Should Christians Drink Intoxicating Beverages? Compare the Production
Image
Read the series.
Christians need to understand the differences in the production and consumption of intoxicating beverages in Bible times compared to modern times. This difference is a significant concern that needs to be addressed as we ponder Christians and social drinking.
Christians need to understand the differences in the production and consumption of intoxicating beverages in Bible times compared to modern times. This difference is a significant concern that needs to be addressed as we ponder Christians and social drinking.
Before we get into this, let’s do a quick recap of the first two articles in the series. Drunkenness is not an option for a follower of Jesus. This is quite plain in Scripture (see Part 1). This being understood, the question remains as to whether drinking with moderation is acceptable for a Christian. Arguments in favor of social drinking have already been discussed (see Part 2). It would be most helpful to read these two articles before continuing here.
Now we need to consider the differences in the production and consumption of intoxicating beverages in ancient times compared to today. It seems that not many Christians are aware of these differences. If they are true, these distinctions effect the discussion significantly.
Drinking Wine in Biblical Times
Wine in the Bible was alcoholic; it was fermented grape juice. Those that drank wine in Bible times could get drunk from the wine (and examples in Scripture are easy to find). However, there is a significant difference between the wine that used then and what is made in factories and distilleries today.
In ancient Bible times, water was scarce. Water that was available was often contaminated and unclean. Fermented wine was used to purify and keep the water for extended periods of time. People did not have many beverage choices like we do today.
What it took to get drunk
People did not have an abundance of fruit juices, soda, bottled water, fresh milk, or other options available all around them like we do today. Wine that was produced in ancient times was mixed with a lot of water.
When they drank the wine, the alcoholic content was not strong enough for them to become easily drunk by it. To get drunk, a person would have to drink many glasses of it. That is why in Proverbs 23 we are told that drunkards are those that linger over wine:
Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaining? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? Those who tarry long over wine; those who go to try mixed wine. (Prov 23:29-30)
Because of this difference in alcoholic content, Paul could encourage Timothy to drink a little wine as medicine for his stomach without concern for his becoming drunk. However, it’s worth noting that Timothy did not want to drink any wine at all until Paul persuaded him to do so for his health.
No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments. (1 Tim 5:23)
Now we will look at the differences in how alcoholic beverages were made in ancient times versus the present.1
How alcoholic beverages were made in ancient times
In ancient times, there was not yet the technology to distill wine to increase its alcoholic content like there is today. However, they made wine by pressing the grapes with their feet in a stone vat. They collected the grape juice into cisterns, large jars, or leather bottles where the juice fermented on its own over time. In this way the taste also improved as it fermented.
The grape harvest occurred once per year, so they needed to make wine in order to keep the grape juice good over the course of at least a year, until the next harvest. If they did not do this, the grape juice would go bad and the crop would be wasted, as the juice turned to sour vinegar, which is undrinkable.
Furthermore, it was impossible to seal up unfermented fruit juice because it began to ferment starting the very first day it was pressed in the vat. They did not yet have the technology to keep fruit juice from going sour. If they made wine, however, the juice would not be lost, because the alcohol in the wine would preserve the juice, even for many years.
How alcoholic beverages are made in modern times
In modern times many people no longer consider drunkenness a vice or even shameful. Over the course of hundreds of years, the methods and technology for increasing alcoholic content in alcoholic beverages has led to many becoming dependent upon alcohol for happiness. Drunkenness has become a normal part of life.
Today, wine makers are able to alter and select seeds, engineering grapes that have a much higher sugar content than was originally true. The extra sugar results in a much higher alcohol content in the wine because it breaks down, turning into alcohol. Sometimes wine makers even add sugar to the process to encourage higher alcohol content.
Modern, high-tech chemical machines heat and pressurize the beverage, resulting in a much higher alcohol content than would be possible through natural processes. Ethanol is also added to some kinds of alcoholic beverages, and other added gases cause the alcohol to enter the blood stream faster than normal, resulting in quicker inebriation. Modern factories are able to make an enormous volume of alcoholic beverages very quickly, lowering the price of the intoxicating drinks in the market and making the alcohol inexpensive so that buyers can drink to their heart’s content.
Contrasting the beverages of the times
The alcohol we see for sale today is very different from the wine made in ancient times. Those who produce and distribute intoxicating beverages know that intoxicating beverages will sell well and make an easy profit. They know that customers want alcoholic drinks for receptions and parties—people want them for every event. Very few people can drink these beverages in today’s world and not get drunk, at least sometimes.
With these differences in mind, It is no surprise that frequent alcohol abuse has become a huge problem in many societies. For example, as of 2021 in the United States, 29.5 million people ages 12 and older (10.6% in this age group) had “alcohol use disorder” in the previous year. The research also says that approximately 10.5% (7.5 million) of U.S. children ages 17 and younger live with a parent who has alcohol use disorder (See: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism).
When we, as believers in Jesus Christ, read His Word and come across the word “wine,” let us not equate it mentally with modern alcoholic beverages – beer, wine, whiskey, or other liquor. The substances are not the same. Jesus did not turn the water in those pitchers into the kinds of intoxicating beverages that we are so familiar with at the world’s parties in our time. The apostle Paul did not insist that Timothy drink beer, hard liquor, or anything else that you see sold at stores and markets around the world today.
For an accessible and yet well-documented explanation of these differences in production, see Dr. Randy Jaeggli’s book, Christians and Alcohol.2
These differences should give pause
As believers take all of this in, they have to reckon with the reality that what people are drinking in their homes, restaurants, sporting events, backyard barbeques, and bars in today’s world is quite different from what is being described to us in the Scriptures. Jesus, David, Peter, and Jacob were not drinking the same thing. This should give us pause.
If the differences in alcoholic beverages then and now really are significant, it should cause Christians to give greater attention to other arguments from those urging abstinence. In the next article, we will look at other biblical arguments that favor abstinence.
Notes
1 Credit goes to Michael Carlyle for his help in concisely laying out this explanation here.
2 This book dives deep into all related Biblical texts, the original languages, and ANE (Ancient Near Eastern) cultural studies that come to bear on this topic in Scripture. He also gives helpful illustrations throughout. Many research sources are cited as well.
Rooted Thinking Articles
Reposted from Rooted Thinking.
Forrest McPhail Bio
Forrest has served as a missionary in Buddhist Cambodia in Southeast Asia since 2000. He presently serves as the Asia/Australia/Oceania regional director for Gospel Fellowship Association missions. He enjoys writing and teaching on missions and the Buddhist worldview. He and his wife, Jennifer, have 4 children.
- 1981 views
I guess not. But from memory in one of those books the Jews of the first century also diluted their wines, different ratios though. Can't quite remember the exact ratio.
Anyway, I think these sources disprove a lot of common claims about historic alcohol usage.
BTW, the Hugh Johnson of the one book I cited seems to have been a well respected authority on this, other books cite him a lot. He lived in Seattle, I think, and passed away a few years (maybe 10) back.
My point is that everyone who makes strong assertions about this needs to go to sources like this to find out what secular research shows. The dates on these books are late 80s and 90s, I think that I was looking into this somewhere between 1999 and 2005. Likely there are more recent publications. You don't have to buy the books, just go to your library and get them. Best to educate yourself from sources that don't agree with you so you can have an informed opinion (and to evaluate the claims of those who agree with you).
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Wine that was produced in ancient times was mixed with a lot of water.
When they drank the wine, the alcoholic content was not strong enough for them to become easily drunk by it. To get drunk, a person would have to drink many glasses of it. …
Because of this difference in alcoholic content, Paul could encourage Timothy to drink a little wine as medicine for his stomach without concern for his becoming drunk.
It is important for our purposes to note that in Isaiah 1:22, the watering down of wine is a curse. That stands against the idea that diluting wine was normal or preferred in OT times.
While wine in modern times is often around 15% alcohol, this is driven largely by sugar content in the grapes and also by production methods. Ancient wine was lower (10-12, most likely) and then possibly diluted, probably to about 4-6%. Those are basically the alcohol content of modern beer. So, contrary to the article, it would not have been difficult to get drunk on ancient wine, even if diluted.
Furthermore, it was impossible to seal up unfermented fruit juice because it began to ferment starting the very first day it was pressed in the vat.
I wasn’t sure what you were trying to say here. They certainly had technology to seal up unfermented juice. It just didn’t stay unfermented. Our grape juice wouldn’t either unless you pasteurized it and sealed it.
-----------
I agree with most of what you said about Modern Production. It's not really true that seeds (varieties) are chosen to increase alcohol, at least that’s not the main concern. Bert said in the comments that “today's wine industry is tremendously conservative in promoting ‘old vines.’” It's not exactly true that this is out of being conservative. Old vines are very much preferred in wine making. Some are over a hundred year old. Some grape vines are grafted onto old “rootstalks.” The old vines have deep roots and are able to produce grapes that are very concentrated in sugar and flavor. Many regions are actually pretty arid and too much rain early in the summer will result in grapes that are too big too early and don’t give good juice for wine. Minimal rain forces the plant to get water and nutrients from the soil, which is ideal. That’s why a deep root system makes great wine.
I'm not talking about the age of the vines or depth of the roots as much as I am about the consistency of the genetics of grape varieties. Pinot noir, for example, is believed to be millenia old and very close to the original wild vitus vinifera. Other Greek and Judean varieties are also millenia old.
What this means is that the differences between ancient and modern grapes are not that great, and that therefore--as we would infer from Proverbs 23--the amount of alcohol in ancient wines would not be that different from today's.
I've heard people claim that it was only 3%, for example, and at that level, it would take about 2-3 gallons of wine to get to the symptoms in Proverbs 23. The trouble with that is that when one injests that much water, one throws off electrolytes and the kidneys shut down. Hangovers and feeling no pain would be the least of one's issues at that point!
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I asked this question years ago on SI, and as I recall it didn’t elicit a response. Here’s my question:
Joe Christian walks into a restaurant and orders a steak. Along with it he orders a glass of wine. On the table, before he was even seated, was a glass of water. As he enjoys the meal, he finishes the wine as well as the glass of water. Assume it was a typical 16 oz. water glass & a typical 5 oz. glass of wine. Hasn’t he diluted the wine (at around a 3:1 ratio) during the course of consuming the meal? What’s the difference if the wine is mixed with water prior to or during consumption?
Larry, good to see you walking these hallways again. Welcome back!
Regarding your question, in terms of blood alcohol, I'd guess that (my habit of) having a glass of water along with wine and a steak (or whatever) would be about the same. One thought regarding the disinfectant nature of alcohol is that I'd bet that straight wine would clear the bacteria and such from one's throat better than wine mixed with water (many effects being nonlinear with concentration), so I'd guess the Hebrew pattern of drinking straight wine would be more effective than the Greek pattern of pre-mixing wine into something like "sangria".
I don't see a strong Biblical argument for either, mind you, but just for thinking's sake...
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I haven’t posted much in the past 3 years or so, but I still check in here occasionally. I was in Rochester recently in the vicinity of your church. Had lunch at Five West while I was there.
While reading this thread the focus on dilution as being the big difference between wine in the Bible vs. wine today in the original article and in many of the responses began to be a bit too much for me to not put my 2 cents into the conversation.
It may be true that back then it might have been prudent, even necessary, to mix wine with water (to lower the alcohol percentage and/or make suspect water potable), but to use that to justify alcohol consumption then vs. now seemed to me quite a stretch. If is was permissible then, today it seems just an issue of “dosage.” And the thrust of the conversation seemed ignorant of how responsible Christians who choose to consume alcohol today actually do so. My point being that “dilution” often occurs today not necessarily pre-consumption, but during or post-consumption.
The issue over dilution (and to what extent) is meant to compare apples to apples. The ancient practice was clearly different from present practice, so we are arguing about cultural differences which does make a difference on present day decision making.
I will grant that drinking wine with a meal (with or without other beverages) makes some difference on the overall effect. I don't think anyone disputes that. (My observation of those drinking wine with meals is that they take precious little water, though, so I doubt there is much dilution going on.)
Further, I would like to dispute Bert's constant assertion that the Jews didn't dilute their wine. Do a google search on "did ancient Jews dilute their wine." You will find many articles asserting they did. I don't know where Bert gets his idea, but he keeps repeating it. I haven't seen it anywhere other than in Bert's posts. The articles I have seen is that the Jews typically diluted their wine on a 3 to 1 ratio (3 water, 1 wine).
The dilution argument isn't meant to say, "see they would have to drink a ton to get drunk" -- clearly some would drink much and get drunk, and of course some would drink it straight in order to get drunk.
The dilution argument is simply to say wine and culture then (Bible times) was not the same as wine and culture today. (On average of course, you can find some exceptions.) The differences between eras impact the question of whether it is wise to drink alcohol today.
One more thing, the dilution argument is only one of several arguments. There are others. I have introduced examples of my research to show that the ancients did indeed dilute their wine. The point is that you cannot assume that when the Bible describes the consumption of wine that it is exactly the same as consumption today. I think it is a signifcant difference.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don, if you've found "numerous articles", link them. Let's see who they are, and what their sources are. My take is that when I look at Isaiah 1:22 and secular sources, the practice of dilution seems to have at least started with the Greeks, and thus would have been an unlikely practice to have been adopted by the Judeans who had fought a very bloody war against the Greeks not that long before.
(flavoring and mixing, yes; it's my guess that this is what is going on with the master of the feast in John 2, and he's shocked that this batch emphatically does not need any help from him--and notice that the jars are full, indicating that good wine is not mixed)
More or less, my take on "diluted" is that it's a pattern among the Greeks that "fundagelical" commentators have assumed was the pattern among the Judeans.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I didn't answer Larry's question (Is wine with a meal and a glass of water = dilution?). I think we all know the answer is yes in terms of dosing. I just contmeplate drinking diluted wine-water and think, yuk...
Ok - next time I open a bottle, I'm going to dilute some of it and try it.
---
To Don, Historically, they might have, sure. But Isaiah 1:22 paints diluting as a curse, even if a low-level one. So even if they did, I don't see what that changes. I mean there was a description of bread in Ezekiel that was also a curse and I don't eat bread like that. I don't think we have to.
I don't drink alcohol, so the dilution thing is not an issue for me. I have however begun to dilute milk for economic reasons. I figured out that if you buy whole milk and add water that if you are careful it will be just like 2% and no one will notice. I have to be careful though otherwise someone in the house will ask what is wrong with the milk.
First, I'm not going to do your googling for you. You know how to do it.
Second, how is it that Isa 1.22 has anything to do with Israelite practice? The statement is a metaphor for Israel's value, it isn't a comment on what Israel practiced nor a curse on someone who practiced such.
22 Your silver has become dross,
Your drink diluted with water.
Their silver and wine, which used to be valuable, had become worthless: dross metal and watered-down wine. Dross is the residue left in the smelting process after pure silver is removed. Like worthless dross, the nation would be “thrown away.” The people would be exiled if they would not repent and turn to the Lord.
John A. Martin, “Isaiah,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 1037.
How could beautiful and valuable silver degenerate completely into worthless waste metal (v. 22)? How could expensive sparkling wine turn into cheap, watered-down booze? Both products suffered a deterioration of quality because large dosages of impurities diluted them. This is what had happened in Jerusalem (v. 23).
Gary V. Smith, Isaiah 1–39, ed. E. Ray Clendenen, The New American Commentary (Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2007), 113.
I would challenge you to find a commentary that makes this about Israel's customs or practices. It is a metaphor for what the rulers were, not a comment on what the people did.
You all want to justify your point of view, so you are grasping at this straw, thinking it covers you.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
It is a metaphor for what the rulers were, not a comment on what the people did.
How were to people able to understand this metaphor if it had no relation to things people actually did? Do you think it was talking about ground water getting into cisterns and making the wine worthless as opposed to people diluting the wine themselves? Either way, it still seems to mean that diluted wine was worthless.
Do you not understand Hebrew parallelism?
22 Your silver has become dross,
Your drink diluted with water.
What is dross? It is the impurities left over when silver is purified. In other words, all the good of Israel has turned into something worthlesss.
In parallel, the metaphor of wine "diluted with water" is saying you are worthless, you have no value. The metaphor is saying the rulers are worthless.
More on "diluted":
kjv & esv translate "mixed"
Young's Literal translates "polluted"
TWOT says:
1151 מָהַל (māhal) circumcise, weaken.
The Aramaic “cognate,” mĕhal, means to circumcise, but in Hebrew the word appears only once and that in a figuarative sense, “to cut wine” (Isa 1:22). Keil and E. J. Young point out that this semantic development is paralleled in other sources, e.g. Latin, castrare vinum and French, couper du vin. So much water has been added to the wine that its character has been weakened. The Aramaic word and the Hebrew (if that also means “circumcise”) is doubtless a by-form of the root mûl “to circumcise” (q.v.).
Walter C. Kaiser, “1151 מָהַל,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 491.
Here is E. J. Young as referenced by Kaiser above:
weakened - Literally, 'cut.' By means of cutting the wine is impaired. sou'ek is fine wine, used here in parallel with kaspek, 'thy silver.' The metal that was so pure that light could find in it a clear reflection, as well as the fine wine of the land, was destroyed, the wine having been weakened (lit., cut, mutilated, circumcised, castrated) by water.
E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, Vol 1, 82.
I repeat, those who want to make this out to be some kind of curse against diluting the wine are misusing the text. Eisegesis, not exegesis. Their wine (their rulership) has no value, because it is so disfigured and mutilated.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
What is dross? It is the impurities left over when silver is purified. In other words, all the good of Israel has turned into something worthlesss.
In parallel, the metaphor of wine "diluted with water" is saying you are worthless, you have no value. The metaphor is saying the rulers are worthless.
I'm not sure which one of us is being more obtuse here. Isn't the parallelism that speaks of the rulers mentioning TWO things that are worthless? The silver that has become dross is now worthless because it has become dross, which is worthless, and the wine that is diluted with water is worthless because it was "destroyed, the wine having been weakened (lit., cut, mutilated, circumcised, castrated) by water." (per your quote from E. J. Young)
I have no problem whatsoever with the idea that the passage means that the rulers were worthless, but if you had said that "their silver has become dross" is "not a comment of what the people did," I would have told you that the people would have had to have practiced silver purification in order to have understood the metaphor of "dross being worthless." Likewise, the people would have had to have witnessed wine being diluted with water in order to know the worthlessness of diluted wine. If diluted wine isn't worthless, then the parallel to worthless rulers isn't really a parallel, is it?
The first mention of Isaiah 1:22 in this thread is when Bert wrote, "The only Biblical reference I'm aware of that clearly references watered down wine is Isaiah 1:22, which speaks of it as if it were a disgrace and a curse." Now the words "disgrace" and "curse" are not mentioned in the passage, and perhaps "curse" is too strong of a word, but wouldn't "disgrace" be appropriate to describe something that is claimed by the writer to be worthless and thus suitable to be used as a metaphor for their worthless rulers?
Some people might claim that Israelites could dilute their wine for drinking and it wouldn't be worthless until it reached the levels indicated by Isaiah 1:22, but Isaiah 1:22 doesn't give any specific levels at which the wine has become weakened. It just uses dross and diluted wine as metaphors for worthless rulers, so it's understandable why someone would see diluted wine in this passage as being a disgrace.
I won’t be dragged into a back and forth with you. You either don’t understand Bible interpretation or you don’t want to.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Discussion