Source on Wine in Bible Times

[TW]

Could somebody show me the grape juice -

Ex 29:40 And with the one lamb a tenth deal of flour mingled with the fourth part of an hin of beaten oil; and the fourth part of an hin of wine for a drink offering.

Yayin (yah` yin) : Noun, Masculine: Strong : # 3196

1. wine

KJV Word Usage and Count

wine - 138 ; banqueting - 1 ; winebibber -1


Nu 28:7 And the drink offering thereof shall be the fourth part of an hin for the one lamb: in the holy place shalt thou cause the strong wine to be poured unto the LORD for a drink offering.

Shekar (shay-kawr`) : Noun, Masculine : Strong # 7941

1. strong drink, intoxicating drink, fermented or intoxicating liquor

KJV Word Usage and Count

strong drink - 21; strong wine - 1; drunkard 1


Ne 10:39 For the children of Israel and the children of Levi shall bring the offering of the corn, of the new wine, and the oil, unto the chambers, where are the vessels of the sanctuary, and the priests that minister, and the porters, and the singers: and we will not forsake the house of our God.

Tiyrowsh (tee-roshe`) : Noun, Masculine : Strong # 8492

1. wine, fresh or new wine, must, freshly pressed wine

KJV Word Usage and Count

1. wine - 38

These are the three Hebrew words that are translated into "wine" in the Old Testament. There is absolutely no reference to grape juice.


TW

[DaJudge]

Could somebody show me the grape juice -

Ex 29:40 And with the one lamb a tenth deal of flour mingled with the fourth part of an hin of beaten oil; and the fourth part of an hin of wine for a drink offering.

Yayin (yah` yin) : Noun, Masculine: Strong : # 3196

1. wine

KJV Word Usage and Count

wine - 138 ; banqueting - 1 ; winebibber -1


Nu 28:7 And the drink offering thereof shall be the fourth part of an hin for the one lamb: in the holy place shalt thou cause the strong wine to be poured unto the LORD for a drink offering.

Shekar (shay-kawr`) : Noun, Masculine : Strong # 7941

1. strong drink, intoxicating drink, fermented or intoxicating liquor

KJV Word Usage and Count

strong drink - 21; strong wine - 1; drunkard 1


Ne 10:39 For the children of Israel and the children of Levi shall bring the offering of the corn, of the new wine, and the oil, unto the chambers, where are the vessels of the sanctuary, and the priests that minister, and the porters, and the singers: and we will not forsake the house of our God.

Tiyrowsh (tee-roshe`) : Noun, Masculine : Strong # 8492

1. wine, fresh or new wine, must, freshly pressed wine

KJV Word Usage and Count

1. wine - 38

These are the three Hebrew words that are translated into "wine" in the Old Testament. There is absolutely no reference to grape juice.


TW

THANK YOU, TW!!! It totally aggravates me when people try to twist around the clear meaning of a word that we all know the definition to. WINE is not the same a GRAPE JUICE. The ancient Hebrews didn't drink WELCH's.

We Holiness people have a CULTURAL bias against alcohol, and that's fine. I don't like the stuff and won't drink it and I think it's a bad idea for anyone else to, but...

it's not biblical to say that its sinful to drink alcohol. Getting intoxicated is a dangerous thing and can and will lead to sin. But just the act of ingesting an alcoholic beverage is no sin.

[PastorDaniel]

Just a quick disclaimer...before anyone gets the wrong idea...I'm not pro-alcohol....I'm pro-Bible and walking in the light as I covenanted to do so many years ago.

I'm a truth seeker and I don't want to accept what anyone says unless it is SOLIDLY backed up by the Word...Not Tradition or opinion.

AMEN! Don't drink, never have, and don't encourage it... HOWEVER: when we feel it so necessary to support our opposition to drinking that we try to explain away history and the whole of scripture by some convoluted attempt to de-ferment Jesus' miracle, we look like a bunch of flat-earth, holocaust-denying, tin-foil-hat wearing rubes.

(I mean that as no offense to any individual here or elsewhere.)

from the article

This practice is confirmed both in rabbinical and Christian literature. For example, the Halakat Gedalat, the earliest compendium of the Talmud, says: "One may press out a cluster of grapes and pronounce the kiddush [blessing pronounced at the consecration of the Sabbath or a festival] over the juice, since the juice of the grape is considered wine in connection with the law of the Nazarite."15

The apocryphal Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew, a document which circulated in the second and third centuries of the Christian era, attests to the use of freshly pressed juice of grapes in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper: "Bring as an offering the holy bread; and, having pressed three clusters from the vine into a cup, communicate with me, as the Lord Jesus showed us how to offer up when he rose from the dead on the third day."16 This is a clear and positive testimony not only of the custom of making grape juice by pressing grapes, but also of using unfermented grape juice in the celebration of the Lord’s Suppe

so you consider this to be impossible? Show me in the bible where it says they used fermented wine. Show me how you can prove the last supper was not squeezed unfermented wine. I will be waiting. Pastor Daniel since you only use scripture please not with such verses

Onelove....I was not trying to prove anything to anybody....I also stated that I was NOT pro-alcohol...wine would be alcohol....right?

I was asking for individuals to back up their arguments with scripture...NOT tradition...NOT opinion.

So YOU show ME in the Bible where the juice was UN-fermented.

I don't have anything to prove...nor do I care to do so.

[Poimen]

Guys,

Read the article. If you have then evidently you need to read it again.

It proves that both fermented and unfermented wine existed (before pasteurization -- that was the big deal to me in the article, proof it existed before that process) along side each other in ancient times and cultures. It shows also that both fermented and unfermented substances were equally called "wine."

[forestwalker]

Sure, Poimen, but you are putting it out to everyone as a source. And there's only one thing such a source is useful for, no? It's fair to argue against that use here.

[Poimen]

So you are saying that it couldn't have been fermented because if it were, Christ would have been causing them to sin? I think that's a stretch, from the sounds of the story, too little wine had been provided for the gathering, which was why Christ performed the miracle. This doesn't seem to imply overindulgence, and to provide an unfermented wine at the end would have not fit with the comment made about this been the best for last, which implied most give the good wine at first, then wait till people are a little tipsy (showing the first wine was fermented) to bring out the poorer quality. To bring out unfermented wine afterwards would fall into the same thought process, and wouldn't seem to illicit that comment.

I'm saying that the advocates of this being fermented wine usually argue that the gathered crowd had drank till they were drunk. They interpret "well drunk" in the passage to mean that.

In order for the argument to hold that Christ made additional, even better tasting fermented wine means he contributed to their excessiveness drinking. That argument makes Christ complicit in their drunkenness. He in essence becomes the bar tender.

As to the state of the wine, if it were fermented then I believe it was sufficiently diluted (as was common in all ancient Mediterranean cultures, including the Jews) so as to be virtually non-alcoholic when consumed in normal or modest quantities.

However, any interpretation that lends itself to the idea that Christ fostered or supported sinful behavior would be clearly in error and must be discarded for a more harmonious one with what we know about he nature of Christ and His sinlessness.

[Poimen]

Sure, Poimen, but you are putting it out to everyone as a source. And there's only one thing such a source is useful for, no? It's fair to argue against that use here.

I can accept that.

I just wanted to clarify to Gerald that I did not share the source to argue abstinence. I shared it for it's educational value as a resource in ancient cultures, customs, etc. The information is valuable to all, regardless of their position on consumption of alcohol.

Especially interesting to me was proof that ancients had and used the ability to create unfermented wine, even without the process of pasteurization. This is something groups who hold to such being an impossibility use to deride those who oppose the use of fermented wine. I have especially found this so among RCs, EOs, OOs, etc.

[dolfan]

As to the state of the wine, if it were fermented then I believe it was sufficiently diluted (as was common in all ancient Mediterranean cultures, including the Jews) so as to be virtually non-alcoholic when consumed in normal or modest quantities.

In our previous discussions, Poimen, we talked about the consumption of what you might call "virtually non-alcoholic" beers like O'Doul's. One case of it contains about the same ETOH content as a regular Miller or Budweiser. Absorption rates of the chemical into the bloodstream simply make it impossible to make someone drunk. You'd have to drink about 72 bottles of it in a period of less than 3 hours to even register on a breathalyzer, and I'm not so sure you'd do it then if it were physically possible to consume that much liquid anything and survive.

Now, that's not to argue anything except that these low-alcohol beers don't get you high, drunk, buzzing, or any other like state. These contents are low enough that their effects are as benign as the low-fermented wine the article discusses. So, would you agree that Jesus would not be tending bar if he had served O'Douls? (And, btw, I respectfully disagree on the implications of Jesus serving a wine with more boozy bite to it as being complicit in sinfulness. It seems to me that determining historical facts by our own standards and weights of understanding is not dependable enough to be that certain, and assuredly not certain enough to render that kind of judgment on His acts.)

[RamboPreacher]

i like to be ebjoomakatud. though when working with "doctrinal" issues, canon is our source as sola scriptura proponent.

[Poimen]

Now, that's not to argue anything except that these low-alcohol beers don't get you high, drunk, buzzing, or any other like state. These contents are low enough that their effects are as benign as the low-fermented wine the article discusses.

THANK YOU! That is precisely my point, only in reverse application. Diluted fermented wine was fit for consumption without danger of drunkenness unless excessively consumed. So that normal consumption (which was diluted either way in many cases, per the article) of either fermented or unfermented wine did not serve as an intoxicating beverage at that time.

To drink excessively or without dilution would be an act of overindulgence or of premeditated consumption of an intoxicant for the purpose of copping a buzz, etc., -- drunkenness.

So, would you agree that Jesus would not be tending bar if he had served O'Douls?

Probably, since If the wine He made did not contribute to a drunken state then He could not be complicit.

[Pastor Bill]

So you are saying that it couldn't have been fermented because if it were, Christ would have been causing them to sin? I think that's a stretch, from the sounds of the story, too little wine had been provided for the gathering, which was why Christ performed the miracle. This doesn't seem to imply overindulgence, and to provide an unfermented wine at the end would have not fit with the comment made about this been the best for last, which implied most give the good wine at first, then wait till people are a little tipsy (showing the first wine was fermented) to bring out the poorer quality. To bring out unfermented wine afterwards would fall into the same thought process, and wouldn't seem to illicit that comment.

I'm saying that the advocates of this being fermented wine usually argue that the gathered crowd had drank till they were drunk. They interpret "well drunk" in the passage to mean that.

In order for the argument to hold that Christ made additional, even better tasting fermented wine means he contributed to their excessiveness drinking. That argument makes Christ complicit in their drunkenness. He in essence becomes the bar tender.

As to the state of the wine, if it were fermented then I believe it was sufficiently diluted (as was common in all ancient Mediterranean cultures, including the Jews) so as to be virtually non-alcoholic when consumed in normal or modest quantities.

However, any interpretation that lends itself to the idea that Christ fostered or supported sinful behavior would be clearly in error and must be discarded for a more harmonious one with what we know about he nature of Christ and His sinlessness.

You are adding alot in there that is not generally implied. You assume everyone there was drinking to excess (which of course if as you say the wine was well diluted, then that would not be the case) This does not take into account the possibility of more guests than anticipated, or just the honest fact that they ran out. Assuming these were drunk is taking that a little too far, and if that had been the case, providing non-alcoholic wine would not have illicited the comment that this wine was better.

[Paully_44]

John 2:9-10When the host tasted the water that had become wine (he didn't know what had just happened but the servants, of course, knew), he called out to the bridegroom, "Everybody I know begins with their finest wines and after the guests have had their fill brings in the cheap stuff. But you've saved the best till now!"

If it was the non-alchol version that some hold to, maybe that would have been even a greater miracle. I have not had any "non-alcholic" wine that could even compare in taste. especially to spark a comment like "you've saved your best till now!"

[MrDanger]

John 2:9-10When the host tasted the water that had become wine (he didn't know what had just happened but the servants, of course, knew), he called out to the bridegroom, "Everybody I know begins with their finest wines and after the guests have had their fill brings in the cheap stuff. But you've saved the best till now!"

If it was the non-alchol version that some hold to, maybe that would have been even a greater miracle. I have not had any "non-alcholic" wine that could even compare in taste. especially to spark a comment like "you've saved your best till now!"

We had this discussion in sunday school several years back. There were several former drinkers involved in the discussion, including one recovering alcoholic. They all agreed, 100%, that there was no way the taste buds would have even registered grape juice if they had been drinking alcoholic wine to begin with.

Of course, to me, I have had a hard time understanding the purpose of a Nazarite vow if God's people were not drinking fermented drink. Why would God have told them to stay away from it only for the time they were choosing to take the vow (Numbers 6: 1 -20).

[Poimen]

You are adding alot in there that is not generally implied. You assume everyone there was drinking to excess (which of course if as you say the wine was well diluted, then that would not be the case) This does not take into account the possibility of more guests than anticipated, or just the honest fact that they ran out. Assuming these were drunk is taking that a little too far, and if that had been the case, providing non-alcoholic wine would not have illicited the comment that this wine was better.

I'm not adding anything. I'm telling you how the pro-wine crowd usually interprets the passage. You may diasgreew ith them. one the less I have personally encountered this argument numerous times.


As to the wine, if it was diluted (which was typical) then it stands to reason that the diluted wine Christ produced tasted better than the diluted wine intitally provided. It would draw attention to the miracle and bring honor to the work of Christ simply because it tasted better.

Not only does this fit with the story and the diluted wine method, it makes more sense than the argument that everyoine was essentially drunk that others often make. If they were drunk then they probably wouldn't have noticed that the best wine was served last.

[Pastor Bill]

Poimen it is safe to assume the comment was made due to a better quality of wine.

how strong/diluted that wine was we cannot be certain of, BUT both the earlier wine, and the wine Christ's miracle provided seemed to be at least somewhat alcoholic in order to have caused that comment.

The comment implies that normally people use the best first, so that once people have drunk more (alcohol) they are less discerning (as you pointed out) but this wine was better than the first (of course also implying that normally it would have been provided first for the same reasons above)

Seeing this, it seems that while no specific alcohol content can be determined, alcoholic content in both batches of wine seem to be implied.

If this was diluted, that is quite possible, but even that may be skeptical with the implication of impaired senses.

Again, I am not "Pro-wine" I don't drink, and don't recommend it, but I also feel we must be truly honest in our readings of scripture. It would be a whole lot easier to speak against drinking if there was something specifically against it, but there isn't, so it becomes a recommendation based on the dangers and excesses rather than a hard and fast rule of thou shalt not.