PDA

View Full Version : Question about Paul's advice..



Jeffinator
Jan 27th 2009, 07:09 AM
In I Timothy 5:23 Paul is giving advice and says "No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach's sake and your frequent infirmities."

Why would wine be healthier than water?
Just hoping for some insight

Thanx,
Jeff

Philemon9
Jan 27th 2009, 01:14 PM
I would think it's mainly because wine often was safer to drink ~1900 years ago.

Today we have advanced water purification plants that remove the pathogens, heavy metals, organic compounds, etc.

Back then obviously they didn't so wine, which lacks many of these dangers, could be seen as safer to drink.

9Marksfan
Jan 27th 2009, 02:17 PM
I would think it's mainly because wine often was safer to drink ~1900 years ago.

Today we have advanced water purification plants that remove the pathogens, heavy metals, organic compounds, etc.

Back then obviously they didn't so wine, which lacks many of these dangers, could be seen as safer to drink.

Yes - I also understand it was far less alcoholic than what we have today - and that kids weren't weaned until they were 5 or 6 - and they drank wine next! Bizarre! Praise God for water filtration!!!!

CoffeeCat
Jan 29th 2009, 03:40 PM
I'd also assume that wine was maybe used to settle your stomach when it was upset. As for his 'other ailments', I know that wine has antioxidant properties and having the occasional glass can be healthy for you -- I cringe sometimes when I think of how poor the drinking-water quality would have been back then. Often, people got sick FROM drinking the water.

We think that water sanitation has been fine for a long time now.... but at little as 70 years ago, people in Europe and in some rural parts of North America often found it safer to give their children beer or wine rather than water. My grandmother told me a little friend of hers who lived nearby her farm growing up was often sick with stomach problems, so the doctor couldn't bring much more for him except red wine -- the water in town wasn't safe. Sometimes, my grandmother's father would go out of his way to drive into the next town (this would have been about 1933) to get juice for the boy. His family couldn't afford it.

So.... Paul's recommendation to Timothy is one I see as a very practical one in the context of that day. Some wine was what they had.... not much else. I think sometimes people living around now read that verse and wonder if Paul enjoyed wine and was recommending it for that reason, or something.... well, he may have, but it seems his answer was advice that had probably helped Paul himself.

parker
Jan 30th 2009, 06:04 AM
I would think it's mainly because wine often was safer to drink ~1900 years ago.

Today we have advanced water purification plants that remove the pathogens, heavy metals, organic compounds, etc.

Back then obviously they didn't so wine, which lacks many of these dangers, could be seen as safer to drink. That was my first thought as well. There may have been a well-known "water problem" during the same time that both Paul and the Christians he was writing to would be familiar with.

JC F-A-N-A-T-I-C
Jan 30th 2009, 11:02 PM
Hey has anybody hear ever heard about/read David Wilkerson's book Sipping Saints? It is a very interesting book and I don't quite know my stance on his position on alcohol, he basically says that back in the day the wine they used was basically grape juice and was not fermented. Now he said they did have fermented wine back then, but like when Jesus turned water into wine, he believes that it was completely unfermented and the Bible does not encourage drinking alcohol. I know he researched a ton on this whole topic, and has some amazingly valid points, so I would definitly recommend anybody to go and check it out. It's only $5 at his bookstore online.

I'm never going to drink after reading this because I sense no value or positive in drinking it (the health benefits of red wine are the exact same of 100% grape juice FYI). I just see all the horror and the lonely, searching people out there and all those parties are just surrounded around alcohol.

Now here is a tough question, why would Jesus turn some water into wine when God had refered to it as the "poison of the serpant?"

CommanderRobey
Feb 6th 2009, 07:42 AM
From http://www.piney.com/FprWine.html


Pliny mentions a useful GOOD stomach wine, ADUMION, which is:"without power and without strength." He states that "for all the sick, wine is the most useful when its forces have been broken by the strainer."
The advice to be an indiscriminate drinker of wine would expose Timothy to "headaches, dropsy, madness, and stomach complaints." This is true even today where the consent to drink wine might expose the drinker to wine spiked with "wood alchol," which is a poison, and can and does kill the drinkers. So Paul has a particular wine in view as he prescribes, as a Physician, a specific wine for a specific stomach problem. Dousing the inflamed stomach with ethyl or wood alchol would not be good medical advice.
If its forces have been broken by filtering out the yeasts, it would eleminate the dangerous ones and it would be harmless.
"Stomach wine, or wine for the stomach, the old writers of Greek medicinetell us, was grape juice, prepared as a thick, unfermented syrup, for the use as a medicament for dispeptic and weak persons...The Apostles told his friend to use a little wine mixed with water..."

He continues, "This beverage given to invalids to whom it was apprehended that wine (fermented) may prove injurious." (Book XIV, Ch. 9)
I am not sure where this comes from but here is some data (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137&query=chapter%3D%23836&layout=&loc=14.9)
To the third13 rank belonged the various wines of Alba, in the vicinity of the City, remarkable for their sweetness, and some- [p. 3241] times, though rarely, rough14 as well: the Surrentine15 wines, also, the growth of only stayed vines, which are especially recommended to invalids for their thinness and their wholesomeness. Tiberius Cæsar used to say that the physicians had conspired thus to dignify the Surrentinum, which was, in fact, only another name for generous vinegar; while Caius Cæsar, who succeeded him, gave it the name of "noble vappa." [oin-inos , ê, on, of wine, oxos wine-vinegar]

vappa, (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059&query=orth%3D%2365812&word=wine)ae, f. [kindr. with vapor; cf. vapidus] , wine that has lost its spirit and flavor; palled, flat, vapid wine.
II. Transf., masc., a spoiled or worthless fellow, a good-fornothing,
And in 14:9 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137;layout=;qu ery=chapter%3D%23837;loc=14.10)
We will now, in a similar manner, give a description of the varieties found in the parts beyond sea. After the wines mentioned by Homer, and of which we have already spoken, those held in the highest esteem were the wines of Thasos and Chios, and of the latter more particularly the sort known as "Arvisium." By the side of these has been placed the wine of Lesbos,4 upon the authority of Erasistratus, a famous physician, who flourished about the year of the City of Rome

4 It was remarkable for its sweetness, and aromatics were sometimes mixed with it. Homer calls it harmless. Lesbos still produces choice wines.
14:19 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137&query=head%3D%23862&word=wine) The first of the artificial wines has wine for its basis; it is called "adynamon,"1 and is made in the following manner. Twenty sextarii of white must are boiled down with half that quantity of water, until the amount of the water is lost by evaporation. Some persons mix with the must ten sextarii of sea-water and an equal quantity of rain-water, and leave the whole to evaporate in the sun for forty days. This beverage is given to invalids to whom it is apprehended that wine may prove injurious.

CommanderRobey
Feb 6th 2009, 07:48 AM
I have the book "Sipping Saints" and recommend it highly. Another good book is "Bible Wines" by William Patton.

I have also learned much in my most recent book on Wine, "Wine in the Bible and the Scriptural Case for Total Abstinence" by Leighton G. Campbell. Leighton explains why the wine Christ made of water could not have been alcoholic in content using the Word of God to solidify his stance. He also addresses 1 Timothy 5:23.

Let me pull out the book and I will share what he says concerning Paul's advice to Timothy.

CommanderRobey
Feb 6th 2009, 08:04 AM
Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities. (1 Timothy 5:23)

The Christian must be honest in facing these supposed “difficulties,” realizing that irrespective of how things may seem, God’s perfect and Holy character and standard will always be untainted, Let God be true, but every man a liar. (Romans 3:3)

Hebrews 11:6 states:

But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.


The Christian life is a life of faith, the believer knows (even though he does not see everything) that God is what He says He is. That is, He is Holy, Pure, Unchangeable, and Perfect. It is hard therefore to understand how people who profess to have been transformed by the blood of Christ could ever imagine that God would sanction the use (in any quantity) of such a deadly substance such as alcohol. Some even go as far as suggesting that Jesus Christ, God’s perfect Son, turned water into alcoholic wine and that He drank alcoholic or intoxicating wine Himself. Drunkenness would have been the obvious result or at least encouraged, considering the vast quantity of water He changed into wine, approximately 120-180 gallons!

Considering God’s Holy character, there must be a perfectly good explanation for the above passages and any others that may pose any problem. God cannot contradict Himself:

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. (James 1:17)

We will now examine 1 Timothy 3:8, and Titus 2:3, together because of their similarities. They read:

Likewise [must] the deacons [be] grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; (1 Timothy 3:8)

The aged women likewise, that [they be] in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; (Titus 2:3)

There are those who one reading these texts automatically assume that the wine mentioned is of the alcoholic type, hence allowing for moderation with respect to intoxication, but this is not necessarily the case.

1 Timothy 3:8 and Titus 2:3, when referring to “much wine,” does not in any way make allowances for so-called “temperate” drinking. Even if one assumes that the wine spoken of is alcoholic, Barnes quotes Bloomfield on 1 Timothy 3:8, in explaining this point:

The word much is added here to what is said of the qualification of a bishop. It is not affirmed that it would be proper for the deacon, any more than the bishop, to indulge in the use of wine in small quantities, but it is affirmed that a man who is much given to the use of wine, ought not, on any consideration, to be a deacon. It may be remarked here, that this qualification was everywhere regarded as necessary for a minister of religion. Even the heathen priests, on entering a temple, did not drink wine.

Adam Clarke in his exposition makes it clear that the text in no way makes room for drinking whatsoever, even if one assumes that the wine spoken of was of the alcoholic nature. He states:

Neither a drunkard, tippler, nor what is called a jovial companion. All this would be inconsistent with gravity.

Now returning to the alternative idea that the wine referred to
In 1 Timothy 3:8 and Titus 2:3 was not necessarily alcoholic, we will now focus our attention further on Titus 2:3 in explaining this point:

The aged women likewise, that [they be] in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; (Titus 2:3)

Exerpt from "Wine in the Bible and the Scriptural Case for Total Abstinence" by Leighton Campbell

9Marksfan
Feb 6th 2009, 12:48 PM
From http://www.piney.com/FprWine.html


Pliny mentions a useful GOOD stomach wine, ADUMION, which is:"without power and without strength." He states that "for all the sick, wine is the most useful when its forces have been broken by the strainer."

The advice to be an indiscriminate drinker of wine would expose Timothy to "headaches, dropsy, madness, and stomach complaints." This is true even today where the consent to drink wine might expose the drinker to wine spiked with "wood alchol," which is a poison, and can and does kill the drinkers. So Paul has a particular wine in view as he prescribes, as a Physician, a specific wine for a specific stomach problem. Dousing the inflamed stomach with ethyl or wood alchol would not be good medical advice.
If its forces have been broken by filtering out the yeasts, it would eleminate the dangerous ones and it would be harmless.
"Stomach wine, or wine for the stomach, the old writers of Greek medicinetell us, was grape juice, prepared as a thick, unfermented syrup, for the use as a medicament for dispeptic and weak persons...The Apostles told his friend to use a little wine mixed with water..."

He continues, "This beverage given to invalids to whom it was apprehended that wine (fermented) may prove injurious." (Book XIV, Ch. 9)

I am not sure where this comes from but here is some data (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137&query=chapter%3D%23836&layout=&loc=14.9)
To the third13 rank belonged the various wines of Alba, in the vicinity of the City, remarkable for their sweetness, and some- [p. 3241] times, though rarely, rough14 as well: the Surrentine15 wines, also, the growth of only stayed vines, which are especially recommended to invalids for their thinness and their wholesomeness. Tiberius Cæsar used to say that the physicians had conspired thus to dignify the Surrentinum, which was, in fact, only another name for generous vinegar; while Caius Cæsar, who succeeded him, gave it the name of "noble vappa."[oin-inos , ê, on, of wine, oxos wine-vinegar]

vappa, (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059&query=orth%3D%2365812&word=wine)ae, f. [kindr. with vapor; cf. vapidus] , wine that has lost its spirit and flavor; palled, flat, vapid wine.
II. Transf., masc., a spoiled or worthless fellow, a good-fornothing,
And in 14:9 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137;layout=;qu ery=chapter%3D%23837;loc=14.10)
We will now, in a similar manner, give a description of the varieties found in the parts beyond sea. After the wines mentioned by Homer, and of which we have already spoken, those held in the highest esteem were the wines of Thasos and Chios, and of the latter more particularly the sort known as "Arvisium." By the side of these has been placed the wine of Lesbos,4 upon the authority of Erasistratus, a famous physician, who flourished about the year of the City of Rome

4 It was remarkable for its sweetness, and aromatics were sometimes mixed with it. Homer calls it harmless. Lesbos still produces choice wines.
14:19 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137&query=head%3D%23862&word=wine)The first of the artificial wines has wine for its basis; it is called "adynamon,"1 and is made in the following manner. Twenty sextarii of white must are boiled down with half that quantity of water, until the amount of the water is lost by evaporation. Some persons mix with the must ten sextarii of sea-water and an equal quantity of rain-water, and leave the whole to evaporate in the sun for forty days. This beverage is given to invalids to whom it is apprehended that wine may prove injurious.

Fascinating! Thanks!

HisLeast
Feb 6th 2009, 02:32 PM
The wine created at Cana was socially recognized as being "the good wine". How could it gain that distinction from a crowd of celebrants if it were merely the "palled, flat, vapid wine" that is only given to invalids?

I don't buy the wine = grapejuice interpretation for a moment... but fine, lets wrongfully assume the "wine" in the new testament really meant an expensive grapejuice extract used for the sick. What's the explanation for the use of the word shekar in permissive context of the old testament.

CommanderRobey
Feb 6th 2009, 04:43 PM
The wine created at Cana was socially recognized as being "the good wine". How could it gain that distinction from a crowd of celebrants if it were merely the "palled, flat, vapid wine" that is only given to invalids?

I don't buy the wine = grapejuice interpretation for a moment... but fine, lets wrongfully assume the "wine" in the new testament really meant an expensive grapejuice extract used for the sick. What's the explanation for the use of the word shekar in permissive context of the old testament.

10 Reasons Why The Wine Jesus Made Could Not Have Been Alcoholic

(1) The Vast Quantity Created (between 120 - 180 gallons).

This amount of intoxicating wine would have turned the wedding feast into a drunken brawl. Scholars who try to overcome this by suggesting that not all the water was turned into wine, but only that which was drawn off, only complicate things. For did not Christ know all things? He would know exactly how many people might drink one cup. Why then did he not have the attendants fill only one pot? Or even two pots etc.? No, the miracle was divine wisdom and Providence in action. Christ's abundant wisdom and Providence made it obvious that such an amount could not have been intoxicating, thereby protecting his flawless reputation.

(2) Christ’s Sinlessness And Moral Perfection.

Jesus himself said in John 8:46:

Which of you convinceth me of sin?

In other words, no one was able to convict or find Him guilty of the slightest sin. Thus He declares his sinlessness and moral perfection. Those scholars, who talk about Christ impeccability (perfection) and almost in the same breath declare that he was a drinker and advocate of alcoholic wine, are totally in error.

Concerning Christ's character Hendrickson states:

Today's radical theologian is inconsistent when on the one hand he loudly proclaims the moral perfection of Jesus; yet on the other hand rejects his majestic claims! If Jesus is sinless, his claims should be accepted. Any other course is positively wicked.

Although this statement refers to rejecting Jesus as God, declaring that He was a drinker and that He made intoxicating wine is not far from this dangerous stance.

Even Jesus' enemies realize that drinking was a sin and called him a wine bibberr (wine drinker, Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34), and what is even more amazing, people who profess to be Christians accuse him of the same thing!

Many sinners, some of whom have been misinformed by Christians on this issue, also realize that drinking is sin and object to Jesus' claims on those grounds. R.A. Torrey explains this point:
A stock objection against the Bible, and not only against the Bible but against Jesus Christ Himself, is found in the story of Jesus turning the water into wine at the marriage festival at Cana of Galilee as recorded in John 2: 1-11.

Unfortunately, this kind of view only comes from those who do not really understand who Jesus is. An even sadder point is that many Christians do more to hinder unbelievers from coming to Christ by misrepresenting his character when it comes to the drink issue.

We will now look at some New Testament scripture passages, which reaffirm Jesus' sinlessness and perfection, in the light of which makes it inconceivable that our Lord could have drank or created alcoholic beverages. These read:

1 John 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

1 Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Hebrews 7:26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

In the light of these Biblical facts, it is plain that those who suggest that Jesus drank or created alcoholic wine have a very dim conception of His Holiness indeed.

(3) Man's Sinfulness.

John 2:24, 25 states:

But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because He knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man: for He knew what was in man.

Jesus also stated:

... men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. (John 3:19)

These passages alone tell us that Jesus would not have bowed to the simple desires of men by creating intoxicating wine. As Scripture states, Jesus knew what was in man, that is, He knew their simple hearts and evil desires. They indeed loved darkness rather than light.

Those commentators of the Bible therefore, that state such arguments such as "Temperance" is one of the qualities mentioned under the fruit of the Spirit. Or that the guests at the wedding feast, which Christ attended in Cana of Galilee, were a select and holy band of people, who would therefore not drink too much, is not a valid reason for explaining away why Christ would have created intoxicating wine. Since all were sinners.

Such an act of making alcoholic wine would not have produced faith in Him as the glorious Son of God. Instead it would have merely identified Him as another sinful man with the usual desires for finding pleasure in evil things.

(4) Temptation.

In Matthew 6:13, Jesus states:

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

Christ would not therefore have tempted men to become drunkard's, which would mean exclusion from the kingdom of God in which He Himself proclaimed.

(5) Christ Would Have Approved Of Social Drinking.

Pubs, bars etc., would therefore be the accepted thing amongst Christians if the wine Christ made was alcoholic as some insist. Christ could also be held responsible to a large extent for the problem of alcoholism today, as the Encyclopaedia Britannica points out:

First in the realm of health, the most serious and detrimental effect is alcoholism. Although drinking itself is hardly ever regarded as the sufficient cause of alcoholism, this disease could not arise without the use of alcohol

(6) It Was And Is In The Nature Of Christ To Do Good.

The Apostle Peter stated in Acts 10:38:

How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good...

Albert Barnes explains this principle in the light of Jesus' first miracle:

Jesus delighted to do good. In the very beginning of His ministry He worked a miracle to show His benevolence. This was the appropriate commencement of a life in which He was to go about doing good. He seized every opportunity of doing it; and at a marriage feast, as well as among the sick and poor, He showed the character which He always sustained-that of a benefactor of mankind. An argument cannot be drawn from this instance in favor of intemperate drinking. There is no evidence that any who were present on that occasion drank too freely. Nor can an argument be drawn from this case in favor even of drinking wine, such as we have. The common wine of Judea was the pure juice of the grape, without any mixture of alcohol, and was harmless. It was the common drink of the people, and it did not tend to produce intoxication.

Again after consideration of these facts, it is inconceivable from a Biblical perspective, to suggest that our Lord would have created an alcoholic substance which is not good but harmful to the body. Also, Jesus the great Physician and Creator of our bodies, who knows all things, designed our bodies to reject alcohol (in any quantity) because of its destructive potential. He therefore would not have bestowed upon man something which He in His infinite knowledge, purposely designed our complex bodies to reject. The Encyclopaedia Britannica bears this out:

The body begins to dispose of alcohol immediately after it is absorbed.

This scientific fact is borne out by the Spirit inspired writer of 1 Samuel 25:37 when referring to Nabal’s complete recovery from drunkenness. It reads:

1 Samuel 25:37 But it came to pass in the morning, when the wine was gone out of Nabal, and his wife had told him these things, that his heart died within him, and he became as a stone.

Again after consideration of the facts, can we accuse our Lord and Creator of ignorance?

(7) Christ Himself Warned Against Drunkenness And Of Drinking, And Drinking With Drunkard's.

(Matthew 24:45-51; Luke 12:45-46)

(8) Christ Himself Denied That He Was A Wine Drinker (winebibber).

When accused of this vise, Jesus stated, But wisdom is justified of her children. (Matthew 11:18, 19; Luke 7:33, 34) a paraphrase of this statement would read:

I am not a glutton, neither am I a wine drinker, or a lover of the evil deeds of tax collectors and sinners, and this fact will be justly declared by those who are my true children.

Today those who are His true children will follow His example... that we might be partakers of his Holiness. (Hebrews 12:10b)

(9) The Old Testament Condemned Drinking As Well As Drunkenness (Proverbs 20:1; 23:31-35).

Since Christ was well versed in the Old Testament and did not contradict its teachings, the truth of His abstinence from alcoholic wine is firmly established.

(10) He Would Have Violated His Own Laws Of Creation.

Speaking of Christ, Colossians 1:16 states:

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:.

Jesus as Lord and Creator, made all things perfect as Genesis 1:31 plainly states:

And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good.

Alcohol is developed by fermentation, a product of decay and death. It therefore could not have been created by our Lord, whose actions were totally consistent with the nature of God and Holy Scripture. The wine created could only be the fruit of the vine, which was not rotten and dead as is the case with fermented wine, but wholesome and fresh. Just like all the other fruits he produces on the trees yearly through his Providence, which reflects his love for man.

It is sincerely hoped that after consideration of the facts that we have examined, that we grasp the seriousness of any allegations which may suggest that Jesus drank or made intoxicating or alcoholic wine.

It is also hoped that that any doubts that the reader may have had in this area has been answered, as we have thoroughly looked at this subject from a Scriptural perspective.

Irrespective of any difficulties which may remain, there are still no excuses which can be drawn from Jesus' first miracles to justify the use of alcoholic drinks. However, there are always those who do not want to understand the clear teachings of the Bible on this subject, and will not accept any truth which commands total abstinence from strong drinks, irrespective of how clear and Biblical it may be. We will therefore conclude this section with the wise quote from Albert Barnes' Bible Commentary, which states:

No man should adduce this instance in favor of drinking wine, unless he can prove that the wine made in the "water-pots” of Cana was just like the wine he proposes to drank. The Savior’s example may be always pleaded JUST AS IT WAS-but it is a matter of obvious and simple justice that we should find out exactly what the example was before we plead it.
excerpt from 'Wine In The Bible and the Scriptural Case for Total Abstinence' by Leighton Campbell

Athanasius
Feb 6th 2009, 05:34 PM
Leighton Campbell... Oh dear ;\ Only one of those ten would hold any weight and even then not for very long.

CommanderRobey
Feb 6th 2009, 05:36 PM
Since he used Scripture to back up those 10, your problem must not be with Leighton, but rather, with Scripture.

HisLeast
Feb 6th 2009, 05:37 PM
10 Reasons Why The Wine Jesus Made Could Not Have Been Alcoholic
(1) The Vast Quantity Created (between 120 - 180 gallons).
This is not evidence against. It is merely a description of the quantity created. We have no idea the alcohol content of the wine, simply that it was wine (and thus contained at least some amount of alcohol). Do we know how many people were in attendance? How much they drank? How much was left over? We don't, therefore quantity is no argument against its chemical nature.


(2) Christ’s Sinlessness And Moral Perfection.
(3) Man's Sinfulness.
(4) Temptation.
(5) Christ Would Have Approved Of Social Drinking.
(6) It Was And Is In The Nature Of Christ To Do Good.
All of which make a critical (and false) presupposition which results in a circular argument. "Drinking is wrong (pre-suppostion), Jesus couldn't do or encourage wrong, therefore the wine he made couldn't have been real wine, therefore drinking is wrong".


(7) Christ Himself Warned Against Drunkenness And Of Drinking, And Drinking With Drunkard's.
Warned against drunkenness? Yes.
Warned against being associated with drunkards? Yes.
Warned against drinking? No.


(8) Christ Himself Denied That He Was A Wine Drinker (winebibber).
What action could Jesus have taken such that he was accused of being someone who drank too much? They only accused him of being an over-indulger because of the claims he was making. He actually consumed wine though. Real, actual wine.


(9) The Old Testament Condemned Drinking As Well As Drunkenness (Proverbs 20:1; 23:31-35).
Condemned drunkenness? Possibly.
Condemned drinking? Absolutely not.
Deuteronomy 14:26 - And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine (SHEKAR) or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household.


(10) He Would Have Violated His Own Laws Of Creation.
The "Law of Creation" makes no statement of how to consume around decay and death. To eat meat AT ALL requires at least death to be in the equation. As for decay, should we imply a similar biblical ban against mushrooms or other fungal sources of nutrition?


And there's still no getting around the fact that everyone at Cana recognized the drink as being "the good wine". Nobody took insult at being given "palled, flat, vapid wine" fit for invalids. Its clear just by their reactions that they received high quality wine. "Wine" wine. Literal wine. Not a substitute word for grapejuice.

CommanderRobey
Feb 6th 2009, 05:59 PM
The wine in Deuteronomy 14 could in no way be alcoholic wine.


Deuteronomy 14:26 26 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,

Those proponents of moderation with respect to intoxicating beverages might suggest that this text sanctions and encourages the drinking of beer and alcoholic wine. To be fair, it appears to be so, but this is not the case. In examining this passage one learns that the book of Deuteronomy furnishes us with a perfect example of the following:

A) a correct understanding of the generic words which are used for "wine" and "strong drink" respectfully.
B) a proper application of the law of context
C) a complete understanding of God's view on the subject of drinking.

Now in returning to the text, note that the Bible itself conclusively refutes any suggestions whatsoever that this text endorses the use of alcoholic drinks.

The words translated "wine" [yayin] and "strong drink" [shekar] here are generic, and may refer to fresh grape juice and a sweet pleasant drink which was unfermented. What kind of beverage is this verse referring to? Since it may be argued that this text can be interpreted according to one's own particular bias, the answer is very simple. Deuteronomy 29:6 explains:


Deuteronomy 29:6 6 Ye have not eaten bread, neither
have ye drunk wine or strong drink: that ye might know that
I am the LORD your God.

This verse proves that the "wine" and "strong drink" in chapter 14: 26 cannot be the same as that mentioned here! The inspired text later goes on to explain in no uncertain terms exactly what kind of wine the Jews did drink. It reads:


Deuteronomy 32:14 14 Butter of kine, and milk of sheep,
with fat of lambs, and rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats,
with the fat of kidneys of wheat; and thou didst drink the pure
blood of the grape.

Here Moses names among the many blessings of the Lord, pure fresh grape juice known as "the blood of the grape" which was highly esteemed.

HisLeast
Feb 6th 2009, 06:08 PM
Since he used Scripture to back up those 10, your problem must not be with Leighton, but rather, with Scripture.

Respectfully friend, just because someone "uses scripture" does not make them right. I've seen novel length treatises "using scripture" to show "conclusively" that Jesus wasn't divine and never claimed to be. Would your problem therefore be with those people, or with scripture?

CommanderRobey
Feb 6th 2009, 06:11 PM
In John 2:10, the governor of the feast said to the bridegroom concerning the wine Jesus made,
‘thou hast kept the good wine until now.” This has led to endless debates regarding the nature of the good or best wine. There are those who insist that the wine was intoxicating, due to general familiarity and personal preference. On the other hand, as we learned earlier, we know that this would be impossible, in the light of the Old Testament passages, which clearly condemns the use of alcoholic beverages.

In commenting on the wine Jesus produced, Bustanoby quickly rules out any idea in his own mind that it was unfermented grape juice. On page 75, he states:

In chapter 4, we saw that the “best” wine to those living in those days was not grape juice… the best wine was aged wine.

Commenting earlier on what was considered the “best” wine in ancient times, he states the following on page 22:

However, we shall see that only the best wine was fully aged and high in alcohol content.

Here in the above comments, Bustanoby indirectly charges our Lord Jesus Christ of creating a dangerous, poisonous, and intoxicating beverage of high alcoholic content in order to manifest His glory; an act which would clearly breach the Old Testament commandments. This is a very serious charge indeed, which has far reaching consequences, of which even Bustanoby himself seems to be aware of, but finds great difficulty in explaining away. This point is made apparent on page 55, when he contradicts himself by stating the following concerning the “wines on the lees,” mentioned in Isaiah 25:6:

Isaiah in the passage quoted above (25:6), sees God feasting with his people – not on grape juice but on fine, clarified wine of low alcoholic content. God gives his people only the best wine.

Bustanoby can’t seem to make his mind up! One moment he states that the “best” wine was high in alcoholic content, and in the next, he says it was low in alcoholic content!

In replying to a statement in David Wilkerson’s book, “Sipping Saints,” which stated that unfermented grape juice was considered the best wine among the ancients, he includes the following in his arguments on page 43:

There is no evidence in extra-biblical literature that unfermented wine was considered by the Jews, Greeks, or Romans as the best wine. The contention that grape juice was considered the best wine is simply a myth.

This statement is totally false. We have learned earlier in our studies that there is ample evidence (if one looks for it) that there were those among the ancient Jews, Greeks, and Romans who considered unfermented grape juice to be better than alcoholic wine. Having said this, the truth of the matter is that what one considered the “best” wine was a matter of personal preference. In Luke 5:39, Jesus said:

<i><font face="Arial">
No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

Here Jesus makes it plain that those who were used to drinking fermented wine (old) would not immediately desire unfermented wine (new), due to familiarity. Amazingly enough, in answer to statements that unfermented grape juice was considered by the Jews to be superior to fermented wine, Bustanoby himself brings out this point. On page 39-40, he states:

There is no questions that the ancients drank a variety of beverages, both fermented and unfermented. But to say that the unfermented juice of the grape or boiled wine was considered the best wine simply is fiction. That is like comparing Coca-Cola and Chianti. Each is “the best” in its class if Coke is your preference in a soft drink and Chianti is your preference in wine. But they cannot be compared, because they are different types of beverages. Declaring that the unfermented juice of the grape was regarded as superior to carefully fermented aged wine makes the same mistake. There is no comparison. Each is in a class by itself.

The main thought of this statement is basically correct, but again he contradicts himself. After making conflicting statements that the best wine was first high in alcoholic content and afterwards stating that it was low in alcoholic content, and then repudiating the fact that grape juice was considered the best. He here makes a more reasonable statement, conceding the fact that the ancients used unfermented beverages and that alcoholic and non-alcoholic wines could be classed separately. Bustanoby’s reasoning is confusing to say the least! This demonstrates to us how tragic it becomes when one uses human reasoning rather than the solid principles of Scripture to determine the will of God.

In order to determine the nature of the wine Jesus created, there is a vital and paramount truth that must be understood, and that is we should not pay too much attention to whether men considered grape juice or alcoholic wine to be the best, but we should consider what God considered to be good wine. From our detailed study of the Old Testament we know that this was certainly was not alcoholic wine but the
“pure blood of the grape,” which was unfermented grape juice. Just exactly what the sweetness, thickness, etc., of the wine was we do not know, but we do know that it was good and perfect because Jesus had supernaturally produced it.

Even if those at the wedding had been used to drinking alcoholic wine previously, the drinking of the fresh uncontaminated grape juice, which Jesus created, would be no problem. If we again look at our Lord’s parable in Luke 5:39, we will see this explained:

<font face="Arial">
And no one after drinking old wine immediately desires new wine, for he says, the old is good or better. (Amplified Bible)

This parable is often used by liberals as an argument for the use and superiority of alcoholic wine, but if one reads it carefully, it is in fact one of the strongest texts in favour of the superiority of unfermented grape juice. The clear implication of the parable is that one who drinks alcoholic wine will not automatically desire non-alcoholic wine, but if they were to try it, they would discover that unfermented grape juice was better, just like His doctrine that He was offering to Israel. Our Lord could not have used a better analogy than this to describe the response to His message of the Kingdom. According to Jesus’ words in John 3:19,
men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Today, as in Jesus’ day, the great majority of men think that sin is better than righteousness, but that does not mean that this is so! God knows that the cravings of sinful men are usually to their detriment. The wine that Jesus created was not necessarily what man considered to be good, but that which was good for man! And we know from Scripture that this was certainly not fermented wine of high or low alcoholic content but a wine that was absolutely pure and harmless just like our Lord and Savior.

taken from Leighton G. Campbell’s book, “Wine in the Bible and the Scriptural Case for Total Abstinence” pp 266-270

CommanderRobey
Feb 6th 2009, 06:15 PM
The remark by the governor of the feast in which he says,
"thou hast kept the good wine until now" deserves a full explanation, as many automatically assume that the best wine must have been the most alcoholic. The problem with some is, as Jesus said, <i>
Ye judge after the flesh. (John 8:15) In understanding the nature of the wine we should again take heed to our Lord's words,
Judge not according to the appearance but judge righteous judgment. (John 7:24) The Rev. Dr. William Patton quotes the Rev. Dr. Jacobus' comments on the wine our Lord created, which states:

This wine was not that fermented liquor which passes now under that name. All who know of the wines then used will understand rather the unfermented juice of the grape. The present wines of Jerusalem and Lebanon, as we tasted them, were commonly boiled and sweet, without intoxicating qualities, such as we here get in liquors we call wines. The boiling prevents the fermentation. Those were esteemed the best wines which were the least strong.

He also quotes Dr. S.M. Isaacs, an eminent Jewish rabbi as saying:

In the Holy Land they do not commonly use fermented wines. The best wines are preserved sweet and unfermented.

We also find agreement with this in Professor Moses Stuart's writings, which state:

Facts show that ancients not only preserved their wine unfermented, but regarded it as of a higher flavor and finer quality than fermented wine.

taken from Leighton G. Campbell's book, 'Wine in the Bible and the Scriptural Case for Total Abstinence' pp 146,147

HisLeast
Feb 6th 2009, 06:18 PM
The words translated "wine" [yayin] and "strong drink" [shekar] here are generic, and may refer to fresh grape juice and a sweet pleasant drink which was unfermented. What kind of beverage is this verse referring to?
In the 2 years I've spent studying this topic in depth, I have yet to see a compelling case why SHEKAR should be considered a general term. Being the noun form of the verb SHAKAR (to get drunk) its pretty universally translated as "strong drink" or "drink capable of intoxication". I will therefore wager that the kind of beverage being referred to was of the alcoholic variety.


Since it may be argued that this text can be interpreted according to one's own particular bias, the answer is very simple. Deuteronomy 29:6 explains:


Deuteronomy 29:6 6 Ye have not eaten bread, neither
have ye drunk wine or strong drink: that ye might know that
I am the LORD your God. This verse proves that the "wine" and "strong drink" in chapter 14: 26 cannot be the same as that mentioned here!

What is the context of Deuteronomy 29? Does that add any perspective?

HisLeast
Feb 6th 2009, 06:21 PM
Facts show that ancients not only preserved their wine unfermented, but regarded it as of a higher flavor and finer quality than fermented wine.

Precisely what facts?

HisLeast
Feb 6th 2009, 06:28 PM
The main thought of this statement is basically correct, but again he contradicts himself. After making conflicting statements that the best wine was first high in alcoholic content and afterwards stating that it was low in alcoholic content, and then repudiating the fact that grape juice was considered the best. He here makes a more reasonable statement, conceding the fact that the ancients used unfermented beverages and that alcoholic and non-alcoholic wines could be classed separately. Bustanoby’s reasoning is confusing to say the least!

You'll notice he's not contradictory about 1 fact: that there was alcohol content. No sense dismissing his whole argument (which interestingly enough you state is "basically correct) because he's uncertain of precisely how much alcohol is involved.

Athanasius
Feb 6th 2009, 06:45 PM
This is more appropriate in Bible chat, moving.