aged fermented wine. If the feast was given the good wine first until they were full "well drunk" then the older bad tasting fermented wine would be serviced.

But as you read Jesus serviced the good wine even better than the first.
That's the miracle for the season of the grapes were pasted.

In those day's of wine making from the time of fresh pressing of the grapes would be used called good wine, because of thier limited ways of persevering. One way is to diluit with water, (We today use Ice, called on the rocks) If not diluited the wine(grape juice) will ferment to this worse state.
I know today we understand that in a different way, saying with age wine becomes better, But not so then.

Once again:
The book of 2 Maccabees, which was written somewhere around the end of the 2nd century BC and the first half of the 1st century BC, speaks of diluted wine as "a more pleasant drink" and of both undiluted wine and unmixed water as "harmful" or "distasteful."

One way is to diluit with water, (We today use Ice, called on the rocks) If not diluited the wine(grape juice) will ferment to this worse state.
I know today we understand that in a different way, saying with age wine becomes better, But not so then.

Now I have never tasted wine but I ain't buying this. On the rocks obviously means I'll have my drink on ice but it's not going to effectively ferment between the bottle and your mouth. I mean how long are you going to leave it in the glass before you drink it. Besides, who drinks wine with ice?

It didn't effect the fermention, but it help's in smoothness and some diluite. It were my reference to "diluite" that they used water in wine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krater

beckrl wrote:John 2:
7Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
8And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.
9When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
10And saith unto him, 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.

What I gather from this miracle of turning water into wine is there were used two different "wines" one of "good wine" and the other "worse wine"

I state that because some debate that there was only fermented wine....

How do we interpet these two? To me the good wine is fresh pressed grapes unfermented, then that would make the worse wine that of older aged fermented wine. If the feast was given the good wine first until they were full "well drunk" then the older bad tasting fermented wine would be serviced.

But as you read Jesus serviced the good wine even better than the first.
That's the miracle for the season of the grapes were pasted.

In those day's of wine making from the time of fresh pressing of the grapes would be used called good wine, because of thier limited ways of persevering. One way is to diluit with water, (We today use Ice, called on the rocks) If not diluited the wine(grape juice) will ferment to this worse state.
I know today we understand that in a different way, saying with age wine becomes better, But not so then.

Once again:
The book of 2 Maccabees, which was written somewhere around the end of the 2nd century BC and the first half of the 1st century BC, speaks of diluted wine as "a more pleasant drink" and of both undiluted wine and unmixed water as "harmful" or "distasteful."

Well, ... maybe.

But, if you were to bring diluted wine or freshly made grape juice to any Jewish wedding I am aware of, your offering would certainly not be praised and received with great anticipation. (Nor would you be invited to cater another one, that's for sure.)

Are we talking about today's Jewish Wedding or 2000 year's ago

A Jewish wedding or Passover would use Kosher wine at a very low alcohol percent. 5-7% This is producted by stopping the fermentation early.
http://www.kosherwine.com/cgi-bin/produ ... neID=10562

Years ago they more likely would just add water to diluite the percent of alcohol and make it last longer or add wine to water to purify the water.

beckrl wrote:A Jewish wedding or Passover would use Kosher wine at a very low alcohol percent. 5-7% This is producted by stopping the fermentation early.
http://www.kosherwine.com/cgi-bin/produ ... neID=10562

Years ago they more likely would just add water to diluite the percent of alcohol and make it last longer or add wine to water to purify the water.

In college during a Religions of World class, we got to go to a Jewish Synagogue. After the ceremony, they served home-made Kosher wine. It was very smooth and tasty and not low in alochol content.

beckrl wrote:Are we talking about today's Jewish Wedding or 2000 year's ago

Yes.

A Jewish wedding or Passover would use Kosher wine at a very low alcohol percent. 5-7% This is producted by stopping the fermentation early.
http://www.kosherwine.com/cgi-bin/produ ... neID=10562

Years ago they more likely would just add water to diluite the percent of alcohol and make it last longer or add wine to water to purify the water.

5-7% = low alcohol content? It doesn't exaclty sound like O'Doul's to me.