Did Jesus Turn Water into Wine or Grape Juice?

click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed

Did Jesus Turn Water into Wine or Grape Juice?

by C Michael PattonNovember 12th, 2012

136 Comments

The issue of alcohol and the Christian is an incredibly volatile subject causing great division and stern judgments on both sides. I have been deeply affected by this issue myself, as I have many friends and family members who are controlled by alcohol. I am not a teetotaler, but I rarely drink. I don’t like wine. Some beers are pretty good. I like tequila. But if the consumption of alcohol were made illegal, I would not even really notice.

There are so many different positions out there with regard to this issue. Let me try to name a few:

Those who abstain from alcohol and believe that this is the biblical position for everyone.
Those who abstain from alcohol but don’t believe this is a biblical mandate to enforce on others.
Those who drink alcohol only for “celebratory” purposes (i.e., Lord’s table), but don’t get drunk.
Those who casually drink wine or beer, but abstain from “hard liquor” and don’t get drunk.
Those who casually drink alcohol in order to feel “merry” or “tipsy” but don’t get drunk.
Those who drink alcohol and get drunk occasionally but are not “drunkards” (i.e. addicted).

Outside of this, all Christians would (or should) agree that being addicted to alcohol is expressly forbidden in Scripture, as it relinquishes control of our faculties to alcohol rather than to the Holy Spirit (Eph. 5:18). Paul warns Timothy about such abuses with regard to the qualifications of a deacon (1 Tim. 3:8) and elders (1 Tim. 3:3).

I am not going to discuss here which of the above positions is correct. However, I do want to discuss one passage of Scripture that infuses the debate over alcohol with great passion. It is the subject of Christ and his relation to alcohol while here on earth. Most specifically, I want to ask the question of whether Christ, during the miracle at the Wedding of Cana in John 2, turned the water into wine, unfermented grape juice, or something else. Here is the text:

John 2:1-11
On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. 3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” 5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” 6 Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. 7 Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And he said to them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast.” So they took it. 9 When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom 10 and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.” 11 This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.

This question raised by this passage does indeed contribute a great deal to the overall debate. For if Christ turned the water into an alcoholic beverage, then his participation in the issue certainly does not bode well for those who preach that the biblical position requires Christians to abstain from alcohol altogether. He would have been serving as a bartender, if you will, at a celebration where abuse of alcohol certainly may have taken place. More than that, there is no reason to doubt that he himself would have drunk this wine.

Yet some maintain that the wine Jesus produced was a non-fermented type of wine called “new wine” (kainos neos). In this case, it would be like grape juice. Others believe that the wine Jesus created was watered down so much that one would have to suffer a severe bladder problem in order to get drunk. However, neither of these interpretations are supported by the best textual scholarship, and seem to be driven by a desire to maintain a rigid teetotaler position.

New Wine is Unfermented Wine?

R. A. Torrey does a good job of representing the position that the wine Christ provided was unfermented “new wine.”

“[Jesus] provided wine, but there is not a hint that the wine He made was intoxicating. It was fresh-made wine. New-made wine is never intoxicating. It is not intoxicating until some time after the process of fermentation has set in. Fermentation is a process of decay. There is not a hint that our Lord produced alcohol, which is a product of decay or death. He produced a living wine uncontaminated by fermentation. It is true it was better wine than they had been drinking, but that does not show for a moment that it was more fermented than that which they had before been drinking” (Difficulties in the Bible).

However, there are significant problems with this argument. New wine was fermented. Its ability to cause intoxication is well represented in the Scriptures (Is 49:26; Hos 4:11; cf. Judg 9:13; see “Wine” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. 1992 [J. B. Green, S. McKnight & I. H. Marshall, Ed.], 870, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).

The happenings in Acts 2 represent this well. Having received the gift of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, the Apostles are speaking in tongues and sharing the Gospel with the people. Some people are amazed, but others accuse the Apostles of being intoxicated.

Acts 2:13:
“But others, mocking, said, ‘They are filled with new wine’.”

How could the Apostles be accused of being intoxicated from a drink that is not fermented? There is no indication, either in the culture of the day or in the Bible, that there was such a thing as unfermented wine. Wine is wine because it is fermented.

Some scholars have attempted to contrast the two Hebrew terms for wine in the Old Testament to make a case that one was unfermented grape juice. However, the evidence does not support such a conclusion. Leaning heavily on C. Seltman, Wine in the Ancient World, the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible draws this conclusion about the term that is purported to refer to grape juice:

(1) The Hebrew word is found in primarily neutral contexts; (2) often that particular word is found in contexts definitely including a fermented beverage (e.g., Gn 27:28; Hos 4:11; Mi 6:15); (3) the Ugaritic parallel to the term in question refers with certainty to a fermented wine (4) the Septuagint equivalents refer to fermented wine; (5) fermentation in the ancient Near East, unlike Greece, took only about three days, and (6) the Mishna provides no such evidence of the practice of having unfermented wine. There seems to have been no attempts to preserve wine in an unfermented state; it may have been a near impossible task.

It would seem that, for the Hebrews, there is no way to use the term “grape juice” as a substitute for wine. The article concludes: “A careful examination of all the Hebrew words (as well as their Semitic cognates) and the Greek words for wine demonstrates that the ancients knew little, if anything, about unfermented wine.

Watered Down Wine?

Some make the case that the wine used in the New Testament was so watered down that it was nearly impossible to cause one to get drunk. Norman Geisler make such a case:

Wine today has a much higher level of alcohol than wine in the New Testament. In fact in New Testament times one would need to drink twenty-two glasses of wine in order to consume the large amount of alcohol in two martinis today. (“A Christian Perspective on Wine-Drinking” Bibliotheca Sacra, Issue 553, 1982).

However, this does not seem to be the case. Geisler is assuming a mixture evidenced by some ancient Greeks. Homer writes about a water to wine ratio of 20 to 1 (Homer, Odyssey 10. 208f). However, this may be because the wine was so strong! The Mishna, which represents a better accounting of the Hebrew usage of wine, assumes a ratio of two parts of water to one part wine. The Talmudic sources speak of three to one. Wine often would contain 15% alcohol. Even if it were mixed with three parts of water, this would put it at 5% alcohol. This is a higher percentage than much beer today! Pliny, the Roman Senator writing in the first century, spoke about wine that could hold a flame. For this to happen, it would had to have been in excess of 30% alcohol! No wonder some speak of adding twenty parts water.

Not only this, but wine diluted with water was symbolic of spiritual adulteration. Isaiah 1:22, speaking to the infidelity of the nation of Israel, says, “Your silver has become dross, your best wine mixed with water.” Just before this, God gives this rebuke: “How the faithful city has become a whore, she who was full of justice! Righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers.” The nation had gone astray. It is not seen as a good thing to have diluted wine.

Further (and most importantly) the story of Jesus at the wedding does not support a conclusion that the wine Jesus made was either excessively watered down or grape juice. After the head waiter had tasted the wine Jesus made, he went to the bridegroom and said this: “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.” What Jesus created was “good wine.” According to the waiter, the custom was to serve the “good wine” first; then, when the people had “drunk” much of the wine, they served the cheaper wine. This word for “drunk” is methusko, which means “to become intoxicated.” It is the same word used in Ephesians 5:18, “Do not get drunk [methusko] with wine…” (see also Luke 12:45; 1 Thes 5:7; Rev. 17:12). The only testimony we have about the state of the wine Christ created is the headwaiter’s review of it, and he suggests that it is the type that can intoxicate (i.e., it was fermented). It is very difficult to draw any other conclusion.

Added to this, there is no reason to believe that Christ himself did not drink this fermented wine. It is evident that He drank wine at the passover (Mark 14:23). In fact, Christ seemed to have made a habit of drinking wine. According to his own testimony, he drank wine that others abstained from.

For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!” (Luke 7:33-34).

John the Baptist took a Nazirite vow and abstained from alcohol. But Christ did not. He explicitly says that he came “eating and drinking.” Because of this, others accused him of being a drunkard.

The implications for all of this are important in the discussion about alcohol and the Christian. Christ, in celebration of the Kingdom, produced an alcoholic beverage that could intoxicate. Christ was a bartender! This certainly does not solve any of the problems associated with alcohol. The problems are tremendous. But to be controlled by alcohol is not a modern problem. This problem has been around since ancient times. However, this does not mean that God forbids things that have the potential to be destructive. We must be careful that we don’t legislate God. It is not unlike issues of gun control, sugar consumption, or tobacco. All of these have potential to hurt people, all of these have a history of hurting people, all of these have people who attempt to force moderation or abstinence, but none of them are forbidden by God. We must be careful in what we attempt to forbid, even if the legislation is for a good purpose. The solution for problems associated with alcohol is not a mandate for abstinence, but education concerning its dangers.

136 Comments

bethyada says:

November 12, 2012 at 3:03 am

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 13
The answer to your title is wine.

Added support comes from 1 Corinthians 11:20 where some get drunk during the Lord’s supper. Paul condemns such behaviour, but it could hardly occur unless they were drinking wine.

The real conundrum in this post is how you can like beer but hate wine? Who was the cruel sod who scoured your childhood taste buds?
Deborah says:

November 12, 2012 at 3:17 am

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 11
Agreed! I’ve always found the whole “it was grape juice, not wine” thing to be laughable. I worked at a winery for many years so I know of what I speak. ) Thomas B Welch only learned how to stop grape juice from fermenting (by pasteurizing it) in 1869. And, getting back to the water-to- wine miracle story itself, everyone seems to not “get” what the master of ceremonies said about the wine. He said most hosts bring out the good wine first, then later on when the guests have had their fill, they bring out the bad wine. Why? Because by that time the people would be so intoxicated and/or buzzing and would not notice (or even care!) that the quality of the wine had gotten worse.
Mark Nigro says:

November 12, 2012 at 4:41 am

Like or Dislike: 3
This is indeed an issue that needs discussion. Much of the controversy is linked more to the culture and one’s perception of Christianity within it, rather than to Christianity itself. In the USA alcohol is taboo. Speak with believers from, say, Europe, and it’s quite a different story. Evangelical Churches here in Italy have great difficulty understanding abstinence to alcohol among American evangelicals. And in our congregation specifically the issue has come up more than once due to our culturally diverse composition (including Americans). Pastoring in a cross cultural ministry I have seen first hand the importance of cutting through the thickets of tradition and culturally related misconceptions in order to let the Biblical speak and be our trendsetter.
Mike O says:

November 12, 2012 at 5:30 am

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 10
I agree with everything you’re saying here. But we must remember that there *are* different positions on this subject. We should be careful not to flaunt our freedom and become a stumbling block to others.

For me, I like an occasional beer or sometimes my wife and I will make “treats” for ourselves for a quiet evening together. But we used to hold leadership positions in a denomination that taught that all drinking was a sin. And while we were in leadership positions there, we did not drink. At all. It would have been an offense and a stumbling block to them. Not to mention rebellion and disobedience to authority.

Romans 14:1-4 – Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

So regardless of where WE come down on the issue, we must be careful not to judge others who come down in a different place. And, practically speaking, when in the company of brothers and sisters in the lord who will struggle with your drinking, honor them and abstain. Even in your own house (IMO) why risk a stumbling block? Unless your freedom to drink is that important to you, but then that leads to a whole other question …

Likewise, if you abstain, don’t let your abstinence become a stumbling block of law to those who don’t. If they drink, let them. Do not judge them. You hold to your own spiritual moorings, and let them hold to theirs. As Paul said, “God has accepted them,” and “they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.”
Mike O says:

November 12, 2012 at 5:31 am

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 5
It’s not hypocrisy to abstain in the presence of those who abstain, if you have the freedom to partake.
Steve says:

November 12, 2012 at 5:38 am

Like or Dislike: 0
Jesus was called a drunkard, or Jesus did get drunk? Is there a difference?
Mark Nigro says:

November 12, 2012 at 8:58 am

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 17
Another issue to address here is the meaning of “stumbling.” To truly stumble someone, I would need to be the cause of bringing him/her into sin. But it seems that the idea of stumbling has come to be anything that doesn’t meet another’s preconceived expectations and therefore causes surprise, thereafter being interpreted as an offense.

Now if that is all it takes to stumble someone, where does it end? We will be brought into bondage according to other’s expectations rather than the Lord’s pleasure. In fact, I might say that I too am stumbled by such behavior. At the end of the day, the real problem is a person’s disapproval of that particular issue, rather than a biblical mandate. Let me illustrate.

According to the above criteria, I’ve seen people ‘stumbled’ by other’s make up, participating in sports, length of shirt sleeves, ballroom dancing and the consumption of sweets. All of which, according to some, were sinful activities.

So when someone tells me s/he’s been stumbled by another, I now ask for clarification. To this day, I’ve yet to see a genuine case of ‘stumbling’ by another’s freedom, including someone who struggled with alcohol falling into it again because another believer drank a glass of wine. Not to say it doesn’t happen.

And I do agree that our freedom must never be used at the expense of another’s victory over a weakness that once controlled him, such as drunkenness. But I see here a need to define stumbling, and to discern when abstinence is truly needed. The only alternative is an unhealthy misused that brings unfruitful legalistic tendencies and a yoke of self-imposed religiosity.
Steve Martin says:

November 12, 2012 at 9:25 am

Like or Dislike: 3
Jesus liked to have a good time and enjoy with those who liked to have a good time and enjoy.

He made 160 gallons (at least) of the best wine they had ever tasted. Not grape juice.

Jesus drank wine, but did not get drunk. Getting drunk is a sin and the Scriptures make it clear that Jesus was without sin and obedient in every way.

Jesus also ate, but was never a glutton.

__

We, who are free, “ought bear with the failings of the weak.”

We certainly might want to refrain in the presence of our weaker brethren.

My pastor and I go to dinner now and then and most of the time we will each have a beer.
Vinny says:

November 12, 2012 at 9:46 am

Like or Dislike: 0
One might serve the good wine first just in case people don’t drink it all making it unnecessary to ever serve the poor wine. That doesn’t seem to be what the master is saying though. I think the clear implication of his statement is that you serve the poor wine last because after people have drunk freely of the good wine, they won’t be able to tell the difference.
Mike O says:

November 12, 2012 at 9:59 am

Like or Dislike: 3
I agree, @Mark. We can’t live in bondage to the expectations or frailties of another. But at the same time, we can live in courtesy, and if someone thinks it is a sin, out of courtesy for them and the relationship, I would abstain.

It cuts both ways, though. They should also move in courtesy towards your freedom and not be offended if you drink. But you can’t control them, and regardless of what they do or don’t do, you (I, actually) can move in grace and do my part to stay unified.
Jerry Peele says:

November 12, 2012 at 10:56 am

Like or Dislike: 0
I have a question. Is Princeton educated New Testament scholar Robert H. Stein wrong in his book “Difficult Passages in the New Testament”? Stein writes, “It is also clear that the term [wine] does not correspond exactly to what we mean by wine today” (p.233). In his discussion of reasons and methods for “mixing” wine, Stein wrote:
Drinking wine unmixed…was looked upon as a Scythian or barbarian custom” (p.234). On page 236, he wrote: “When we come to the New Testament, we find that the content of the wine is never discussed. The burden of proof, however, is surely upon anyone who would say that the wine of the New Testament is substantially different from the wine mentioned by the Greeks, the rabbis during the Talmudic period, and the early church fathers. In the writings of the early church fathers it is clear that “wine” means wine mixed with water.” On page 237, he wrote: “Here it is obvious that unmixed wine and plain water were both found unacceptable at the Lord’s Supper. A mixture of wine and water was the norm.”

Is Dr. Robert Stein wrong?
zhansman says:

November 12, 2012 at 11:58 am

Like or Dislike: 0
Another good treatment of this subject is Ken Gentry’s “God Gave Wine: What the Bible Says About Alcohol”. It has been a number of years since I read the book, but as I recall he made the argument that not being a stumbling block to someone regarding the consumption of alcoholic beverages meant to not entice them to violate their conscience.
Larry says:

November 12, 2012 at 12:40 pm

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 14
I continue to be amazed at how complicated people make this issue. “Don’t get drunk” doesn’t mean “don’t drink” any more than “Don’t be a glutton” means “Don’t eat.” This whole controversy really only dates back to the mid to late 19th century and the “Christian” temperance movement in the US that resulted in prohibition and, by extension, organized crime.

Prior to that, the church pretty universally understood that wine and spirits could be enjoyed as long as they were not abused.
Chad Winters says:

November 12, 2012 at 1:34 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
v. 10 where the MC says youre supposed to give the good stuff first and the cheap stuff after everyone has had too much to notice makes no sense if it is grape juice.
Don says:

November 12, 2012 at 2:15 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Did you have to make the obligatory reference to “conservative evangelicals” probably condemning Jesus?
C Michael Patton says:

November 12, 2012 at 2:21 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
No. Over the top?
Chris says:

November 12, 2012 at 2:28 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Hello, this is my first time commenting on this blog.

I have a question for those with theological training, that is, was the “fruit of the vine” served at the Lord’s supper an alcoholic drink or grape juice/unfermented wine?

I ask this because it seems to me logical that fermentation by yeast was banned at Passover as evidenced by the unleavened bread. Some say that this was regular alcoholic wine. But why would the Lord serve alcoholic wine when yeast fermentation was not part of this holiday?

I would appreciate any input.
Brian S says:

November 12, 2012 at 2:28 pm

Like or Dislike: 1
Scripture is twisted wine is turned into a sin. Removing wine from Communion is not enough, if someone struggles with a weight problem should we not abstain from Bread as well. Christ did not institute a Sin.
C Michael Patton says:

November 12, 2012 at 2:28 pm

Like or Dislike: 2
Is Stein wrong? I don’t think he is wrong about the facts, but to draw the conclusion that the Israelites were persuaded by the Greek definition of barbaric is not supported by the evidence. As well, it fails to account for the high alcoholic content the Greek wine.

But I think the Talmud and Mishnah put to rest the 20/1 argument that seems so common.

Finally, the most obvious issues such as Christ making fermented wine, christ being called a drunkard (how could they suppose such if most wine had little or no alcohol,?) John the Baptist refraining (why refrain if it was graphic juice), and Jesus’ contrast of his drinking with Johns refraining. None of these make sense if there was not substantial alcoholic content in the wine.
C Michael Patton says:

November 12, 2012 at 2:34 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Chris, the bread carried the yeast symbolism. There was no need to replicate it in the wine which represents something else.
Chad Winters says:

November 12, 2012 at 3:09 pm

Like or Dislike: 1
from a biblical perspective, I think the teetotalers get there by eisegesis not exegesis. I also think alcohol abuse goes up in cultures where it is “sinful” vs cultures where it is what you drink with dinner
brig says:

November 12, 2012 at 3:59 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
It’s easy to make an argument against wine during the Passover if you completely overlook the fact that it’s called the Festival of Unleavened Bread, and instead mistakenly assume it is actually the Festival of Unleavened Everything.

My questions (yet unanswered in my dialogues with the teetotalling positions):
* How did non-alcoholic wine become vinegar?
* Why is it that abstinence is the default, instead of seeking maturity?
* Why is the hypothetical “weaker brother” incapable of growing stronger? This seems like a failure of discipleship.
Jay says:

November 12, 2012 at 6:52 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Jerry Peele –
Water is mixed with the wine before the wine is consecrated in the RC and other liturgical traditions.
Steve Martin says:

November 13, 2012 at 6:33 am

Like or Dislike: 3
All of God’s gifts can be abused.

I don’t know anyone who does a good job of being a good steward, all the time.

Maybe that’s why He had to come and die for us and forgive us.
John K says:

November 13, 2012 at 6:43 am

Like or Dislike: 0
I’m on the side that the wine Jesus drank could get someone intoxicated if they drank too much. But a pastor of a church I used to attend (who serves alcoholic wine at communion) gave an alternative argument to the serving good wine first tradition meaning people would get drunk. He said that it had to do with the palatte becoming dull apart from being intoxicated. Any thoughts? Also, I don’t think weaker brother issues require us to wrongly interpret Scripture. I understand different people hold different views, but to not advance an argument that biblical wine was alcoholic because of concern for the weaker brother is ultimately improper. Perhaps the denominational leadership position is an exception, but I can’t think of others.
Reggie says:

November 13, 2012 at 7:23 am

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 7
Christ was a bartender? Unbelievable.

Even if you are accurate in your depiction of the events, Christ should not be called a bartender. If Christ created intoxicating wine, we have no reason to associate him with the guy serving up mixed drinks and Bud Lights behind the counter of the local bar.

That seems really inappropriate. The only reason to even use the phrase is for the purpose of saying something stimulating.

Bartenders don’t create wine from water, and bartenders don’t perform miracles to testify to their power over creation.
David says:

November 13, 2012 at 7:38 am

Like or Dislike: 1
Great article (and I hardly drink alcohol)

Just to add that Keith Mathison has written a much longer piece on this whole subject, called “Protestant Transubstantiation” (!). It is in four parts and if you click this link you”ll find them linked at the bottom:

http://www.theopedia.com/Keith_Mathison

It is well worth reading for its detailed historical and biblical perspectives.
Caleb says:

November 13, 2012 at 7:46 am

Like or Dislike: 2
You said that gun control is not forbidden by God. That’s how you worded it, anyway.

Amen to that. If only the right wing Christians of the GOP would hear you. Their gunslinging is embarrassing the rest of us.
David Paul Regier says:

November 13, 2012 at 8:18 am

Like or Dislike: 2
It doesn’t say that they were happy that the new wine was better than the first. If I were drunk at the party, I would have been angry with the bridegroom for withholding the good wine until after I was drunk.

Doesn’t it say that this miracle was a sign? Is it possible that Israel was drunk on God’s favor and was unable to appreciate the new wine that was being poured? That would be consistent with the rest of the book of John.

The story’s not about alcohol, but about judgment. And yes, we are to desire the new wine of the new covenant which bursts the old wineskins, being filled with the Spirit of God.

And Welch’s® isn’t fit for a sign.
d1st says:

November 13, 2012 at 8:25 am

Like or Dislike: 2
We need to be careful that we don’t get into a habit of editing God’s Word for Him. If He did not include an absolute prohibition of alcohol then who are we to do it? When you read the Bible you can find some of the basic principles laid out. Consuming alcohol is not wrong in itself, but drunkeness and addiction is. The Bible also gives warnings about loving alcohol and anytime God gives a warning we should heed it. What I have seen happen sometimes is the flaunting of liberty and even a bit of rebelliousness among believers who drink socially. I’ve seen some who want to start debates and engage in pro-alcohol crusades. Totally unfitting. I personally abstain completely. I don’t enjoy the taste of alcohol so I have no reason to drink it. Before I was a believer I drank alcohol with the express purpose of getting drunk, so since I’m not allowed to do that I find no use for it in my life. My wife will have a drink or two every few weeks and I have no issue with it. SHe only does it with me in private as to offend no one. She has liberty to do it and the sensitivity not to broadcast it.
Jeff Ayers says:

November 13, 2012 at 8:53 am

Like or Dislike: 0
As an IFB (independent fundamental Baptist) for 30 years, all that I have known and been taught is total abstention and Jesus/ Paul did not use wine at the Lords Supper.

However, the Bible DOES seem to support wine drinking, not only in the 3 passages you use (John 2, Acts 2 and Luke 7:33, 34- I did not use the Mark 14:23 passage because verse 25 calls it the fruit of the vine) but also in the following passages:

Proverbs 31:6,7 Where King Lemuel was instructed by his mother to give wine to him that is of a heavy heart.

I Tim 5:23 where Paul told Timothy to drink a LITTLE wine for his infirmities.

I Tim 3:3 implies that a Bishop should not drink wine, but a deacon is commanded to not be given to “much wine”.

CMP- How would you answer the typical claims that Christ could not have drank wine or gave wine for others to drink when considering these passages:

Habakkuk 2:15 Woe unto him that GIVETH HIS NEIGHBOUR drink. Was Christ under a curse for giving his neighbors drink in John 2?

Proverbs 20:1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise. Why would Christ drink wine if it is a mocker (causing you to be a fool and thus be mocked) and is warned against so explicitly in Proverbs 23:29-35? Proverbs 23:31 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.

A typical message from “stalwart” of the IFB position is

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Printed%20Sermons/Dr%20John%20Rice/double_curse.htm
Reformed baptist says:

November 13, 2012 at 9:03 am

Like or Dislike: 0
“Wine often would contain 15% alcohol”

This is an assumption that is simply unsupported by all the evidence. Wine produced by ordinary fermentation can only achieve an alcohol content of around 14% – to achieve anything close to this ceiling 2000 years ago would have also produced such amounts of extraneous bacteria that the taste would have been foul. The best estimates put the strenght of locally produced wines at between 2-6%. Hence if teh artical is correct about the watering the drink on offer would be between 0.6-2% by volume.
Steve Martin says:

November 13, 2012 at 9:04 am

Like or Dislike: 0
John K.,

That’s exactly it. The good stuff is wasted after people are tipsy. Might as well serve Ripple or Thunderbird (the cheap stuff from when I was a kid).
Phil McCheddar says:

November 13, 2012 at 10:51 am

Like or Dislike: 0
Chris (comment #17),

I don’t know the answer to your good question but here is a tentative opinion.

The Israelites were commanded to remove all yeast from their homes during Passover, but since yeast organisms are always naturally present everywhere I think this OT command referred to stores of cultured yeasts that people kept in their homes and used for food preparation, as complete eradication of yeast cells would be impossible.

Under the right conditions of temperature and aeration, grape juice will automatically ferment without any cultured yeast being added, since some yeast organisms are naturally present in pressed grape juice. But the alcohol used at the Last Supper was probably made before Passover began, and so the prohibition of yeast at Passover wouldn’t apply, and we can’t draw any inferences about the alcoholic content of that wine from the prohibition of yeast at Passover.

Vote now: the above is balderdash / horsefeathers / flimflam / hogwash
C Michael Patton says:

November 13, 2012 at 11:08 am

Like or Dislike: 1
Fourteen to fifteen is not much difference. I don’t know much about ancient wine making techniques, so I referred to outside sources on Bible background. Do you have a source that says that the ancients in Israel had wine that was only 2-6%? But let me give you the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say that the wine Jesus produced was 3%. This is the same as the beer here in Oklahoma and, take my word for it, it is intoxicating.
C Michael Patton says:

November 13, 2012 at 11:11 am

Like or Dislike: 0
Reggie,

It seems that you have something against bartenders. There are certainly reasons that people would not choose such a career. I don’t think that this was Jesus’ career. And it is true that he was not actually a bartender. He was the one making the wine! He was a bit more involved than even a bartender in providing drinks and “Bud Ligts”.
CT says:

November 13, 2012 at 11:52 am

Like or Dislike: 1
Wherever you fall on this topic, when you see such controversy, it is probably best to avoid it. Sometimes things that we may consider to be “right” or “O.K.”, still are not best. And, if things are not best, than why do it?
I still have a hard time believing that if Christ were walking this earth, that He would be O.K. with opening a cold beer once in a while, even if it was in His own private time.
I personally don’t see my Holy God in flesh doing that. Just my opinion.
David says:

November 13, 2012 at 12:09 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
CT, could you elaborate on why you feel that way about Jesus. I’d love to know your reasoning…
LeeAnn says:

November 13, 2012 at 12:13 pm

Like or Dislike: 3
Hi Caleb & friends, perhaps you live in a city. For those of us GOP, gun-slinging, right-wingers who live in rural areas, or entire states where the countryside is at our back door (Idaho is a good example), we use our guns recreationally. Just this past weekend, I, a 50-something mom, was out at the gun club with my kids shooting trap. First time I’d ever done it and it was fun! Gun-control is a restriction of our rights, & historically, we Americans have always had the right to bear arms. Just because it doesn’t seem fun or acceptable to you, doesn’t mean it’s wrong….kind of like drinking alcohol! Guns, like any good thing, can be abused, but that doesn’t mean they should be outlawed.
Gary says:

November 13, 2012 at 12:19 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
being a stumbling block to me refers to someone who has had an addiction. while that brother “can” be ok with other people partaking, is alcohol so important to you that you *must* drink in that brother’s presence?
StuartB says:

November 13, 2012 at 12:22 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
@reggie, neither do carpenters…
CT says:

November 13, 2012 at 12:39 pm

Like or Dislike: 2
I just feel that all throughout Scriptures, that Christ was blameless, Holy, and above reproach in any situation – which is what we are commanded to do and be.
- Be ye holy for I am holy
- All things are lawful, but all things are not expedient (or best)
- All things are lawful, but all things edify not.

I just feel when an issue brings so much controversy, Christ is not glorified, therefore it is probably best not to do it, even if I think it is o.k. to do.

If I am wrong, and when I get to heaven and God says it was o.k. to drink, then I just missed out on some drinking – and I was probably better off for it.
If I am right, and I should abstain from drinking, than I am still probably better off for it.
Either way, it is probably better for me to not drink than it is to drink – in any circumstance or situation.
brig says:

November 13, 2012 at 12:41 pm

Like or Dislike: 2
@CT: I personally believe it to be important because it indicates one’s ability to handle the Word of God with integrity. If one can twist the Word of God to make one word mean the opposite, in order to bind the conscience of their flock, would be grave sin itself.

If there were an issue with controversy, then Jesus is again at fault, for he engaged quite controversially with the status quo.

If things that aren’t the best are now immoral, who is to say what is the best (best — normally a subjective view), and why are we now importing those external standards into our Christian ethics?

It is also not that it was on his “private” time (eg, at the Last Supper), Jesus had public ministry where he ate and drank the food offered at the tables of sinners in full view of his mockers. Jesus was not a member of an ascetic Jewish sect who needed extra dietary regulation.

Ultimately, this isn’t a matter of opinion, either. If we cannot trust the Word of God to tell us unequivocally that this is wine, then what can we know about Scripture that isn’t Gnostic or mystic?
aj says:

November 13, 2012 at 12:48 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Okay, I see the, “be nice” rule…but really this is perhaps the dumbest conversation I have ever been part of. What a waste of my time. I think I lost some iq points reading this. As if it matters whether or not the miracle resulted in wine or grape juice. Just..Wow. I feel like the Bible tells us somewhere not to argue over worthless things. Is anyone really going to drink like a fish tonight after hearing that Jesus might have actually made wine? And if it was grape juice, would it make the miracle any less miraculous. Have you people nothing else to write about. I’m thinking the original author’s thougt process had to be something along the lines, “I need something to draw hits to the site.” Seriously, Credo House, is the best you have?
CT says:

November 13, 2012 at 12:48 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
I didn’t say He did this on his private time, I said even if it was his own private time. I also don’t think this issue was as controversial in Bible times as it is today.
I think we “Christians” today, justify things (not just on this issue) just to suit a lifestyle that we want to live.
As I said in my first comment, “this is just my opinion.”
And, in the end, I have to answer for me and my family and you have to answer for yours.
I will not loose any sleep at night if you, or other “Christians” choose to drink. But, for me, I would choose not to.
David says:

November 13, 2012 at 12:51 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
CT, thanks for replying.

A few points to make you think:

If drinking alcohol was OK 2000 years ago, why isn’t it OK now?

You use of the word “holy” was interesting. Why is drinking alcohol unholy? Again, it wasn’t in Biblical times.

Jesus did cause controversy by going against the religious sensibilities of the day – eg healing on the sabbath. Paul likewise got himself into trouble.

I was wondering if you were going to say that beer has so many negative connotations that Jesus would never touch it. In which case, could you see him having a glass of wine with a meal?

I hardly ever drink and I’m not trying to change you, but I am interested in your reasons for not doing so.
ruben says:

November 13, 2012 at 12:58 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Hi CT, well said. For me I think the attitude towards wine is the most important thing, if we take it in a manner of celebration of life and God’s goodness then it is a good, life-affirming thing. But, as with anything (even religion!), good can easily be perverted into something bad.
CT says:

November 13, 2012 at 1:01 pm

Like or Dislike: 2
I can’t say that drinking 2000 years ago was O.K. or deemed to be O.K. by Christ – I have heard all of the arguments for and against. I have heard how the wine then is the same and different as the wine now. I honestly do not know what the answer is, but because of that reason, I just feel it best to not participate.
On a whole other note, I know many Christians who feel it is O.K. and do participate. I also have seen first hand how alcohol has ruined people, families, and their testimonies. And, had they not started with this very same intention of just drinking socially, or sparingly, they would not have ever reached that point.
Chad Winters says:

November 13, 2012 at 1:08 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
One verse I didn’t see addressed in the article:

Psa 104:14-15
14 You cause the grass to grow for the livestock
and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth
15 and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man’s heart.

It is an important discussion. When many Christians condemn others based on bad eisegesis, it is important.

I have been in SBT denominations where whether you drink wine or not was the bellweather of your Christianity.
aj says:

November 13, 2012 at 1:15 pm

Like or Dislike: 1
What’s important is why Christians feel like they can condemn another Christian. Making the discussion about alcohol consumption is a side show distraction that retards christian maturity.
Chad Winters says:

November 13, 2012 at 1:26 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Actually I think the ability to determine what the Bible is saying about something it says a lot about is very important.

If we can’t all read the Bible in its totality and see that it says “alcohol can be good and pleasurable and is a gift from God, but can be dangerous if overdone or misused”, then I despair that there is any doctrine that can be clearly exegeted from Scripture.
Chad says:

November 13, 2012 at 2:32 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
I agree with most of this, but habakkuk 2:15 makes me slightly uncomfortable about Jesus the divine bartender who keeps the party going.

Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbors, pouring it from the wineskin till they are drunk, so that he can gaze on their naked bodies
Mike O says:

November 13, 2012 at 2:47 pm

Like or Dislike: 1
I’ve been watching this unfold, and it’s interesting to watch people all reading the same word of God and walking away with different answers. Which is fine. And aj, if you think this conversation is not valuable to you, then don’t participate. But that doesn’t mean other people can’t get value from it.

Anyone who has been a Christian for more than 10 minutes, knows we Christians are an opinionated lot. We study and pray and hear God, and we KNOW we are right. And we KNOW that what God told me, he probably meant to tell everybody. We like to spar – is that so wrong? Not if we listen to each other and learn from them. I for one am interested in all the views presented. CT basically said whether it’s right or wrong, s/he’s better off without it. Good point. Others said Jesus either would or wouldn’t drink beer. Interesting. Life and death questions?? No, but the bottom line is, people are working through what being a follower of Jesus should look like. That is not a silly conversation. Not to people who were taught that it is wrong when it isn’t, or to people who think it’s not wrong but they’re being told that it is.

Plus, there are a lot of new Christians who are being told this or that by people they don’t know that well yet, and they honestly don’t know what they’re supposed to think or how to form a god-honoring opinion of their own. For them, and I think this conversation can be very helpful.
Jeff Ayers says:

November 13, 2012 at 3:13 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
1 Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

I believe this verse summarizes the issue in its entirety.

Paul makes it clear that “ALL things are lawful unto me” (permissible and acceptable)… meaning that I CAN DRINK ALCOHOL if I want.

“All things are not expedient” …meaning that there are enough good reasons to not drink alcohol (becoming an alcoholic, wasting money that could be better used, a bad testimony [even the world thinks a Christian should not drink], being a bad example for your kids etc.)

“But I will not be brought under the power of any”…. this is the Bible definition of how you define being drunk and a drunkard. When the alcohol controls your thoughts, speech or actions then you are drunk. And when you have to have a drink you are a drunkard and “brought under the power of any”.)

BTW–being drunk IS a sin… no matter what your “beliefs” are on this subject of whether you should drink wine.

And the more important question is if you do get drunk, you will NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD… (1 Cor 6, Eph 5 and Gal 5)… Does anyone dare exegete these 3 passages and agree with Paul regarding “drunkenness … that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”
Doug Roman says:

November 13, 2012 at 3:16 pm

Like or Dislike: 2
I typically do not like to jump into the fray of blog posts but I find the statement “Christ was a bartender!” to be unnecessarily sensational, bordering on blasphemous. It seems to me that whatever contribution this article makes to the discussion on Christians and consuming alcohol as a beverage can be lost with such an inane remark.
Aaron says:

November 13, 2012 at 3:26 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
That was a good read – article, comments and all! I’ve got a thirst now. Might have to stop at the pub on the way home for a quick pint….
Don K. says:

November 13, 2012 at 3:29 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
I suppose it is best to state at the start that I am alcohol intolerant. I have never gotten any false feeling of well-being as before I could reach that point, I get many of the symptoms that others associate with hangover. But I do have several concerns.
First, alcohol, even in small amounts in not neurologically neutral. The light-headedness associated with moderate usage is related to neuron damage or neuron death. This process, as best as researchers have been able to determine is random, explaining why some serious abusers get the DTs(delirium tremens) while others do not. While the risks for moderate users is much smaller, it is not zero and indeterminate with regard to long range affects. it may well be that some of the effects of aging may be related to long time usage.
Second, the short-term advantages of alcohol use as an antibacterial is not required in our country as it was in Biblical times and many places to this day.
Third, now in my mid-sixties, it seems that Prohibition was probably a mistake. Lost men and women need something to make their existence bearable until they may be found, if that is possible. Many may have been redirected to even more hazardous drugs while the attentions of law enforcement were concentrated on alcohol.
Lastly, I believe that my enforced abstention has made me both need and desire more to follow on to know the Lord(Hos:6:3). I know I don’t need anything to holding back my slowly plodding soul.
Chad Winters says:

November 13, 2012 at 3:31 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Jeff Ayers:

Again, eisegesis…you are reading back into Paul’s writing what you think about Alcohol, I see no evidence that that is what Paul was thinking about when he wrote that passage.

Paul makes it clear that “ALL things are lawful unto me” (permissible and acceptable)… meaning that I CAN DRINK ALCOHOL if I want.
“All things are not expedient” …meaning that there are enough good reasons to not drink alcohol”

Your applications do not follow from the text. They are just added onto it. This is a pericope on sexual immorality.

The World doesn’t think Christians should not drink…Americans who have been told by 1900s fundamentalists that Christians should not drink think that. German reformers in the 1500s did not think this.
Chad Winters says:

November 13, 2012 at 3:38 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Don:
Moderate alcohol intake (Max 2 drinks per day for men, 1 for women) are medically considered overall beneficial, especially from a cardiovascular standpoint
brig says:

November 13, 2012 at 4:44 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
@Doug: It’s only injurious to those with a pre-commitment to the evils of alcohol, otherwise it’s less blasphemous than “my boss is a Jewish carpenter.” The point was metaphorical: Jesus supplied an alcoholic beverage, as a matter of fact.

@DonK: 1. Wernicke-Korsakoff is also observed in those who fast extensively and anyone with problems with thiamine is susceptible to the same neurological damage even with zero alcohol. 2. The antibacterial usage is merely postulated as a theory, but doesn’t really have any archaeological/historical evidence to support it. 3. There are far more reasons Prohibition was a really, really, really bad idea. And how did Temperance become Prohibition, anyway?
Tom says:

November 13, 2012 at 5:35 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Eccliastical people have made whole careers out of laying burdens on people that are heavy to bear.
Doug Roman says:

November 13, 2012 at 5:39 pm

Like or Dislike: 1
Brig, you have made an erroneous assumption about my position. I don’t have a pre-commitment to the inherent evils of alcohol. There are good and bad metaphors. “Christ was a bartender” is a poor choice for a metaphor.
Jeff Ayers says:

November 13, 2012 at 8:09 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Chad,

because you write “eisegesis” fails to carry the day in your failed attempt to disprove my point.

Please read the Bible:
1 Corinthians 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

verse 10 comes before verse 12 (f which my post referenced) in my Bible.
Verse 10 mentions “drunkards”.

By the way, are you saying your “pericope” of sexual immorality means that it “is lawful and it is permissible”?
Shawn says:

November 13, 2012 at 9:15 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
CJ said: <>

So, deciphering a truth from the Scriptures is a waste of time? What qualifies as being worthy of your time?

<>

I think it matters. Apparently you didn’t really read the article very well. Plenty of reasons were given.

<>

And it’s “worthless” because you say it is? I don’t find anything in the Scriptures worthless.

<>

Actually yes. That’s the point of the miracle. And the point of the article is that some Christians are not only denying themselves the enjoyment of God’s creation, but also either condemning those who do, and/or having wrong ideas about Jesus/God and alcohol.

Maybe something about the Left Behind series would’ve been more up your alley?

~Shawn
brig says:

November 13, 2012 at 9:39 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
@DougR: It’s true — I do not know why you suggest either blasphemy or now “bad metaphor”. It’s largely true (in fact, IFBs do defend Jesus from bartending associations), and I have difficulty conceiving of alternative scenarios. It’s quite the sensationalist tactic to cry blasphemy, after all, and then leave us hanging as to why it was wrong to call Jesus a Teacher/Shepherd/Carpenter/Bartender/Physician/Bread/Husband/Friend/Counselor/Prince, or what precisely the criteria of ethical analogies might be. Inadequate metaphors don’t generally get to the blasphemy stage without calling into question the divinity or otherwise slandering the name of Christ, which implies that, somehow, a bartender is wicked. I would even personally use it in a sermon illustration, without fear that I’d be brought up on blasphemy charges. So I’m confused. What are you saying?
Dave says:

November 13, 2012 at 11:14 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
AJ – the only one arguing here seems to be you with yourself.

Im amazed culturally that we go nuts if someone wants to grab a beer once in a month; yet nobody ever ever ever takes the 400lb guy aside at the church BBQ to talk to him.
Susan says:

November 14, 2012 at 12:30 am

Like or Dislike: 0
I attended an apologetics conference not long ago where Norm Geisler argued that morality can be legislated. He based his entire talk on prohibition, the history of it, the benefits of it and why he thinks it would be a good idea to reestablish it. I was surprised that he would assert that.
Doug Roman says:

November 14, 2012 at 7:45 am

Like or Dislike: 0
Brig, your premise seems to be that since the Bible uses certain references to Jesus (such as teacher/shepherd) we therefore are free to ascribe any title/reference we deem appropriate to Jesus. There are at least two problems with this approach. First, the Bible is inspired and infallible, we are not. It is not right to conclude that since the Bible says “Jesus is the light of the world” that it is equally legitimate for us to say “Jesus was a bartender” or “Jesus was a poker dealer” or “Jesus was a used car salesman.” Second, to impute the same nobility to a bartender as to a carpenter is just bizarre. Bartending facilitates drunkenness, what vice does carpentry facilitate? Whether or not you can say “Jesus was a bartender” in one of your sermons is immaterial to this discussion and it does not automatically sanctify the reference. It’s not that we cannot employ other titles/references to Jesus but we need to regard the name as holy and handle it with great care.
brig says:

November 14, 2012 at 9:35 am

Like or Dislike: 0
No, my only point is that the Bible employs analogy and metaphor to describe a particular aspect of Jesus’ character/ministry/etc, and frequently, illustrations are merely distilled from and not verbatim Scripture. All vocations are equally noble, whether a doctor, professor, pastor, or even the one who shovels the excrement of swine, and all vocations can fall to vice. It is as equally absurd to suggest that bartenders and restaurant owners are ignoble because some cater to alcoholics as it is to suggest that hotel managers and desk clerks are likewise because some cater to prostitution. And you’re only vindicating what I’d originally intimated: you think there’s something inherently sinful here applied to Jesus.

If Jesus supplied real wine at the wedding of Cana, then wasn’t he facilitating vice all the same in your view? I could be mistaken that your view doesn’t allow for the miracle to involve real wine, in which case the whole of this discussion was long ago moot. If it does, then I have no idea why in your view Jesus can dispense real wine but it’s wrong to draw parallels with someone else who does the same.
Doug Roman says:

November 14, 2012 at 9:48 am

Like or Dislike: 0
Brig, I need to disengage from this discussion due to other responsibilities. To say that Jesus turned water into wine is the equivalent of a bartender dispensing tequila shots seems to me to be a real stretch. We are clearly on different sides of this discussion. Grace and peace to you in the days ahead.
Shannon Dyess says:

November 14, 2012 at 10:18 am

Like or Dislike: 1
A great deal of cyber ink has been spilled over this issue of alcohol. I can certainly understand and see the various positions on the topic. However, I have a real problem with brothers in Christ who have no scruples about referring to the blessed Lord Jesus as a “bar tender.” I can provide you a part to work on my plumbing but that doesn’t make me a plumber. Just because Jesus provided the wine (regardless of what content you want to ascribe to it) does not mean one should stoop so low as to call God the Son, a bar tender! To associate that Name which is above every name with a bar tender is to treat His name with a profession that does not bring to mind holiness nor other attributes that are most often thought of as pleasing to Christ. To associate His name with such a handle is to treat it profanely if not with blasphemy. Friend, I was not redeemed with the blood of a bar tender!
brig says:

November 14, 2012 at 10:23 am

Like or Dislike: 0
@DougR: It’s probably because I don’t actually see tequila as more evil than wine, and I believe my bartending and waitressing brothers and sisters are dignified, and I think that John 2:10 is pretty clear on how much people had to drink already. If one is in disagreement over these verses, I can see the contention, but if the Bible means what it says without any special two-wine theories violating the laws of chemistry, then it’s very hard to justify sharp breaks (eg: why is wine OK but margaritas are verboten?). Even more difficult when “strong drinks” are part of worship and celebration: (Deu 14:26).
StuartB says:

November 14, 2012 at 10:28 am

Like or Dislike: 0
Hey Doug, long time.

And not all bartenders dispense tequila shots. You are adding to the metaphor, adapting it, to suit your argument and (yes, most certainly) your pre-commitment to the inherent evils of alcohol, or has something changed in your views I wasn’t aware of?

If Jesus was dispensing glasses of wine to people, then he was loosely doing the work of a bartender. Saying that is no less wrong than saying “Jesus was a clown” at times, whether or not he was wearing white paint and big shoes, although he did make jokes and probably clowned around.
StuartB says:

November 14, 2012 at 10:29 am

Like or Dislike: 0
@brig – That’s a part of the story that is rarely focused on. What does it say about Jesus that he was handing out alcohol of such high quality to people who were already blasted beyond reason?
StuartB says:

November 14, 2012 at 10:30 am

Like or Dislike: 0
And today’s Theological Word of the Day is, of course, “asceticism”…
brig says:

November 14, 2012 at 1:14 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
@StuartB: They weren’t blasted beyond reason if they could discern good spirits from poor spirits. But yes, they most certainly had more than one. And Jesus did more than tend that bar in Cana, he poured out his blood, enough to cover all our sins. That’s a lot of bar tending. And eschatalogically there will be a great feast, where Jesus will yet again serve the best wine: cf Isaiah 25:6 et al.

I do not know why bartenders are considered profane — who’s been slandering them? Are lawyers likewise in a profession of ill repute? What then of our Advocate, and Mediator? How sad that we can only cite the deviant examples of otherwise worthy callings, and claim by association the corruption of all.
Shawn says:

November 14, 2012 at 5:03 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
< >

Jesus is called a Mediator, and the Holy Spirit a Paraclete, both which amount to a lawyer, and we all know now corrupt lawyers can be. Then there’s the great Physician. Doctors are certainly not out of the question when it comes to unethical behavior. Then there’s the great/Shepherd. There’s nothing particularly honorable about shepherding. In fact, it’s a very smelly job. Ever smelled a lamb that hasn’t been sheared in a while? It’ll make you vomit on the spot. That’s probably the primary reason the Egyptians didn’t want the Hebrews around them, and why they were offended at shepherds — because of the stench.

I’m not seeing that Jesus was handing out glasses of wine to anyone, other than at the Lord’s Supper. He made the wine (fermented, and that is unquestionable to any but those who are not willing to let the Scriptures speak for themselves. Period), at the wedding feast, and while the people there were obviously “merry” (one doesn’t become merry from drinking grape juice, folks), they weren’t intoxicated so much as to not notice the difference.

But winemakers are not bartenders. They’re winemakers. Just as people who make break pads aren’t (necessarily) auto mechanics.

Indeed as another posted from Isaiah 25:6, the Lord will indeed be serving wine (aged wine) to His people. I’ve got news for you folks: aged grape juice, which has had the halting ingredient added to it (which did not exist until Mr Welch invented it during the Prohibition) is disgusting. It’s not wine, it’s just filthy and no one would drink it. But aged wine is a joy, a gift from…
d4v34x says:

November 15, 2012 at 7:26 am

Like or Dislike: 0
Jesus likely wasn’t dispensing glasses of wine to folks bellying up to the bar or walking through the crowd with a tray like a cocktail waiter. He made wine in bulk, and, although not expressly in the text, it seems to me most likely the servants served it.

So ‘vintner’ is probably a more fitting metaphor than ‘bartender’.
Jeff Ayers says:

November 15, 2012 at 9:11 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Galatians 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

We are free (liberty) to choose what we do. We are free to choose to walk in the spirit.

We are free in all things that are not expressly prohibited in the new testament.

But as with all freedoms, there are warnings of using and abusing that freedom (i.e. in this discussion–drinking alcohol).

The freedom to drink alcohol is contrasted with the warning to not make an occasion to the flesh.

For Paul warns a few verses later about the works of the flesh naming DRUNKENNESS.

Again, my unanswered question about those Christians who get drunk… will they inherit the kingdom of God? (if so, what does this mean, if not then why did Paul say that drunkenness would cause them not to inherit the kingdom of God)
Shawn says:

November 15, 2012 at 10:01 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
The thing that needs to be qualified is “drunk” or “drunkenness”. There’s a difference between different levels of alcohol consumption. There’s the drinking enough to feel a slight numbness in the lips, and a sense of ease, especially after a long, hard day at work; and then there’s the even happier feeling you get after perhaps one or two more drinks, as you’re sitting with friends, munching on Doritos and little sammiches; and then there’s probably where you ought to call it a night because you just want to hug everyone, and you’re probably talking a little too much (this is on the edge of actual drunkenness). I’ve been drunk probably only 2-3 times in my life. I never liked the feeling of it, and it usually happened when I wasn’t paying attention to the reality of how much I was drinking. All of these times were before I came to true understanding of the grace of God (I was raised in a Pentecostal Holiness Arminian type church where I’d lost and regained my salvation so many times I had no idea which one was the real one, and so I typically would abandon the faith every now and then when I thought I’d really blown it, and God couldn’t possibly take me back again). Drunkenness is more than merely catching a little buzz, and feeling “merry” as the Scriptures say. It has to do with losing control, perhaps even blacking out, and behaving in a manner that you would not normally. What we can’t get past is the fact that the wedding guests were already merry, they had “well drunk”, doesn’t mean they were smashed, only nicely buzzed and not as particular about taste at that point, and were looking for more, so that the merriment would not end. Jesus made more wine for them. Had He made grape juice they would have spit it out. There’s a HUGE difference between grape juice and cheaper wine. The only person who wouldn’t notice the difference between cheaper wine and grape juice would be stinking drunk. Then we’d have a problem with Jesus…
D Gross says:

November 16, 2012 at 6:45 am

Like or Dislike: 0
I happened across this article and wanted to add some info that I feel is important. We all agree that drunkenness is sin. This leaves the debate on grounds of whether or not it is okay to drink wine. I want to caution thinking like Deborah’s above: “Thomas B Welch only learned how to stop grape juice from fermenting (by pasteurizing it) in 1869.” This is simply NOT true. Grape juice was preserved in several ways for thousands of years before 1869. Grape juice was often boiled down into a concentrate and stored as such without refrigeration and it did not turn to alcoholic wine (sugar content is too high). I tried this experiment myself. I boiled freshly squeezed grape juice down to half and just put it into a container in the room. After a month, it was unchanged. Historically, people would add water to this concentrate in order to bring it back to balance for drinking. There were other methods, too, which involved a sulfur treatment. My point is that throughout history, there HAS been ways that were popular for people to preserve grape juice without refrigeration and before the 1800′s.

Also, if you look in an old English dictionary (1600′s), you’ll find that the word “wine” did not have an alcohol only connotation. The Hebrew and Greek words (there are several) that are most often used could mean either something alcoholic or not.

I am a missionary in Moldova. Moldova ranks #1 in the world for alcoholic consumption. Do a google search for Moldova and alcoholism and you’ll see. There is so much winemaking at home that each fall, that is what you smell as you walk down the street. The believers here do jar grape juice and it is AMAZING! Nothing like Welches. I can say that it is very enjoyable to drink. To assume that one needs to have alcohol in the blood to have a drink make them merry is also a mistake. I am not saying it is sin to consume small portions, but let’s not forget some of these facts.
D Gross says:

November 16, 2012 at 7:01 am

Like or Dislike: 0
P.S. I worked in the employment office of a large hospital corporation and was in charge of background checks and keying in each application in the system. I would say over 90% of all DUI’s listed on the applications were due to drinking ONE glass of wine at a birthday party or such. Legally, it does not take much at all to be considered “under the influence.” To say one must be “buzzing” or completely smashed to be considered drunk or under the influence is just incorrect. These people were deemed drunk by law and did not consider themselves drunk.
John I. says:

November 16, 2012 at 11:27 am

Like or Dislike: 0
It surely seems wrong, indeed more that wrong: evil, to call something (wine) evil when in fact it is God Himself who gave it as a gift and pronounced it good.

Furthermore, wine and other alcoholic drinks have been capable of being used for drunkeness and the destruction of families from time immemorial: Noah, etc. And even though from the beginning wine has been used for evil, God still commanded its use to his people, still considered it to be a good (and a reason why palestine / canaan was such a desirable land for his people), and even directly made it himself in a situation where it was likely some would abuse it.

I believe it is an offense to God to conduct a communion service using a substitute for the wine that Jesus used and which is symbolic of his blood and Spirit. Water, Coca Cola, and grape juice are not symbolic and not blessed nor authorized by God for use in communion. Hence, I have communion with my family over a real meal, with real unleavened bread and wine because the grape juice at church does not cut it (though I do participate in this social activity–i.e. it’s not communion–to be at one with my brothers and sisters in my church). For those intolerant of wine, or former alcoholics, it seems to me that God’s grace would cover not drinking at a communion meal, but would not cover drinking an alleged substitute and pretending its the same.

In regard to “1 Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” The more accepted and likely interpretation of this verse is that the first half of each contrast is a slogan that the Corinthians were using to justify their (sinful) behaviour, and the second half is Paul’s response based on Christ’s law of love and his understanding of the indwelling of Christ’s sent Spirit.

John
Chad Winters says:

November 16, 2012 at 11:49 am

Like or Dislike: 0
Hank Haanegraaf wrote a book awhile back going through all the metaphors the Bible uses with Israel as God’s vineyard and God as the winemaker.

Isaiah esp shows God’s punishment as removing the literal vineyards and wine as punishment for Israel’s unbelief.

Isaiah 5:3
“Now you dwellers in Jerusalem and people of Judah, judge between me and my vineyard.

Isaiah 5:4
What more could have been done for my vineyard than I have done for it? When I looked for good grapes, why did it yield only bad?

Isaiah 5:5
Now I will tell you what I am going to do to my vineyard: I will take away its hedge, and it will be destroyed; I will break down its wall, and it will be trampled.

Isaiah 5:7
The vineyard of the LORD Almighty is the nation of Israel, and the people of Judah are the vines he delighted in. And he looked for justice, but saw bloodshed; for righteousness, but heard cries of distress.

Isaiah 5:10
A ten-acre vineyard will produce only a bath of wine; a homer of seed will yield only an ephah of grain.”

Isaiah 16:10
Joy and gladness are taken away from the orchards; no one sings or shouts in the vineyards; no one treads out wine at the presses, for I have put an end to the shouting.
Chad Winters says:

November 16, 2012 at 11:51 am

Like or Dislike: 0
On the other hand healthy vineyards and good wine were a blessing

Amos 9:14
and I will bring my people Israel back from exile. “They will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. They will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will make gardens and eat their fruit.
Mike Senders says:

November 16, 2012 at 8:05 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
A small error, but I must correct you on your Greek. You are correct that the word used in Eph is “methusko,” but it is not the same word used in John. The headwaiter in John 2 uses the verb, “methuo,” which essentially means the same thing. Just a little tip! Great article! I wrote a blog article on the same topic a month or so ago, definitely relevant.
Katherine says:

November 17, 2012 at 8:24 am

Like or Dislike: 0
“However, this does not mean that God forbids things that have the potential to be destructive. We must be careful that we don’t legislate God. It is not unlike issues of gun control, sugar consumption, or tobacco. All of these have potential to hurt people, all of these have a history of hurting people, all of these have people who attempt to force moderation or abstinence, but none of them are forbidden by God. We must be careful in what we attempt to forbid, even if the legislation is for a good purpose. The solution for problems associated with alcohol is not a mandate for abstinence, but education concerning its dangers.”

How does this principle apply to marijuana and other illegal drugs?
John I. says:

November 17, 2012 at 9:31 am

Like or Dislike: 0
Re #31/81: ” To assume that one needs to have alcohol in the blood to have a drink make them merry is also a mistake.”

No, it’s not, given the context. Social merrymaking can occur around any drink, including water. However, this is not the same as the drink itself causing one to be merry. Only alcohol has this very well known physiological effect on the body, and the connection between alcohol and merrymaking has been made for millennia, including in the Bible.
Jeff says:

November 18, 2012 at 6:22 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
In Answer to #32 – Reformed Baptist – what you are saying is deceiving or ignorant, cannot tell which one. Another type of bacteria enters into the wine after the wild yeast that is present in the air stops transforming sugar into alcohol at about 3%, so at the very least it will produce a content of 6% but most will reach the 15%. Many wine companies use this more natural method today
Austin says:

November 20, 2012 at 11:21 am

Like or Dislike: 1
Great article. I was raised in a home/church were “drinking was a sin and the Bible says so.” Through studying the Scriptures myself I have came to the position I am now-abstain from drinking because I don’t care for the taste, but do not believe drinking is sin. I believe it’s simply a beverage that should not be abused.

Austin
john14 says:

December 3, 2012 at 3:24 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
it’s not about alcohol at all. wine is a metaphor for a liquid, coming from the fruit, which needs time to become potent.
joy cooganis says:

December 16, 2012 at 1:31 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
People who want to drink , want to believe it was alcoholic wine but to say Jesus would be a part in creating sin and evil is blasphemous and dangerous . JEsus had power to create the water to what he wanted it to be , a new wine ,
one that isn’t alcoholic , on the new wine you can become spiritually intoxicated on it because it’s been touched by the Divine hand , Jesus is clear on drinking and drunkenness in Proverbs and in the New Testament .
Jesus was sinless and Holy . Don’t be deceived Jesus didn’t create alcoholic wine so people would drink and party , He created unalcoholic new wine so they could celebrate a Wedding !
C Michael Patton says:

December 16, 2012 at 2:15 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Cooganis,

Thanks for commenting. Did you read the post?
John K says:

February 5, 2013 at 10:23 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Steve Martin, this is late, but I think you either misread my post, or just were completely dismissive of the argument. The argument that my pastor gave was that it had nothing to do with being tipsy or drunk or buzzed, but it just had to do with the taste and the pallate. And my pastor was not making an anti-alchohol argument, as he is a social drinker, but he saw that as a better interpretation of the text.
Shawn Hare says:

February 5, 2013 at 10:39 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
J Cooganis, that is, without a doubt, utter nonsense. Anyone who unbiasedly looked at the context of the Cana wedding (as well as the rest of the Scriptures) would see very clearly that Jesus not only made alcoholic wine, but drank wine Himself. God REQUIRED the Israelites to offer STRONG DRINK to Him in the sacrifices: “Its drink offering shall be a quarter of a hin for each lamb. In the Holy Place you shall pour out a drink offering of strong drink to the Lord.” (Num 28:7 ESV)

Strong drink is not wine, nor beer, but it is hard liquor.

This “alcohol is unholy” argument is so easily smashed it’s just amazing that anyone even would hold to such a nonsensical position.

Remember it was the US GOVERNMENT that put an end to the use of alcoholic wine in the communions of EVERY church in America during the Prohibition.

The abuse of a thing doesn’t make the thing evil.
Funny how you attack wine but not money, nor power, nor sex, nor food … yet all of these are abused (and more so) than alcohol.
Erykah hall says:

February 11, 2013 at 2:13 pm

Like or Dislike: 1
The truth of the matter is, if your coming out of alcoholism you don’t need to try and find a scripture in the word to cater to your habits. Lets break these generational curses, our God is holy, sovereign and perfect in all his ways.to everyone pray for a revelation. Col3:1) set your heart on things above.
John I. says:

February 11, 2013 at 9:15 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
re ” on the new wine you can become spiritually intoxicated on it because it’s been touched by the Divine hand ”

uh, where is there any Scriptural support for this claim? And, further, has anyone ever made this strange / bizarre claim in the first 1,800 years of church history? not.
Greg (Tiribulus) says:

February 21, 2013 at 10:35 am

Like or Dislike: 0
I’m late to this one and I didn’t read all the comments, but figured I’d give yet another unsolicited remark on something I’ve read here.

Their is NO way to conclude from a responsible handling of scripture that alcoholic wine was not everywhere in bible times. 1st century Jewish weddings were one rousing party down good time where the wine flowed freely. Jesus gave this particular group more wine when they had already drunk all of the available wine.

I do not drink… EVER. Not one drop because in my case there is no good reason why I should and a dozen good ones why I shouldn’t. I have been sovereignly delivered from a pathetic servile bondage to alcohol (years ago). None for me.

That however has nothing to do with you. In short there is NO justification for forbidding the responsible use of alcohol among these who can do so, which would be most people. To relax with a drink or 2 (maybe even 3, I don’t have a number as that’s between them and God) after work or with dinner is not in any way a violation of godly standards. It is a gift of of God and I would not even be the one to point a finger of accusation at someone who gets a little dopey and fun on occasion. The principles are to not destroy the temple of the Holy Spirit, our bodies, and not to be mastered by anything. Of course any consumption of alcohol that leads to other sin is also forbidden.

I attend a mid sized inner city Detroit church where half of us are former street people, junkies, drunks, hookers, gangsters and other assorted redeemed lowlifes. We neither encourage nor forbid alcohol. If it doesn’t come to the attention of leadership it’s your conscience in God’s hands.
Annette says:

February 25, 2013 at 6:21 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
To drink alcohol should be a personal decision. For some people one drink is enough, for someone else one will never be enough.
I grew up in a home where there was zero tolerance for alcohol and judgment was placed on those who did. When I became an adult I made my own decision, which is to drink alcohol on rare occasion. One is my limit.
I’ve always wondered if the emphasis on not drinking alcohol for protestants or especially evangelical type churches is because Catholic’s do approve of it?
Follower of Christ says:

March 28, 2013 at 5:37 am

Like or Dislike: 0
This is an absolute abomination. How can this website call themselves a ministry while calling Jesus a bartener? Have you lost your mind? Obviously the owner of this website is not Christian. No man of God would speak of Christ this way. And I hope He forgives you for such horrid statements. Next time keep your hellish words to yourself, damn devil author. GOD WILL BRING THIS WEBSITE DOWN EVIL DOERS YOU ARENOT TRUE FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST AND YOU WILL BE DAMED FOR WRITING THIS ARTICLE
Aaron says:

March 28, 2013 at 7:01 am

Like or Dislike: 0
I do not believe God and the Bible are simply against being a drunkard in that someone is addicted to alcohol but God is against being drunk at anytime. You should always have power over your actions and will. The word Christian means Christ-like. Being drunk is not Christlike. If you see a drunk fool you are not thinking “there’s a Christian.” So if it was real wine Jesus created it was because back then people went to weddings to celebrate the couple. Today people go to weddings to get drunk. Why would Jesus, who would die on the cross to break the controls of alocholism, have his first miracle go against that. Do you think he said “Here guys! Get wasted on me!”
Luke 1:15
15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.

People that want to still go to Heaven or have God’s blessings yet still want to be selfish and please their flesh cling to this scripture and twist it to justify them getting drunk and fitting in with sinners. The Bible says Come out from among them (sinners) and be separate TOUCH NOT the unclean thing and I will receive you. Meaning of course if you do touch the unclean thing, I won’t receieve you.
stegokitty says:

March 28, 2013 at 8:41 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Aaron, you said ” So if it was real wine Jesus created it was because back then people went to weddings to celebrate the couple. Today people go to weddings to get drunk.”

I don’t go to weddings to get drunk, and I do drink when I’m at weddings (or not at weddings). I don’t get drunk.

Alcohol, like sex, and money, and food, and power, are gifts from God. There is a right way to use them and a wrong way to use them. Are you going to say “Since most people abuse sex (or money, or power, or food) then we should not have sex, and God would never sanction something as readily abused as sex”?
Aaron says:

March 28, 2013 at 10:29 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
stegokitty,
what I was saying is if the Bible says Jesus didn’t drink wine or strong drink and drunkards shall not inherit the kingdom of God, then why would his first miracle cause people to sin.
not sure how then alcohol is a gift from God.
Chad says:

March 28, 2013 at 10:41 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Aaron. I don’t believe the bible ever stated Jesus did not drink wine. The verse you are quoting is about John the Baptist. Given the miracle at Cana and the Last Supper I think it is quite likely he did drink wine. Your argument: “then why would his first miracle cause people to sin.” begs the question as you assume drinking = sin and this is not biblical, despite misusing proof texts
Aaron says:

March 28, 2013 at 10:49 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
So John was to be held to a higher standard than Jesus? Drinking was ok for him but not John. The Bible constantly tells us that a Christian needs to be sober and not given to strong drink. But if people want to get buzzed or socially drink or unwind and not push it then I guess go for it and play with fire. I just can’t see Jesus giving people the opportunity to sin.
stegokitty says:

March 29, 2013 at 9:01 am

Like or Dislike: 0
“what I was saying is if the Bible says Jesus didn’t drink wine or strong drink and drunkards shall not inherit the kingdom of God, then why would his first miracle cause people to sin.
not sure how then alcohol is a gift from God.”

Aaron, firstly, as Chad has already said, the Bible nowhere says that Jesus refrained from wine and strong drink.

Secondly, you seem to be confusing drinking with getting drunk. Does everyone who has a sex end up having sex with someone of their own sex or an animal or some other sinful situation? Does everyone who has money end up being a greedy person, someone who would kill to keep it? Does everyone who eats become a glutton? Does everyone who is given authority abuse it? I’m assuming you’re a reasonable person and the answer to these is a resounding NO! So then why is it that you think people cannot drink alcohol without getting drunk?

Thirdly I’ve written an essay on the topic, showing very clearly from the Scriptures (not from my imagination) that not only is alcohol (wine, beer, strong drink) a good gift from God, but that He even commands His people to participate in consuming it in His presence. If you are willing to look at the Biblical evidence, send me an email at stegokitty at gmail.
The Lord bless you and keep you.
Aaron says:

March 29, 2013 at 9:59 am

Like or Dislike: 0
Stego,
This topic is not a big deal for me. God had its seek him and have the Holy Ghost lead us to how God wants us to live. That is the key, having God show us, not us showing him how we want to live. so my concerns are people who want to still get drunk using scripture to tell God this is why they will drink instead of asking God to convict to them if he is fine or “blessing” them with alcohol and how much they can have and what type(s) of alcohol. I know God doesn’t want be to drink so I don’t try to find scriptures to justify it.
stegokitty says:

March 29, 2013 at 12:43 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Aaron, I wholeheartedly agree that we are not to tell God how we want to live but are to submit to His will. I don’t see anyone in this group (including myself) who wish to get drunk, nor to get God’s approval of getting drunk, nor of making excuses for getting drunk. You appear to be assuming that neither I nor anyone else here have sought the Scriptures on this matter. I just told you that this is not the case, and the Scriptures (that very Word of God which tells us how we are to live) support my position. You may be right that God does not want YOU to drink … not in this life, for whatever reason. I have no idea what God wants you to do concerning alcohol. And you have no idea of what God wants the rest of us to do about alcohol. Let’s let the Lord Himself speak:
“And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,” (Deut 14:26).

This is only one instance, but I use it because of how blatant it is that God not only prescribes and approves of buying and drinking alcohol, but says to do so with rejoicing, in His presence.

For you to do so would be sin, as you cannot with a clear conscience, but I can and so can others.

Do you agree or disagree, and if the latter, why?
And tell me what it is that you disagree with concerning the verse I just quoted (even from the KJV in case anyone wanted to give me any lip for using a “lesser” version).
Aaron says:

March 29, 2013 at 1:04 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
if God uses that scripture to show someone it’s okay for them to drink wine, beer, or spirits then I am sure God will also show them the NT scripture that says Drunkards shall not inheret the kingdom of God. so then it’s all on that person to control themselves.
I realize nobody here wants to get drunk but there are people that always want to party and get drunk and yet still be considered a Christian. so those types of people always look to this discussion and say good Christians think it’s okay for me to get drunk and bypass asking God about it.
but again for me it’s not a big deal so thank you for your responses but I don’t feel the need for us to continue going back and forth since both of us are convicted in our own ways. if people want to know for themselves if it’s okay for them to drink and ask me I will tell him exactly what I believe but yet so love God will have to show them.
stegokitty says:

March 29, 2013 at 3:19 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Aaron: ” I realize nobody here wants to get drunk but there are people that always want to party and get drunk and yet still be considered a Christian. so those types of people always look to this discussion and say good Christians think it’s okay for me to get drunk and bypass asking God about it”

Someone like that would be a reprobate, and would be looking for an excuse to get drunk. It doesn’t matter what you or I or anyone would say to that kind of person, no matter how much love and Scripture you give to them. It’s also highly unlikely that someone like that would even be in a theological discussion group. That’s not what anyone in this discussion has been trying to do. While I don’t think the “Jesus is a bartender” line is very appropriate, you and I are required to agree with what the Lord Himself says He will do for His people as a blessing: “On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined.” (Isaiah 25:6)

and … “And no one after drinking old wine desires new, for he says, ‘The old is good.’” (Luke 5:39)

And I’m wondering if you’re going to be honest enough to agree that God, in the Deuteronomy passage says exactly what I suggested.
aaron says:

March 29, 2013 at 5:01 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Stego,
Why are you trying to convince me? why do you have to feel right? I am not upset but like I said over and over its not a big deal for me but u need to feel u are right. I wont admit u are right because my opinion means nothing and I don’t want to use valueable prayer time to ask God what a NIV or whatever version u quoted means. I read the kjv and it only says ‘wine’ not ‘well-aged’ wine. so obvsly our discussion will stop here since im not getting into the difference between our bibles. God convicted to me to read and follow his guidance from the kjv. so I realky don’t care how others interpret other versions because it leads to disagreements over not important things like this.
hope im not coming across as mean or upset but I’ve tried to end this debate because we are getting nowhere.
God Bless and Happy Good Friday
stegokitty says:

March 30, 2013 at 9:37 am

Like or Dislike: 0
Aaron, actually you’re coming across as obstinate and “wanting to be right”. This isn’t about ME wanting to be right but declaring what the Scriptures clearly say and teach. And the KJV does NOT only say “wine” it says ” And in this mountain shall the Lord of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined”.

Notice the two descriptives “on the lees” and “well refined”, BOTH which mean fermented, well-aged wine. In fact it means wine that has been purposefully treated in order to bring about MORE fermentation. Even a quick search for the definition of the word brings us this “Lees refers to deposits of dead yeast or residual yeast and other particles that precipitate, or are carried by the action of “fining”, to the bottom of a vat of wine after fermentation and aging.”

Yet another shining example of why the KJV is not a helpful version because people today don’t even know what they’re reading.

And you haven’t addressed the verse that I DID quote from the KJV where God says to the people of Israel to buy strong drink and to eat and drink before Him with rejoicing.

Why is it so hard to admit that (perhaps) you’ve misunderstood the character of God and of His good gifts? I’m not trying to convince you to drink. I don’t want you to at all. You can’t as you haven’t a clear conscience of it. What I want you to do is to receive God as He is. and not as you think He ought to be.
Aaron says:

March 30, 2013 at 9:55 am

Like or Dislike: 0
Stego,
As I have said before, I know God does not want me to drink so that is all I care about. I don’t care if he is ok or not ok with others drinking. I read the Bible as my roadmap. I see it as my contract with God. My relationship with God is laid out in the Bible and how the Holy Spirit leads me to live. So in it states what God does in our relationship and what I do. Therefore, I don’t read it, or furthermore ask God about his contract with others, especially with things that have nothing to do about making or missing Heaven.
More specifically, our relationship contract with God is mostly found in the NT-where it says Drunkards shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, Christians are to be sober and not given to strong drink, etc. So God’s relationship with his children in the OT regarding wine has zero effect on me or others. Jesus came and died for us and set up a new relationship and new covenant in the NT. The temple’s veil was torn in two meaning the common man now can have a more intimate relationship with Jesus.
So since I read the Bible, mainly the NT to define my walk with Christ and if I come across something I fully don’t understand I look up words in the dictionary, find their Hebrew and Greek meaning and most importantly pray as to what God is showing me. So I really don’t care if someone is right about an OT scripture and if it shows them they can drink. I am not losing sleep (but am using my time) about trying to find out this drinking debate.
If all you want is for me to tell you that you are right, than I can say if what you are telling me God has convicted to you, than sure, you are right concerning your relationship. But I don’t take people’s word how they view scripture or how they tell me God has revealed them to me without me praying to God first. And sorry if this is insulting, I am not taking the time to pray on if this scripture means OT people can drink.
I will never discount the OT but I honor God’s NT…
stegokitty says:

March 30, 2013 at 10:34 am

Like or Dislike: 0
Aaron: “So God’s relationship with his children in the OT regarding wine has zero effect on me or others”

And: “And sorry if this is insulting, I am not taking the time to pray on if this scripture means OT people can drink.
I will never discount the OT but I honor God’s NT…”

How can you insult me with such a proclamation?
The only one you offend is God.
You have basically said “If God has thusly dealt with people, and it offends my sensibilities, then I will not study nor pray about it, as I will have God in the image that I have prescribed for Him.”

And you’ve displayed a clear disregard for the meaning of words (God does not tell you the meanings of words through prayer — that’s why He gave us Webster)
God does not change.

There is zero indication in the NT that anything concerning alcohol has changed from the OT, because in fact Jesus turned water into WINE (not grapejuice, as the context of the wedding forbids any such absurdity).

This is about someone who refuses to back down from a wrong conclusion about God.
Your responses are idolatrous and very disturbing.
Aaron says:

March 30, 2013 at 12:11 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
ok then. we are at a good stopping point, lol. I know who I am, read the Bible as God’s roadmap for me and will lead others to have God show them how to live. if people want to drink and find scriptures where God is ok with it but realize God demands people to be sober since drunkards won’t go to Heaven, God bless them.
yes the OT is our school master and shows God’s patience and the NT doesn’t discount it, but I first pray for God to direct me in a standard, decision, etc then read the Bible so God will convict a scripture. I dont make up my mind as to what I want to do then find a scripture to support it and ask God if it’s ok. not saying people here do that, but others do. also since God planted me in a church, a lot of my answers during sermons.
so once again, sorry if I came across mean or uncaring. I don’t look to website discussions for my answers so I should’ve posted my beliefs here.
Aaron says:

March 30, 2013 at 5:14 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Sorry I meant to say I should not have posted my beliefs here.
DWhitehurst says:

May 8, 2013 at 12:55 am

Like or Dislike: 0
Wow. I am really late to the party I see. Did I miss it? Given the 5 month period of threads, it must have been a great party! I didn’t intend to be here, but in my ‘drunken stupor’ from googling “the history of wine” (huge Cali Zinfandel lover here, albeit not to the extent of father Noah perhaps) I somehow stumbled on a link and ended up in this party room. I must say up front that I loved the blog article. Great work!

While I can’t say I loved some of the resultant replies, I must say I haven’t laughed so hard in a long time, as hard as the “holy laughter” of a Charismatic “Vineyard” member who swallowed the Holy Spirit, feathers and all!

I need to get out more, out of the clicks of my own denomination’s blogs that is, realize again that people really do have some ‘interesting’ notions and ‘methods’ of interpreting Holy Scripture, or lack thereof. What do I call it? Eisegesis from a modern-day pharisaical teetotaler ascetic point of view? (Albeit when confronted with clear scripture then we’ll retreat to a disregarding, defiant, subjective, Gnostic posture of “Well, G-O-D may spell ‘God’ to you, but it spells ‘Dog’ to me!) Do they know what a metaphor is? Or reading things in their context? Or of letting Scripture be its own interpreter? Of speaking where Scripture speaks and being silent where Scripture is silent? But oh, they’re just “Bible Believers” unlike me. I just believe the argument really boils down to who has the right hermeneutic, if they have one at all.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that some of the posters would be indignant with the blog author for calling Jesus a bartender. Yeesh, to think that I bartended whilst attending seminary in order to pay tuition! Just what connotation do they think the labels for Jesus of “Carpenter’s son”, “of Nazareth”, had for the people during his days of visible tabernacling among them? And Galilean fisherman/tax men as followers, and ex-prostitutes as groupies?
Chris says:

May 12, 2013 at 12:00 am

Like or Dislike: 0
I’m gonna try to make this short. It’s late and I’m tired. There is NO way that God wants us to drink alcohol. If during the efforts to interpret a scripture it contradicts other scripture and teachings of scripture, then you are NOT interpreting it correctly. Jesus would have cast more stumbling blocks at that wedding than anybody in history if it was alcoholic. Furthermore, no one really knows if their gonna be an alcoholic until they are one. Jesus would NEVER want anybody in that unwise position, drinking until they found themselves to be an addict. The Bible teaches us to be wise. Drinking IS NOT WISE. It is a sin to be unwise. Jesus was not unwise. To top it off, it is shocking how some on here have moved the goal posts, so to speak, to now the strongest drinks available is supposed to be alright. Then the goal posts were moved on how messed up you have to be before your really drunk enough to be a sin. JUST LISTEN TO YOURSELVES. It’s inevitable though, once you start accepting that Jesus was a wino that things get out of hand.
Chad says:

May 12, 2013 at 8:03 am

Like or Dislike: 0
Chris:
Pages and pages of biblical exegesis with the weight of the evidence being on wine being a regular and approved dietary staple used in moderation and your rebuttal is “THERE IS NO WAY…LISTEN TO YOURSELVES!! I JUST KNOW IT CAN”T BE!!

Really?
David says:

May 12, 2013 at 8:18 am

Like or Dislike: 0
Chris, I am sorry but you are guilty of eisegesis – reading your own narrative into the Bible. You may not like or agree with the view that wine in moderation is acceptable, but there is overwhelming evidence that this is what the Bible teaches. The belief in total abstinence for Christians only began with the temperance movement and has never been part of historic christian teaching, including that of all the great reformers.
Chris says:

May 12, 2013 at 10:49 am

Like or Dislike: 0
No folks. It doesn’t add up. You all are supporting your views the way you claim I am. And Chad, when I said listen to yourselves, I was referring to the people on here, and I’m not going back to see who they are, that says that you can get really drunk before your sinful. Also the ones that says basically God approves of Vodka, whiskey, ever clear or whatever. Contradicts other clear teaching. Proverbs 20: 1 and Proverbs 23: 31. You can’t crawl over those and say wine or any alcoholic beverage is permissible. So one has to go back to the drawing board and figure out what the Bible really says. Overwhelming evidence it’s ok??? Hardly. Abstinence began with temperance movement? No, it begin at least as far back as Proverbs. The reformers? They were learning after a long period of doctrinal darkness. They didn’t get everything right either. Maybe we should think of the temperance movement as a sort of reformation as well.
Chris says:

May 12, 2013 at 11:07 am

Like or Dislike: 0
Guess I’l say a bit more. I am 55 years old. I have observed people since I can remember. I have observed drinking people most of this time, even though I tried to avoid drinkers. It is my experience that people that drink, at some point are going to get drunk. Even if it’s by ‘accident’. I think most on here will agree that’s a sin. I have watched as social drinkers turned in to full blown alcoholics that would be drunk well before noon. They never recovered until their dying day. People such as this also set the pattern for generations to follow in their family. Like a curse. Even if you are right that alcohol is not totally forbidden, Romans 13:14 pretty well would forbid the use of it as making provision for the flesh, as a drinker is likely to go to far.
David says:

May 12, 2013 at 11:24 am

Like or Dislike: 0
Chris, I see the best way to reconcile the contradictions is to take the verses in proverbs as referring to alcohol in excess. That requires far less creative thinking than saying that God’s people were drinking unfermented grape juice when the text says wine. People become addicted to sex and money as well, but we don’t ban them completely.
Chris says:

May 12, 2013 at 11:25 am

Like or Dislike: 0
Opps. let me finish…. a dinker is likely to go too far, not only for themselves, but for the making of provision for the lust of the flesh in future generations as well. I know that pretty much everyone on here is set in their opinions. You folks are not likely to change, neither am I. It’s obvious that some on this page has more formal education than I do. That doesn’t make them right. I think all would agree on that. After all, there are atheists with more education than all of us. Everybody on here would agree that they are wrong or you wouldn’t be on here would you?
Chris says:

May 12, 2013 at 12:11 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Get out your Strongs. Mines in storage. I think you will find that the word translated as wine in the verse in question is something like ‘fruit of the vine.’ That can be either. So it is not so clearly fermented wine.
Chris says:

May 12, 2013 at 12:23 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Also reference Matt 9:17. Makes it about as clear as can be what new wine and old wine is. Don’t know much else to say if that’s not adequate.
David says:

May 12, 2013 at 12:50 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Chris, the phrase “fruit of the vine” is used by Jesus in the synoptic gospels, it is from the Jewish blessing for wine, which always refers to fermented wine, not grape juice.

Education in itself doesn’t guarantee correctness, but lack thereof is more likely to produce a wrong answer. If you were ill, who would you want to be treated by? A fully qualified physician, or someone who’s hung around hospitals and read a few medical books?

Many heresies and false teachings begin when uneducated people read the Bible and arrive at conclusions which cannot be supported from the original languages or historical context.

On the subject of alcohol, there is some disagreement amongst theologians and I would never say that the answer can be given with absolute certainty, however the abstinence case is very much a minority opinion and I regard the scriptural support for it as very weak.
Chris says:

May 12, 2013 at 1:08 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
I realize it is a minority opinion. I don’t think the case for abstinence is weak though. If the Bible had totally forbid it any stronger, then it could never have been used for any medicinal purpose, which it sometime was in Biblical times. That may be why it seems weak to you. Take the whole council of God, not just look for a loophole for permission. Would have said that a little different, but best I can do right now. LOL. For me, it is not in the character of God to permit alcoholic use for recreational purposes, which is basically all it’s used for these days. Recreational for this discussion would include relaxation.
Shawn Hare says:

May 12, 2013 at 2:16 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Chris,

“And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,” (Deut 14:26).

The problem is that you’re voicing your opinion versus we, who are voicing what the Scriptures clearly teach and what, historically is the necessary interpretation.

Just in this one verse God makes it CLEAR about His not only having noting against the right and lawful and good use of the good gift of alcohol but that He approves of such in His presence, even in a holy convocation.

The case for abstinence isn’t weak, it’s absurd.

Your observance of people abusing alcohol and claiming that thusly one cannot rightly partake is as ridiculous as saying “I’ve seen many people abuse (cake, sex, money, power, bacon, etc.) and therefore this is the only way that the use of it can be done, and therefore it’s sinful, so no one should call himself a Christian and eat cake, or bacon, or get money, or possess authority/power, nor have sex, except only to produce children.”

Fundamentalism infused with moralism = the destruction of Christianity and of all reason.

This isn’t about looking for a “loophole of permission” but of the entire council of God which teaches not only (as per the verse above) that it’s “okay” and even approved to partake of the good gift of fermented drink, but that to forbid such is to fall into the error of “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.” (Col 2:16).

I’ve written an essay on the topic, though no doubt someone who has made up his mind about what God MUST be like (like himself) would not be interested in such. I’ve attempted to post it here but it’s too long. IF you want to surprise me, ask me and I’ll send it to you in email.
Chris says:

May 12, 2013 at 4:01 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Yeah, send it to me. cphil1000@yahoo.com. So does that verse in Duet mean I can hire prostitutes as well? Whatsoever my soul desires.
Chris says:

May 12, 2013 at 4:10 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Shawn, I know you were trying to make a point, but you were putting a lot of words in my mouth.
Shawn Hare says:

May 12, 2013 at 4:48 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Chris, you said “Yeah, send it to me. cphil1000@yahoo.com. So does that verse in Duet mean I can hire prostitutes as well? Whatsoever my soul desires.”

Please notice that you didn’t actually address what the verse says plainly. And then you followed it up by an absurdity. There is not and cannot be a right and lawful use of prostitutes (in their normal line of work), seeing as the 7th commandment forbids any sexual activity outside the bond of marriage. And that is why I was able to take such liberties with “putting words into your mouth” because it’s precisely the sort of things you’ve proven to say … as per your previous comment. There ya go.

I’ve sent the essay to you in email.
Hopefully you’ll read it and be willing to be wrong if indeed you are … which you are.
Shawn Hare says:

May 12, 2013 at 4:51 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
And Chris, I wasn’t aware that one could (unless he was a cannibal) eat a prostitute. So once again, your rebuttal fails to hold water.
Chad says:

May 12, 2013 at 8:35 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
“And Chris, I wasn’t aware that one could (unless he was a cannibal) eat a prostitute. So once again, your rebuttal fails to hold water.”

While I have been agreeing with Shawn Hare…I really wish he hadn’t written that last sentence…..

Way too many double entendres going on there
Shawn Hare says:

May 12, 2013 at 8:43 pm

Like or Dislike: 0
Chad, I didn’t intend any “double entendres”. I believe my response to Chris is quite valid. I suppose one might be able to make a “double entendre” of just about anything, hence the “that’s what she said” office/workplace jokes.

But I was being completely and literally serious. Chris was using prostitution as a means of sand-bagging against actually addressing the verse I’d posted, when the verse is clearly talking about what one eats and drinks “before the Lord”. Jews (and Christians) are not in the habit of eating human beings, and therefore, contextually to bring up anything that is neither food nor drink, and present it as a means of rebuttal (really against what God commanded) it simply doesn’t work.
David Paul Regier says:

May 14, 2013 at 8:19 am

Like or Dislike: 0
Nothing new to add. Just wanted to keep the comment thread going until He comes back to tread the grape juice press of the fury of God the Almighty.

Parchment & Pen Blog

Did Jesus Turn Water into Wine or Grape Juice?

Similar Posts:

136 Comments

More Comments:

Post a Comment

Sponsors

Get Email Updates

Our Classes

Theological Word of the Day

Reclaim Your Mind

Parchment & Pen Blog

Did Jesus Turn Water into Wine or Grape Juice?

Similar Posts:

Share this:

136 Comments

More Comments:

Post a Comment

Sponsors

Get Email Updates

Our Classes

Theological Word of the Day

Reclaim Your Mind