Is it ok to drink alcohol...?

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Shane

It was a miracle. Jesus turned water into wine. It didn't really come from real grapes. It came from water.

During the passover in the upper room?

We were talking about the wedding at Cana. I take no issue with the suggestion that Jesus drank fermented wine at the passover or on other occasions. He probably even drank fermented wine in Cana before it ran out.

[Dr. Shane]

Generally, It's very presumptious to make Adventists as the exclusive group of people who God called to spread his message.

The Adventist movement is not exclusive; it is inclusive. All are welcome to join. We are like a snow ball rolling down a mountain. We are picking up speed and growing larger every day.

[Dr. Shane]

I do believe that we needed a prophet to get the church going in the right direction.

If the people would have stayed with the Bible, God would not have needed to call Ellen White. The same can be said of John The Baptist and some other prophets. But the people didn't follow the Bible and so God did call prophets.

[Woody]

.

[John317]

I still would like to know how could people of Israel enjoy unfermented grape juice in April, as Jesus and disciples would during the discourse in the upper room?

Bacciocchi's book goes into great historical detail and contains one whole chapter devoted to the topic of the preservation of grape juice at that time. See Chapter IV, pages 106-128 in the book edition.

I will post here the part of a chapter called "Jesus and Wine," which discusses the wine at the Last Supper. In the online edition, it is found on about pages 133 to about 144.

1. Is the “Fruit of the Vine” Alcoholic Wine?

“Fruit of the Vine.

”After offering the cup to His disciples as the symbol of His blood of the new covenant, Jesus said: “I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Matt 26:29; cf. Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18). Moderationists maintain that the phrase “fruit of the vine” is a figurative expression which was used as “a functional equivalent for [fermented] ‘wine.’”57

Consequently the cup Jesus offered to the disciples contained alcoholic wine. It is true that the phrase “fruit of the vine” wassometimes used as equivalent tooinos (wine), but that does not mean that the wine used at the Last Supper must have been fermented. We have shown in Chapter 2 that

oinos,like the Hebrew yayin,was a generic term for the expressed juice of the grape, whether fermented or unfermented. The Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, usesoinos to translateyayin and tiroshin such passages as Jeremiah 40:10-11 and Judges 9:13, where the idea of fermentationis excluded. Josephus’ Testimony. More important still is the fact that the phrase “fruit of the vine”was used to designate fresh, unfermented grape juice. A clear example is provided by the Jewish historian, Josephus, who was a contemporary of the apostles. Writing about the dream of Pharaoh’s cupbearer who had been imprisoned with Joseph, he says: “He therefore said that in his sleep he saw three clusters of grapes hanging upon three branches of a vine . . . and that he squeezed them into a cup which the king held in his hands; and when he had strained the wine, he gave it to the king to drink.”58 In interpreting the dream, Joseph told the cupbearer to “to expect to be loosed from his bonds in three days’ time, because the king desired his service, and was about to restore him to it again; for he let him know that God bestows the fruit of the

vineupon men for good; which wine is poured out to him and is a pledge of fidelity and mutual confidence among men.”59 Two things are significant about this passage. First, Josephus calls the juice that was squeezed from the three clusters of grapes (gleukos), which William Whiston translated as “wine,” because at the time of his translation, namely in 1737, “wine” meant grape juice, whether fermented or unfer- mented. In this case the context clearly indicates thatgleukos was freshly

Main Menu

Jesus and Wine 133 squeezed grape-juice. Second, Josephus explicitly calls the freshly squeezed grape-juice “the fruit of the vine” (gennema tes ampelou). This establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt that the phrase “fruit of the vine” was used to designate the sweet, unfermented juice of the grape. Considering how often the New Testament writers mention the Last Supper, their entire avoidance of the termoinos (wine) in its connection is remarkable. The two terms used instead are “the cup” and “the fruit of the vine.” The consistent avoidance of the term “wine,” especially by Paul in his extended description of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:17-34), suggests that they may have wished to distinguish the content of the cup from what was commonly known as fermented wine.

Natural Produce.Christ calls the content of the cup “the fruit of the vine” (gennema tes ampelou). The noungennema (fruit) derives from the verbgennao, to beget or produce, and signifies that which is produced in a natural state, just as it is gathered. In Luke 12:18, for example, the rich man who had a plentiful harvest says: “I will pull down my barns and build larger ones; and there I will store all my grain (ta gennemata “produce”) and my goods.” The basic meaning ofgennema, as this and other examples in the Septuagint (Gen 41:34; 47:24; Ex 23:10) indicate, is the natural fruit or produce of the earth.

In our particular case it can best apply to grape juice as the natural produceofthegrapes,which are “the fruit of the vine.” Josephus, as we have just seen, offers us a clear example of this meaning. Fermented wine is not the natural “fruit of the vine” but the unnatural fruit of fermentation and disintegration. To apply the phrase “the fruit of the vine” to alcoholic wine which is the product of fermentation and decay, as Frederic Lees puts it, “is just the same absurdity as to call death the fruit of life.”60 It is also absurd to imagine that the “fruit of the vine” that Christ promised to drink again with His followers in the Kingdom, will be fermented wine. We have reasons to hope that the new earth will be free from intoxicating substances.

It seems that in His divine wisdom Christ chose to designate the content of the cup, the memorial of His redeeming blood, “the fruit of the vine” so that future generations of Christians would find no sanction in His words for using alcoholic wine at the Lord’s Supper.

It is noteworthy that the word “vine” is used on only on two occasions in the Gospels, and both are in the context of the Last Supper: the first time occurs in the account of the celebration of the Last Supper, as just noted, and the second in Christ’s parting counsel to His disciples following the Supper (John 15:1, 4, 5). In the latter instance, Jesus represents Himself as the

Main Menu

Jesus and Wine 134 genuine living vine and His disciples as the branches dependent upon Him for spiritual life and fruitfulness. The sequence suggests that after Jesus offered to His disciples the natural “fruit of the vine” as the memorial of His redeeming blood, He presented Himself to them as the “living vine” to encourage His disciples to abide in Him as the branches abide in the vine, so that they also, who had just partaken of “the fruit of the vine,” might bear “much fruit” (John 15:5). The “fruit” in both instances is a fresh, natural product which can hardly be identified with fermented wine.

2. Was the Passover Wine Alcoholic? Jewish Practice.A second major argument used to defend the alcoholic nature of the wine contained in the “cup” of the Last Supper, is the alleged prevailing Jewish custom of using fermented wine at Passover. As Everett Tilson puts it, “If the Jews of Jesus’ time knew of the prohibition of ordinary wine during this period, it seems strange that the Mishnah in its six thousand words of directions for the observance of the Passover should contain no allusion whatever to it.”61

This argument deserves serious consideration because if it is really true that at the time of Christ, the Jews used only fermented wine for the customary four cups drunk during the Passover meal, it would be possible though not inevitable, that Jesus used fermented wine was used during the Last Supper.

We must never forget that Christ’s teachings and practices were not necessarily conditioned by prevailing customs. Jesus often acted contrary to prevailing religious customs of fasting, hand-washing, and burdensome Sabbathkeeping. In fact, His independent spirit is revealed in the very institution of the Lord’s Supper. He offered to His disciples the symbolic cup only once, instead of the customary four times, and He used only the bread as the symbol of His body, leaving out the roasted lamb and the bitter herbs as symbols of the ordinance. Thus, it would not have been surprising if Christ had acted contrary to prevailing custom by using unfermented grape juice, especially since He viewed leaven or fermentation as the symbol of moral corruption (Matt 16:6, 12).

No Preference Given to Fermented Wine.But Jesus may not have needed to act against a prevailing custom. There are indications that there was no uniformity in the use of Passover wine by the Jews. Such absence of uniformity is present among modern Jews as well. Louis Ginzberg (1873- 1941), a distinguished Talmudic scholar who for almost forty years was chairman of the Talmudic and Rabbinic Department at the Jewish Theologi- cal Seminary of America, provides what is perhaps the most exhaustive analysis of the Talmudic references regarding the use of wine in Jewish religious ceremonies.

Main Menu

Jesus and Wine 135 He concludes his investigation, by saying: “We have thus proven on the basis of the main passages both of the Babylonian Talmud and that of Jerusalem that unfermented wine may be usedlekatehillah [optionally] for

Kiddush[the consecration of a festival by means of a cup of wine] and other religious ceremonies outside the temple. In the temple its use is sanctioned onlybediabad [after the act]. Indeed, in no way is fermented wine to be given any preference over unfermented in the ceremonies outside the temple. Raba summarizes the law well in the statement: ‘One may press the juice of grapes and immediately recite thekiddush over it.’”62

After examining the views of two Jewish codes regarding the use of fermented wine in Jewish religious ceremonies, Ginzberg again concludes: “It is thus seen that according to the views of the two most generally accepted Jewish codes, theTur and the Shulham ‘Aruk, no precedence whatever is given to fermented over unfermented wines. It is not even mitzvah min ha-

mubhar[a priority commandment] to use fermented wines.”63 Ginberg’s conclusion is confirmed by The Jewish Encyclopedia. In its article on “Jesus” it says: “According to the synoptic Gospels, it would appear that on the Thursday evening of the last week of his life Jesus with his disciples entered Jerusalem in order to eat the Passover meal with them in the sacred city; if so, the wafer and the wine of the mass or the communion service then instituted by him as a memorial would be the unleavened bread andthe unfermented wine of the Seder service (see Bickell,M e s s e

und Pascha, Leipsic, 1872).”64 John Kitto’sCyclopedia of Biblical Literature also refers to the use of unfermented wine at the Passover meal: “The wine used would of course be unfermented, but it is not certain that it was always the fresh expressed juice or ‘pure blood of the grape’ (Deut 32:14); for the Mishnah states that the Jews were in the habit of usingboiled wine. ‘They do not boil the wine of the heave- offering,because it diminishes it,’ and consequently thickens it, thus rendering the mingling of water with it when drunk necessary; but it is immediately added, ‘Rabbi Yehudah permits this, because it improves it’ (Teroomoth Perek, c. xi).”65

A Rabbinical Fabrication. Testimonies such as these clearly discredit the claim that only fermented wine was used at the time of Christ during the Passover meal. It would appear that unfermented wine was also used at Passover. The references to fermented wine, according to Lees and Burns, are not found in the text of the Mishnah itself—a collection of Jewish expositions and customs compiled about A.D. 200 by Rabbi Yehuda—but in later annotations of the Talmud: “The Talmud was copiously annotated by

Main Menu

Jesus and Wine 136 Maimonides and Bartenora, celebrated rabbins of the Middle Ages; and it is from their notes, and not from the text of the Mishnah, that references to the intoxicating nature of Passover wine have been extracted.”66

The Mishnah expressly specifies that the search for ferment on the night of the Passover extended to the cellars where all the fermented beverages made from grain were to be excluded. These included thecutakh of Babylon, thesheker of the Medes, and thehamets of Idumea. Maimonides and Bartenora, distinguished Spanish rabbis of the twelfth century, in their comments on the Mishnah, argue that the prohibition of fermented drinks applies only to liquors made from grain, but not to those made from fruits. The reason given by Maimonides is that “the liquor of fruit does not engender fermentation, but acidity.”67

It is hard to imagine that some rabbis could believe in good faith that fruit beverages such as wine do not ferment. One wonders whether such an imaginative argument was not fabricated to legitimize the use of alcoholic wine. If that were true, it would only serve to show that Rabbis understood that the law of the Passover prohibiting the use of any “fermented thing” (Ex 13:7) during the seven days of the feast, extended also to fermented wine.

Later Testimonies. There is much evidence that among the Jews the custom of using unfermented wine at Passover has survived through the centuries. TheArba Turim, a digest of Talmudic law compiled in the thirteenth century by Rabbi Jacob ben Asher, says of the four Passover cups: “If needful, he must sell what he has, in order to keep the injunction of the wise men. Let him sell what he has, until he procuresyayin or zimmoogim—wine or raisins.”68 Raisins were used to make Passover wine by boiling chopped raisins in water and then straining their juice. The learned Rabbi Manasseh ben Israel, in his bookVindicia Judaeorum (The Claims of the Jews, published in Amsterdam, 1656), says of the Passover: “Here, at this feast, every confection [matzoth] ought to be so pure as not to admit of anyferment or of anything that will readilyfermentate.”69

In his book onModern Judaism, published in 1830, J. Allen writes regarding the Passover wine: “They [the Jews] are forbidden to drink any liquor made from grain, or that has passed through the process of fermenta- tion. Their drink is either pure water or raisin-wine prepared by themselves.”70

Rabbi S. M. Isaac, an eminent nineteenth-century rabbi and editor of The Jewish Messenger, says: “The Jews do not, in their feasts for sacred purposes, including the marriage feast, ever use any kind of fermented drinks. In their oblations and libations, both private and public, they employ the fruit Main Menu

Jesus and Wine 137 of the vine—that is, fresh grapes—unfermented grape-juice, and raisins, as the symbol of benediction. Fermentation is to them always a symbol of corruption.”71

Rabbi Isaac’s statement is not quite accurate; Jewish sources are not unanimous on the kind of wine to be used at Passover. The eighth edition of theEncyclopedia Britannica (1895) explains the reason for the conflicting views: “Wine also to the quantity of four or five cups was drunk by each person. Considerable dispute has been raised as to whether the wine used on this occasion was fermented or unfermented,—was the ordinary wine, in short, or the pure juice of the grape. Those who hold it was unfermented appeal mainly to the expression ‘unfermented things,’ which is the true rendering of the word translated ‘unleavened bread.’ The rabbins would seem to have interpreted the command respecting ferment as extending to the wine as well as to the bread of the passover. The modern Jews, accordingly, generally use raisin wine, after the injunction of the rabbins.”72

The last statement is not quite correct either, for we have seen not all rabbis extended the law of “unfermented things’ to the wine. The two different interpretations of the Mosaic law regarding “unfermented things” (Ex 13:7) are indicative of different religious traditions among the Jews. The Orthodox Jews, who are conservative, use mostly unfermented wine, while the Reformed Jews, who are liberal, use mostly fermented wine.

In the introduction to his compilation of Talmudic statements regarding wine and strong drink, Rabbi Isidore Koplowitz, an Orthodox Jew, says: “The four cups of wine used at the Seder table (the table set in order with Passover symbols in accordance with the ritual), on Passover night, at the home service are not ordained in the Jewish Bible. Moses, the Prophets in Israel and the Men of the Great Synod have never prescribed or commanded the drinking of wine or any other intoxicating liquors at any religious function whatever. This custom is but a Rabbinic institution.

“Yet, the greatest Rabbinic authority in orthodox Israel of today, namely, the ‘Shulchan Aruch,’ clearly and distinctly permits the use of ‘boiled wine’ (raisins boiled in water), for the four cups of wine at the Seder table. “It is permissible to recite the prescribedKiddush (sanctification), on Passover night, over boiled wine and over wine mixed with honey. (Shulchun

Aruch Druch ChayimCup 273, parag. 9).”73 Our sampling of both ancient and modern Jewish testimonies, should suffice to discredit the claim that only fermented wine was used at the time of Christ during the Passover meal. The Jews differed in their practice of this

Main Menu

Jesus and Wine 138 matter as they were influenced by two different rabbinical interpretations of the Mosaic prescription regarding the exclusion of “fermented things” from their dwellings during Passover.

Our ultimate concern is to determine not the Jewish custom but the conduct of Christ. On this, as we shall see, there can be no controversy. Christ would not have ignored the law regarding fermentation (Ex 13:6-7) by celebrating Passover with fermented wine, which could not have served fittingly to represent His incorruptible life-giving blood.

3. Jesus Used theUnfermented “Fruit of the Vine” The foregoing discussion has dealt with two of the major arguments advanced in favor of the fermented nature of Passover wine. Another important argument, namely, the alleged exclusive use of fermented wine for the Lord’s Supper during Christian history will be examined later in this chapter. At this point I wish to present four major reasons for supporting the Saviour’s use of theunfermented “fruit of the vine” at the Last Supper.

Obedience to the Mosaic Law.Jesus used unfermented grape juice at the Last Supper because He understood and observed the Mosaic law requiring the absence of all fermented articles during the Passover feast. The law forbade the use and presence in the house of seor (Ex 12:15), which means leaven, yeast or whatever can produce fermentation. As Leon C. Field explains, “It means literally ‘the sourer,’ and is applicable to any matter capable of producing fermentation—to all yeastly or decaying albuminous substances—and so may be translated ‘ferment.’”74

Whatever had been subject to the action ofseor—that is fermentation, was also forbidden. This was calledhametz and is translated “leavened bread” in the KJV (Ex 12:15; 13:7). The word “bread,” however, is not in the text; thus a more accurate translation is “fermented thing.” For seven days the Jews were to partake ofmatzoth, usually translated “unleavened bread” (Ex 13:6-7). As in the case ofhametz, the word “bread” is not in the text, thus, a more accurate translation is “unfermented things.”

This translation is confirmed by Robert Young, author ofYoung’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible.In his Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible,Young renders Exodus 12:14, 19 as follows: “. . . for anyone eating anything fermented from the first day till the seventh day, even that person hath been cut off from Israel.... anything fermented ye do not eat, in all your dwellings ye do not eat leavened things.” Thus the entire passage of Exodus 13:6-7 may with literal accuracy be rendered: “Seven days you shall eat of unfermented things, and on the seventh day there shall be a feast to the Lord.

Main Menu

Jesus and Wine 139 Unfermented things shall be eaten for seven days; no fermented thing shall be seen with you in all your territory.” Compliance with the Mosaic law would require the exclusion of fermented wine. The rabbis debated this question at great length and, as we have seen, some circumvented the law by arguing that the juice of fruits, such as wine, do not ferment. There is no reason to believe that Jesus, who had come to fulfill the law (Matt 5:17), would violate the Passover law against the use of “fermented things,” especially since He recognized and affirmed the moral symbolism of fermentation when He warned His disciples to “beware of the leaven of the Phariseesand Sadducees” (Matt 16:6). “Leaven” for Christ represented corrupt nature and teachings, as the disciples later under- stood (Matt 16:12).

Paul gives to “leaven” the same symbolic meaning when he admon- ishes the Corinthians to “cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor 5:7-8).

The exclusion of fermented things during the Passover feast wasnot merely to remind the Israelites of the haste with which they left Egypt (Deut 16:3), having no time to put leaven in their dough. This is evident from Exodus 12:8, 39 where the command to eat unleavened bread was given before the departure from Egypt, when there was plenty of time for the dough to rise.

The primary purpose of the law against leaven is found in the symbolic meaning Scripture attaches to leaven which, as we have seen, is sin and corruption. Ellen White brings out this purpose of the law, saying: “Among the Jews, leaven was sometimes used as an emblem of sin. At the time of the Passover the people were directed to remove all the leaven from their houses, as they were to put away sin from their hearts.”75 If ferment, the symbol of corruption and insincerity, was out of place at the Jewish Passover, how much more unsuitable it should be at the Christian Lord’s Supper!

The symbolic, moral significance attached to leaven is further indi- cated by its exclusion from the cereal offering (Lev 2:11), the sin offering (Lev 6:17), the consecration offering (Ex 29:2), the Nazarite offering (Num 6:15) and the showbread (Lev 24:5-9). But salt, because it represents preservation from corruption, was required with sacrifices: “With all your offerings you shall offer salt” (Lev 2:13). If leaven was not allowed with the sacrifices, which were a type of Christ’s atoning blood, how much more out

of place would been fermented wine to represent His atoning blood!Main Menu

Jesus and Wine 140 Jesus understood the meaning of the letter and spirit of the Mosaic law regarding “unfermented things,” as indicated by His teaching (Matt 16:6, 12). This gives us reason to believe that the cup He “blessed” and gave to His disciples did not contain any “fermented thing” prohibited by Scripture. We cannot imagine that our Lord disregarded a Biblical command by choosing fermented wine to perpetuate the memory of His sacrifice, of which all the other sacrifices were but types.

Consistency of Symbol. A second reason for believing that Jesus used unfermented wine at the Last Supper is the consistency and beauty of the blood symbolism which cannot be fittingly represented by fermented wine. Leaven, we have seen, was used by Christ to represent the corrupt teachings of the Pharisees and is viewed in Scripture as an emblem of sin and corruption. Could Christ have offered His disciples a cup of fermented wine to symbolize His untainted blood shed for the remission of our sins? Could the redeeming and cleansing blood of Christ have been represented aptly by an intoxicating cup which stands in the Scripture for human depravity and divine indignation?

We cannot conceive that Christ bent over to bless in grateful prayer a cup containing alcoholic wine which the Scripture warns us not to look at (Prov 23:31). A cup that intoxicates is a cup of cursing and not “the cup of blessing” (1 Cor 10:16); it is “the cup of demons” and not “the cup of the Lord” (1 Cor 10:21).

Up to that moment the redeeming blood of Christ had been repre- sented by the blood of goats and bulls (Heb 9:13-14); henceforth the new emblem was to be the wine of the Lord’s Supper. The blood of Christ was free from defilement and corruption. There was no taint of sin in His veins. “He whom God raised up saw no corruption” (Acts 13:37) either in life or in death. To symbolize the purity of His blood (life) poured out for the remission of sin, Jesus took a cup and over its content, declared: “This ismy blood” (Matt 26:28). The content of the cup could hardly have been fermented wine, because the latter cannot properly symbolize the incorruptible and precious blood of Christ” (1 Pet 1:18-19).

Fermented wine is an appropriate emblem for decay and death, for fermentation destroys most of the nutrients found in grape juice. On the other hand, unfermented grape juice, on account of its innocent and nutritious properties, is a proper symbol of the blessings of salvation and immortal life bestowed upon us through the blood of Christ. His blood is said to purify our “conscience from dead works” (Heb 9:14), but fermented wine weakens our moral inhibitions and awakens our baser passions, thus causing the defile-

Main Menu

Jesus and Wine 141 ment of our consciences. Can such a product properly represent the cleansing power of Christ’s redeeming blood? Hardly so. It is more fitted to represent moral disease and guilt than pardon and purification.

The value of a symbol is determined by its capacity to help us conceptualize and experience the spiritual reality it represents. Grape juice untouched by fermentation supplies life-sustaining nutrients to our bodies, thus it has the capacity for helping us to conceptualize and to experience the assurance of salvation represented by Christ’s blood. Ellen White aptly says: “The Passover wine, untouched by fermentation, is on the table. These emblems Christ employs to represent His own unblemished sacrifice. Noth- ing corrupted by fermentation, the symbol of sin and death, could represent the ‘Lamb without blemish and without spot’” (1 Pet 1:19).76

The Language of the Last Supper. A third reason for believing that Jesus used unfermented wine at the Last Supper is suggested by the language in which its institution is recorded. The words have been preserved with singular uniformity in the synoptic Gospels and almost in the same form in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. We will briefly consider three phrases of the narrative.

After blessing and breaking the bread Jesus “took a cup” (Matt 26:27; Mark 14:23; cf. Luke 22:17; 1 Cor 11:25). Most authorities suggest that the reference is to the third of the four cups of the Passover meal, called the “cup of benediction” (Cos ha-Berachah). This cup by which the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper was instituted retained its name as “the cup of blessing” (1 Cor 10:16). Evidently the name was derived from the blessing Christ pronounced over its contents. Such could never be the intoxicating wine of which God clearly disapproves in the Scripture. As mentioned earlier, we cannot imagine Christ bending over prayerfully to bless a cup containing intoxicating wine. The supposition is sacrilegious. Such cup would be a cup of cursing rather than a cup of blessing, “the cup of demons” rather than “the cup of the Lord” (1 Cor 10:21).

After blessing the cup, Jesus gave it to His disciples and said: “Drink of it, all of you” (Matt 26:27, cf. Mark 14:23; Luke 22:17). Christ’s invitation to drink the memorial cup of His blood is extended to “all” without exception. There is no reason that anyone should refuse the cup, if its content is unfermented, nutritious grape juice. But if its content is fermented, intoxicat- ing wine, many of Christ’s faithful followers cannot and should not partake of it.

The cup Jesus offered to His disciples contained not just a sip of wine, as do today’s communion cups, but about three-quarters of a pint of wine. According to the Talmud, each person at Passover was supplied with at least

Main Menu

Jesus and Wine 142 four cups of wine, and had permission to drink extra in between. Each cup, says J. B. Lightfoot, was to contain “not less than the fourth part of a quarter of a hin, besides what water was mingled with it.”77 A hin contained twelve English pints, so the four cups would amount to three-quarters of a pint each.

Three pints of alcoholic wine is sufficient to make any person, except a heavy drinker, grossly intoxicated. This is apparently what happened to some of those who drank alcoholic wine at Passover. An example is its effect on Rabbi Judah. He drank no wine “except at religious ceremonies, such as . . . the Seder of Passover (four cups). The Seder wine affected him so seriously that he was compelled to keep his head swathed till the following feast-day—Pentecost.”78

To imagine that Christ would sanction such ill-effects by personally offering a sizeable cup of alcoholic wine to His disciples, is tantamount to destroying the moral integrity of His character. Believers who truly accepts Christ as their sinless Saviour instinctively recoil from such a thought.

Christ commands “all” of His followers to drink the cup. If the content of the cup were alcoholic wine, not all Christians could drink. There are some to whom alcohol in any form is very harmful. Young children participate at the Lord’s table should certaintly not touch wine. There are those to whom the simple taste or smell of alcohol awakens in them a dormant or conquered craving for alcohol. Could Christ, who taught us to pray “Lead us not into temptation,” have made His memorial table a place of irresistible temptation for some and of danger for all?

This may be a reason that the Catholic Church eventually decided to deny the cup to the laity, limiting it to the clergy. Protestants strongly object to this practice and have restored to the people the visible symbol which for several centuries was withheld from them. Yet, they also for reasons of safety have limited the amount of wine to a mouthful. The quantity of wine in the tiny cups is so small that it must be sipped rather than supped. The wine of the Lord’s Supper can never be takenfreely andfestally as long as it is alcoholic and intoxicating.

Another significant element of the language of the Last Supper is the phrase “fruit of the vine,” used by Jesus to describe the content of the cup. We noticed earlier that this designation best applies to natural, unfermented juice. Fermented wine is not the natural “fruit” of the vine but is the result of disintegrating forces. Thus, the very designation used by Christ, “fruit of the vine” supports the unfermented nature of the wine used at the Last Supper.

Main Menu

Jesus and Wine 143 The Survival of the Practice. A fourth reason for believing that Jesus used unfermented wine at the Last Supper is the survival of such a practice among certain Christian groups or churches. A significant example is the apocryphalActs and Martyrdom of St. Matthew the Apostle, which circulated in the third century. A heavenly voice instructs the local Bishop Plato, saying: “Read the Gospel and bring as an offering the holy bread; and having pressed three clusters from the vine into a cup, communicate with me, as the Lord Jesus showed us how to offer up when He rose from the dead on the third day.”79 This is a clear testimony of the use of freshly pressed grape juice in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.

Another indication is provided by the view expressed by Irenaeus (A.D. 130-200), Bishop of Lyons, that the communion bread and wine are the first fruits offered to God: “Giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own created things . . . He [Christ] took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, ‘This is My body.’ And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood.”80

The concept of “the first fruits” was applied not only to the bread and wine, but also to the actual grapes and grain offered on the altar. In his classic studyThe Antiquities of the Christian Church, Joseph Bingham explains that some of the Canons of the African Church prescribe that “no other first-fruits are allowed to be offered at the altar but only grapes and corn, as being the materials of bread and wine, out of which the eucharist was taken.”81 In some places the custom developed of distributing the actual grapes and grain together with the bread and wine. To rectify this innovation, the Council of Trullo (A.D. 692) ordered to have “a distinct consecration, and a distinct distribution, if the people were desirous to eat their first-fruits in the church.”

82The identification of the communion bread and wine with the first-fruits and the consecration of grain and grapes as first-fruits distributed to the people together with bread and wine, indicates how the latter were perceived as the natural, unfermented produce of the land.

The practice of pressing preserved grapes directly into the commun- ion cup is attested by the third Council of Braga (A.D. 675), which reports that Cyprian (died 258 A.D.) condemned those who “used no other wine but what they pressed out of the cluster of grapes that were then presented at the Lord’s table.”83

Such a practice shows the concern of some Christians to obey Christ’s words by offering a genuine “fruit of the vine” made out of fresh or dried grapes presented and pressed at the Lord’s table.

Main Menu Jesus and Wine 144 Cyprian condemned not so much the use of freshly pressed wine (expressum vinum) but the failure to mix it with water. Apparently, the practice of mingling wine with water originated, as Leon C. Field points out, “not necessarily in the weakening of alcoholic wine, but in the thinning of boiled wines and the thick juices of the crushed grapes.”84 Instructions in this regard had already been given three centuries before by Pope Julius I (A. D. 337) in a decree which says: “If necessary let the cluster be pressed into the cup and water mingled with it.”85

Thomas Aquinas (A.D. 1225-1274) quotes and supports Julius’ decree, because “must has already the species of wine [speciem vinum] . . . consequently this sacrament can be made from must.”86 The same view is expressed by other Western theologians such as Jacobus a Vitriaco, Dionysius Bonsalibi, and Johannes Belethus.87 The latter speaks of the custom “well known in certain places” of celebrating the Lord’s Supper, especially on August 6, Day of the Transfiguration, with new wine or freshly squeezed grape juice: “Let us notice that on this same day the blood of Christ is set forth from new wine, if it can be found, or from ripe grapes pressed into the cup.”88

The use of unfermented wine is well documented, especially among Eastern Churches. Leon C. Field, G. W. Samson, Frederic Lees and Dawson Burns, provide valuable information in their respective studies about such churches as the Abyssinian Church, the Nestorian Church of Western Asia, the Christians of St. Thomas in India, the Coptic monasteries in Egypt, and the Christians of St. John in Persia, all of which celebrated the Lord’s Supper with unfermented wine made either with fresh or dried grapes.89 The reader is referred to these authors for documentation and information about these oriental churches.

Our inquiry into several aspects of the communion wine, such as the Jewish Passover wine, the language of the Last Supper, the Passover law of fermentation, the consistency of the symbol, and the survival of the use of unfermented grape juice at the Lord’s Supper, has shown that all of these indicate our Lord used and commanded the use of unfermented, nutritious grape juice to perpetuate the memory of His blood shed for the remission of our sins.

CONCLUSION We have examined at considerable length the major wine-related stories or sayings of Jesus that are commonly used to prove that our Savior made, commended, usedand commandedthe use of alcoholic wine until the end of time. We have found these claims to rest on unfounded assumptions, devoid of textual, contextual and historical support. Main Menu Jesus and Wine 145 The “good wine” Jesusmade at Canaan was “good” not because of its high alcoholic content but because it was fresh, unfermented grape-juice. The “new wine” Jesuscommended through the parable of the new wineskins is unfermented must, either boiled or filtered, because not even new wineskins could withstand the pressure of the gas produced by fermenting new wine. Jesus’ description of Himself as “eating and drinking” doesnot imply that He

usedalcoholic wine but that He associated with people freely at their meals and elsewhere. The “fruit of the vine” that Christcommanded to be used as a memorial of His redeeming blood was not fermented wine, which in the Scripture represents human depravity, corruption and divine indignation, but unfermented and pure grape juice, a fitting emblem of Christ’s untainted blood shed for the remission of our sins.

The claim that Christ used and sanctioned the use of alcoholic beverages has been found to be unsubstantiated. The evidence we have submitted shows that Jesus abstained from all intoxicating substances and gave no sanction to His followers to use them.

[Bravus]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

It's clear that this whole chapter (micah 2) is about false prophets, not alcohol. Micah is saying that the people would be happy with a prophet who prophesied that they would receive plenty of wine and beer.

It's possible that there is an incidental suggestion that wine and strong drink are not good things, but it's incidental, not the focus of the text.

The CONTEXT in which I mentioned Mic 2:11 had nothing to do with what the whole chapter was about; and what you state about "incidental" has a ring to it that says: "I don't accept that scripture." Incidental or not, it says what it says.

Bravus; I will say one thing right now - you have only managed to rationalize here; you are not "studying the Bible." Please forgive me if that offends you; it is not meant personally. You might want to consider the difference between "bible study" and "rationalizing." Both methods will result in very different conclusions. Dismissing texts as "incidental" and other such things is one way how I would prove this. Before I posted the above; I was well aware of the whole chapter and it's context; but please don't make even one verse a pretext, unless it actually is.

I did not mention it out of context in any way.

It occurred to me that we might be using the word 'context' (or 'CONTEXT' as you've been 'shouting' it, since we've been talking about netiquette) in different ways.

What do you mean when you talk about context? From the above it sounds as though you mean the context in which you are using the text - the role it plays in your argument.

That's quite different from what I was talking about. When I talk about 'context', I mean the verses immediately around the verse being discussed. I mean the rest of the 'meaning unit' or paragraph or story. I'm talking about the author's main point in that section of Scripture. Analysis can only be faithful to the text if we understand why the author wrote what he did, what the main point being communicated was.

In this example, I found it important to note that the context - the thrust of the chapter - was false prophets. The writer was writing in order to denounce false prophets and those who listen to them. That doesn't invalidate or explain away any references to wine and strong drink, but it does place them in context. The author did not sit down to write in order to write about alcohol.

(This is an attempt to clarify our communication - while we disagree, it has generally been cordial and, I think, very useful for us and for those who have read it.)

Originally Posted By: Overaged

If you want a reason to keep drinking; you will always have one. BTW; I have many good friends who drink and smoke. Not a one of them would ever try to use the Bible to support this.

I can't say it any more clearly. It's not about me, it's about what the Bible says. It's not about my behaviour, it's about the truth.

[Overaged]

It occurred to me that we might be using the word 'context' (or 'CONTEXT' as you've been 'shouting' it, since we've been talking about netiquette) in different ways.

What do you mean when you talk about context? From the above it sounds as though you mean the context in which you are using the text - the role it plays in your argument.

That's quite different from what I was talking about. When I talk about 'context', I mean the verses immediately around the verse being discussed. I mean the rest of the 'meaning unit' or paragraph or story. I'm talking about the author's main point in that section of Scripture. Analysis can only be faithful to the text if we understand why the author wrote what he did, what the main point being communicated was.

In this example, I found it important to note that the context - the thrust of the chapter - was false prophets. The writer was writing in order to denounce false prophets and those who listen to them. That doesn't invalidate or explain away any references to wine and strong drink, but it does place them in context. The author did not sit down to write in order to write about alcohol.

I think you need to re-read what I wrote. It is pretty obvious that I meant BOTH contexts that you refer to. Why do you keep repeating how the chapter was not written to "write about alcohol?" Its obvious you are implicating something besides the immediate context. And I might add that the context *alone* does not always describe the meaning of the text in question. The prophet made a very obvious connection of alcohol and false prophets, as do other authors in other books of the Bible. There was a very clear message there against alcohol - and that's regardless of the context.

[doug yowell]

I don't think it's unreasonable to promote abstinence from alcohol. Yet, I do seem it unreasonable to make it look like even mild consumption will lead one to life of alcoholism. It's dishonest.

I agree that if one says that even mild consumption WILL lead to alcoholism it is dishonest. But it is right to say that even mild alcohol use MAY lead to alcoholism.I think the former is over the top and shuts more doors than it opens.The latter is a reasonable warning.

[Bravus]

Oh, I agree: the context does not (over)determine the meaning, it's just one important thing to consider in trying to understand the meaning.

I read what you wrote several times, and only guessed at how you were using the term since it wasn't clear to me. I also asked, because I wasn't sure.

If you're using the term to mean two different things at the same time, perhaps it's unsurprising I was struggling to understand...

[wayfinder]

Matthew 9:17 NAS

"Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins ; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined ; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved."

I guess according to this same logic, Jesus is condemning fermented wine here.

[Dr. Shane]

I agree that if one says that even mild consumption WILL lead to alcoholism it is dishonest. But it is right to say that even mild alcohol use MAY lead to alcoholism.I think the former is over the top and shuts more doors than it opens.The latter is a reasonable warning.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread claiming that moderate drinking always leads to alcoholism. What has been stated is that mild drinking can lead to alcoholism and when it does, the alcoholic is the last to know. Alcohol is cunning, baffling and powerful. Playing with it is like grabbing the tail of a tiger.

[Dr. Shane]

When all logic fails, try insulting and sarcasm, Woody. It is the lowest form of communication.

[doug yowell]

I haven't seen anyone in this thread claiming that moderate drinking always leads to alcoholism. What has been stated is that mild drinking can lead to alcoholism and when it does, the alcoholic is the last to know. Alcohol is cunning, baffling and powerful. Playing with it is like grabbing the tail of a tiger.

You couldn't have said it better yourself!

[John317]

That's for sure. I've had a couple of close friends and parents of friends who died as a direct result of drinking alcohol. One of them drank moderately for over 30 years, having beers every day after work at the post office. He never got drunk that I know of. He just enjoyed his beers in the evening. I never saw him drink anything else.

Another started urinating blood a few years ago, and he died within a couple of months after that. He drank hard liquer.

None of these people, of course, ever expected their drinking to kill them. They never do.

[Overaged]

That's for sure. I've had a couple of close friends and parents of friends who died as a direct result of drinking alcohol. One of them drank moderately for over 30 years, having beers every day after work at the post office. He never got drunk that I know of. He just enjoyed his beers in the evening. I never saw him drink anything else.

Another started urinating blood a few years ago, and he died within a couple of months after that. He drank hard liquer.

None of these people, of course, ever expected their drinking to kill them. They never do.

They never expect it to kill them; OR SOMEONE ELSE.

[Overaged]

If you're using the term to mean two different things at the same time, perhaps it's unsurprising I was struggling to understand...

Well it is surprising because I stated exactly why I mentioned the text. Your insinuations here about "context" are unfounded and unrelated to what I said; and the meaning behind what I said.

[LifeHiscost]

We were talking about the wedding at Cana. I take no issue with the suggestion that Jesus drank fermented wine at the passover or on other occasions. He probably even drank fermented wine in Cana before it ran out.

Alcohol is a symbolism in juice, as yeast is in bread, for the presence of sin which is telling the truth about the human race, save our Elder Brother.

"And he shall present his offering to the LORD: one male lamb in its first year without blemish as a burnt offering, one ewe lamb in its first year without blemish as a sin offering, one ram without blemish as a peace offering,"

Numbers 6:13 NKJV

"...knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you"1 Peter 1:18-20 NKJV

God blesses!

[Dr. Shane]

The wine they were drinking at the wedding was probably lightly fermented with 2%-3% alcohol. One can drink 18-24 ounces of that per hour without getting tipsy. Then when that ran out, the wine Jesus made was probably 100% fresh grape juice. That would make the governor take notice and ask, if you had this fresh stuff all along, why were we drinking that preserved stuff to start out with?

If the wine they had been drinking was closer to 10% alcohol, like today's wines, after three days of drinking, most would have been drunk. I am not too sure if the governor would have even been able to distinguish a fine wine after three days of drinking.

[LifeHiscost]

I think Richard is about to step outside and have a cold one even as we speak.

If I were going to have a cold one, I would stay inside where it's warm. But, thank God I won't be doing that. It took the power of God to break my addiction to alcohol, and it takes that same power to keep me from going back to it.

Praise the Lord Richard, and yes AMEN

[LifeHiscost]

Once more, John317, are you saved?

If this ole Jawja Bulldog can figure out the intricacies of this forum, this discussion will continue in a new topic, "Are You Saved?"

Jawge

And could you tell me, Jawge, are you a servant of the Lord sent to tell John his salvation is sure, without knowing the deep things of the heart of John.

There are people that were close to me, whom I believe God gave me dreams about, assuring me they would be in the kingdom after they had died. But He has never given me assurance of anyone else's salvation who is still living. Nor do I find in the Scriptures any indication that there is a "need to know" except perhaps for the person who is unsure of their own salvation.

" The Lord doesn’t see things the way you see them. People judge by outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”"1 Samuel 16:7 NLT

" “Then, after doing all those things,I will pour out my Spirit upon all people.Your sons and daughters will prophesy.Your old men will dream dreams,and your young men will see visions."Joel 2:28 NLT

God blesses!

[fccool]

a whole lot of pasted text

John,

None of that text answer my question or explain how Jesus could drink fresh grape juice in April... 7 month after harvest.

The question is NOT where Jesus would advocate or disprove of using fermented grape juice. The question is the objective realism of issue of fermented wine and preservation at that point. You texts simply brush the topic aside and jump to dogmatic conclusions assuming that Jesus would simply not drink anything but fresh grape juice. It's highly unlikely that there were any available one during the time of April. If the process of preserving juice was so windesread and known... then what's such a big deal about this guy????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bramwell_Welch

Here's a very strong case from the Bible that Jesus indeed drank fermented wine...

"For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners". (Luke 7:33-34)

Here's a stark contrast between John who abstained, and Jesus who did not. Basically showcases their attitude. They say that John had a demon because he did not eat or drink. Now, Jesus did, and they accuse him of being a drunkard. Notice that Jesus does not deny eating and drinking. He does seemingly have a problem with being viewed as drunkard and glutton... as I'm sure many of the Pharisees would show off their abstinence standards to be viewed as "holy".

There's a plentiful research and historical material on wineculture in Ancient Israel. Here's a fairly well-documented and referenced one from Harward press:

http://www.amazon.com/Fruit-Vine-Viticulture-Ancient-Publications/dp/1575069040

The winpress was actually cut out from rocks in the ground. Then a tunnel was made into a different compartment cut out in the ground so that the juice would flow into it. Here's an example:

It was anything but a sterile process. Due transportation delays and lack of preservation knowledge the juice was almost certainly fermented. The concern was not as much fermentation, but too much of it at which point the wine would turn into vinegar.

The priests were ordered to stay away not only from grape juice, but from anything to do with grapes.

Jesus did not follow the priestly ways. He did use grape products, and he did drink fermented juice. He did not make as big of a deal as Pharmacies wanted it to be.

[John317]

Bacchiocchi's book answers all your questions about how Christ drank unfermented grape juice at the Last Supper.

He deals with that topic thoroughly in chapter IV, which you can read online.

He also deals with the question "Was Jesus a glutton and a drunken?" in the chapter on Jesus and Wine.

Why not read what Bacchiocchi has written in those chapters and quote the parts of his arguments you disagree with?

[Overaged]

Woody; that was really ignorant. What or who have you got in your glasses? That picture was disgusting. And there was no call for that.

So far; I have avoided saying or considering anything re Ellen White in this topic, but I think now is a good time to say something.

The subject of is it OK to drink alcohol does not center around the opinons of people who would post that kind of mockery here. You should tell everyone where you got this picture, because the web site where it came from would explain the rest of what I would say. I am bowing out of this topic because of this. It's useless to try and discuss it here.

[John317]

There are many non-SDA and even non-Christians who come to this Forum to see what Adventists talk about and how they act towards each other. What ideas and impressions are they taking away with them?

A non-SDA relative of mine dropped by to visit the Forum a few weeks ago. She hasn't told me what her impression was and I haven't asked her. I'm almost afraid to.

I have an uncle who just started to keep the Sabbath and go to an SDA church for worship. I used to think of inviting him to the Forum, but I've decided against it. He's 93, the son of an SDA pastor and evangelist, and I wouldn't want him to see the things that he would see on this Forum. I'm afraid it would confuse and disillusion him. He would read SDAs making fun of other SDAs, ridiculing God's prophet, attacking the Bible, and teaching just about every form of false doctrine there is. He would probably think our church is really in a sad spiritual condition and go back to being a Baptist.

[fccool]

Bacchiocchi's book answers all your questions about how Christ drank unfermented grape juice at the Last Supper.

He deals with that topic thoroughly in chapter IV, which you can read online.

He also deals with the question "Was Jesus a glutton and a drunken?" in the chapter on Jesus and Wine.

Why not read what Bacchiocchi has written in those chapters and quote the parts of his arguments you disagree with?

John,

I did read the book, yet it does not approach the subject objectively. Instead it asks... how can I prove that what I already believe is correct. Such is the premise. With such premise do you expect any other results?

I think it's worth mentioning that the grapes mentioned to be stored for preservation are "green". The wine used in the cup of Jesus is arguably red. There's no reason to believe that Jesus would take a transparent green grape juice and would equate it symbolically with wine. I don't think one has to have a wild imagination to know that perhaps the wine was red.

Red wine comes from red grapes... not from green unripen grapes that were used for long-term preservation.

Josephus obviously exaggerates the length of time of the preserved fruits and vegetables. Grapes are one of the hardest to preserve in fresh condition... especially for a period of 7 month.

Here's an exaustive criticism of the book you are referring to.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowine.html

Bacchiocchi likewise avoids to address Jesus' admission to drinking juice. Sure, Pharasees called him many things, but this is not the issue here.

Here's the logic

1) John The Baptist avoided wine and certain foods

2) I don't

3) You both make out him and myself to be the bad guys

Bacchiocchi addresses #3, but he avoids #2. Jesus admits to drinking wine.

I think it's likewise worth mentioning that ancients drank wine like we are drinking water today. It was important part of their diet. Some scholars estimate that average Palestinian would drink a liter per day... that would be 120 gallons per year.