Is this true that Jesus drank alcoholic wine as the lyrics, “Cause I heard Jesus, He drank wine”? Some question this. What kind of wine did Jesus drink? Did Jesus drink intoxicating amounts of wine?
The Definition of Biblical Wine
The word “wine” in the Bible is not always alcoholic or equivalent to modern wine. The Bible uses one Greek word for “wine” and “grape juice” which could mean alcoholic wine of varying amounts or non-alcoholic grape juice (1 Tim 3:8; Titus 2:3). The Hebrew word for “wine” is yayin and the Greek is oinos (MT; LXX). Biblical “wine” is grape juice that may or may not have fermented. However, the wine of today has considerably more alcohol than wine in the first century because of modified yeast. The Bible includes a number of examples of unfermented “wine”:
- “Wine” is the blood of the grape (Gen 49:11–12, Heb. yayin, Gr. oinos LXX; Deut 32:14, Heb. chemer; Gr. oinos LXX).
- The vineyard is the place of “red wine” (Isa 27:2, Heb. chemer).
- “Wine” refers to the grape juice from the grapes of the field (Deut 11:14; 2 Chr 31:5, Heb. tirosh; Gr. oinos LXX; Jer 40:10, 12, Heb. yayin; Gr. oinos LXX).
- Scripture describes “wine” that is in the grape (Isa 65:8, Heb. tirosh).
- The grape juice of the wine-press is “wine” (Prov 3:10, Heb. tirosh; Gr. oinos LXX; Isa 16:10; Jer 48:33, Heb. yayin; Gr. oinos LXX).
These references reveal that the word “wine” in Hebrew and Greek often refers to non-alcoholic grape juice in the Bible. Linguistics requires that one begin with the generic meaning and then determine other specific meanings of a word by its context and, or use.
In reading the Old Testament, Bible translations represent six different Hebrew words “wine” for which one word excludes alcohol. This word is asis meaning “sweet grape juice” or “new grape juice.” The word has no reference to alcohol, yet translators have interpreted it as “wine” to avoid interpreting the contexts with nuances and ambiguity. Therefore, the word “wine” does not necessarily mean alcoholic wine in the Bible.
The Bible does not appear to contain one positive statement about intoxicating wine or any such drink. The Bible does include positive words about generic “wine” that is grape juice (Gen 14:18; Num 15:5–10; Deut 14:26; Ps 104:15; Isa 55:1; Amos 9:14; John 2:1–11; 1 Tim 5:23). References to “strong drink” or “liquor” in the Bible refer to cider in biblical translations of sikera, σικερα, according to Danker and Gingrich’s Greek lexicon (cf. Deut 14:26; Luke 1:15; Wycliffe’s Bible).
Ancient Wine and Today’s Wine
In the Bible, alcoholic wine is not like wine today. The sugar of grape juice can only ferment to 3 or 4% alcohol with wild yeast — airborne yeast. For grape juice to exceed 4% alcohol, then the winemaker must add yeast. The yeast added to ancient wines produced between 4–11% alcohol. Alcohol kills these yeast cells and prevents levels of alcohol from exceeding ~10%. Today, wines average 12–20% alcohol due to modern fermentation by adding sulfur dioxide and Saccharomyces (a cultured GMO yeast) to a late harvest of ripened grapes with higher fructose (Winemaker Magazine, Wines & Vines, UC Davis, International Biblical Encyclopedia, “Alcohol in the Church,” Bible Wine). Today’s wine is not like biblical wine in regards to alcoholic content. Due to the later invention of distilling, strong drinks like liquor exceed 20% alcohol for which today’s wine is coming close to matching.
When reading the word “wine” in the Bible, the word may simply refer to grape juice or intoxicating wine not exceeding ~10% alcohol. The reader must interpret the word “wine” within its context to determine if it is alcoholic. However, biblical wine is certainly not like wine today.
Because of the use of the word “wine” in English Bibles, many presume that Jesus drank alcoholic wine. Jesus did not drink modern wine. The methods for fermenting highly-alcoholic wine had not yet been invented. Jesus’s opponents did accuse Him of being a “wine-drinker” from the Greek oinopoteis, because He came freely eating and also drinking grape juice unlike John the Baptist who restricted his eating and drinking (Matt 11:18–19; Luke 7:33–34). These antagonists appear to accuse Jesus of drinking alcoholic wine. However, when the reader considers the wedding that Jesus attended in Cana and Jesus’s institution of the Lord’s Supper, then His drinking of wine is not what many have presumed.
Water to Wine
What about Jesus turning water into wine? Upon reading John 2:1–11 in most English translations, many took the text as stating that Jesus turned water into intoxicating wine at the wedding in Cana, a small town in Galilee (John 2). These scriptures infer that the wedding guests “have well drunk” a large amount of oinos wine. The Greek word translated as “well drunk” is methuo meaning literally to fill or make full, and many times the word means “drunk” depending on the context. Translators correctly render methuo as “drunk” in contexts referring to drunkenness by drinking intoxicating wine or filling oneself with wine (Gingrich and Danker’s lexicon). John’s reference to the guests having “drunk well” and becoming full also implies that the wedding feast was relatively short especially if one takes this word in John 2:10 to mean that the guests were “drunk.”
In this case, Jesus either made more alcoholic wine for those who were drunk or He made more grape juice for those who would have their fill. Which is plausible: that Jesus created intoxicating wine for those who were drunk or that He made fresh “new wine,” grape juice, for those who had drunk well of the previous supply? If one interprets this passage as Jesus making alcoholic wine, then Jesus created more intoxicating wine for those who were already drunk or filled. If one perceives that the wedding guests were simply full of non-alcoholic wine, then Jesus made “new wine” with minimal to no alcohol.
Furthermore, “good wine” was limited late in winter and just before Passover when the wine had aged throughout the year (John 2:13). Jesus providing more aged and intoxicating wine would not have been an apparent miraculous sign. Jesus provided them with “good wine.” Was it “good wine” as though received from the grape press? The making of new wine would magnify Jesus’s sign because this was just before the Passover and before the first harvest of grapes. Therefore, Jesus’s production of fresh grape juice would have been an evident miraculous wonder of God.
The master of the feast depicted the situation that which the guests had filled themselves with wine from the meaning of “filled” of the Greek word methuo in John 2:9–10. A wedding feast may last a day and sometimes more (Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah). John depicted that many would have drunk well of the wine so the guests were full as implied by the Greek word methuo. Being filled with wine tells that this drinking of the wedding feast occurred in a short amount of time within a few hours. The guests would immediately drink the wine that Jesus made. If Jesus made alcoholic wine, Jesus would have made more intoxicating wine amounting to between 120 to 180 gallons of additional alcoholic wine. What would happen if three hundred guests “have well drunk” and then drank an additional 150 gallons of alcoholic wine? Jesus would have given each guest an additional 64 ounces of alcoholic wine. The average person would have drunk another 6–12 drinks of alcoholic wine if there were 300 guests. However, the abundance was part of the miracle like the 12 baskets of bread left over from feeding the 5,000. Maybe the wine was not meant to be consumed immediately.
Even considering a wedding party of a thousand guests who have well drunk, each person would have consumed about 19 ounces of wine. Presuming that this wine contained 10% alcohol because the scenario includes fermented wine and the guests drank it all in one day, Jesus would have aided a thousand people in binge drinking having intoxicated the guests with three additional drinks who were already intoxicated as indicated by the Greek methuo for having “well drunk.” For each guest to have had simply two more drinks, then the wedding would have had at least 1,600 attendees. Despite the number in attendance, Jesus would have presumably contributed a considerable amount of alcohol to those who were already filled with wine. For those proposing that Jesus made highly intoxicating wine like today’s wine, 16–24 ounces would intoxicate anyone at an alcoholic level of 12–15% according to the CDC. Either today’s intoxicating wine or first-century fermented wine appears to be an absurdity at this wedding.
To assume that Jesus made alcoholic wine is to assume that after everyone had drunk all the other wine, then Jesus made more intoxicating wine for all of those who had their fill. The scenario of Jesus producing alcoholic wine appears implausible and uncharacteristic of biblical commands to refrain from drunkenness. If Jesus did make a great amount of fermented wine, He would have aided the sin of drunkenness and excessive drinking and would have participated in a drinking party, which are all condemned by His disciple and apostle Peter in the Scriptures (1 Pet 4:3).
Wine and the Lord’s Supper
Did Jesus use alcoholic wine in the Lord’s Supper? What kind of wine would someone drink at a feast where yeast was thrown out? Many have assumed that Jesus drank wine because many churches have made alcoholic wine a part of the “Eucharist,” the Lord’s Supper. Did Jesus use highly alcoholic wine when He instituted the Lord’s Supper? First, the Scriptures never use the word “wine” in any of the four accounts of Jesus instituting the Lord’s Supper. Jesus mentioned the specific content of the cup containing “the fruit of the grapevine.” The passages about the Lord’s Supper make no reference to alcoholic wine. The Greek word for “wine” is never used in Scripture to describe any part of the Lord’s Supper.
Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper during the Passover Feast. What kind of wine did the Jews use during Passover? Jesus used unleavened bread in the Passover because this is also the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Israel threw out all leaven by God’s command including the leavened bread (Exod 13:6–7). The throwing out of the yeast implies that Israel removed the grape juice fermented by the leavening of yeast. Fermented wine was not likely a part of the Passover taught by Moses. Furthermore, Jesus referred to the contents of the cup as “fruit of the grapevine” in the Lord’s Supper indicating minimal to no fermentation even from wild yeast. The intent of the cup of the Lord was not to intoxicate.
What about those who got drunk by drinking the Lord’s Supper? Getting drunk by bringing intoxicating wine to the Lord’s Supper does not mean that Jesus gave the disciples alcoholic wine in the Lord’s Supper. First Corinthians 11:21–22 depicts, “Therefore when you come together in one place, 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 [methuo]” (ESV). This passage also uses the Greek word methuo, which can mean drunk or filled (cf. John 2:10). Some ate the Lord’s Supper as a meal so that they were filled and those who drank were also filled not necessarily drunk. However, Paul could have been correcting such intoxication as well. If one assumes that these Christians became drunk in the assembly using the grape juice for the Lord’s Supper, then they must also presume that those drinking brought enough intoxicating wine to get drunk and intended to use such for the Lord’s Supper. The use of alcoholic wine implies that some of these Christians brought intoxicating wine for the church to drink together for the Lord’s Supper. They would also have decided to drink and get drunk from that wine in assembly rather than wait for others. Whether the wine was alcoholic or not, 1 Corinthians 11 neither condones alcoholic wine for the Lord’s Supper nor suggests that Jesus used alcoholic wine for His disciples to commune with Christ in remembrance of His sacrificial blood.
Warnings about Wine
Jesus warned against drunkenness and filling oneself with intoxicating drinks that trap people in this life (Luke 21:34). The Bible warns those who do drink, linger, and look at the cup (Prov 23:29–35; Rom 14:17–22). Christians can and should warn others about alcohol.
The apostle Paul revealed that those who continue in drunkenness will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9–11; Gal 5:19–21). The Greek word translated “drunkenness” literally means “filling oneself” in Scripture (Eph 5:18–19; cf. Rom 13:13). Christ’s Spirit in Galatians 5:19–21 teaches that such “drunkenness” is a “work of the flesh” and “those who are doing such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” Galatians 5 also condemned “wild parties” or “revelries” where any of the lists of sins like drunkenness would constitute a party as sinful and carnal. Paul also revealed in 1 Corinthians 6:10 that drunkards “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” Drunkenness and filling one’s body with intoxicants is a sin.
Filling oneself with alcohol is evil and compromises the sobriety of the Christian conscience and one’s heart (cf. Rom 2:14–15; 1 John 3:19–21). Christ’s words and those of His apostles and prophets urge all to avoid drunkenness, and so Christians should do likewise and warn others of drunkenness. Peter warned, “For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Nations want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness [lit. excessive drinking], orgies, drinking parties [lit. drinkings], and lawless idolatry” (1 Pet 4:3). The word for “drunkenness” in 1 Peter 4:3 is not the usual word for drunkenness, but the Greek word is oinophlugia made of two words oinos meaning “wine” and phlugia is “to do something in excess.” Excessive drinking is a sin. Furthermore, “drinking parties” is translated from the Greek word potos, which literally denotes occasions that people gather for the purpose of drinking.
The apostle Paul commanded Christians to remain sober and make no provision to become drunk on any level (1 Thess 5:8). Christ had no part with drunkenness and drinking parties, so His followers must not. According to Romans 14, Christians should not condemn their brother over a drink; although, every Christian has the scriptural example and the foresight to warn against its use and against looking at the cup (Prov 23:29–35; Rom 14:17–22). Solomon warned by the wisdom of God.
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. Your eyes will see strange things, And your heart will utter perverse things. (Prov 23:31–33)
Therefore, “Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise” (Prov 20:1). The assertions of positive statements about drinking alcohol in the Bible are private interpretations.
Conclusion
The wine that Jesus drank was not intoxicating. Alcoholic wine is not characteristic of Jesus or any godly behavior in the Bible. Jesus neither encouraged drunkenness nor drank intoxicating wine. No one can rightly reference Jesus to justify excessive drinking, drunkenness, and drinking events. The Bible neither promotes nor supports the drinking of intoxicants. God’s grace compels Christians no longer to continue in any excessive drinking of alcohol because they have been forgiven.
Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires. (Rom 13:13–14)
Bibliography
- Jeff Chorniak. “Wild Yeast: The Pros and Cons of Spontaneous Fermentation.” Winemakers Magazine. 2005. <http://winemakermag.com/758-wild-yeast-the-pros-and-cons-of-spontaneous-fermentation>.
- Jean L. Jacobson. “Upsides of Wild Fermentation.” Wine & Vines, 2012. <http://www.winesandvines.com/template.cfm?section=features&content=98687>.
- “Marking Red Table Wine.” University of California Davis, 2016. <http://wineserver.ucdavis.edu/pdf/HWM3.pdf>.
- James Orr, M.A., D.D. “Wine; Wine Press.” International Bible Encyclopedia, 1915. <http://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/isb/view.cgi?n=9116>.
- “Alcohol in the Church.” 2016. <http://www.abidingplace.org/features/alcohol-in-the-church.html>.
- Kyle Pope. “Bible Wine.” Olsen Park church of Christ, 2013. <http://www.olsenpark.com/Sermons13/BibleWine.html>.
- Alfred Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1883. <https://www.ccel.org/ccel/edersheim/lifetimes>.
Related posts:
“Reconsider the Biblical Concept of Drunkenness“
The Breath of God 
there is an excellent article on why Christians should never drink alcohol. It is called the jesus drank wine lie by john hamel. I recommend that to anyone who thinks they can drink and be a follower of christ
There is an excellent article online about why Christians should never drink. It is called The Jesus drank wine lie, by John Hamel. I would recommend that to all the Christians who believe they can drink.
All these people desperately trying to defend their drinking habits. If alcoholism is dependency on alcohol then most of these Christians are alcoholic. They go crazy and get terribly hostile if you tell them not to do it. They are truly deceived by it. I can just imagine that Jesus is seriously regretting the miracle at Cana if this is how people twist it.
Good points. However, I cannot imagine Jesus ever regretting this miracle. You probably agree and were using an idiom for hyperbole.
Alcohol comes from the Aramaic Alghool, meaning devil. Those who believe Jesus transformed water into alcohol are calling him the devil. Do they wish to represent the blood of Christ with something known as Devil? It is absurd. Trying to get most Christians to give up alcohol is like trying to take a toy from a child. They throw a tantrum and refuse to listen and get defensive. They are stubborn and will not give up that way of life, no matter what truth they hear.
I cannot agree with your point here about calling Jesus the Devil. However, people do go to a peculiar extents to defend consuming multiple drinks of alcohol.
Don’t forget to turn your clocks back one hour tonight.
All Saints Day is, Sunday, November 1st. Thank you Saints for loving and serving God!!!
Please pray for all of us poor souls on earth, and we will pray for all the Holy Souls, being purified in Purgatory. Jesus, I trust in You. Have mercy on our souls. Amen
our word ghoul used for evil spirits comes from alghool. I have looked it up. You can look it up and confirm it yourself. There are multiple sources
I find responses like this distasteful. The arguments made have not so much to do with the use/non-use of alcohol, but have everything to do with exegesis of biblical passages.
Judging the motives of people you do not know is bad behavior. Drawing such “conclusions” like the above is what causes problems on sites like this.
A discussion about the Biblical text should be one where thoughts can be shared without the expectation of such irrational statements like, “Trying to get most Christians to give up alcohol is like trying to take a toy from a child. They throw a tantrum and refuse to listen and get defensive. They are stubborn and will not give up that way of life, no matter what truth they hear.”
It is not irrational, just because it offends you. It is unfortunate that you are ashamed of the truth. What I said is accurate, even if you don’t like it.
Melanie: “Alcohol comes from the Aramaic Alghool, meaning devil.”
Or:
“Koh’l is a Semitic word used in early Biblical references and is the Arabic word for antimony sulfide, a fine cosmetic powder, used as eye make-up by women of the Middle East. In such countries as India and Yemen, they even went so far as to throw the powder directly into their eyes to increase their brilliance or sparkle. Other women used the “normal” methods of application by making a paste of the powder and rubbing it on the eyelids… When Arabian alchemists invented the distillation of alcohol with a similar process in about 1,000 A.D., they used for the name of their product the cosmetic process, and alcohol has been doing weird things to eyes ever since.”
As far as the meaning of “devil” is concerned, it is used in Daniel (3, 6) in the meaning or “prying teeth…”
So, before drawing any conclusions on the use and meaning of words, you may want to do some more checking…
Thanks for clearing that up for us. I can’t image a LITTLE wine could be so evil. They served wine at weddings during that time, even now. This miracle was the start of JESUS’s Ministry
To love God First, love neighbor second and follow the Ten Commandments is more important than grape juice or wine.
Anita, Have you not read the whole article on which you are commenting? I have and it explains the different used of the word wine and explains why the wine at Cana cannot possible have been alcohol. If you do not like my comments then that is your problem. I speak the truth as does this article. It is full of truth yet you seem determined to overlook many facts. What is a little wine? The amounts made at the wedding in Cana were not little. I am sure there would have been children and even pregnant women attending that wedding. Also, proverbs does tell us not to even look at alcohol! Proverbs 23:31. Many times in scripture grapes are referred to as wine! Could it be any clearer? I am sure now that someone will attempt to twist the verse in Proverbs. I didn`t realize commenting on this page would bring about such rage from all the “Christian” drinkers out there.
English word ghoul for evil spirit/ ghosts, comes from alghool. look it up
I have done a lot of research(unlike some) and many sources will tell you exactly the same thing. Words can have many meanings, just as the word wine has many meanings. Where do you think our word ghoul comes from?
What about this?
1st Timothy 5:23?
Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.
Are you ill then? Clearly Timothy drank water and had to be urged as he was sick to take wine. Grape juice is full of anti oxidants and would be beneficial for an unwell person.
True. Good point.
The water was changed into wine, a true miracle. This was the start of Jesus’s ministry. Too much drink is wrong, the Bible warns us against it. We have free will to know when to stop drinking too much. Just like everything in life there is a happy medium. Such as water or fire.. No water or too much water is not good. No fire or too much fire is not good. Running out of wine at a Traditional Wedding in those days, to celebrate, would have been embarrassing for the couple and family. Therefore by the request of His pure, kind, thoughtful, loving Mother, Mary, He changed the water into a perfect wine. If Jesus saw anyone there getting sloppy drunk don’t you think Jesus would have went over to them and kindly ask them to stop drinking. A good bartender tells you when you had enough to drink and will stop serving you. He will even call a cab, when your too drunk. I’m sure Jesus would do the same.
Most writers make mention of 7 days… I would guess some of that depends on the wealth of bride/groom (Or, in today’s thinking, the wealth of the bride’s father… So glad I have 2 sons, and not six daughters, like my father…) ;-)
The translators probably chose to use the word “wine” because common sense tells us they weren’t serving grape juice at a wedding!
God gave “wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man’s heart.” -Psalm 104:15
It’s really very simple… “So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.”
Legalism always sounds so correct, but it’s not what we’re called to. Why write this stuff about grape juice? Everyone knows it’s real wine that Jesus made. You have to really reach to believe otherwise. That’s why the translators render it as wine. It’s all about context.
So just walk by His Spirit. If you do that you will be fine.
Read the article, Mike. The Spirit and not the letter.
I did read the article. If you really believe “the Spirit and not the letter” there would be no reason to write this article. Talking about grape juice and alcohol percentage then compared to now… Getting into these ever smaller points… Sounds more like the Pharisees in Jesus day than the truth “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free”. Why stress minutiae like this? There really is no point in it! As I said previously, the translators most likely rendered it “wine” because of context. We’re talking about a wedding here, after all. Most people reading the text with common sense would come to the same conclusion. You’re trying too hard to make something out of nothing.
I hear you saying that you read my article via legalism and overlook the Spirit to accuse the author of legalism. I do not see how such words help the discussion or resolve problems.
This article needs to remain a safe place where people can honestly consider the Truth.
Consider what the Pharisees did: Godsbreath.net/2015/04/27/seven-signs-for-identifying-a-pharisee/
As I have written before, the argument against drunkenness is one thing. The argument built by Scott (It is wrong for Christians to drink alcoholic beverages) is totally different. One (Against Drunkenness) is Biblical. Two (Don’t drink Alcoholic beverages) is not.
It flies in the face of Biblical statements. Again, drunkenness is a sin, I know that.
This reminds me of the argument that we cannot use the building for potlucks. Even though early Christians met in their homes (where people eat), there are those who argue there is no “Biblical Authority” for such events. In the argument re. drinking of alcoholic beverages we do have clear,Biblical statements Just because the believers in 1 Corinthians abused something, (which, by the way, would have been a great place for Paul to truly lay down the law re alcoholic beverages!) it does not follow they were to stop their practice from eating and drinking (obviously something with alcoholic content) together. The practice of how and what was to be changed, remembering the purpose of the gathering.
Throwing out babies with bathwater does not sound arguments make!
Mike you are right on! Scott doesn’t get it.
People like Scott are all about behavior and the knowledge of good and evil. They are eating from the wrong Tree. When you live by the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus you see as God sees. We live by the Tree of Life who is Jesus Himself.
Jesus made real wine at that wedding celebration. The wine coniseur at the wedding said it was premium wine! Probably tasted ten times better than any wine he had ever tasted. When God makes wine it is the best! Grape juice at a Jewish wedding? Not a chance. Only in the vain imaginations of those who are trying to live by the letter of the law.
Even though I disagree wholeheartedly with the argument Scott makes (Based on a number of statements found in the Bible), I would suggest that trying to judge his attitude and starting point does not help.
I disagree Rudy. It does help to see how someone’s “starting point” is off. It helps to see what needs to change in his thinking. Law and Grace are opposites and when people like Scott try to harmonize or mix the two it always ends up in error.
Scott’s response to me was that I did not refute his premise that the wine Jesus made was not like the wine we have today. That very response reveals how blind he really is to the things of the Spirit. Scott is the proverbial Pharisee that Jesus talked about: those who swallow camels and strain at gnats. Only an epiphany from the Spirit can open his eyes. These comments back and forth will do nothing without the Spirit intervening in Scott’s life. Scott has a zeal for God but not according to knowledge.
Once again, name calling is not the answer to his argument.
It’s simple: there is no way he can prove his point.
An open discussion can take place without impugning motives and attitudes.
Wow! Consider your words. What great uncleanness have I swallowed? What little uncleanness do I strain?
The conclusion stands until you refute the premises. Jesus did not drink wine that is like today’s wine.
Scott, that is an “unknowable.” There is no way you can defend or prove such to be the case. The only way you could prove that is by having a sample tested.
You can state this as an opinion.
It is up to you to provide the support for your conclusion.
There are two passages which make your conclusion weak. I’ll spare you the Deuteronomy one, but you will have to deal with 1 Corinthians 11.
And again, the argument I make has nothing to do with drunkenness. It has to do with what other places we find about the use of alcoholic beverages.
I dealt with this in the article. The GMO yeast today produces a highly alcoholic context. See article. Wild yeast produced maybe 4% alcohol and additive yeast increased to 10%. There research is cited in the article.
You have cited sources – none of which proves the point! There are no samples left to test. They are assumptions, such as the one that “strong drink in Deut 14 MAY be apple cider…” Yes, it MAY be. But it MAY not be the case!
And that still leaves you with 1 Cor 11 v
Scott, what does it even matter if the wine Jesus made, or the wine He drank, was like the wine we have today? The admonition of scripture is still the same whether our drink is stronger or weaker- we are not to get drunk!
Why not just tell people to walk in the Spirit and if you feel compelled to make the point further, tell them just what the Word of God says…
“Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.” -Ephesians 5:18
Why not just leave it at that and move on?
Exactly, tell them Ephesians 5:18. My alcoholic friend justifies: “Why did Jesus drink wine?” However, Jesus did not drink according to Scripture. “Why did He make intoxicating wine?” He didn’t. “Why did He use wine in the Lord’s Supper?” He didn’t.
This whole article is a warning for those who even look at the cup that contains intoxicating wine and then using the most common justification for excessive drinking declare, “Jesus drank wine.”
Lastly, why did you read this article? Why comment? Why not quote Ephesians 5:18 and move on?
The passage:
17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20 So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. 22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.
33 So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. 34 Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment…
Your problem:
You have to come up with an explanation for Paul’s use of the word “drunk” if there is no wine in use.
You have to come up with an explanation for the absence of Paul’s condemnation of the presence of alcoholic wine – with enough of an alcohol content that makes it possible for those present to get drunk.
I sincerely question the basis for your certainty in stating that Jesus never drank wine with any kind of alcohol content and that the miracle at the wedding was no more than grape juice.
I have read the books defending this, and so far, none of them have made strong argument.
My issue is not that i want an excuse to drink anything alcoholic, Scott. I find such statements almost offensive. I argue against infant baptism, not because the Bible speaks against it (It doesn’t) but because of what the Bible says about baptism.
My issue is that I see an erroneous use of Scripture, and that is worse than a glass of wine at supper, or the use of wine for the Lord’s Supper (As seen in much of Western European congregations).
But not as bad as violating Romans 14, which the drinking is defended by Scripture fail to take into account. The full orbed Word of God should be consulted. The whole Scripture informs thus topic, not one passage or another.
Once again, the argument is not about drunkenness and lack of common sense. The argument is about using a Biblical text in a way it was not intended to be used. And please note, that the passage is very clear: “So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin…”
I do not condemn MYSELF by what I approve – others do that, and that is not their job. “You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt?”
If Scott believes that drinking a glass of wine is wrong, that is HIS conscience speaking. There is no way that I will ever judge that – or will try to convince him that it’s okay for him to do that. And that is what the “stumbling block” is about.
My disagreement is with Scott’s argument, not with his conscience.
But my conscience tells me that it’s okay to drink that glass of wine with MY meal, and neither Scott nor anyone else has the right to condemn me for that.
I will not try to persuade Scott to come over and have a glass of wine with me. I respect his conscience. But I WILL argue with him about his trying to make the Bible teach something it does not teach! As I will argue with someone who believes infant baptism is taught, or salvation without baptism is biblical.
It’s not a question of drunkenness I bring up but of loving your neighbor, which is the second greatest command, and the freedom to drink modestly I don’t dispute, but Romans 14:22 clearly states that “whatever you think about these things keep between yourself and God” and so our respect and honor for the Word, which you have repeatedly argued you are concerned with, actually self limits our actions in this area. I also think that Jesus did not cause or tempt others to sin unless you wish to argue against His sinless or divine nature, and no less because James 1 tells us that God does not tempt us. Clearly whatever kind of wine Jesus made at the wedding did not tempt those wedding goers to sin,
It is a matter of abusing the Biblical text, drawing conclusions that are not supported, and binding where there is no right to bind.
I appreciate what you “think” about Jesus changing water into wine. That is your privilege. But it is Scott’s original article has been the topic of this discussion, and he drew conclusions that cannot be supported. He overlooked several passages dealing with this subject.
Since this is an open discussion, I felt free to share thoughts, too.
You are rebutting a strawman.
The fact that you think that I condemn anyone for a glass of wine is the problem. You have asserted this accusation. Read the article.
I would have to go through all 450 responses, Scott…
Read the article. You are rebutting a strawman and you do not know it.
I would probably say the same thing in your case. But that does not make it true. I have written time and again that the conclusions you draw, cannot be supported from the text. You started with a number of pre-suppositions which remain unproven.
Can we not warn against the drinking of wine and even looking at its container without you judging us for judging? Can we not follow Solomon’s wisdom in Proverbs 23:29-35?
Your conscience should be offended when you consent to active drinking without warning. There are no positive statements about drinking alcohol in the Bible unless you assume alcohol in certain instances for medicinal use in Proverb 31 and 1 Timothy 5:23. However, this is not “drinking” in the active sense where more than one drink is implied.
How many glasses of water fill you as compared to bottles of beer? First Corinthians 11 uses the same Greek word for “drunk” that is translated “full” in John 2:10. This is the same word in Ephesians 5:18-19 where the passage instructs that you (plural) “do not fill yourselves with wine, but fill yourselves with the Spirit.” The Scripture emphasized against drunkenness in contrast to being filled by the Spirit. Understanding methuo is key for you to consider the other side.
No one is debating whether drunkenness is wrong. However, what else do the Scriptures say? Consider the Greek in 1 Peter 4:3 and note that going to places of drinking and excessive drinking are wrong. What is excessive drinking? Can we warn against this?
Scott, I understand BOTH sides of the argument, that is why I took issue with your one-sided approach. And, once again, I have made it clear time and again that no one argues to go out and get drunk. What has been argued is your one-sided presentation…
yes JESUS MADE ALCOHOL, HE WAS INVITED TO A FEAST OF SINNERS,HE COULD NOT REJECT THE INVITATION BECAUSE HE HAD TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THEM.AND WHY DID AMONG ALL THINGS MAKE ALCOHOL?BECAUSE HE WANTED TO SHOW PEOPLE THAT HE IS MIGHTY HE CAN DO EVERYTHING (THAT WAS A MIRACLE FOR PEOPLE TO BELIEVE THAT HE IS A SON OF MAN).IF YOU READ WELL HE DID IT FOR HIS GLORY AND HIS DISCIPLES BELIEVED IN HIM MORE.
“WHY DID AMONG ALL THINGS MAKE ALCOHOL?BECAUSE HE WANTED TO SHOW PEOPLE THAT HE IS MIGHTY HE CAN DO EVERYTHING”………..
Would making non-alcoholic wine from water be any less of a miracle?
“WELL HE DID IT FOR HIS GLORY AND HIS DISCIPLES BELIEVED IN HIM MORE”……….
Would the disciples have believed any less in Him if it was non-alcoholic wine?
One thing that is truly fascinating is that no matter whose comment you read (myself included), you can always tell who drinks (and who wants to drink!) alcohol and who does not, even though many don’t even say it.
Or, you have people who disagree with the position taken because it is a distortion of Scripture. It is reading (a large number of) things into the text which are just not there!
It is ignoring some very clear passages that conflict with position taken.