APPENDIX C continued from page 13
Wine in the Bible
Inspiration, true science, and sound common sense always agree. Any apparent conflict arises either from a misunderstanding of the meaning of the language employed, or from an imperfect knowledge of the scientific facts supposed to necessitate a disagreement. Science says distinctly and unequivocally, all fermented drinks contain alcohol; alcohol is a poison under all circumstances and in all doses. The decision of science is sustained by that reason; for common sense teaches that a substance with properties like those possessed by alcohol can be nothing else than poisonous. If it is true that the Bible teaches that alcohol-- in the form of wine, or otherwise-- is good and harmless, then it will be made to appear that inspiration is less wise than reason and science; that man, the creature, has outstripped the Creator in knowledge.
Such a conclusion, though correctly drawn from the premises, is too absurd for belief by one who has a modicum of faith in inspiration; and its manifest falsity would seem to be sufficient to fully expose the weakness of those who would make the Bible responsible for intemperance. The utter worthlessness of all arguments in favor of the use of alcoholic drinks founded on the Bible becomes still more apparent by a careful examination of the character of the wines mentioned in the Bible, and a consideration in detail of the texts which are claimed to be favorable to the use of alcoholic liquors.
Two Kinds of Wine recognized in the Bible
It is undoubtedly true that intoxicating liquors are mentioned in the Bible; and it is equally true
that a kind of liquor or wine which is not intoxicating is also often mentioned. Ancient historians
preserve the same distinction, making frequent reference to intoxicating wine and its effects, and
also to unintoxicating wine and its wholesome properties.
Unintoxicating Wine: The intoxicating property of wine is due to the alcohol which it contains.
Wine which contains no alcohol is unintoxicating. Alcohol is produced only by fermentation. Wine
which has not undergone fermentation, then, is unintoxicating, since it contains no alcohol. All
that is required to preserve wine free from alcohol, and thus from intoxicating properties, is to
prevent fermentation. That the ancients were acquainted with several modes of preventing
fermentation, is clearly shown by reference to history. Ancient historians describe four principal
methods of effecting this, which were as follows:
1. Boiling. In order that sweet fluids should ferment, it is necessary that a certain amount of water should be present. If a portion of the water is removed, fermentation cannot take place. This is easily effected by boiling; and this method was very commonly practiced among the ancients. The fresh juice of the grape was boiled until a considerable portion of the water was evaporated. Sometimes the boiling was continued until the juice acquired the consistency of syrup. This same method is employed now in the preservation of cider, and the sweet juice of the maple tree and the sugar cane, which would speedily ferment and produce alcohol if left to themselves, but can be preserved any length of time in the form of syrup or molasses.
According to Pliny and Virgil, the Romans preserved wine in this way. Pliny mentions wine which had been preserved in this manner and was perfectly sweet, and of the consistency of honey, though two centuries old.
Aristotle states that "the wine of Arcadia was so thick that it was necessary to scrape it from the skin bottles in which it was contained, and to dissolve the scrapings in water."
"The Mishna (a collection of ancient Jewish writings held in the highest esteem by the Jews) states
that the Jews were in the habit of using boiled wine."- Killo
2. Filtration. The fermentation which develops alcohol in a sweet fluid by decomposing its sugar, is largely dependent upon the presence of albumen and certain impurities. These were carefully removed by repeated filtration, after which the purified juice was placed in bottles or casks, which were carefully sealed, and buried in the earth or submerged in water, and thus kept cool and sweet.
3. Subsidence. The ingredients of fresh juice which aid in exciting fermentation were also removed by keeping the juice sufficiently cool to prevent fermentation until they had settled to the bottom, when the clear liquid was poured off and carefully bottled as after filtration.
4. Fumigation. Sulphur is a powerful antiseptic. The ancients were familiar with this fact, and often preserved the juice of the grape from fermentation by subjecting it to the fumes of sulphur, or by adding to it the yolk of eggs, mustard seed, or other substances containing sulphur. The same methods are now in use for preserving cider.
The fresh juice of the grape or any other sweet fruit, when treated in any one of the above ways,
is entirely free from any intoxication property, and is not only harmless, but palatable and
nutritious. Says Prof. M. Stuart, "Facts show that the ancients not only preserved their wine
unfermented, but regard it as of a higher flavor and finer quality than fermented wine."
Intoxicating Wine: As already stated, the intoxication element of wine is alcohol, which is
produced by the decomposition of sugar in the process of fermentation. Alcohol can be made
form any juice which contains sugar. The ancients made intoxicating drinks from millet, dates,
beans, palm juice, pears, figs, pomegranates, and other fruits, beside the grape. These liquors were
known to the Jews, and are frequently referred to in the Scriptures. In Prov. 23:31, we have a
striking reference to the fermentation of wine, as follows, according to Dr. Kitt's translation:
"Look not thou upon the wine when it is turbid, when it giveth its bubble in the cup, when it
moveth itself upright."
Scriptural Distinction of Wines
In the English version of the Scriptures, the distinctions made in the original are often obscured or wholly lost. This is especially true in the present instance. In the Hebrew, the language in which the Old Testament was written, different kinds of wine are indicated by different words, which are all rendered in the English translation by the one word wine. The principal words thus employed are, YAYIN, SHEKAR, and TIROSH.
YAYIN, according to the Biblical critics, refers to the juice of the grape in any form. It might be sweet or sour, fermented or unfermented.
ASHEKAR, or SHECHAR, was the term applied to any sweet juice derived from any other source besides the grape. It is sometimes translated honey. It usually refers to the juice of the palm-tree or of its fruit the date; and like YAYIN, it included the fermented as well as the unfermented condition of the juice.
TIROSH was applied to the ripe fruit of the vine, and to the fresh juice of the grape before fermentation had begun. It is often translated "new wine."
In brief, then, YAYIN, means fermented or unfermented wine or juice of grapes; SHEKAR means fermented or unfermented wine or juice of the palm-tree, or dates, or other sweet fruit. TIROSH means the sweet unfermented juice of the grape, or new wine.
The Hebrews used the term YAYIN for wine made from grapes, in any of its stages, just as we apply the term cider to the fresh juice of the apple, or to the same juice after it has fermented or become "hard" by age. The Greek, OINOS, corresponds exactly with the Hebrew YAYIN.
The foregoing is certainly sufficient to show beyond all chance for reasonable doubt that there are
two kinds of wine recognized in the Bible, one of which was sweet, unfermented, and
unintoxicating, and the other fermented and intoxicating. The same term is often used for both
kinds. If, then, we find the Bible in some instances speaking of wine in terms of commendation,
and in others condemning it in the most forcible manner, would it not be reasonable to suppose
that in those cases in which wine is commended, the unfermented kind is referred to? And in those
in which it is condemned, that which had undergone fermentation is meant? Any one who has
confidence in the inspired character of the Scriptures will have no hesitancy in answering in the
affirmative.
We are now prepared to consider some of the texts in which wine is mentioned.
"In the holy place shalt thou cause the strong wine to be poured unto the Lord for a drink-offering." Num. 28:7.
Whatever semblance of argument may be founded upon this text loses all its force upon reference to the original. The term which is here rendered "strong wine" is SHEKAR, which might with much greater propriety be translated "sweet wine," since that is the literal meaning of the word. It is so rendered by Kitto, who says that the article referred to in this text was a sweet juice derived from the palm-tree or any sweet fruit other than the grape. That this position is correct is conclusively proven by the testimony of an eminent Jewish rabbi, who says of the Jews, "In their oblations and libations, both public and private, they employed the fruit of the vine, that is, fresh grapes and unfermented grape juice." "Fermentation is to them always a symbol of corruption."
According to Plutarch, even the Egyptians used only unfermented wine in sacrifices.
"Wine which cheereth God and man." Judges 9:13.
The wine referred to here cannot be the fermented kind, for the original word so rendered is
TIROSH, which, as previously shown, was always applied to grapes themselves or the fresh juice.
Some learned Bible commentators hold that the word refers exclusively to the whole ripe fruit.
Travelers in wine-producing countries assert that the fresh juice of the grape has a peculiarly
refreshing effect when taken cool, and that any quantity can be drunk without any of the effects of
fermented wine.
"He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and the herb for the service of man; that he may bring forth food out of the earth; and wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine," Ps. 104:14,15.
The wine referred to here must be of the unintoxicating kind, for it is represented as being a
natural product, like grass, the herb, and oil. Fermented wine is not a natural result of growth.
The Creator never made alcohol in any form. Not a single plant contains it. It is the product of
decay and rottenness. As remarked in reference to the preceding text, new wine is the most
refreshing and cheering beverage.
"Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish." Prov. 31:6.
Even this text is sometimes used as an apology for the use of liquor, though at the most it could be made to excuse the use of strong drink only in cases of threatened death. An understanding of the real meaning of the text clears up all difficulty attached to it.
The term, "strong drink," had no reference to distilled liquors, as in present usage. The art of
distillation was unknown to the ancients, not being discovered until the ninth century. Strong
drink, then, did not mean a liquor strong in alcohol, like brandy or rum. It referred to a liquor
sometimes called "mixed wine," which was a compound of wine with wormwood, myrrh, nux
vomica, and narcotic drugs, which rendered it very intoxicating. It was customary, among ancient
nations, to administer this strong or intoxicating liquor to criminals who were about to be
executed, in order to stupefy them and thus mitigate their pain. In obedience to the common
custom, a drought of the powerful opiate was offered to the Saviour, as he hung upon the cross.
It was to this well-known custom that the wise man had reference just as the surgeon would say,
"Give anaesthetic to the patient about to undergo surgery."
"The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a wine-bibber" Matt. 11:19.
It will not be denied that Christ drank wine; but there is not the slightest evidence that he ever
drank a single drop of fermented wine. Sweet wines which had been preserved by some one of the
methods previously described, were by many persons drunk to excess, just as food may be taken
in excessive quantity. Such persons were called wine-bibbers, though they could not be called
drunkards. But there is no evidence that Christ belonged to this class. The charge was made by
wicked men, his enemies, who also accused him of gluttony, and on another occasion said, "He
hath a devil." Was he a glutton? If not - and he certainly was not - how can it be claimed that he
was a wine-bibber? The same authority which would prove him to be a wine-bibber, would also
make him a glutton and one possessed of a devil.
"When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was (but the servants which drew the water knew), the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, and saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now." John 2:9,10.
If the wine referred to above was of an intoxicating nature, then the brewer and the distiller have, as they claim, a sufficient apology for their nefarious business; for in manufacturing alcohol with which to poison their fellow-men, ruin their constitutions, squander their property, and render their children homeless and their wives widows- in all this work of evil, they are only imitating the example of their divine Master! Such a position is too unreasonable to be tenable; for the work of rum savors more of a Satanic than of a divine origin. No; it is impossible for any one but the veriest infidel to regard it consistent for the Saviour of mankind to lend his influence, his example, in favor of a practice which even human wisdom can see is an unmitigated curse to the race.
Again, the governor of the feast pronounced the wine produced by Christ the best, saying, "Thou hast kept the good wine until now." If we can ascertain which kind of wine was considered best among the Jews, we shall be able to settle this question with absolute certainty. An appeal to recognized authority will do this.
Says Dr. Jacobus, "Those were considered the best wines which were least strong."
Prof. M. Stuart says that the ancients regarded unfermented wine "as of a higher flavor and finer quality than fermented wine."
Kitto says of wine which had been preserved from fermentation by boiling, "Such was esteemed [by the Jews] the richest and the best wine."
There can be no doubt, in view of such testimony, that the wine which Christ made, and which the governor of the feast pronounced the best, was the unfermented kind which was commonly considered the best among the Jews.
Lastly, Dr. Isaacs, and eminent Jewish rabbi, bears the following testimony: "The Jews do not, in
their feasts for sacred purposes, including the marriage feasts, ever use any kind of fermented
drinks."
The Passover Wine. Was the wine used by Christ and his disciples at the Passover supper, just before the crucifixion, fermented or unfermented?
This is an interesting question; for all Christendom have for hundreds of years acted upon the supposition that the wine employed was fermented, and have used this kind of wine in the sacrament. If we can ascertain with certainty the character of the wine employed by the Jews in the Passover feast, we shall be able to settle this question satisfactorily.
The process of fermentation is one of putrefaction or decay. The ancients understood this, and were also acquainted with the fact that fermentation is occasioned by leaven or ferment.
Not only leavened or fermented bread was forbidden during the Passover, but all fermented things Says Kitto, "All fermented substances were prohibited during the Pascal feast of the Jews, and during the succeeding seven days." Hence, the Passover was called the "feast of the unleavened," the word bread not being found in the original.
If the body of Christ was necessarily represented by bread which was absolutely free from ferment or leaven, surely his blood - which is the life - should be represented by wine equally free from putrefactive elements.
In view of the above facts, we are certainly justified in the belief that the communion wine used by
our Lord was wholly free from alcohol.
"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake." 1 Tim. 5:23.
This text is regarded by moderate drinkers as their stronghold. Whenever reasoned with on the subject, they quote Paul's advice to Timothy and apply the same to themselves irrespective of the state of their stomachs. In the great majority of cases, the stomach makes no complaint until after the habit of wine-taking has been formed. This fact alone is quite significant, but we would invite the attention of those who seek consolation from this text to the following points:
The fact that it was necessary for Paul to advise Timothy proves conclusively that he was not in the habit of drinking any kind of wine.
Paul recommended wine as a medicine for Timothy on account of some weakness of this stomach and not necessarily recommending it for habitual use.
The wine which Paul recommended was such as would be good for Timothy's stomach, else he
would not have advised him to use it. Alcoholic drinks are notoriously bad for even a healthy
stomach. They interfere with digestion, and are one of the most prolific causes of dyspepsia.
Unfermented wine, on the other hand, has just the opposite properties. It is a most wholesome
article, and was much esteemed by the ancients for the very purpose for which Paul recommended
wine to Timothy. The conclusion is irresistible, then, that the kind of wine recommended by Paul
was the unfermented juice of the grape. This position is confirmed by Athenaeus, who recommend
sweet wine "as being very good for the stomach." Paul certainly would not have recommended
fermented wine to Timothy, for Pliny, Philo, and Columella, in speaking of fermented wine, say
that they produced "headaches, dropsy, madness, and stomach complaints." Who will believe that
Paul advised Timothy to use the very thing that would cause his stomach to become diseased if it
were not already so?
"Not given to much wine" 1 Tim. 3:8; Titus 2:8.
Moderate drinkers argue that Paul did not condemn the use of wine entirely, but only its excessive use, though in 1 Tim. 3:3 Paul says, "Not given to wine" without any qualifying words, evidently forbidding any use of intoxicating wine. If such a rule of interpretation as moderate drinkers adopt were followed in explaining other similar expressions, we should have some very strange doctrines taught. For example, we read, in Eccl. 7:17 "Be not over-much wicked" According to the rule refereed to, we must understand this to mean that a man may sin in moderation if he is careful to avoid becoming excessively wicked. Such a doctrine would be fatal to Christianity, and obnoxious to reason. Any degree of indulgence in sin is wrong. Any degree of indulgence in intoxicating drinks is also wrong.
We may allow a literal interpretation of the text by reference to the fact that even unfermented
wine may be used in excess just as food may be indulged in to a gluttonous extent.
Food? All the alcohols are poisons. There are over a dozen verities. No one questions this
respecting any, with the exception of ethylic alcohol, or wine spirit, which some claim to be a
food, though all the rest are poisons. If someone should bring to us half a dozen varieties of a
newly discovered substance, possessing similar properties, evidently all members of a common
class, and all capable of producing death, each having its fatal dose, and should say that all were
poisons but one, and that was an excellent food, we should certainly be very incredulous. Clearly
God considers rotten, fermented juice to be spoiled and not fit to drink.
Is it a food or a poison? Compare the main qualities of each and decide for yourself.
FOOD Verses ALCOHOL
This appendix is based largely on Wine and the Bible by J. H. Kellogg, M.D.
