The issue of alcohol and the Christian is an incredibly volatile subject causing great division and stern judgments on both sides. I have been deeply affected by this issue myself, as I have many friends and family members who are controlled by alcohol. I am not a teetotaler, but I rarely drink. I don’t like wine. Some beers are pretty good. I like tequila. But if the consumption of alcohol were made illegal, I would not even really notice.
There are so many different positions out there with regard to this issue. Let me try to name a few:
- Those who abstain from alcohol and believe that this is the biblical position for everyone.
- Those who abstain from alcohol but don’t believe this is a biblical mandate to enforce on others.
- Those who drink alcohol only for “celebratory” purposes (i.e., Lord’s table), but don’t get drunk.
- Those who casually drink wine or beer, but abstain from “hard liquor” and don’t get drunk.
- Those who casually drink alcohol in order to feel “merry” or “tipsy” but don’t get drunk.
- Those who drink alcohol and get drunk occasionally but are not “drunkards” (i.e. addicted).
Outside of this, all Christians would (or should) agree that being addicted to alcohol is expressly forbidden in Scripture, as it relinquishes control of our faculties to alcohol rather than to the Holy Spirit (Eph. 5:18). Paul warns Timothy about such abuses with regard to the qualifications of a deacon (1 Tim. 3:8) and elders (1 Tim. 3:3).
I am not going to discuss here which of the above positions is correct. However, I do want to discuss one passage of Scripture that infuses the debate over alcohol with great passion. It is the subject of Christ and his relation to alcohol while here on earth. Most specifically, I want to ask the question of whether Christ, during the miracle at the Wedding of Cana in John 2, turned the water into wine, unfermented grape juice, or something else. Here is the text:
John 2:1-11
On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. 3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” 5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” 6 Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. 7 Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And he said to them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast.” So they took it. 9 When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom 10 and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.” 11 This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.
This question raised by this passage does indeed contribute a great deal to the overall debate. For if Christ turned the water into an alcoholic beverage, then his participation in the issue certainly does not bode well for those who preach that the biblical position requires Christians to abstain from alcohol altogether. He would have been serving as a bartender, if you will, at a celebration where abuse of alcohol certainly may have taken place. More than that, there is no reason to doubt that he himself would have drunk this wine.
Yet some maintain that the wine Jesus produced was a non-fermented type of wine called “new wine” (kainos neos). In this case, it would be like grape juice. Others believe that the wine Jesus created was watered down so much that one would have to suffer a severe bladder problem in order to get drunk. However, neither of these interpretations are supported by the best textual scholarship, and seem to be driven by a desire to maintain a rigid teetotaler position.
New Wine is Unfermented Wine?
R. A. Torrey does a good job of representing the position that the wine Christ provided was unfermented “new wine.”
“[Jesus] provided wine, but there is not a hint that the wine He made was intoxicating. It was fresh-made wine. New-made wine is never intoxicating. It is not intoxicating until some time after the process of fermentation has set in. Fermentation is a process of decay. There is not a hint that our Lord produced alcohol, which is a product of decay or death. He produced a living wine uncontaminated by fermentation. It is true it was better wine than they had been drinking, but that does not show for a moment that it was more fermented than that which they had before been drinking” (Difficulties in the Bible).
However, there are significant problems with this argument. New wine was fermented. Its ability to cause intoxication is well represented in the Scriptures (Is 49:26; Hos 4:11; cf. Judg 9:13; see “Wine” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. 1992 [J. B. Green, S. McKnight & I. H. Marshall, Ed.], 870, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
The happenings in Acts 2 represent this well. Having received the gift of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, the Apostles are speaking in tongues and sharing the Gospel with the people. Some people are amazed, but others accuse the Apostles of being intoxicated.
Acts 2:13:
“But others, mocking, said, ‘They are filled with new wine’.”
How could the Apostles be accused of being intoxicated from a drink that is not fermented? There is no indication, either in the culture of the day or in the Bible, that there was such a thing as unfermented wine. Wine is wine because it is fermented.
Some scholars have attempted to contrast the two Hebrew terms for wine in the Old Testament to make a case that one was unfermented grape juice. However, the evidence does not support such a conclusion. Leaning heavily on C. Seltman, Wine in the Ancient World, the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible draws this conclusion about the term that is purported to refer to grape juice:
(1) The Hebrew word is found in primarily neutral contexts; (2) often that particular word is found in contexts definitely including a fermented beverage (e.g., Gn 27:28; Hos 4:11; Mi 6:15); (3) the Ugaritic parallel to the term in question refers with certainty to a fermented wine (4) the Septuagint equivalents refer to fermented wine; (5) fermentation in the ancient Near East, unlike Greece, took only about three days, and (6) the Mishna provides no such evidence of the practice of having unfermented wine. There seems to have been no attempts to preserve wine in an unfermented state; it may have been a near impossible task.
It would seem that, for the Hebrews, there is no way to use the term “grape juice” as a substitute for wine. The article concludes: “A careful examination of all the Hebrew words (as well as their Semitic cognates) and the Greek words for wine demonstrates that the ancients knew little, if anything, about unfermented wine.
Watered Down Wine?
Some make the case that the wine used in the New Testament was so watered down that it was nearly impossible to cause one to get drunk. Norman Geisler make such a case:
Wine today has a much higher level of alcohol than wine in the New Testament. In fact in New Testament times one would need to drink twenty-two glasses of wine in order to consume the large amount of alcohol in two martinis today. (“A Christian Perspective on Wine-Drinking” Bibliotheca Sacra, Issue 553, 1982).
However, this does not seem to be the case. Geisler is assuming a mixture evidenced by some ancient Greeks. Homer writes about a water to wine ratio of 20 to 1 (Homer, Odyssey 10. 208f). However, this may be because the wine was so strong! The Mishna, which represents a better accounting of the Hebrew usage of wine, assumes a ratio of two parts of water to one part wine. The Talmudic sources speak of three to one. Wine often would contain 15% alcohol. Even if it were mixed with three parts of water, this would put it at 5% alcohol. This is a higher percentage than much beer today! Pliny, the Roman Senator writing in the first century, spoke about wine that could hold a flame. For this to happen, it would had to have been in excess of 30% alcohol! No wonder some speak of adding twenty parts water.
Not only this, but wine diluted with water was symbolic of spiritual adulteration. Isaiah 1:22, speaking to the infidelity of the nation of Israel, says, “Your silver has become dross, your best wine mixed with water.” Just before this, God gives this rebuke: “How the faithful city has become a whore, she who was full of justice! Righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers.” The nation had gone astray. It is not seen as a good thing to have diluted wine.
Further (and most importantly) the story of Jesus at the wedding does not support a conclusion that the wine Jesus made was either excessively watered down or grape juice. After the head waiter had tasted the wine Jesus made, he went to the bridegroom and said this: “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.” What Jesus created was “good wine.” According to the waiter, the custom was to serve the “good wine” first; then, when the people had “drunk” much of the wine, they served the cheaper wine. This word for “drunk” is methusko, which means “to become intoxicated.” It is the same word used in Ephesians 5:18, “Do not get drunk [methusko] with wine…” (see also Luke 12:45; 1 Thes 5:7; Rev. 17:12). The only testimony we have about the state of the wine Christ created is the headwaiter’s review of it, and he suggests that it is the type that can intoxicate (i.e., it was fermented). It is very difficult to draw any other conclusion.
Added to this, there is no reason to believe that Christ himself did not drink this fermented wine. It is evident that He drank wine at the passover (Mark 14:23). In fact, Christ seemed to have made a habit of drinking wine. According to his own testimony, he drank wine that others abstained from.
For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!” (Luke 7:33-34).
John the Baptist took a Nazirite vow and abstained from alcohol. But Christ did not. He explicitly says that he came “eating and drinking.” Because of this, others accused him of being a drunkard.
The implications for all of this are important in the discussion about alcohol and the Christian. Christ, in celebration of the Kingdom, produced an alcoholic beverage that could intoxicate. Christ was a bartender! This certainly does not solve any of the problems associated with alcohol. The problems are tremendous. But to be controlled by alcohol is not a modern problem. This problem has been around since ancient times. However, this does not mean that God forbids things that have the potential to be destructive. We must be careful that we don’t legislate God. It is not unlike issues of gun control, sugar consumption, or tobacco. All of these have potential to hurt people, all of these have a history of hurting people, all of these have people who attempt to force moderation or abstinence, but none of them are forbidden by God. We must be careful in what we attempt to forbid, even if the legislation is for a good purpose. The solution for problems associated with alcohol is not a mandate for abstinence, but education concerning its dangers.
181 replies to "Did Jesus Turn Water into Wine or Grape Juice?"
I’ve been watching this unfold, and it’s interesting to watch people all reading the same word of God and walking away with different answers. Which is fine. And aj, if you think this conversation is not valuable to you, then don’t participate. But that doesn’t mean other people can’t get value from it.
Anyone who has been a Christian for more than 10 minutes, knows we Christians are an opinionated lot. We study and pray and hear God, and we KNOW we are right. And we KNOW that what God told me, he probably meant to tell everybody. We like to spar – is that so wrong? Not if we listen to each other and learn from them. I for one am interested in all the views presented. CT basically said whether it’s right or wrong, s/he’s better off without it. Good point. Others said Jesus either would or wouldn’t drink beer. Interesting. Life and death questions?? No, but the bottom line is, people are working through what being a follower of Jesus should look like. That is not a silly conversation. Not to people who were taught that it is wrong when it isn’t, or to people who think it’s not wrong but they’re being told that it is.
Plus, there are a lot of new Christians who are being told this or that by people they don’t know that well yet, and they honestly don’t know what they’re supposed to think or how to form a god-honoring opinion of their own. For them, and I think this conversation can be very helpful.
1 Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
I believe this verse summarizes the issue in its entirety.
Paul makes it clear that “ALL things are lawful unto me” (permissible and acceptable)… meaning that I CAN DRINK ALCOHOL if I want.
“All things are not expedient” …meaning that there are enough good reasons to not drink alcohol (becoming an alcoholic, wasting money that could be better used, a bad testimony [even the world thinks a Christian should not drink], being a bad example for your kids etc.)
“But I will not be brought under the power of any”…. this is the Bible definition of how you define being drunk and a drunkard. When the alcohol controls your thoughts, speech or actions then you are drunk. And when you have to have a drink you are a drunkard and “brought under the power of any”.)
BTW–being drunk IS a sin… no matter what your “beliefs” are on this subject of whether you should drink wine.
And the more important question is if you do get drunk, you will NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD… (1 Cor 6, Eph 5 and Gal 5)… Does anyone dare exegete these 3 passages and agree with Paul regarding “drunkenness … that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”
I typically do not like to jump into the fray of blog posts but I find the statement “Christ was a bartender!” to be unnecessarily sensational, bordering on blasphemous. It seems to me that whatever contribution this article makes to the discussion on Christians and consuming alcohol as a beverage can be lost with such an inane remark.
That was a good read – article, comments and all! I’ve got a thirst now. Might have to stop at the pub on the way home for a quick pint….
I suppose it is best to state at the start that I am alcohol intolerant. I have never gotten any false feeling of well-being as before I could reach that point, I get many of the symptoms that others associate with hangover. But I do have several concerns.
First, alcohol, even in small amounts in not neurologically neutral. The light-headedness associated with moderate usage is related to neuron damage or neuron death. This process, as best as researchers have been able to determine is random, explaining why some serious abusers get the DTs(delirium tremens) while others do not. While the risks for moderate users is much smaller, it is not zero and indeterminate with regard to long range affects. it may well be that some of the effects of aging may be related to long time usage.
Second, the short-term advantages of alcohol use as an antibacterial is not required in our country as it was in Biblical times and many places to this day.
Third, now in my mid-sixties, it seems that Prohibition was probably a mistake. Lost men and women need something to make their existence bearable until they may be found, if that is possible. Many may have been redirected to even more hazardous drugs while the attentions of law enforcement were concentrated on alcohol.
Lastly, I believe that my enforced abstention has made me both need and desire more to follow on to know the Lord(Hos:6:3). I know I don’t need anything to holding back my slowly plodding soul.
Jeff Ayers:
Again, eisegesis…you are reading back into Paul’s writing what you think about Alcohol, I see no evidence that that is what Paul was thinking about when he wrote that passage.
Paul makes it clear that “ALL things are lawful unto me” (permissible and acceptable)… meaning that I CAN DRINK ALCOHOL if I want.
“All things are not expedient” …meaning that there are enough good reasons to not drink alcohol”
Your applications do not follow from the text. They are just added onto it. This is a pericope on sexual immorality.
The World doesn’t think Christians should not drink…Americans who have been told by 1900s fundamentalists that Christians should not drink think that. German reformers in the 1500s did not think this.
Don:
Moderate alcohol intake (Max 2 drinks per day for men, 1 for women) are medically considered overall beneficial, especially from a cardiovascular standpoint
@Doug: It’s only injurious to those with a pre-commitment to the evils of alcohol, otherwise it’s less blasphemous than “my boss is a Jewish carpenter.” The point was metaphorical: Jesus supplied an alcoholic beverage, as a matter of fact.
@DonK: 1. Wernicke-Korsakoff is also observed in those who fast extensively and anyone with problems with thiamine is susceptible to the same neurological damage even with zero alcohol. 2. The antibacterial usage is merely postulated as a theory, but doesn’t really have any archaeological/historical evidence to support it. 3. There are far more reasons Prohibition was a really, really, really bad idea. And how did Temperance become Prohibition, anyway?
Eccliastical people have made whole careers out of laying burdens on people that are heavy to bear.
Brig, you have made an erroneous assumption about my position. I don’t have a pre-commitment to the inherent evils of alcohol. There are good and bad metaphors. “Christ was a bartender” is a poor choice for a metaphor.
Chad,
because you write “eisegesis” fails to carry the day in your failed attempt to disprove my point.
Please read the Bible:
1 Corinthians 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
verse 10 comes before verse 12 (f which my post referenced) in my Bible.
Verse 10 mentions “drunkards”.
By the way, are you saying your “pericope” of sexual immorality means that it “is lawful and it is permissible”?
CJ said: <>
So, deciphering a truth from the Scriptures is a waste of time? What qualifies as being worthy of your time?
<>
I think it matters. Apparently you didn’t really read the article very well. Plenty of reasons were given.
<>
And it’s “worthless” because you say it is? I don’t find anything in the Scriptures worthless.
<>
Actually yes. That’s the point of the miracle. And the point of the article is that some Christians are not only denying themselves the enjoyment of God’s creation, but also either condemning those who do, and/or having wrong ideas about Jesus/God and alcohol.
Maybe something about the Left Behind series would’ve been more up your alley?
~Shawn
@DougR: It’s true — I do not know why you suggest either blasphemy or now “bad metaphor”. It’s largely true (in fact, IFBs do defend Jesus from bartending associations), and I have difficulty conceiving of alternative scenarios. It’s quite the sensationalist tactic to cry blasphemy, after all, and then leave us hanging as to why it was wrong to call Jesus a Teacher/Shepherd/Carpenter/Bartender/Physician/Bread/Husband/Friend/Counselor/Prince, or what precisely the criteria of ethical analogies might be. Inadequate metaphors don’t generally get to the blasphemy stage without calling into question the divinity or otherwise slandering the name of Christ, which implies that, somehow, a bartender is wicked. I would even personally use it in a sermon illustration, without fear that I’d be brought up on blasphemy charges. So I’m confused. What are you saying?
AJ – the only one arguing here seems to be you with yourself.
Im amazed culturally that we go nuts if someone wants to grab a beer once in a month; yet nobody ever ever ever takes the 400lb guy aside at the church BBQ to talk to him.
I attended an apologetics conference not long ago where Norm Geisler argued that morality can be legislated. He based his entire talk on prohibition, the history of it, the benefits of it and why he thinks it would be a good idea to reestablish it. I was surprised that he would assert that.
Brig, your premise seems to be that since the Bible uses certain references to Jesus (such as teacher/shepherd) we therefore are free to ascribe any title/reference we deem appropriate to Jesus. There are at least two problems with this approach. First, the Bible is inspired and infallible, we are not. It is not right to conclude that since the Bible says “Jesus is the light of the world” that it is equally legitimate for us to say “Jesus was a bartender” or “Jesus was a poker dealer” or “Jesus was a used car salesman.” Second, to impute the same nobility to a bartender as to a carpenter is just bizarre. Bartending facilitates drunkenness, what vice does carpentry facilitate? Whether or not you can say “Jesus was a bartender” in one of your sermons is immaterial to this discussion and it does not automatically sanctify the reference. It’s not that we cannot employ other titles/references to Jesus but we need to regard the name as holy and handle it with great care.
brother, chillax !
your problem isn’t with the «jesus is a bartender » statement as blasphemy,rather its your innate senseless contempt for bartenders that is causing you to be aggrieved.
there are bartenders in all stratas of the hospitality industry and they are found in establishments on different parts of the spectrum
yes you have tattooed , foul-mouthed b’tenders in dive bars, gay bars and despicable souls who are just on the job in the hopes of slinging a free drink
they are few and far between, however. in the mid-to-higher end of the continuum, bartenders are level employees with heavy responsibilities. they are highly.trained and knowledge able in their craft.
they sport a professional appearance and demeanor and take pride in their creations.an art known as “mixology”
many laborers and handy men/ journey men ive encountered were ill-behaved,lazy and dirty
on THAT basis, i might recoil at hearing jesus being called a «carpenter»
im sorry all the bartenders you met were hooligans and hoodrats
many in fact have a college degree and most all have exceptional people skills
if you could change your paradigm some…..you would find nothing the author wrote offensive
brother; what is your opinion of the cooks and servers at golden corral & the many other “stuff-your-face-to-infinity-and-beyond” super/mega buffets ???
arent they guilty of promoting /enabling GLUTTONY,one of the 7 deadly sins and the vice the.bible actually condemns MORE OFTEN then drunkenness itself??
hint : google is your friend !
No, my only point is that the Bible employs analogy and metaphor to describe a particular aspect of Jesus’ character/ministry/etc, and frequently, illustrations are merely distilled from and not verbatim Scripture. All vocations are equally noble, whether a doctor, professor, pastor, or even the one who shovels the excrement of swine, and all vocations can fall to vice. It is as equally absurd to suggest that bartenders and restaurant owners are ignoble because some cater to alcoholics as it is to suggest that hotel managers and desk clerks are likewise because some cater to prostitution. And you’re only vindicating what I’d originally intimated: you think there’s something inherently sinful here applied to Jesus.
If Jesus supplied real wine at the wedding of Cana, then wasn’t he facilitating vice all the same in your view? I could be mistaken that your view doesn’t allow for the miracle to involve real wine, in which case the whole of this discussion was long ago moot. If it does, then I have no idea why in your view Jesus can dispense real wine but it’s wrong to draw parallels with someone else who does the same.
Brig, I need to disengage from this discussion due to other responsibilities. To say that Jesus turned water into wine is the equivalent of a bartender dispensing tequila shots seems to me to be a real stretch. We are clearly on different sides of this discussion. Grace and peace to you in the days ahead.
A great deal of cyber ink has been spilled over this issue of alcohol. I can certainly understand and see the various positions on the topic. However, I have a real problem with brothers in Christ who have no scruples about referring to the blessed Lord Jesus as a “bar tender.” I can provide you a part to work on my plumbing but that doesn’t make me a plumber. Just because Jesus provided the wine (regardless of what content you want to ascribe to it) does not mean one should stoop so low as to call God the Son, a bar tender! To associate that Name which is above every name with a bar tender is to treat His name with a profession that does not bring to mind holiness nor other attributes that are most often thought of as pleasing to Christ. To associate His name with such a handle is to treat it profanely if not with blasphemy. Friend, I was not redeemed with the blood of a bar tender!
@DougR: It’s probably because I don’t actually see tequila as more evil than wine, and I believe my bartending and waitressing brothers and sisters are dignified, and I think that John 2:10 is pretty clear on how much people had to drink already. If one is in disagreement over these verses, I can see the contention, but if the Bible means what it says without any special two-wine theories violating the laws of chemistry, then it’s very hard to justify sharp breaks (eg: why is wine OK but margaritas are verboten?). Even more difficult when “strong drinks” are part of worship and celebration: (Deu 14:26).
Hey Doug, long time.
And not all bartenders dispense tequila shots. You are adding to the metaphor, adapting it, to suit your argument and (yes, most certainly) your pre-commitment to the inherent evils of alcohol, or has something changed in your views I wasn’t aware of?
If Jesus was dispensing glasses of wine to people, then he was loosely doing the work of a bartender. Saying that is no less wrong than saying “Jesus was a clown” at times, whether or not he was wearing white paint and big shoes, although he did make jokes and probably clowned around.
@brig – That’s a part of the story that is rarely focused on. What does it say about Jesus that he was handing out alcohol of such high quality to people who were already blasted beyond reason?
And today’s Theological Word of the Day is, of course, “asceticism”…
@StuartB: They weren’t blasted beyond reason if they could discern good spirits from poor spirits. But yes, they most certainly had more than one. And Jesus did more than tend that bar in Cana, he poured out his blood, enough to cover all our sins. That’s a lot of bar tending. And eschatalogically there will be a great feast, where Jesus will yet again serve the best wine: cf Isaiah 25:6 et al.
I do not know why bartenders are considered profane — who’s been slandering them? Are lawyers likewise in a profession of ill repute? What then of our Advocate, and Mediator? How sad that we can only cite the deviant examples of otherwise worthy callings, and claim by association the corruption of all.
< >
Jesus is called a Mediator, and the Holy Spirit a Paraclete, both which amount to a lawyer, and we all know now corrupt lawyers can be. Then there’s the great Physician. Doctors are certainly not out of the question when it comes to unethical behavior. Then there’s the great/Shepherd. There’s nothing particularly honorable about shepherding. In fact, it’s a very smelly job. Ever smelled a lamb that hasn’t been sheared in a while? It’ll make you vomit on the spot. That’s probably the primary reason the Egyptians didn’t want the Hebrews around them, and why they were offended at shepherds — because of the stench.
I’m not seeing that Jesus was handing out glasses of wine to anyone, other than at the Lord’s Supper. He made the wine (fermented, and that is unquestionable to any but those who are not willing to let the Scriptures speak for themselves. Period), at the wedding feast, and while the people there were obviously “merry” (one doesn’t become merry from drinking grape juice, folks), they weren’t intoxicated so much as to not notice the difference.
But winemakers are not bartenders. They’re winemakers. Just as people who make break pads aren’t (necessarily) auto mechanics.
Indeed as another posted from Isaiah 25:6, the Lord will indeed be serving wine (aged wine) to His people. I’ve got news for you folks: aged grape juice, which has had the halting ingredient added to it (which did not exist until Mr Welch invented it during the Prohibition) is disgusting. It’s not wine, it’s just filthy and no one would drink it. But aged wine is a joy, a gift from…
Jesus likely wasn’t dispensing glasses of wine to folks bellying up to the bar or walking through the crowd with a tray like a cocktail waiter. He made wine in bulk, and, although not expressly in the text, it seems to me most likely the servants served it.
So ‘vintner’ is probably a more fitting metaphor than ‘bartender’.
Galatians 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
We are free (liberty) to choose what we do. We are free to choose to walk in the spirit.
We are free in all things that are not expressly prohibited in the new testament.
But as with all freedoms, there are warnings of using and abusing that freedom (i.e. in this discussion–drinking alcohol).
The freedom to drink alcohol is contrasted with the warning to not make an occasion to the flesh.
For Paul warns a few verses later about the works of the flesh naming DRUNKENNESS.
Again, my unanswered question about those Christians who get drunk… will they inherit the kingdom of God? (if so, what does this mean, if not then why did Paul say that drunkenness would cause them not to inherit the kingdom of God)
The thing that needs to be qualified is “drunk” or “drunkenness”. There’s a difference between different levels of alcohol consumption. There’s the drinking enough to feel a slight numbness in the lips, and a sense of ease, especially after a long, hard day at work; and then there’s the even happier feeling you get after perhaps one or two more drinks, as you’re sitting with friends, munching on Doritos and little sammiches; and then there’s probably where you ought to call it a night because you just want to hug everyone, and you’re probably talking a little too much (this is on the edge of actual drunkenness). I’ve been drunk probably only 2-3 times in my life. I never liked the feeling of it, and it usually happened when I wasn’t paying attention to the reality of how much I was drinking. All of these times were before I came to true understanding of the grace of God (I was raised in a Pentecostal Holiness Arminian type church where I’d lost and regained my salvation so many times I had no idea which one was the real one, and so I typically would abandon the faith every now and then when I thought I’d really blown it, and God couldn’t possibly take me back again). Drunkenness is more than merely catching a little buzz, and feeling “merry” as the Scriptures say. It has to do with losing control, perhaps even blacking out, and behaving in a manner that you would not normally. What we can’t get past is the fact that the wedding guests were already merry, they had “well drunk”, doesn’t mean they were smashed, only nicely buzzed and not as particular about taste at that point, and were looking for more, so that the merriment would not end. Jesus made more wine for them. Had He made grape juice they would have spit it out. There’s a HUGE difference between grape juice and cheaper wine. The only person who wouldn’t notice the difference between cheaper wine and grape juice would be stinking drunk. Then we’d have a problem with Jesus…
I happened across this article and wanted to add some info that I feel is important. We all agree that drunkenness is sin. This leaves the debate on grounds of whether or not it is okay to drink wine. I want to caution thinking like Deborah’s above: “Thomas B Welch only learned how to stop grape juice from fermenting (by pasteurizing it) in 1869.” This is simply NOT true. Grape juice was preserved in several ways for thousands of years before 1869. Grape juice was often boiled down into a concentrate and stored as such without refrigeration and it did not turn to alcoholic wine (sugar content is too high). I tried this experiment myself. I boiled freshly squeezed grape juice down to half and just put it into a container in the room. After a month, it was unchanged. Historically, people would add water to this concentrate in order to bring it back to balance for drinking. There were other methods, too, which involved a sulfur treatment. My point is that throughout history, there HAS been ways that were popular for people to preserve grape juice without refrigeration and before the 1800’s.
Also, if you look in an old English dictionary (1600’s), you’ll find that the word “wine” did not have an alcohol only connotation. The Hebrew and Greek words (there are several) that are most often used could mean either something alcoholic or not.
I am a missionary in Moldova. Moldova ranks #1 in the world for alcoholic consumption. Do a google search for Moldova and alcoholism and you’ll see. There is so much winemaking at home that each fall, that is what you smell as you walk down the street. The believers here do jar grape juice and it is AMAZING! Nothing like Welches. I can say that it is very enjoyable to drink. To assume that one needs to have alcohol in the blood to have a drink make them merry is also a mistake. I am not saying it is sin to consume small portions, but let’s not forget some of these facts.
P.S. I worked in the employment office of a large hospital corporation and was in charge of background checks and keying in each application in the system. I would say over 90% of all DUI’s listed on the applications were due to drinking ONE glass of wine at a birthday party or such. Legally, it does not take much at all to be considered “under the influence.” To say one must be “buzzing” or completely smashed to be considered drunk or under the influence is just incorrect. These people were deemed drunk by law and did not consider themselves drunk.
DUI is NOT being drunk.
Many countries have legal restriction on drinking and driving far stricter than America. Many of the Eastern European countries are among these.
The Moldovan DUIs have less to do with being drunk, than they do with drinking and driving.
And reduced grape juice is not new, because it has been cooked.
If you wish to make some kind of argument that the Greek word “oinos” refers to this sort of thing, you need evidentiary support, paying close attention to the fact that in the Bible “oinos” can intoxicate people.
It surely seems wrong, indeed more that wrong: evil, to call something (wine) evil when in fact it is God Himself who gave it as a gift and pronounced it good.
Furthermore, wine and other alcoholic drinks have been capable of being used for drunkeness and the destruction of families from time immemorial: Noah, etc. And even though from the beginning wine has been used for evil, God still commanded its use to his people, still considered it to be a good (and a reason why palestine / canaan was such a desirable land for his people), and even directly made it himself in a situation where it was likely some would abuse it.
I believe it is an offense to God to conduct a communion service using a substitute for the wine that Jesus used and which is symbolic of his blood and Spirit. Water, Coca Cola, and grape juice are not symbolic and not blessed nor authorized by God for use in communion. Hence, I have communion with my family over a real meal, with real unleavened bread and wine because the grape juice at church does not cut it (though I do participate in this social activity–i.e. it’s not communion–to be at one with my brothers and sisters in my church). For those intolerant of wine, or former alcoholics, it seems to me that God’s grace would cover not drinking at a communion meal, but would not cover drinking an alleged substitute and pretending its the same.
In regard to “1 Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” The more accepted and likely interpretation of this verse is that the first half of each contrast is a slogan that the Corinthians were using to justify their (sinful) behaviour, and the second half is Paul’s response based on Christ’s law of love and his understanding of the indwelling of Christ’s sent Spirit.
John
Hank Haanegraaf wrote a book awhile back going through all the metaphors the Bible uses with Israel as God’s vineyard and God as the winemaker.
Isaiah esp shows God’s punishment as removing the literal vineyards and wine as punishment for Israel’s unbelief.
Isaiah 5:3
“Now you dwellers in Jerusalem and people of Judah, judge between me and my vineyard.
Isaiah 5:4
What more could have been done for my vineyard than I have done for it? When I looked for good grapes, why did it yield only bad?
Isaiah 5:5
Now I will tell you what I am going to do to my vineyard: I will take away its hedge, and it will be destroyed; I will break down its wall, and it will be trampled.
Isaiah 5:7
The vineyard of the LORD Almighty is the nation of Israel, and the people of Judah are the vines he delighted in. And he looked for justice, but saw bloodshed; for righteousness, but heard cries of distress.
Isaiah 5:10
A ten-acre vineyard will produce only a bath of wine; a homer of seed will yield only an ephah of grain.”
Isaiah 16:10
Joy and gladness are taken away from the orchards; no one sings or shouts in the vineyards; no one treads out wine at the presses, for I have put an end to the shouting.
On the other hand healthy vineyards and good wine were a blessing
Amos 9:14
and I will bring my people Israel back from exile. “They will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. They will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will make gardens and eat their fruit.
A small error, but I must correct you on your Greek. You are correct that the word used in Eph is “methusko,” but it is not the same word used in John. The headwaiter in John 2 uses the verb, “methuo,” which essentially means the same thing. Just a little tip! Great article! I wrote a blog article on the same topic a month or so ago, definitely relevant.
“However, this does not mean that God forbids things that have the potential to be destructive. We must be careful that we don’t legislate God. It is not unlike issues of gun control, sugar consumption, or tobacco. All of these have potential to hurt people, all of these have a history of hurting people, all of these have people who attempt to force moderation or abstinence, but none of them are forbidden by God. We must be careful in what we attempt to forbid, even if the legislation is for a good purpose. The solution for problems associated with alcohol is not a mandate for abstinence, but education concerning its dangers.”
How does this principle apply to marijuana and other illegal drugs?
Render unto Caesar…
Illegal drugs are illegal, they are thus off-limits to believers. Until and unless they become legal.
For the record, marijuana is still a Schedule I illicit drug at the Federal level, meaning it is still off-limits for us.
If such things change, then the same calculus used for alcohol come into play; all things are lawful, but I will be under the control of nothing.
Re #31/81: ” To assume that one needs to have alcohol in the blood to have a drink make them merry is also a mistake.”
No, it’s not, given the context. Social merrymaking can occur around any drink, including water. However, this is not the same as the drink itself causing one to be merry. Only alcohol has this very well known physiological effect on the body, and the connection between alcohol and merrymaking has been made for millennia, including in the Bible.
In Answer to #32 – Reformed Baptist – what you are saying is deceiving or ignorant, cannot tell which one. Another type of bacteria enters into the wine after the wild yeast that is present in the air stops transforming sugar into alcohol at about 3%, so at the very least it will produce a content of 6% but most will reach the 15%. Many wine companies use this more natural method today
Great article. I was raised in a home/church were “drinking was a sin and the Bible says so.” Through studying the Scriptures myself I have came to the position I am now-abstain from drinking because I don’t care for the taste, but do not believe drinking is sin. I believe it’s simply a beverage that should not be abused.
Austin
it’s not about alcohol at all. wine is a metaphor for a liquid, coming from the fruit, which needs time to become potent.
People who want to drink , want to believe it was alcoholic wine but to say Jesus would be a part in creating sin and evil is blasphemous and dangerous . JEsus had power to create the water to what he wanted it to be , a new wine ,
one that isn’t alcoholic , on the new wine you can become spiritually intoxicated on it because it’s been touched by the Divine hand , Jesus is clear on drinking and drunkenness in Proverbs and in the New Testament .
Jesus was sinless and Holy . Don’t be deceived Jesus didn’t create alcoholic wine so people would drink and party , He created unalcoholic new wine so they could celebrate a Wedding !
Cooganis,
Thanks for commenting. Did you read the post?
Steve Martin, this is late, but I think you either misread my post, or just were completely dismissive of the argument. The argument that my pastor gave was that it had nothing to do with being tipsy or drunk or buzzed, but it just had to do with the taste and the pallate. And my pastor was not making an anti-alchohol argument, as he is a social drinker, but he saw that as a better interpretation of the text.
J Cooganis, that is, without a doubt, utter nonsense. Anyone who unbiasedly looked at the context of the Cana wedding (as well as the rest of the Scriptures) would see very clearly that Jesus not only made alcoholic wine, but drank wine Himself. God REQUIRED the Israelites to offer STRONG DRINK to Him in the sacrifices: “Its drink offering shall be a quarter of a hin for each lamb. In the Holy Place you shall pour out a drink offering of strong drink to the Lord.” (Num 28:7 ESV)
Strong drink is not wine, nor beer, but it is hard liquor.
This “alcohol is unholy” argument is so easily smashed it’s just amazing that anyone even would hold to such a nonsensical position.
Remember it was the US GOVERNMENT that put an end to the use of alcoholic wine in the communions of EVERY church in America during the Prohibition.
The abuse of a thing doesn’t make the thing evil.
Funny how you attack wine but not money, nor power, nor sex, nor food … yet all of these are abused (and more so) than alcohol.
The truth of the matter is, if your coming out of alcoholism you don’t need to try and find a scripture in the word to cater to your habits. Lets break these generational curses, our God is holy, sovereign and perfect in all his ways.to everyone pray for a revelation. Col3:1) set your heart on things above.
re ” on the new wine you can become spiritually intoxicated on it because it’s been touched by the Divine hand ”
uh, where is there any Scriptural support for this claim? And, further, has anyone ever made this strange / bizarre claim in the first 1,800 years of church history? not.
To drink alcohol should be a personal decision. For some people one drink is enough, for someone else one will never be enough.
I grew up in a home where there was zero tolerance for alcohol and judgment was placed on those who did. When I became an adult I made my own decision, which is to drink alcohol on rare occasion. One is my limit.
I’ve always wondered if the emphasis on not drinking alcohol for protestants or especially evangelical type churches is because Catholic’s do approve of it?
This is an absolute abomination. How can this website call themselves a ministry while calling Jesus a bartener? Have you lost your mind? Obviously the owner of this website is not Christian. No man of God would speak of Christ this way. And I hope He forgives you for such horrid statements. Next time keep your hellish words to yourself, damn devil author. GOD WILL BRING THIS WEBSITE DOWN EVIL DOERS YOU ARENOT TRUE FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST AND YOU WILL BE DAMED FOR WRITING THIS ARTICLE
I do not believe God and the Bible are simply against being a drunkard in that someone is addicted to alcohol but God is against being drunk at anytime. You should always have power over your actions and will. The word Christian means Christ-like. Being drunk is not Christlike. If you see a drunk fool you are not thinking “there’s a Christian.” So if it was real wine Jesus created it was because back then people went to weddings to celebrate the couple. Today people go to weddings to get drunk. Why would Jesus, who would die on the cross to break the controls of alocholism, have his first miracle go against that. Do you think he said “Here guys! Get wasted on me!”
Luke 1:15
15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.
People that want to still go to Heaven or have God’s blessings yet still want to be selfish and please their flesh cling to this scripture and twist it to justify them getting drunk and fitting in with sinners. The Bible says Come out from among them (sinners) and be separate TOUCH NOT the unclean thing and I will receive you. Meaning of course if you do touch the unclean thing, I won’t receieve you.
Aaron, you said ” So if it was real wine Jesus created it was because back then people went to weddings to celebrate the couple. Today people go to weddings to get drunk.”
I don’t go to weddings to get drunk, and I do drink when I’m at weddings (or not at weddings). I don’t get drunk.
Alcohol, like sex, and money, and food, and power, are gifts from God. There is a right way to use them and a wrong way to use them. Are you going to say “Since most people abuse sex (or money, or power, or food) then we should not have sex, and God would never sanction something as readily abused as sex”?
stegokitty,
what I was saying is if the Bible says Jesus didn’t drink wine or strong drink and drunkards shall not inherit the kingdom of God, then why would his first miracle cause people to sin.
not sure how then alcohol is a gift from God.
The Bible doesn’t say Jesus did not drink.
The verse you cited from Luke1:15 is a prophecy about John the Baptist.
And merely drinking wine is NOT a sin. As the kitty just said, it is quite easy to drink without getting drunk.
Aaron. I don’t believe the bible ever stated Jesus did not drink wine. The verse you are quoting is about John the Baptist. Given the miracle at Cana and the Last Supper I think it is quite likely he did drink wine. Your argument: “then why would his first miracle cause people to sin.” begs the question as you assume drinking = sin and this is not biblical, despite misusing proof texts