The True Gladness of Wine

The debate over whether Christians ought to consume alcohol is not only an old one but, on the Web at least, a tired one. Much of the tiredness, though, is due to an excess of passion and a shortage of precision. Quarreling has been abundant and arguing scarce. I hope to contribute a bit here to the argument rather than the quarrel.

One example of arguing rather than quarreling dates back to the spring of 2006. I gather that Bob Bixby posted a case against the use of alcoholic beverages by Christians.1 Bob Hayton responded, in part, with an essay entitled “Wine to Gladden the Heart of Man”: Thoughts on God’s Good Gift of Wine. In the essay, Bob Hayton argues not only that “God gave us wine to bring us joy,” but also that the joy He had in mind is an effect of wine’s alcohol specifically.

Speaking of Judges 9:13, Ecclesiastes 10:19, and Zechariah 10:7, Bob observes:

It should be clear that even the intoxicating nature of wine is being praised, here. Wine lifts the spirit and gladdens the heart long before it actually overtakes you and makes one drunk. Wine can be enjoyed and its effects relished without losing control and becoming drunken.

This theme runs through the eight points that form the main structure of the essay. Following the eight points, a section focuses on counterarguments related to the biblical warnings against wine and the use of weaker brother passages. Though Bob wrote the post some years ago, I became aware of it during a discussion here at SI last year and pledged to write a response sometime. Here it is.

A little perspective

Before I delve into the particulars, a bit of framing. First, I believe that the decision to use (non-medicinal) alcohol judiciously or to abstain from it completely is a matter of conscience. Believers must apply the Scriptures and be fully persuaded in their own minds (Rom. 14:5) and must not despise one another (Rom. 14:3, 10) for arriving at different conclusions.

That said, matters of conscience (or liberty) are not matters we should avoid discussing or examining carefully.2 We owe it to our Lord, ourselves, and one another to have a conscience that is as clearly and truthfully informed as possible.

So it’s in that spirit that I’m going to try to upend the argument in Bob’s essay. I have the highest regard for him and for many of those who share his views on this question.

The eight points

In support of the idea that wine is God’s gift and we should enjoy it (the effect of its alcohol in particular), the essay offers eight points with supporting Scriptures:

  1. Wine is a gift of the goodness of God (Jer. 31:12-4, Ps. 104:14-15, 1 Tim.4:1-5).
  2. Wine produces joy—it “gladdens the heart” (Judg. 9:13, Ecc. 10:19 NASB, Zech. 10:7. See also Prov. 31:6-7, Jer. 16:7-8).
  3. Wine is used in rejoicing before God (Deut. 14:22-26, Isa. 62:8-9, Deut. 12:17-19. See also use of wine in drink offerings: Ex. 29:40, Num. 15:5, 2 Chron. 31:5, Deut. 8:4).
  4. Abundance of wine is a particular blessing from God (Joel 2:24-26, 3:18; Gen. 27:28; Deut. 7:13).
  5. Having no wine was a hardship or a judgment of God (Amos 5:11, Deut. 29:2-6. See also Deut. 18:39, Mic. 6:15, Zeph. 1:13).
  6. The absence of wine results in the absence of joy (Isa. 24:7-11, Jer. 48:33, Is. 16:10).
  7. Drinking wine is singularly festive, joyful, and celebratory (Ecc. 9:7, Isa. 22:13, Job 1:13, Esther 1, 1 Chron. 12:39ff, Gen 27:25 and several others).
  8. Wine will be part of the future feasting in Christ’s kingdom (Isa. 25:6-9, Jer. 31:12-14, Matt. 26:29, Luke 22:28-30, Matt. 8:11, Luke 13:29, etc.).

Points of agreement and contention

The crux of this particular debate is really not the eight points themselves but whether they truly support the thesis. Isolated from a particular conclusion, seven of the eight points are solid and well supported by Scripture. (Point six should probably be merged with point five since the passages listed there do not indicate a cause-effect relationship.)

But the argument as a whole hinges on a particular definition of “wine” and a particular view of wine’s relationship to one of its usual ingredients (alcohol). Since the pro-wine position needs to argue that fruit of the vine without alcohol is not a suitable modern-day substitute, it must attribute the blessings of wine to alcohol specifically. The thesis, then, is effectively that alcohol is a blessing God gave us to make us glad. Most advocates of the judicious use of wine maintain that if there is no alcohol, the beverage simply isn’t wine.

This is my main point of contention: Where passages do not clearly indicate the effects of intoxication (whether slight or severe), “wine” cannot be used validly as a synonym for “alcohol.”

The old non-alcoholic wine argument

At this point, I’m sure some have got me pigeon-holed as a proponent of the old “Christian people drank non-alcoholic wine” argument. But this is not where I’m going. I believe God’s people consumed wine with alcohol on a regular basis.

But does it follow that if wine usually contained alcohol, every statement in Scripture extolling wine is also extolling alcohol? A closer look at some of the passages Bob uses in his essay suggests an answer.

But the vine said to them, “Should I cease my new wine,
Which cheers both God and men,
And go to sway over trees?” (NKJV, Judg. 9:13)

Here, the “wine” cheers both God and men. Presumably, it cheers them both in a similar way—but how would God experience the cheer that comes from the early stages of intoxication? Since God is a spirit, the cheer in this passage is evidently not directly related to any ingredient the wine contains—and doesn’t even depend on drinking it. (Arguably, we could take this as a reference to God incarnate physically enjoying wine, but it seems less strained to see the cheer here as referring to the gladness of witnessing an abundant harvest.)

Joy and gladness are taken
From the plentiful field
And from the land of Moab;
I have caused wine to fail from the winepresses;
No one will tread with joyous shouting—
Not joyous shouting! (Jer. 48:33)

Gladness is taken away,
And joy from the plentiful field;
In the vineyards there will be no singing,
Nor will there be shouting;
No treaders will tread out wine in the presses;
I have made their shouting cease. (Isa. 16:10)

Consider this: how much alcohol does the “wine” in these verses contain? Here the term refers to the product of the press at the time it comes from the press—a liquid containing no alcohol at all. This use of “wine” in reference to the not-yet-fermented fruit of the vine is not unique. In Jeremiah 40:10 and 12 “wine” is what is “gathered.” In Amos 9:13, “wine” is what the mountains are dripping with. In Haggai 2:16, “wine” is still in the vat, and in Isaiah 65:8 the substance is “wine” even while still in the cluster!

Though it’s true (as far as I can tell) that wine was nearly always consumed with alcohol in it, the evidence does not support using “wine” as a synonym for “alcohol,” nor may we treat alcohol as an essential attribute. We can’t assume that all references to “wine” say something meaningful about alcohol in particular.

The real gladness

If we accept that “wine” does not refer to alcohol specifically, or even consistently to a beverage containing alcohol, we’re free to look at the wine-and-gladness passages with more openness and to allow the context to carry more weight in understanding what each reference reveals.

What that look reveals is that most of the passages which associate wine with gladness are about the gladness of physical nourishment or refreshment, the gladness of abundant harvest or the gladness of God’s blessing in general (many of these passages associate cheer with food as well in the same context). Most of the passages that associate lack of wine with sorrow are really about famine and loss due to God’s judgment. Few of these passages are actually about wine. Nearly all refer to it in service to some larger point.

The table below classifies all of the primary texts from Bob’s essay, and most of the secondary ones as well. (Some passages could be classified under more than one heading.)

Passages associating wine with the gladness of abundant harvest or God’s blessing in general

Jeremiah 31:12-14, Deuteronomy 14:22-26, Zechariah 10:7, Judges 9:13, Isaiah 25:6-9, Isaiah 62:8-9

Passages associating wine with the gladness of nourishment or the pleasure of eating and drinking

Psalm 104:14-15, Ecclesiastes 10:19

Passages associating lack of wine with the sorrow of meager harvest or loss of God’s blessing in general (judgment)

Amos 5:11, Deuteronomy 29:2-6, Deuteronomy 28:39, Micah 6:15, Zephaniah 1:13, Isaiah 24:7-11, Jeremiah 48:33, Isaiah 16:10

Passages associating wine with gladness vaguely (specific reference to intoxicating property not clear, but possible)

Ecclesiastes 9:7, Isaiah 22:13, Song of Solomon 1:2-3, 4:10 (and others in Song of Solomon)

Passages not associating wine with gladness (mostly with other items representative of God’s provision and grace)

Exodus 29:40, Numbers 15:5, 2 Chronicles 31:5, Deuteronomy 12:17-19, Joel 2:24-26, Joel 3:18, Genesis 27:28, Deuteronomy 7:13, Matthew 26:29 (and Luke 22:17, 20), 1 Corinthians 11:21

Passages simply indicating that wine was consumed along with food, mostly on some special occasion

Job 1:13, Esther 1:7, 1 Chronicles 12:39-40, Genesis 27:25, Luke 7:33-34

Passages referring to medicinal use of wine

Proverbs 31:6-7

Passages that do not mention wine but would fit under one of the other headings if wine is assumed

1 Timothy 4:1-5, Luke 13:29, Luke 22:28-30, Matthew 8:11

Since the gladness and cheer in these passages do not depend specifically on the presence of alcohol, those who enjoy the fresh juice of the grape (or of the grapefruit, for that matter) cannot be accurately characterized as rejecting the blessing of “wine” or of missing out on the biblical gladness it brings.

Notes

1 Bixby’s post appears to be no longer available.

2 I also do not believe there is any reason that congregations may not agree together on some matters of conscience/liberty that they deem to have special importance and include these convictions as part of their membership standard.

Aaron Blumer Bio

Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.

Discussion

A few late comments:

My heart has often been made glad without the use of drugs.

As Aaron has already pointed out, the biblical words for wine referred to both alcoholic and nonalcoholic wine. Interestingly, in Matthew 9:17 Jesus referred to both, unfermented and fermented as “wine” (oinos).

The Bible never condones alcohol, it condones wine. Scripture never describes alcoholic wine (by it’s effects, as in Proverbs 23) and then says, drink it. To say the Bible condones alcohol is to read that into Scripture.

Ancients could, in multiple ways, preserve unfermented wine or grape juice. In fact, it was easier for them to preserve wine unfermented, than to preserve it fermented.

Alcohol is a poison and intoxicate means to ingest a toxin or poison (also pointed out by Aaron). Wine is even directly called a mocker (Proverbs 20:1).

Scripture directly says not to drink. Proverbs 23 describes the alcoholic type of wine and says not to even look at it. 1 Thessalonians 5:6-8 says to be sober (nepho - literally “wineless”). Biblical principles also condemn the taking of a drug for recreational purposes.

David R. Brumbelow

As to Isaiah 25:6

The word used in the original Hebrew is not wine, but a word that means preserved things (and you can, or not, translate that as wine). See Young’s Literal Translation.

It should also be restated that unfermented wine could be preserved, just as they could preserve fermented wine. You could also have either on the lees. Either fermented or unfermented wine can improve, and enhance flavors with age.

So this verse really proves nothing on either side about the subject of abstaining from beverage alcohol.

Matthew 26:29 should also be considered with Isaiah 25:6

Matthew 26:29

But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

Apparently Jesus abstains from alcoholic wine, and for now even nonalcoholic, or new wine.

David R. Brumbelow

[David R. Brumbelow] As to Isaiah 25:6

The word used in the original Hebrew is not wine, but a word that means preserved things (and you can, or not, translate that as wine). See Young’s Literal Translation.

It should also be restated that unfermented wine could be preserved, just as they could preserve fermented wine. You could also have either on the lees. Either fermented or unfermented wine can improve, and enhance flavors with age.

So this verse really proves nothing on either side about the subject of abstaining from beverage alcohol.

Matthew 26:29 should also be considered with Isaiah 25:6

Matthew 26:29

But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

Apparently Jesus abstains from alcoholic wine, and for now even nonalcoholic, or new wine.

David R. Brumbelow
David I think this verse actually works against you not for you. Jesus was simply saying he would not be physically present with his disciples to drink wine with them (except for the short period following his resurrection) until he was with them again in the kingdom. The disciples didn’t take Jesus to be commanding them to abstain, because they didn’t.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Yeah David, I mean, either you have to say that Jesus is abstaining from alcoholic wine, and that the wine at the Lord’s Table was alcoholic wine, or that he’s abstaining from grape juice and that the Lord’s Table was grape juice. Either the disciples were to drink this alcoholic cup and proclaim the Lord’s death till he comes, or Jesus wasn’t talking about alcoholic wine in that passage at all. You can’t use it in one way and not the other.

that some Christians would have wanted to put Jesus in jail for turning water into wine in John 2?

For my brothers and sisters who believe that every Christian should abstain from alcohol for any other reason but “medicinal,” would you change your mind if you were convinced that Jesus turned water into a substance to be drunk at a wedding that contained alcohol?

I’m not asking for your opinion on whether or not you believe the substance that Jesus created contained alcohol, but merely asking if you would change your opinion of when it should be drunk if you believe He did.

If those of you who believe in abstine

nce for all Christians except for “medicinal” purposes(or something very close to this position,) would please respond, I would be grateful.

I would like to follow up with a different thought after this little survey.

I appreciate your response.

The basis of my belief is not in the theory of whether wine=grape juice or that the dilution of alcohol back then is different than today. I feel that in this day and age where alcohol is such a bain in this society that I Cor. 6:12 makes it awfully difficult or me to ok alcohol for recreational use.

Timothy must have held that position for himself, being a pastor in asia minor. Paul had to encourage him to go ahead and drink wine for his stomach’s sake. He must have been an abstainer.

Greg,

In Matthew Jesus was saying He would drink wine new. That is a strong indication He was speaking of unfermented wine.

Bill,

I’m not sure what you’re getting at, but if Jesus made alcohol at Cana, that would endorse the use of alcohol. Interestingly, Scripture never says Jesus made alcohol; that is an assumption, an interpretation. Yes, mine is also an interpretation since oinos can be either one. But I think I have strong evidence for my position.

Shaynus,

Not sure I understand you. I do not believe Jesus drank or made alcoholic wine. I do not believe the disciples drank alcoholic wine at the Last Supper; it doesn‘t even use the word wine, but cup or fruit of the vine. Josephus used fruit of the vine to refer to obviously unfermented wine. It should be remembered when we see “wine” in Scripture, unless it is explained, it can mean either fermented or unfermented wine. They could easily preserve unfermented wine.

Barry,

I agree that Timothy was clearly an abstainer. And it is not certain that Paul was recommending alcoholic wine. Non alcoholic wine has numerous health benefits. To not offend, some in ancient times would not even drink unfermented wine. Either way, it was simply recommending wine for medicinal use.

David R. Brumbelow

[David R. Brumbelow]

So this verse really proves nothing on either side about the subject of abstaining from beverage alcohol.

Matthew 26:29 should also be considered with Isaiah 25:6

Matthew 26:29

But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

Apparently Jesus abstains from alcoholic wine, and for now even nonalcoholic, or new wine.
[Shaynus]

Lord’s Table wine

Yeah David, I mean, either you have to say that Jesus is abstaining from alcoholic wine, and that the wine at the Lord’s Table was alcoholic wine, or that he’s abstaining from grape juice and that the Lord’s Table was grape juice. Either the disciples were to drink this alcoholic cup and proclaim the Lord’s death till he comes, or Jesus wasn’t talking about alcoholic wine in that passage at all. You can’t use it in one way and not the other.
[David R. Brumbelow]

Shaynus,

Not sure I understand you. I do not believe Jesus drank or made alcoholic wine. I do not believe the disciples drank alcoholic wine at the Last Supper; it doesn‘t even use the word wine, but cup or fruit of the vine. Josephus used fruit of the vine to refer to obviously unfermented wine. It should be remembered when we see “wine” in Scripture, unless it is explained, it can mean either fermented or unfermented wine. They could easily preserve unfermented wine.

Barry,

I agree that Timothy was clearly an abstainer. And it is not certain that Paul was recommending alcoholic wine. Non alcoholic wine has numerous health benefits. To not offend, some in ancient times would not even drink unfermented wine. Either way, it was simply recommending wine for medicinal use.

David R. Brumbelow
It seems to me that you’re making an argument something like this:

Jesus in Matt 26:29 abstained from alcoholic wine until his kingdom.

We are to be like Jesus.

Therefore we are to abstain from alcoholic wine.

But that’s not including the rest of that same passage. Jesus instituted the same cup at the Lord’s Supper that he told us he refused. It’s the same imagery (Cup = Cup). If you make a point that Jesus abstains to this day from alcoholic wine (which I agree with), then you also have to say that the apostles and the church should not abstain at the Table, but rather proclaim the Lord’s death till he comes by the very same cup. That’s why Greg Long could say with surety that the disciples did not abstain. They observed the Lord’s Supper of course.

If you say that the Lord’s Supper did not use alcoholic wine, then you have to say that the cup He was refering to in the Matt 26:29 passage was not alcoholic either. Therefore you can’t make any determination about Jesus’ abstinence from the time of his death until now.

Does that make sense? I hope it does. I hate to do drive-by criticism, but I don’t think your original point makes any sense in the context of the passage you were using.

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.



(Matthew 26:26-30 ESV)

In context, “this” fruit is talking about the cup he had just served. It makes no sense to be talking about two different wines. “This” refers to the present cup before them clearly. The disciples wouldn’t have been able to make sense of two different wines Jesus talked about, and His statement wouldn’t make sense if he was bringing up different kind of cup.

David,

One question. Do you advocate the two wine theory? Seems like it…

Your point seems to be a great example of the exegetical gymnastics one has to go through to believe the theory, or at least to make it useful.

Shaynus

Bob,

Getting back to you on the “merry heart” reasoning. I guess I’m not clear what the reasoning there is.

It doesn’t follow that if two things have a quality in common then they must also have some other quality/qualities in common.

It also doesn’t follow that A and B both result in C, then B must produce it the same way A does.

But there’s another problem. If we reason that drunkeness —> “merry heart” and wine—>”merry heart” therefore the alcohol in wine is what’s in view in passages like Eccles. 9.7 and Isaiah 24.7, these passages are not condoning anything. They’re simply stating that when famine and judgment come there will be no wine and none of the gladness the wine would bring. It’s a true statement regardless of what sort of gladness we take it to mean… but it says nothing about either the ethics of obtaining gladness from wine in a particular way or about the blessedness of wine being linked to a particular kind of gladness.

As for Welch… It’s common for wine advocates to say Welch invented grape juice. This is clearly not true. The first person to crush a grape invented grape juice (probably Adam or Eve). What filled the vats and flowed from the presses was grape juice. But there was no separate word for that. Grape juice with or without fermentation was “wine.”

This is not a “two wines” idea, it’s a wine continuum idea. Wine was everything from the contents of the grape to the highly diluted fermented drink to the intentionally concentrated form.

Some posted earlier the question whether it would make any difference to believers in abstinence if they knew Jesus created and drank alcoholic wine at Cana. I can only speak for myself on that point. Supposing hypothetically that Jesus created and consumed fermented wine at Cana, no, it would not change my conviction about what’s appropriate today. The reason is that the strongest case against alcohol consumption today is not dependent on what was or wasn’t consumed in ancient times.

One response about the analogies thing: if we grant for the sake of argument that sex or salt or something else are strong analogies for alcohol, the most the analogy can establish is that the substance may be used judiciously. This is really not in dispute. The debate is over what constitutes judicious/appropriate use. For total abstainers, it’s limited to medical use. For some others, it’s limited to beverage use with a meal etc., but not for pursuing mood alteration. For others, it’s appropriate to use it for mood alteration but not for drunkenness.

Each will have to be fully persuaded in his own mind, of course.

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.

I’m going to stick to the main post for my last response here. Aaron’s reply brings us back to this main point again.
Bob,

Getting back to you on the “merry heart” reasoning. I guess I’m not clear what the reasoning there is.

It doesn’t follow that if two things have a quality in common then they must also have some other quality/qualities in common.

It also doesn’t follow that A and B both result in C, then B must produce it the same way A does.

But there’s another problem. If we reason that drunkeness —> “merry heart” and wine—>”merry heart” therefore the alcohol in wine is what’s in view in passages like Eccles. 9.7 and Isaiah 24.7, these passages are not condoning anything. They’re simply stating that when famine and judgment come there will be no wine and none of the gladness the wine would bring. It’s a true statement regardless of what sort of gladness we take it to mean… but it says nothing about either the ethics of obtaining gladness from wine in a particular way or about the blessedness of wine being linked to a particular kind of gladness.
Aaron, I think you’re needlessly limiting this to “merry” hearts, so you choose just Eccles. 9:7 and Is. 24:7 (rather than expanding it to “joy” and “make glad” and choosing other texts too). If we establish that a merry heart is what is happening with drunkenness, then it is clear the wine has a causal role in this. The wine is causing them to have a merry heart in a particular sort of way. That is clearly what’s happening in 1 Sam. 25:36 (and the other passages I list in http://sharperiron.org/comment/41678#comment-41678] this comment ).

So I posit a causal role for wine. Wine causes merriness (the sort that is displayed by drunken people, as well as other sorts of merriness). You are saying that wine brings gladness and merriment generally and not particularly, and it is joy in the harvest and all that. This may be, but we have in 1 Sam. 25 and these other passages a statement that wine causes a particular sort of merriness and that this is a causal connection.

It is this which should impact how we view other passages like Judges 9:13 and Ps. 104:15, to name a few. God gave wine “to gladden the heart of men”. The causal element is clear. In that passage oil was given to make faces shine. Bread was given to strengthen man. And wine was given to give him joy. And I conclude that all this stuff about wine and joy - is organically connected (not to rule out other sorts of joy too in the greater contexts of all this, but at least this organic joy too).

I can agree that this is an interpretation. But it is aided by the general consensus that fermented wine was definitely being partaken of in the OT times for sure and also NT times. You seem to agree with that consensus. I do agree that my view doesn’t have to be the only view of what these verses teach because it isn’t as explicit as that. But when read together, all the texts on wine and joy. And seeing the context of 1 Sam. 25 and other such passages. I conclude that God gave wine to man for our good and for the temporary relief of stress and other health benefits that it brings - and to give us the joy that we have when we drink good wine with good friends and people. This festal joy was God’s gift to man and God designed all of this when he created the natural fermentation process and the gift of wine.

Now others have brought up Prov. 23, and I have addressed that already in this post: http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2008/08/10/proverbs-23-and-a-unive… Proverbs 23 And a Universal Prohibition of Alcohol . Proverbs is poetic language and that impacts how we interpret that passage.

I’m going to leave the thread now, and basically just leave it at this (if I can resist the urge to jump back in). I think I’ve said my piece and this is enough. Thanks for the interaction.

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] This festal joy was God’s gift to man and God designed all of this when he created the natural fermentation process and the gift of wine.
Two separate thoughts:

a) Did God create the “natural” fermentation process?

b) Did God create humans to be impacted, possibly to drunkenness, by a process that renders squishing of grapes gradually toxic to the human body? In other words, were Adam and Eve, prior to the fall, capable of becoming intoxicated if there was actually a process that God’s created fruit of grapes underwent resulting in a fluidic substance that contained a toxin?

Neither of those can be proven no more than one can prove God created a process that would result in squished grapes to develop into a toxin or that he created humans to be able to be impacted by such a toxin to the point of drunkenness. That’s all I’m saying.

Jason

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)

Shaynus,

I believe the wine (actually called cup, fruit of the vine) at the Last Supper and the Lord’s Supper was unfermented wine. I believe it was this type of wine Jesus said He would drink again in the kingdom.

I believe the Bible both directly and indirectly condemns alcohol.

The two-wine theory is frankly not a theory, but a fact. It is a fact that the Bible speaks of both fermented and unfermented wine. The same words were used to refer to either one. Ancient writers also did this. A few examples of unfermented wine called wine in Scripture: Proverbs 3:10; Isaiah 16:10; Lamentations 2:11-12; Joel 2:24; Mark 2:22.

Aristotle said sweet wine would not intoxicate. Aristotle said “must” is a kind of wine. Plutarch wrote trying to figure out why some wine intoxicated and some did not. Plato said he was sending sweet wine to the children. Ancient wine recipes are given that could not have possibly been fermented. Many more examples could be given.

They used “wine” to refer to both fermented and unfermented, just like today we use words that can refer to either one; words like: cider, punch, eggnog, liquor, drink.

They obviously had alcoholic wine in Bible times. They also obviously had, and preserved, unfermented wine.

David R. Brumbelow