Jesus turned water into (John 2) ...
Forum category
Poll Results
Jesus turned water into (John 2) …
Grape juice Votes: 12
Something with alcoholic content Votes: 50
Unclear Votes: 6
- 216 views
Actually for “wine #3196” it is way more than just once… And the “new wine” in the New Testament, the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew #8492, is clearly alcoholic. That’s what the apostles were accused of being drunk with in Acts 2.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
This discussion has broached absurdity. It just shows how out of touch most Christians are with classical literature. If you, in ancient times, handed someone a beverage and said it was οινος, it was wine, not grape juice. The term οινος normally means wine, except when it has a qualifying modifier, such as νεος or γλευκτος. In fact, οινος is so closely correlated to alcohol that it is sometimes used to refer to alcoholic beverages that are not made from grapes. A “winepress” is called a “winepress” because the primary purpose is to create wine, and the stuff that comes out of it is called “wine” in virtue of that which it will become. There are plenty of ways to distinguish between grape juice and wine in Greek. There are words for unfermented grape juice - γλευκους (often used with οινος), βορος, ομφακιον, προουρον, χυλος. The LXX uses the word οινος in Numbers 6:3 to refer to wine specifically in opposition to non-alcoholic grape products.
Furthermore, wine and grape juice do not look, taste, feel, or smell the same. The alcohol and the chemical changes caused by alcohol significantly contribute to that. If Jesus had given the master of the feast a non-alcoholic beverage, the master surely would not have called it good wine! Wine is not produced by “decay,” (a highly pejorative semantic move) or if it is, it’s the same kind of “decay” that ripens fruit. Let the fruit get too ripe and it rottens; likewise, let the wine get out of control and you wind up with vinegar.
By the way, Huw, I suspect that some of the information in the Theological Wordbook is incorrect. Ancient wine was much stronger, often up to about 16% alcoholic content. I have also seen references to wines in Roman times being concentrated.
As a general note, I have never seen in any primary source the idea that small amounts of wine were added to water to “purify” it. I suspect this is a myth invented by the temperance movement. Rather, whenever Romans (like Pliny) mention mixing wine with water, it is for the sake of the wine that they do so.
An article by an actual classicist: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/wine.
An article by an ecclesisatical historian, but which interacts well with primary sources: http://www.churchhistory101.com/docs/Wine-Ancient-World.pdf
Furthermore, wine and grape juice do not look, taste, feel, or smell the same. The alcohol and the chemical changes caused by alcohol significantly contribute to that. If Jesus had given the master of the feast a non-alcoholic beverage, the master surely would not have called it good wine! Wine is not produced by “decay,” (a highly pejorative semantic move) or if it is, it’s the same kind of “decay” that ripens fruit. Let the fruit get too ripe and it rottens; likewise, let the wine get out of control and you wind up with vinegar.
By the way, Huw, I suspect that some of the information in the Theological Wordbook is incorrect. Ancient wine was much stronger, often up to about 16% alcoholic content. I have also seen references to wines in Roman times being concentrated.
As a general note, I have never seen in any primary source the idea that small amounts of wine were added to water to “purify” it. I suspect this is a myth invented by the temperance movement. Rather, whenever Romans (like Pliny) mention mixing wine with water, it is for the sake of the wine that they do so.
An article by an actual classicist: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/wine.
An article by an ecclesisatical historian, but which interacts well with primary sources: http://www.churchhistory101.com/docs/Wine-Ancient-World.pdf
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Good thoughts, Charlie. One other brief point. Isiah 1:22 shows that mixing wine with water was a negative thing in the Hebrew Old testament culture.
Isaiah 1:22 “Your silver has become dross,your best wine mixed with water.”
Isaiah 1:22 “Your silver has become dross,your best wine mixed with water.”
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
I’d be very interested to know how the Romans made concentrated wine? If you heat it the alcohol evaporates. I’ve been checking on some wine making sites and the only way to strengthen wine was to fortify it with alcohol and the distilling process was not available until the Middle Ages?
I’m aware that % strength is in direct proportion to sugar content, but excess sugar has the opposite effect…..or so I’m led to believe.
I’m aware that % strength is in direct proportion to sugar content, but excess sugar has the opposite effect…..or so I’m led to believe.
[Huw] Silverghost.I am not Hebrew nor Greek scholar, but have dabbled around in both. I know enough to decipher most situations fairly well, but could be mistaken, so after 50 years, I study on. The activity, on such as Sharper Iron, helps to keep this old guy from becoming a butter knife or worse in acuity.
Prov 3:10 New wine # 8492
Isa16:10 wine #3196
These terms are used to describe intoxication in Hosea 4:11 Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart.
If the words were never used to describe intoxication ”taking away the heart, the will” then I would say you have hit it. However they are used to describe it once.
Yet, the passage in Prov. 3:10 KJV uses the word yeqeb for “press,” of which the NKJV translates “vat.” (I have to use the KJV designation on verses, or the program automatically keys in the NKJV.) Now the problem with the use of the word “vat,” as in the NKJV, is that we Westerners think a vat as a winery holding vat or cask (current meaning), whereas the vat in this text is either the lower catching bin, or the upper pressing bin. In either case, we are speaking of fresh grape juice being produced. The KJV better fills our understanding by the word “press,” which we can readily picture. We might even think of Lucille Ball treading out the grapes!
Translation of a word, to me, has always depended upon what the context indicates appropriate. For the wine to “burst forth” or the Hebrew, pârats, a primitive root, meaning “to break out,” (as in BDB), it shouldn’t be a Western “vat,” but a wine “press.” The word is never translated “overflow” in the KJV, the word always having the connotation of bursting out, growing, compelling, urging, etc. While the NKJV borrows the verse from the NASV, the NRSV retains the RSV “bursting,” with vat, which still violates the Westerners thinking of the equipment, but gives the notion of the action in the original Hebrew of “bursting forth.” One will have to decide how well the various translations fill the original meaning.
In regards to Isa. 16:10 KJV, yayin is indicated as not coming forth: “The treaders shall tread out no wine in their presses,” obviously a fresh pressed grape juice being in mind. In Hos. 4:11 KJV, God’s people have become idolatrous and “wine” yayin, and “new wine” tı̂yrôsh, fresh pressed, took away their hearts. It is not at all conclusive that tı̂yrôsh, the new wine, was fermented, as it is usually not seen as such. So, it may have been fleeting success that deceived them, as idolaters. The Hebrew, lâqach, is never translated in the KJV as “enslave,” its primitive root meaning: “to take.”
Again, no point is made, as the fresh pressed wine in these verses is not shown to cause intoxication, as the context generally flavors. In all this, are we not avoiding the fact that Jesus Christ created “All things?” As Creator God, is He not able within a miracle, as Aaron & I have mentioned, to create a superior beverage in taste to the best wine of any stripe, and still keep it non-alcoholic? The grapes in the Garden of Eden were undoubtedly better than now, and there was no fermentation there. It wasn’t even until after the Flood that we hear of intoxication.
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
Charlie, I wasn’t aware of a term for grape juice as distinct from wine.
I think I mentioned a few times that as far as I knew, there was not a distinct term. The fact remains though that what flowed from the press was called oinos. Still strikes me as odd to call it what it will eventually be rather than what it is.
In any case, Mike Harding’s scenario still strikes me as a plausible view of what happened at Cana.
Bob: as for subtle differences between drunkenness and intoxication… I’ll have to leave that matter to others. I wouldn’t have the foggiest idea what happens a couple of sips into a beverage I’ve never had any reason to drink. But I remain extremely skeptical of the idea that the Bible encourages us to get intoxicated but not too intoxicated.
And even more skeptical of the idea that people who drink generally know how much is too much… especially once they’ve started getting “glad.”
One for the Romans 14 file. I believe I should not judge my brothers who think along these lines but wow… it’s really tempting! :)
I think I mentioned a few times that as far as I knew, there was not a distinct term. The fact remains though that what flowed from the press was called oinos. Still strikes me as odd to call it what it will eventually be rather than what it is.
In any case, Mike Harding’s scenario still strikes me as a plausible view of what happened at Cana.
Bob: as for subtle differences between drunkenness and intoxication… I’ll have to leave that matter to others. I wouldn’t have the foggiest idea what happens a couple of sips into a beverage I’ve never had any reason to drink. But I remain extremely skeptical of the idea that the Bible encourages us to get intoxicated but not too intoxicated.
And even more skeptical of the idea that people who drink generally know how much is too much… especially once they’ve started getting “glad.”
One for the Romans 14 file. I believe I should not judge my brothers who think along these lines but wow… it’s really tempting! :)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Bob Hayton] Actually for “wine #3196” it is way more than just once… And the “new wine” in the New Testament, the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew #8492, is clearly alcoholic. That’s what the apostles were accused of being drunk with in Acts 2.In Mark 2:22, οἶνος νέος is clearly not alcoholic, for it will burst the old wine skins, as it begins to ferment and expand. Only used once in the New Testament, the Greek word γλεῦκος in Acts 2:13 is generally considered to be the sweet juice of recently pressed grapes, high in glucose, from which the Greek gives us in English for sugar. However, the fresh juice quickly turns to fermenting, depending on the temperature.
Nor is the Hebrew tı̂yrôsh, (#8492) considered alcoholic, but fresh or new wine, an unfermented must, or freshly pressed juice. In the Acts 2 text, however, γλεῦκος obviously can also mean the wine the quickly has fermented from the fresh juice, probably only a week old, but highly intoxicating. Most of the New Testament devotes itself to warning against the danger of wine, simply using the word, οἶνος, not new wine. That alone should tell us that we need to exercise wisdom on this topic.
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
[Bob Hayton] Good thoughts, Charlie. One other brief point. Isiah 1:22 shows that mixing wine with water was a negative thing in the Hebrew Old testament culture.The Hebrew for water in this verse, mayim, indicates it is elimination “water” or your urine, even semen, stomach turning. In context, v. 21 speaks of harlotry & murder, in v. 23, of totally corrupt princes. The Lord is dealing in judgment of their wickedness. Consequently their silver is adulterated with dross and tin (v. 25).
Isaiah 1:22 “Your silver has become dross, your best wine mixed with water.”
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
[Charlie] There are plenty of ways to distinguish between grape juice and wine in Greek. There are words for unfermented grape juice - γλευκους (often used with οινος), βορος, ομφακιον, προουρον, χυλος.Yet Charlie, none of these Greek words are used in the New Testament except οἶνος or a derivative from that root, with the one time exception of the word, γλεῦκος, in Acts 2:22. This word normally is unfermented juice, but by context the accusation indicates that it is new wine that has started the fermentation process. The word γλεῦκος is never used with οἶνος n the New Testament.
Linguistics have little influence over the Creator God of “all things,” who was in the process of performing a miracle. If the Lord Jesus Christ was not capable of making a wine of great taste, to please the guests and the governor or director of the feast, without it being alcoholic, I think that we could have a heyday doubting all the miracles of the Bible, including creation.
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
One of the best articles I’ve seen on the topic of Christians drinking today is “Keeping the Saints Sober,” by Jeffrey Straub, Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Plymouth, MN. It is found in the current Baptist Bulletin, July/August ‘10, pp. 34-37. [url] http://baptistbulletin.org/?p=9514 It is even-tempered, non-condemning of other views, while making a quality statement on his position.
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
[Silverghost] Yet Charlie, none of these Greek words are used in the New Testament except οἶνος or a derivative from that root, with the one time exception of the word, γλεῦκος, in Acts 2:22.That’s because there isn’t much grape juice in the New Testament. :) And even if we could somehow know that the NT authors knew none of the words I listed, they could still say νεος οινος, which they do say a few times, and which refers to wine at or near the beginning of the fermentation process.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Charlie] That’s because there isn’t much grape juice in the New Testament. :) And even if we could somehow know that the NT authors knew none of the words I listed, they could still say νεος οινος, which they do say a few times, and which refers to wine at or near the beginning of the fermentation process.It’s true, for most of the instances are warnings of over-imbibing. Yet, that doesn’t make the necessity of ethanol content to be a conclusive answer to the question at hand. It is not natural that the Red Sea would stand up as a wall, while 2.5 to 3 million or more Israelites passed through on foot with carts on dry ground. The Lord of creation, who made the wine out of water, could make wine of supreme taste, without it being alcoholic. Habakkuk 2:15 KJV is still a factor impinging upon the Lord’s righteousness in this instance.
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
I don’t think the miracle was that Jesus made perfect wine. If that is the only miracle one sees, I think you are missing the miracle. The miracle was that He turned water into wine, no matter how bad or good it was. It would be like saying the red sea miracle was that the sea walls were 100 ft tall not 50 ft. Or, the sun stood still for exactly x min. Or the blind man was given 20/20 vision. Or the lame was now able to run a marathon. Sure, they all may be true, but the miracle was that the red sea was parted, the sun stood still, the blind was able to see, and the lame could walk. So, I find that argument to not be all that strong, if there is any substance to it at all.
Ran out of time to edit. So, to clarify one point. I don’t want to come off sounding that none of those things matter, but that the miracle was that it happened and those things (how high, whether or not the person had 20/20, or could run a marathon) were just a part of the miracle.
I noticed wine is not mentioned in the last supper. Matthew , Mark & Luke record it as the ”produce of the vine”. And in 1Cor 11 Paul uses ”this cup”. The one place I’d thought wine would be mentioned it’s not.
Don’t forget the crucial qualifying clause in Hab. 2:15, namely, “that thou mayest look on their nakedness”. The verse addresses a subset of cases where one gives his neighbor drink. Specifically it is giving him drink, to get him drunk, and also to get him naked. That is forbidden. Offering your neighbor a drink, is not wrong. So if the wine Jesus gave the people in John 2 was alcoholic wine, Jesus was not in any stretch violating Hab. 2:15
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Don’t really have a horse in this race, but I have been reading the thread and just wanted to jump in to observe that this…
Linguistics have little influence over the Creator God of “all things”…is pretty absurd reasoning. What linguistics DO have a tremendous influence over is how we are to understand the inspired account of that Creator’s actions while on earth. The Holy Spirit used language (words, grammar, syntax) to retell events, and so linguistics must have a tremendous influence over us.
It is not natural that the Red Sea would stand up as a wall, while 2.5 to 3 million or more Israelites passed through on foot with carts on dry ground.True. The “unnatural” part of the miracle is described for us in clear language. That doesn’t mean I have the liberty to say something like, “The water turned to solid ice and that’s how it stood up.” Could God have done that? Sure. But that’s not what the text says. Thus with oinos/wine.
The Lord of creation, who made the wine out of water, could make wine of supreme taste, without it being alcoholic.The question is not, and never has been, could Jesus have made some unnatural non-alcoholic wine, but rather did He. Again, the miracle (the “unnatural” part) is recorded in clear language: The chemical makeup of water instantaneously transformed into wine. It seems that if in addition, it was somehow non-alcoholic, that would have been pointed out in the text, and it simply is not there. I find it interesting that so many feel compelled to rush to Christ’s defense on this, when the Holy Spirit could have made such clarifications, but didn’t.
[Daniel] I don’t think the miracle was that Jesus made perfect wine. If that is the only miracle one sees, I think you are missing the miracle. The miracle was that He turned water into wine, no matter how bad or good it was. It would be like saying the red sea miracle was that the sea walls were 100 ft tall not 50 ft. Or, the sun stood still for exactly x min. Or the blind man was given 20/20 vision. Or the lame was now able to run a marathon. Sure, they all may be true, but the miracle was that the red sea was parted, the sun stood still, the blind was able to see, and the lame could walk. So, I find that argument to not be all that strong, if there is any substance to it at all.All that God does is good, Daniel. If I were an Israelite back in Egypt, I would be thankful that not only did God part the sea, but He dried up the floor of it, so I wouldn’t have to slog through mud, the normal expectation with all that water hanging nearby. That was an important part of the miracle. I don’t see the point you are making of how high the wall of water was, for the Scripture says nothing about that, but it does say they crossed over “upon the dry ground.” Also God makes a point that the governor of the marriage feast said: “thou hast kept the good wine until now.”
The question of the thread is: “Jesus turned water into (John 2) …”, yet, the point of your post seems to downplay part of what God said in John 2. It is germane to the miracle that the wine tasted remarkably good. It is also germane to the forum question that Jesus made the wine so pleasing, that it gives evidence of Him as creator God, being able to do anything necessary for the miracle, while remaining in character. He would never make others drunk.
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
[Bob Hayton] Don’t forget the crucial qualifying clause in Hab. 2:15, namely, “that thou mayest look on their nakedness”. The verse addresses a subset of cases where one gives his neighbor drink. Specifically it is giving him drink, to get him drunk, and also to get him naked. That is forbidden. Offering your neighbor a drink, is not wrong. So if the wine Jesus gave the people in John 2 was alcoholic wine, Jesus was not in any stretch violating Hab. 2:15It is your claim, Bob, that it is crucial, yet, to what end? Is it to disregard the statement in v. 15 as having any distinguishment for the righteous conduct of the Savior? These were evil beasts, which Habakkuk was exposing. In v.12 it says: “Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and stablisheth a city by iniquity!” So, in righteousness, Jesus should not be a wicked task master, nor have shady iniquitous dealings. Neither, in righteousness, should He make someone drunk, which easily can be seen aside from this possibly resulting in lewd or loose behavior, or the possible motive of Habakkuk’s audience to do further wickedness.
Yet, that it may be seen as not simply the motive “that thou mayest look on their nakedness…”, it is important to see that the next verse chides: “Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and let thy foreskin be uncovered: the cup of the LORD’s right hand shall be turned unto thee, and shameful spewing shall be on thy glory.” It is a natural result of drunkenness to be indiscreet, as seen in Noah’s nakedness after the Flood. Motive is not proven in v.15. The point is, if we are exhorted in 1 Thes. 5:22 KJV, “Abstain from all appearance of evil,” then should not our Savior have acted accordingly at all times? He did. It is a sin to make your neighbor drunk by your actions. Homes, lives are wrecked. Even worldly bartenders draw the line, albeit too late.
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
[Eric R.] Don’t really have a horse in this race, but I have been reading the thread and just wanted to jump in to observe that this…Eric, I’m sorry that you’ve only seen part of the thread’s reasoning, and have misunderstood my statements. The word of God is important, regarding linguistics. My point was that for God to do miracles, He lays aside what we naturally expect or what science can explain. The Creator God made the heavens and the earth out of nothing. He certainly could make wine to be superior in taste, yet non-alcoholic. Under the circumstance that the governor exclaimed that the people had “well-drunk,” it would be out of character for the Savior to give the people more to get drunk. This has been the direction of part of the thread’s discussion for some time.Linguistics have little influence over the Creator God of “all things”…is pretty absurd reasoning. What linguistics DO have a tremendous influence over is how we are to understand the inspired account of that Creator’s actions while on earth. The Holy Spirit used language (words, grammar, syntax) to retell events, and so linguistics must have a tremendous influence over us.
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
[Silverghost][He would never make others drunk.Wrong argument. He did not make anyone drunk; drunkenness was simply a possibility. If the possibility of drunkenness makes God culpable in the sin of the individual, then we might as well blame Him anyway since He created the grapes in the first place knowing they could possibly be abused to make someone drunk.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
I think Chip’s argument is a strong one. But it can stand some nuancing.
If I lock my house when I go away on vacation, and somebody breaks in and steals my box of cash (which doesn’t exist.. this is hypothetical), I’m not to blame for the thief’s choices.
If I leave the house open and hang up a sign that says “Box of cash inside,” I’m kind of begging for it. It’s still not really “my fault” if some guy robs me, but folks are not likely to be sympathetic.
Similarly, which is better, to make a substance that many are going to find quite tempting toward drunkenness or to make one that is quite unlikely to be abused in that way? If you have the power to do either one with equal ease, I think the answer is obvious.
If I lock my house when I go away on vacation, and somebody breaks in and steals my box of cash (which doesn’t exist.. this is hypothetical), I’m not to blame for the thief’s choices.
If I leave the house open and hang up a sign that says “Box of cash inside,” I’m kind of begging for it. It’s still not really “my fault” if some guy robs me, but folks are not likely to be sympathetic.
Similarly, which is better, to make a substance that many are going to find quite tempting toward drunkenness or to make one that is quite unlikely to be abused in that way? If you have the power to do either one with equal ease, I think the answer is obvious.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] I think Chip’s argument is a strong one. But it can stand some nuancing.Assuming this Aaron, why did God create wine in the first place? Why create an environment where the only non-water drink which is “refreshing” as you say, is a drink that can encourage one to drunkenness?
If I lock my house when I go away on vacation, and somebody breaks in and steals my box of cash (which doesn’t exist.. this is hypothetical), I’m not to blame for the thief’s choices.
If I leave the house open and hang up a sign that says “Box of cash inside,” I’m kind of begging for it. It’s still not really “my fault” if some guy robs me, but folks are not likely to be sympathetic.
Similarly, which is better, to make a substance that many are going to find quite tempting toward drunkenness or to make one that is quite unlikely to be abused in that way? If you have the power to do either one with equal ease, I think the answer is obvious.
My point is being missed by Silverghost it is almost impossible reasoning with him. He used Hab. 2:15 to say Jesus would never given an alcoholic drink to someone. He was saying Hab. 2:15 condemns giving alcohol to your neighbor. I point out that it in no way condemns giving alcohol to your neighbor, only giving alcohol to your neighbor, to get him drunk, to look on his nakedness. The context of the passage is clearly of drunken behavior, and yes drunkenness leads to being forgetful and stupid and Noahic actions and all that. But regardless, Hab. 2:15 cannot be used as a text teaching that it is evil to give a drink to someone with no such ill-motives behind it.
We can reason that Jesus wouldn’t do something such as leave a beverage at a banquet where some people might abuse it. But nothing in the passage in John 2 would indicate that was the case. The specific terms used by the master of the feast, and his recognition of the amazement that good wine would be kept at the end of the feast … all this supports the idea that Jesus made what would have been the typical drink for such an occasion in his day, namely alcoholic wine. Based on other factors outside of John 2 we can hypothesize that he gave them some wonderfully new drink that has no alcohol and yet looks just like alcoholic wine and tastes like it or even better, but nothing in the text is our clue to assume this fantastic nature to Jesus’ (already quite fantastic enough) miracle.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
2 more points and then I hope to be done with this thread….
Finally, several have pointed out how excellent Straub’s article is. After reading http://www.churchhistory101.com/docs/Wine-Ancient-World.pdf] the article Charlie provided which digs into the evidence that Robert H. Stein and others have used, it appears Straub is building a big part of his case on shaky ground. 1) Alcohol as drunk by Romans and Greeks would usually be 3-6% in strength even when diluted. 2) Water being bad and needing purification was almost never addressed in ancient literature, and no one mentioned using alcohol to purify it. In fact even today, alcohol does not purify water. The best it can do is possibly eliminate some of the bad bacteria after being ingested. The well water was abundant and good in those days. So alcoholic drinking in OT times really is analogous to what it is today. I do grant we have more non-alcholic beverages to choose from, however.
[Huw] I noticed wine is not mentioned in the last supper. Matthew , Mark & Luke record it as the ”produce of the vine”. And in 1Cor 11 Paul uses ”this cup”. The one place I’d thought wine would be mentioned it’s not.Many commentators point to “fruit of the vine” as being a technical term for Passover wine. There is evidence from Jewish writings that the Passover wine would be actual alcoholic wine, too.
Finally, several have pointed out how excellent Straub’s article is. After reading http://www.churchhistory101.com/docs/Wine-Ancient-World.pdf] the article Charlie provided which digs into the evidence that Robert H. Stein and others have used, it appears Straub is building a big part of his case on shaky ground. 1) Alcohol as drunk by Romans and Greeks would usually be 3-6% in strength even when diluted. 2) Water being bad and needing purification was almost never addressed in ancient literature, and no one mentioned using alcohol to purify it. In fact even today, alcohol does not purify water. The best it can do is possibly eliminate some of the bad bacteria after being ingested. The well water was abundant and good in those days. So alcoholic drinking in OT times really is analogous to what it is today. I do grant we have more non-alcholic beverages to choose from, however.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
First thought:
[quote Sliverghost] He would never make others drunk.[quote Chip] He did not make anyone drunk; drunkenness was simply a possibility.So, by providing an “all-you-can-eat bread and fish buffet” for the 5,000, was Jesus making them gluttonous? Does the possibility of abuse make him culpable?
Second (and final) thought:
The problem with this particular debate seems to be that everyone brings to it certain presuppositions from their understanding of multiple other passages. The basic arguments seem to be something like:
1) Since Scripture forbids the use of alcohol, Jesus must not have made alcoholic wine.
OR
2) Since Scripture forbids drunkenness, prudence forbids any use of alcohol, so Jesus must not have made alcoholic wine.
(Thus the supporting argument for 1 and 2 is: Since He could make non-alcoholic wine, he must have.)
OR
3) Since Scripture allows for the use of alcohol, there’s no reason to assume “wine” means anything other than “wine.”
(Thus the supporting argument for 3: Since the text doesn’t say He made non-alcoholic wine, He didn’t.)
There are further nuanced arguments beyond those three, but my main point here is that whatever the answer to the question of the Christian’s use of alcohol, it’s not to be found in this passage. The debate lies elsewhere and must be settled there first. Those with different presuppositions will go forever in circles around this particular question.
[quote Sliverghost] He would never make others drunk.[quote Chip] He did not make anyone drunk; drunkenness was simply a possibility.So, by providing an “all-you-can-eat bread and fish buffet” for the 5,000, was Jesus making them gluttonous? Does the possibility of abuse make him culpable?
Second (and final) thought:
The problem with this particular debate seems to be that everyone brings to it certain presuppositions from their understanding of multiple other passages. The basic arguments seem to be something like:
1) Since Scripture forbids the use of alcohol, Jesus must not have made alcoholic wine.
OR
2) Since Scripture forbids drunkenness, prudence forbids any use of alcohol, so Jesus must not have made alcoholic wine.
(Thus the supporting argument for 1 and 2 is: Since He could make non-alcoholic wine, he must have.)
OR
3) Since Scripture allows for the use of alcohol, there’s no reason to assume “wine” means anything other than “wine.”
(Thus the supporting argument for 3: Since the text doesn’t say He made non-alcoholic wine, He didn’t.)
There are further nuanced arguments beyond those three, but my main point here is that whatever the answer to the question of the Christian’s use of alcohol, it’s not to be found in this passage. The debate lies elsewhere and must be settled there first. Those with different presuppositions will go forever in circles around this particular question.
[Chip Van Emmerik][Silverghost]Thanks, Chip, for that observation. Yet, I can’t but help to think of David…he didn’t kill Uriah, the Ammonites did it. But, “Nathan said to David, Thou art the man.” 2 Sam. 12:7a KJV.[He would never make others drunk.Wrong argument. He did not make anyone drunk; drunkenness was simply a possibility. If the possibility of drunkenness makes God culpable in the sin of the individual, then we might as well blame Him anyway since He created the grapes in the first place knowing they could possibly be abused to make someone drunk.
The Hab. 2:15 KJV reference has also the action: “giveth his neighbour drink…”, whereby He would be an accomplice, if the wine was intoxicating. Do we not believe that the Lord knew what would happen, when He said, after making the wine: “Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast,” in that the participants would drink? We know that He knew their hearts, their sins, their past and future. He fully knew, before He made the wine, can I say, before the foundation of the world.
Would you not consider your logic of hypothetically “impugning” our Savior as Creator God, for sake of this discussion, as flawed? When He made the grapes, they were “very good.” Secondly, in no way is the Creator culpable, after the fall, for man’s decision to sin. Thirdly, this is a specific instance of His involvement in making and giving this beverage for the purpose of people drinking it.
Knowing that the participants of the feast had “well drunk” (μεθύω: drink to intoxication), would He not be culpable, if He gave them intoxicating wine to drink? Reasoning well, this has nothing to do with the original creation of the grape, but all to do with the omniscience of God, and the righteousness of the Savior. He would never make others drunk, nor in any way contribute towards that end.
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
[Bob Hayton][Aaron Blumer] My point is being missed by Silverghost it is almost impossible reasoning with him. He used Hab. 2:15 to say Jesus would never given an alcoholic drink to someone. He was saying Hab. 2:15 condemns giving alcohol to your neighbor. I point out that it in no way condemns giving alcohol to your neighbor, only giving alcohol to your neighbor, to get him drunk, to look on his nakedness. The context of the passage is clearly of drunken behavior, and yes drunkenness leads to being forgetful and stupid and Noahic actions and all that. But regardless, Hab. 2:15 cannot be used as a text teaching that it is evil to give a drink to someone with no such ill-motives behind it.I’m sorry, Bob, that you have misunderstood my statements. I had never said that Jesus would not or did not give alcoholic wine to anyone. I did say that, with His omniscience, He would never give to those who had “well drunk” (μεθύω: drink to intoxication), to be a culpable party in making them drunk. The spirit of the Law’s admonition would be to be blameless before God for our actions, and Christ clearly is declared blameless.. To say that “nothing in the passage in John 2 would indicate that” Jesus would be concerned about contributing to drunkenness, denies the Holy Spirit’s inclusion of the governor’s remarks, specifically about being “well drunk” (μεθύω: drink to intoxication). That should be sufficient to know the sinless Savior’s response would be appropriate to the need.
We can reason that Jesus wouldn’t do something such as leave a beverage at a banquet where some people might abuse it. But nothing in the passage in John 2 would indicate that was the case. The specific terms used by the master of the feast, and his recognition of the amazement that good wine would be kept at the end of the feast … all this supports the idea that Jesus made what would have been the typical drink for such an occasion in his day, namely alcoholic wine. Based on other factors outside of John 2 we can hypothesize that he gave them some wonderfully new drink that has no alcohol and yet looks just like alcoholic wine and tastes like it or even better, but nothing in the text is our clue to assume this fantastic nature to Jesus’ (already quite fantastic enough) miracle.
To insist upon your dictate: “this supports the idea that Jesus made what would have been the typical drink for such an occasion in his day, namely alcoholic wine,” then to indicate that I am intransigent in saying that the Creator probably made that which was superbly tasteful, but ethanol free in the total miracle, denies the right to discuss this as gentlemen and caring brothers in Christ. Let’s lay that axe down.
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
[Bob Hayton] [Assuming this Aaron, why did God create wine in the first place? Why create an environment where the only non-water drink which is “refreshing” as you say, is a drink that can encourage one to drunkenness?Bob, careful examination of the Scriptures will indicate well that God did not create wine, as you are indicating in your reply to Aaron. He created the grape, in perfection in Eden. Sin cursed the environment, and it was only after the Flood that wine apparently became alcoholic.
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
The backstory on Hab. 2:15 is at the top of this discussion from back in July 2009. Then more recently you said,
“Habakkuk 2:15 KJV is still a factor impinging upon the Lord’s righteousness in this instance.”
I assumed (perhaps incorrectly), that you were once again saying Hab. 2:15 forbids the giving of alcohol to anyone. I have read others which make that claim about Hab. 2:15 and by so doing they are ignoring what the text actually says.
As for the μεθύω reference, this is the speech of the master of the feast who is saying, “in general, when people are well drunk is when you bring out the good wine”. He’s not necessarily saying that everyone at the feast was plastered. Furthermore, feasts in that era often lasted many days. We don’t know much about the details exactly of when Jesus’ wine was given to the feasters, what time of day or anything.
If you want to use μεθύω as a basis for assuming Jesus wouldn’t have given alcoholic wine to the people to continue drinking, that’s fine. As Eric R mentioned above, there are a host of factors that weigh in on our understanding of this passage.
What I am objecting to is using Hab. 2:15 to teach that in a neutral context, it is wrong to “give your neighbor drink”. Hab. 2:15 doesn’t teach that it is wrong to give your neighbor drink. It teaches it is wrong to give him drink to make him drunken and to also desire further lewdness by means of the alcoholic drink you’re providing.
“Habakkuk 2:15 KJV is still a factor impinging upon the Lord’s righteousness in this instance.”
I assumed (perhaps incorrectly), that you were once again saying Hab. 2:15 forbids the giving of alcohol to anyone. I have read others which make that claim about Hab. 2:15 and by so doing they are ignoring what the text actually says.
As for the μεθύω reference, this is the speech of the master of the feast who is saying, “in general, when people are well drunk is when you bring out the good wine”. He’s not necessarily saying that everyone at the feast was plastered. Furthermore, feasts in that era often lasted many days. We don’t know much about the details exactly of when Jesus’ wine was given to the feasters, what time of day or anything.
If you want to use μεθύω as a basis for assuming Jesus wouldn’t have given alcoholic wine to the people to continue drinking, that’s fine. As Eric R mentioned above, there are a host of factors that weigh in on our understanding of this passage.
What I am objecting to is using Hab. 2:15 to teach that in a neutral context, it is wrong to “give your neighbor drink”. Hab. 2:15 doesn’t teach that it is wrong to give your neighbor drink. It teaches it is wrong to give him drink to make him drunken and to also desire further lewdness by means of the alcoholic drink you’re providing.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Silverghost]Check out Ps. 104:15 where God takes credit for wine (as well as oil and bread).[Bob Hayton] [Assuming this Aaron, why did God create wine in the first place? Why create an environment where the only non-water drink which is “refreshing” as you say, is a drink that can encourage one to drunkenness?Bob, careful examination of the Scriptures will indicate well that God did not create wine, as you are indicating in your reply to Aaron. He created the grape, in perfection in Eden. Sin cursed the environment, and it was only after the Flood that wine apparently became alcoholic.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Or strong wine was used in the drink offering and was poured out as a libation Num 28:7. The word used here for wine is sekar which is used to describe drunkenness In Gen43:34. How could Israel offer this strong drink if they had not been given the ability to produce it? And why would Yah Veh demand such a potent wine? Deut 14:26 also demands ”strong drink”. So if Yah Veh demands strong drink would He not provide alcoholic drink?
I asked two questions earlier in the thread and the answers to these questions denote the attitude a person has towards alcohol.
Do you have a problem with the implication that Messiah would have anything to do with alcohol? Yes/no
do you see the consumption of alcohol as a sin? Yes/no
The answer is always either yes/yes or no/no.
Silverghost, ………………”and it was only after the Flood that wine apparently became alcoholic”, where did you get that idea? if you don’t mind me asking?
I asked two questions earlier in the thread and the answers to these questions denote the attitude a person has towards alcohol.
Do you have a problem with the implication that Messiah would have anything to do with alcohol? Yes/no
do you see the consumption of alcohol as a sin? Yes/no
The answer is always either yes/yes or no/no.
Silverghost, ………………”and it was only after the Flood that wine apparently became alcoholic”, where did you get that idea? if you don’t mind me asking?
[quote Daniel] The passage seems to indicate that the woe is to the one who gives his neighbor drink in order to see his nakedness. I think the in order to or the so that, or however the passage is said in English is important in the interpretation. It shows the intent of giving drink. If the passage is not interpreted with that phrase, it changes the interpretation drastically. (emph. added)[quote Silverghost] The Hab. 2:15 KJV reference has also the action: “giveth his neighbour drink…”, whereby He would be an accomplice, if the wine was intoxicating. (emph. added)I agree with Daniel (and Bob and Aaron) on this passage. Other’s have noted the problems with Silverghost’s interpretation, but maybe it will help to illustrate. If his interpretation (citing the action, but omitting the intent phrase of the verse) is legit, then let’s apply it elsewhere and see how it works:
Exodus 23:2a “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.” would mean it is always a sin to follow a multitude.
Exodus 23:2b …nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice.” would mean it is always a sin to testify in a dispute.
Deut. 24:10 “When thou dost lend thy brother any thing, thou shalt not go into his house to fetch his pledge.” would mean it is always a sin to go into your brother’s house while he owes you something.
Often the most important aspect of context is immediate context, as in, the rest of the verse.
SWIM?
Exodus 23:2a “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.” would mean it is always a sin to follow a multitude.
Exodus 23:2b …nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice.” would mean it is always a sin to testify in a dispute.
Deut. 24:10 “When thou dost lend thy brother any thing, thou shalt not go into his house to fetch his pledge.” would mean it is always a sin to go into your brother’s house while he owes you something.
Often the most important aspect of context is immediate context, as in, the rest of the verse.
SWIM?
Thanks Eric, that helps a lot. A simple illustration is easier to see than a lot of words. Maybe we won’t be talking past each other anymore.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Bob Hayton] The backstory on Hab. 2:15 is at the top of this discussion from back in July 2009. Then more recently you said,Dear Bob, I know this goes back to last year, yet you must have misunderstood my original statement. I did not say that Hab. 2;15 KJV forbids the giving of alcohol to anyone, so it’s not “once again.” Please see, also, my reply to you on 07/28/2009 - 8:03am, #49. If you would be careful to see, I originally said on 07/27/2009 - 2:14pm, #28: “I consider it a serious indictment to Christ, if he gave those who had ‘well drunk’ additional intoxicating drink..” I still maintain that.
“Habakkuk 2:15 KJV is still a factor impinging upon the Lord’s righteousness in this instance.”
I assumed (perhaps incorrectly), that you were once again saying Hab. 2:15 forbids the giving of alcohol to anyone. I have read others which make that claim about Hab. 2:15 and by so doing they are ignoring what the text actually says.
I believe that we agree that “it is wrong to give [someone] drink to make him drunken,” which should apply at the wedding feast at Cana, at least for some of the participants. I personally believe that the Holy Spirit included the governor’s statement. so we could discuss it. Ha! No, it is significant that the words are recorded for us. As to whether or not the nakedness of Hab. 2:15 KJV is a motive of the wicked or an attendant result, it is not conclusive. The next verse, Hab. 2:16 KJV shows the naked lewdness happening to the perpetrator of v. 15. Yet, the matter remains, in which we seem to agree: it is wrong to give someone drink to make him drunken. With that premise, I believe that the Lord of glory would not jeopardize others with inebriation, nor himself to do wrong.
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
[Bob Hayton][Silverghost] Check out Ps. 104:15 where God takes credit for wine (as well as oil and bread).I had written: “God did not create wine.” This verse is not creation, Bob. This is God’s provision for man and beast under the curse. “He watereth the hills from his chambers: the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works. He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man’s heart.” Psm.104:13-15 KJV. Thank the Lord that He provides for sinful man!
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
[Huw] Silverghost, ………………”and it was only after the Flood that wine apparently became alcoholic”, where did you get that idea? if you don’t mind me asking?Noah seemed to be “surprised” (Matthew Henry) by becoming inebriated, from the fruit of his vineyard. No instance previous to that is recorded to my knowledge. A number of sound commentaries indicate this phenomenon, so it’s hadn’t been an original consideration by me. JFB calls the occurrence “the result of age or inadvertency.” It would seem apparent that Noah had experienced the fruit of the vine previous to the flood, but no such instance occurred until this episode.
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
[Eric R.] [quote Daniel] The passage seems to indicate that the woe is to the one who gives his neighbor drink in order to see his nakedness. I think the in order to or the so that, or however the passage is said in English is important in the interpretation. It shows the intent of giving drink. If the passage is not interpreted with that phrase, it changes the interpretation drastically. (emph. added)[quote Silverghost] The Hab. 2:15 KJV reference has also the action: “giveth his neighbour drink…”, whereby He would be an accomplice, if the wine was intoxicating. (emph. added)I agree with Daniel (and Bob and Aaron) on this passage. Other’s have noted the problems with Silverghost’s interpretation, but maybe it will help to illustrate. If his interpretation (citing the action, but omitting the intent phrase of the verse) is legit, then let’s apply it elsewhere and see how it works:
Exodus 23:2a “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.” would mean it is always a sin to follow a multitude.
Exodus 23:2b …nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice.” would mean it is always a sin to testify in a dispute.
Deut. 24:10 “When thou dost lend thy brother any thing, thou shalt not go into his house to fetch his pledge.” would mean it is always a sin to go into your brother’s house while he owes you something.
Often the most important aspect of context is immediate context, as in, the rest of the verse.
SWIM?
[Bob Hayton] Thanks Eric, that helps a lot. A simple illustration…No, I don’t SWYM, Eric & Bob. Your logic is far short of valid criticism, for you are not following in context of what I have said all along. This statement of action you quote was a response to Chip Van Emmerik to indicate complicity in making someone drunk.
If you had understood what I’ve said, the condemnation is giving to someone to drink, which you know, undoubtedly, will make him drunk. The result of the drunkenness is often uninhibited nakedness, as also found in the next verse, Hab. 2:16 KJV. The Authorized Version’s translation does not use “in order to,” but “that thou mayest.” Coupled with v. 16, it appears in context (which you are promoting to consider) to be more the result of the drunkenness, rather than a wicked motive for making one drunk.
After all, becoming naked may or may not occur; there are no guarantee. The fact that it is mentioned here, indicates that lewdness and uninhibited behavior often are the result of intoxication, and (e.g., v. 16) it can happen to you. The main force of the verse is: “Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also…” Hab. 2:15 KJV.
In your logic, you did not include with the action, the primary result. Therefore your illustrations fail.
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
Silverghost, I’m sorry if I misunderstood your earlier argument. I must confess, I’m still a little confused after your explanation. So that I don’t further misunderstand or misrepresent you, may I ask a clarifying question?
[quote Sliverghost] The result of the drunkenness is often uninhibited nakedness… The Authorized Version’s translation does not use “in order to,” but “that thou mayest.”Are you taking “that thou mayest” in v. 15 to indicate result and not purpose. (The two are certainly closely related, yet still distinct in important ways.)
I’m going to have to bow out of this one soon. Certainly not trying to be rude, but I have to budget my time on SI and this one is lower on the priority list. I was just reading it as a curiosity and couldn’t help but jump in a little.
[quote Sliverghost] The result of the drunkenness is often uninhibited nakedness… The Authorized Version’s translation does not use “in order to,” but “that thou mayest.”Are you taking “that thou mayest” in v. 15 to indicate result and not purpose. (The two are certainly closely related, yet still distinct in important ways.)
I’m going to have to bow out of this one soon. Certainly not trying to be rude, but I have to budget my time on SI and this one is lower on the priority list. I was just reading it as a curiosity and couldn’t help but jump in a little.
[Eric R.] Silverghost, I’m sorry if I misunderstood your earlier argument. I must confess, I’m still a little confused after your explanation. So that I don’t further misunderstand or misrepresent you, may I ask a clarifying question?Are you taking “that thou mayest” in v. 15 to indicate result and not purpose. (The two are certainly closely related, yet still distinct in important ways.)
[quote Sliverghost] The result of the drunkenness is often uninhibited nakedness… The Authorized Version’s translation does not use “in order to,” but “that thou mayest.”
I’m going to have to bow out of this one soon. Certainly not trying to be rude, but I have to budget my time on SI and this one is lower on the priority list. I was just reading it as a curiosity and couldn’t help but jump in a little. Certainly, Eric. Just saw the prompt on email, so I’m replying…Yes, because of v.16, especially, I believe that the words, “that thou mayest” are the shameful results of the perpetrators actions, rather than the motive of that sinner instrumental in making him drunk. In v.16, it is the natural results of drunken stupor.
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
I’m well aware of Noah and his drunkenness, but your statement that wine was not alcoholic before the flood has not been answered. The sin that called down the wrath of the Almighty would have been complete in all it’s manifestations and alcohol plays a large part in all manner of sins. Messiah said that it would be as it was in the days of Noah, ”people giving each other in marriage”. Are we not to conclude that there were marriage celebrations just as there was at Cana? What you are saying has no foundation in scripture.
MH is implying that Noah was surprised by his sin. If his sin had been any other than drunkenness he would have still been surprised. It doesn’t imply that Noah didn’t know the effects of wine.
MH is implying that Noah was surprised by his sin. If his sin had been any other than drunkenness he would have still been surprised. It doesn’t imply that Noah didn’t know the effects of wine.
Discussion