Scriptural Distinctions of Wines.
Last week an article appeared in this department, entitled, “Wine and the Bible,” which was taken from a health tract by the same name. As this is a subject which can hardly fail to interest all, we continue to extract as follows:— In the English version of the Scriptures, the distinctions made in the original are often obscured or wholly lost. This is especially true in the present instance. In the Hebrew, the language in which the Old Testament was written, different kinds of wine are indicated by different words, which are all rendered in the English translation by the one word wine. The principal words thus employed are yayin, shekar, and tirosh. Yayin, according to Biblical critics, refers to the juice of the grape in any form. It might be sweet or sour, fermented or unfermented. Shekar, or shechcar, was the term applied to any sweet juice derived from any other source besides the grape. It is sometimes translated honey. It usually refers to the juice of the palm tree or of its fruit, the date; and, like yayin, it included the fermented as well as the unfermented condition of the juice. Tirosh was applied to the ripe fruit of the vine, and to the fresh juice of the grape before fermentation had begun. It is often translated “new wine.” In brief, then, yayin means fermented or unfermented wine or juice of grapes; shekar means fermented or unfermented wine or juice of the palm tree, of dates or other sweet fruit. Tirosh means the sweet unfermented juice of the grape, or new wine. The Hebrews used the term yayin for wine made from grapes, in any of its stages, just as we apply the term cider to the fresh juice of the apple, or to the same juice after it has fermented or become “hard” by age. The Greek, oinos, corresponds exactly with the Hebrew yayin. The foregoing is certainly sufficient to show beyond all chance for reasonable doubt that there are two kinds of wine recognized in the Bible, one of which was sweet, unfermented, and unintoxicating, and the other fermented and intoxicating. The same term is often used for both kinds. If, then, we find the Bible in some instances speaking of wine in terms of commendation, and in others condemning it in the most forcible manner, would it not be most reasonable to suppose that, in those cases in which wine is commended, the unfermented kind is referred to? and in those in which it is condemned, that which had undergone fermentation is meant? Any one who has confidence in the inspired character of the Scriptures will have no hesitancy in answering in the affirmative. We are now prepared to consider some of the texts in which wine is mentioned. 1. TEXTS WHICH ARE SAID TO FAVOR THE USE OF WINE.
“In the holy place shalt thou cause the strong wine to be poured unto the Lord for a drink-offering.” Num. 28:7. Whatever semblance of argument may be founded upon this text loses all its force upon reference to the original. The term which is here rendered “strong wine” is shekar, which might with much greater propriety be translated “sweet wine,” since that is the literal meaning of the word. It is so rendered by Kitto, who says that the article referred to in this text was a sweet juice derived from the palm tree or any sweet fruit other than the grape. That this position is correct is conclusively proven by the testimony of an eminent Jewish rabbi, who says of the Jews, “In their oblations and libations, both public and private, they employ the fruit of the vine; that is fresh grapes and unfermented grape juice.” “Fermentation is to them always a symbol of corruption.” According to Plutarch, even the Egyptians used only unfermented wines in sacrifices. The wine referred to here cannot be the fermented kind, for the original word so rendered is tirosh, which as previously shown, was always applied to grapes themselves or to the fresh juice. Some learned Bible commentators hold that the word refers exclusively to the whole ripe fruit. Travelers in wine-producing countries assert that the fresh juice of the grape has a peculiarly refreshing effect when taken cool, and that any quantity can be drunk without any of the effects of fermented wine. “He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man; that he may bring forth food out of the earth; and wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine.” etc. Ps. 104:14, 15. The wine referred to here must be of the unintoxicating kind, for it is represented as being a natural product, like grass, the herb, and oil. Fermented wine is not a natural result of growth. The Creator never made alcohol in any form. Not a single plant contains it. It is the product of decay and rottenness. As remarked in reference to the preceding text, new wine is a most refreshing and cheering beverage. “Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish.” Prov. 31:6. Even this text is sometimes used as an apology for the use of liquor, though at the most it could be made to excuse the use of strong drink only in cases of threatened death. An understanding of the real meaning of the text clears up all difficulty attaching to it. The term, “strong drink,” had no reference to distilled liquors, as in present usage. The art of distillation was unknown to the ancients, not being discovered until the ninth century of the present era. Strong drink, then, did not mean a liquor strong in alcohol, like brandy or rum. It referred to a liquor, sometimes called “mixed wine,” which was a compound of wine with wormwood, myrrh, nux vomica, and narcotic drugs, which rendered it very intoxicating. It was customary, among ancient nations, to administer this strong or intoxicating liquor to criminals who were about to be executed, in order to stupefy them and thus mitigate their pain. In obedience to the common custom, a draught of this powerful opiate was offered to the Saviour as he hung upon the cross. It was to this well-known custom that the wise man had reference when he said, “Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish,” just as the surgeon would say, Give chloroform to a patient about to undergo a surgical operation. “The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a wine-bibber,” etc. Matt. 11:19. It will not be denied that Christ drank wine; but there is not the slightest evidence that he ever drank a single drop of fermented wine. Sweet wines which had been preserved by some one of the methods previously described, were by many persons drunk to excess, just as food may be taken in excessive quantity. Such persons were called wine-bibbers, though they could not be called drunkards. But there is no evidence that Christ belonged to this class. The charge was made by wicked men, his enemies, who also accused him of gluttony, and on another occasion said, “He hath a devil.” Was he a glutton? If not—and he certainly was not—how can it be claimed that he was a wine-bibber? The same authority which would prove him to be a wine-bibber, would also make him a glutton and one possessed of a devil. [The remaining texts which are said to favor the use of wine will be considered next week.]