Most assume that the word “wine” in the Bible is always alcoholic. There are passages that clearly imply that “wine” can be intoxicating (Eph. 5:18, 1 Tim. 3:8, Titus 2:3). Still, “wine” is often simply grape juice. There are a number of examples of this. The grape juice from the grapes of the field is called “wine” (Deut. 11:14, 2 Chron. 31:5). “Wine” is mentioned to be in the grape (Isa. 65:8). This passage alone should convince all. The blood of the grape is called “wine” (Deut. 32:14). The vineyard is describe of consisting of “red wine” (Isa. 27:2). The grape juice of the wine-press is called “wine” too (Prov. 3:10). Biblical “wine” may be alcoholic or not at all. In reading the Old Testament, many would be surprised that there are 6 different Hebrew words that are translated “wine” for which two words, asis means “sweet grape juice” or “new grape juice” while another word, hemer, simply means “grape juice”, which have no reference to alcohol and yet are translated “wine”.
There are a lot of believers in Jesus who look to His drinking of wine. Yet, this too is speculative. Jesus is never mentioned to drink wine. Actually, Jesus was accused of being a “wine-drinker” from the Greek oinopoteis, because He came freely eating and drinking unlike John the Baptist, who restricted his eating and drinking (Matt. 11:18-19, Luke 7:33-34). Yet, when we consider the wedding in Cana, the institution of the Lord’s Supper, and Jesus’ life, then we see something different.
What about Jesus turning water to wine? Many are mistaken to assume that Jesus turned water into intoxicating wine at the wedding in Cana (John 2). One has to assume this “wine” [oinos] was alcoholic since oinos means grape juice. It seems strange that some would imply that Jesus would have aided a wedding to be a drinking party, when His Spirit condemns this in 1 Peter 4:3. The person making this case would have to believe that the wedding ran out of a lot of supposed intoxicating wine, and then supposedly Jesus made between 120 to 150 gallons of “the good” intoxicating wine. If there were 300 people there, who had already each having half-a-gallon of alcoholic wine being that “the guests have well drunk”, then Jesus would have doubled that what they had “well drunk”. Would not Jesus be encouraging drunkenness, excessive drinking, and a drinking party by doing something like? To assume that Jesus made intoxicating drinks is to assume that after everyone had drunk all the other intoxicating wine, then they needed more of the better intoxicating wine and Jesus was the man to do it.
In the Bible, alcoholic wine was limited in content and is not like wine today. The sugar of grape juice can only ferment up to 3% alcohol, which is nothing to the use of a drinker. For grape juice to exceed 3% alcohol, then yeast must be added. The yeast added to ancient wines produced between 4-10% alcohol. Alcohol often kills yeast cells and prevents levels going over 10%. Today, wines average 12-15% alcohol due to distilling that was invented centuries after the Bible was completed (International Biblical Encyclopedia, Wine Makers Magazines, and Alcohol in Moderation Digest). Today’s wine is not Biblical wine in regards to alcohol content. Due to distilling, strong drinks like liquor go over 20%. When we read the word “wine” in the Bible, it may be simply grape juice or intoxicating wine up to 10%, but certainly not like wine today.
The misuse of the word “wine” has become the means for many to assume that drinking alcohol to some level of intoxication is fine with God. By this, many try to justify the sins of drunkenness and excessive drinking. The Bible warns about the evils of drinking. “Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise” (Prov. 20:1). The Scriptures are clear about drunkenness. Christians are not to walk in drunkenness (Rom. 13:13). Christ’s Spirit in Galatians 5:19-21 teaches that “drunkenness” is a “work of the flesh” and “those who are doing such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” Christ also reveals in First Corinthians 6:10, “nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Drunkenness is evil. Intoxication is a sin.
There is more to go along with the sin of drunkenness. First Peter 4:3 says, “For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness [lit. excessive drinking], orgies, drinking parties [lit. drinkings], and lawless idolatry.” The word for “drunkenness” here is not the usually word for drunkenness in Greek, but it is oinophlugia made of two words oinos meaning wine and phlugia is to do something in excess. Excessive drinking is a sin. Also, don’t overlook the reference here to drinking parties. This is the word potos, which denotes occasions for drinking. This is any occasion where excessive drinking can occur. This would include more than bars and drinking parties such as out-of-control athletic events and house parties turned into occasions of drinking. Christians being followers of Christ must be sober and not be drunk in any way. Christians cannot be a part of occasions for drinking. Christ had no part with drunkenness and drinking parties, so His followers must not.
Did Jesus use alcoholic wine in the Lord’s Supper? Many have justified excessive drinking and drunkenness by how many denominations have made alcoholic wine a part of the “Eucharist”, the Lord’s Supper. It would be hard to find a church that does not use alcoholic wine with exception to the churches of Christ. Did Jesus use wine when He instituted the Lord’s Supper? No, He did not. Actually, wine has nothing to do with the Lord’s Supper. The word “wine” is never used in reference to the Lord’s Supper. People have invented the idea that Jesus used wine in the Lord’s Supper. Jesus mentions the specific content of the cup to drink being “the fruit of the vine” or an even better translation “the fruit of the grapevine”. On top of all of this, Jesus used unleavened bread because it was the time of the Passover when all leaven was thrown out. This also included the throwing out of leavened grape-juice, intoxicating wine. Since “fruit of the grapevine” was unleavened in the Lord’s Supper, then the only fermentation would be between 0-3%. If with bias one asserted this “wine” to be 3% alcohol, then this would be useless to drinkers since gallons would have to be drunk to intake enough to intoxicate, but even then the wine would be so deluded and quickly released from the body.
When Jesus used “wine”, then it would have been nonalcoholic up to maybe 3% alcohol. Clearly, many need to reconsider their position on drinking alcohol. If you’ve been using Jesus to justify excessive drinking, drunkenness, and drinking places, then please reexamine your views in accordance with the words and life of Christ. The reality is that the Bible does not even support drinking intoxicants.
This article is just more “church of christism”. Jesus made wine and drank wine during His time on Earth. We will drink wine with Him in the future. What happened between His first and second comings in relation to wine drinking? Legalists like many church of christers come along and learn just enough NT Greek to twist what the Bible says about wine and wine drinking. The key point of the Bible is “Don’t get drunk”. Other than that, drinking wine or a margarita is not sinful in any way when done in moderation.
This article against Christians NOT drinking wine or alcohol is just more sectarian roadkill and it stinks.
Did you read the article?
I’m not a “church of christer” just a Christian. You shouldn’t detest people for living by their convictions. You might as well fuss at the Amish or Mennonites for being sectarian for their way of living doesn’t usually include other denominations.
You don’t have to advocate for alcohol. It does that for itself.
Here is my question, When does “drinking” in moderation cross over into a little intoxicated or a little drunk? Sure drink some for the stomach’s sake, but there is neither encouragement nor permission to drink freely.
Let off this personal judgmental stance. Farewell.
I appreciated your article on Jesus and wine. Some time ago I had noted the emphasis in the Old Testament on excessive drinking. I came away with the impression that ‘alcoholism’ would be a good description of the drinking in many of the passages.
Your warnings are valid, but as you know not well received in a culture that is driven to drinking and drugs.
Some of the things you said concerning wine at the wedding at Cana puzzled me. You quantified both the people in attendance at the wedding and the amount of wine they might have drunk. I do not know where you came up with those numbers: 300 guests? Half a gallon of wine per guest to indicate “well drunk”?
The miracle, and its inclusion in John, is not really about alcohol content in wine, but rather Jesus’ power manifesting itself in something of the highest quality. The real connection we should make is between the quality of wine and how Jesus came that we might have life, a life of the highest quality. He is master over quality.
Even though I am puzzled with the numbers, your final statement regarding the wine at the wedding in Cana is well put. If ‘well drunk’ really meant intoxicated, it would not make sense for Jesus to ‘give everyone another round on me!’
I am still not convinced that the wine at the wedding at Cana was non-intoxicating. There is just not enough in the text to be sure. Even if one concludes that there was intoxicating wine, we can be sure that Jesus did not become drunk nor promote drunkenness.
One last comment.
I grew up with a clever catch phrase: “If you drink one drink, you’re one drink drunk.”
I was very frustrated with the teachers of my youth when I learned how the human body processes alcohol from a drink such as beer or wine or cough medicine. In short, the liver breaks the alcohol down and processes it before it ever enters the blood stream and causes even the slightest ‘buzz.’
I believe the admonition to consider one’s use of alcohol intake is wise. However, we must not go so far as to say that scripture has demanded Christians to be “tee-totalers” (i.e. not the least amount of an alcoholic drink) on the basis of alcohol content alone.
In any case, I believe you did a good job in showing that Jesus must not be used as an ‘excuse’ to drink alcoholic drink.
[Picky comment . . . for future reference: In the next to last paragraph, wine would be 'diluted,' but not deluded.]
Thanks for the article.
I did not include drinking here. I did address excuses used for excessive drinking. Notice how “well drunk” is translated from methuo, which is translated “drunkenness” and condemned in Rom. 13:13, 1 Cor. 5:11, 6:10, and Gal. 5:21. The meaning is the methuo refers to drinking like drinking refers today to both general act and drinking alcohol.
Your points are noted.
The 300 is for perspective of Jesus supposedly did, but 600 would imply half-a-gallon each and 1200 are quarter of a gallon. One hundred fifty is a lot more. I find it hard to imagine more than a thousand in Cana being smaller than Nazareth.
I didn’t approach this from a religious point of view, but as a wine blogger looked at what kind of wine Jesus would have drunk, had he drunk wine. It’s a different argument to your piece, but I hope it adds another angle.
I still dont understand! why doesnt a simple answer,answer a simple question? what kind of wine did jesus drink? grape juice? or it does answer my question but im not reading carefully? all im asking for is a simple answer,no explanations.
“When Jesus used ‘wine’, then it would have been nonalcoholic to maybe 3% alcohol.”
The original New Testament was written by Jews. Jews of that time spoke and wrote in Aramaic – the everyday language they adopted since their capture by the Babylonians (before Babylon, they spoke and wrote in Hebrew). Archaeological documents of the time prove it to be true. Get a copy of the Aramaic New Testament in plain English and discover for yourself the errors in translation made from the Greek texts. There may be only 5% discrepancy, but see for yourself how dramatically that mere 5% changes things as it concerns some very basic Christian Doctrine.
The Apostles did not write to Greek and Roman states in Aramaic. You say this without evidences, witness. The NT was not Aramaic. It is Greek.
Doing some research on wine in the Bible which led me to this post (among many others)… I think everyone who comes here, or to any post given on individual opinion, would benefit from reading a well articulated/objective essay on the topic:
The Bible and Alcohol – hxxp://bible.org/article/bible-and-alcohol
(Replace the ‘x’s with ‘t’s)
Also, it’s important that you go back to the word origins if you are unclear, or at least use a KJV text when looking for scriptural context… NIV typically calls ‘wine’ – ‘juice’ in a few instances where the KJV (and original text) is pretty clear it is ‘wine.’ Selah
When we put ourselves in the place of reading these original language, we are reading a word that generically refers to grapejuice and could refer to wine.
I also recommend the primary sources found in another article here, which is <http://godsbreath.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/how-intoxicated-can-a-christian-get/>.
Thank you and may God bless you in your study.
God help us when people interpret to fit their predetermined beliefs and biasses. The reality of the time was that “grape juice” was very rare. There was no way to preserve either gapes or juice and most of it was preserved as wine. And the idea that there was somehow less sugar, so therefore less alcohol, in the wine, is just crazy.