BIBLE WINES by Elder W. H. Wakeham

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Dec 5, 1892

BIBLE WINES.

By Elder W. H. Wakeham

It is generally assumed by the “one-wine” theorists that the wine made by our Saviour (see John 2:1-10) contained alcohol. The only reasonable basis for such an assumption is the supposition that no other kind of wine was in common use in those days. But the fallacy of that position has been shown in the preceding article. We wish now to inquire into the stated object of Christ’s mission, to see whether the manufacture and distribution of 120 gallons of fermented wine is in harmony with it. In Luke 4:18 we are told that Christ came to “heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised.” Luke 19:10 states that “the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.” Christ’s mission was to “heal the broken-hearted.” Fermented wine has broken millions of hearts. He was to “deliver the captives.” Alcohol has bound and kept in chains of abject slavery more of the sons of Adam than all the tyrants of history, from Nero down to the present czar of Russia. Christ came to “save the lost.” Think of trying to save a lost man by giving him fermented wine! These considerations alone, it seems to me, are sufficient to show that the only kind of wine Christ could consistently make is that characterized by the ruler of the feast as “good wine,” i. e., unfermented grape juice.

That the fresh juice of the grape is called wine in the Scriptures, and that another kind of wine is brought to view the effects of which never follow the use of fresh grape juice, and the use of which is prohibited in God’s word, is susceptible of the most positive proof. In Gen. 49:11 we read: “He washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes.” Also in Deut. 32:14 (Revised Version) is found this expression: “And of the blood of the grape thou drankest wine.” Fermented wine is in no sense the “blood of the grape;” but fresh grape juice may very properly so be termed, and inspiration here calls it “wine.” More positive still is the statement found in Isa. 65:8: “As the new wine is found in the cluster.” No chance for alcoholic fermentation here. Alcohol is never found in such wine, but “a blessing of the Lord is in it” (see Codex A in LXX). Again, in Isa. 16:10, wine is the term applied to the fresh juice as it comes from the press: “The treaders shall tread out no wine in their presses.” This is the kind of wine that receives the sanction of the word of God, and that is classed with nutritious articles of food, and recommended to Timothy.

On the other hand, another wine is brought to view in the Scriptures, evidently for the purpose of showing its pernicious effects, and warning against its use. Its effect upon the mind is presented in the following scriptures: “It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted.” Prov. 31:4, 5. “Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him.” When we remember the exceeding common use of this kind of wine by lawmakers and jurists, we do not wonder that the prophet, in describing these last days, exclaims, “Judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off.” Isa. 59:14. This may explain some remarkable court decisions that have been rendered quite recently.

In Prov. 20:1 Solomon tells us that “wine is a mocker,” and that “whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.” How does fermented wine deceive? By paralyzing the nerve centers it benumbs the sensibilities, thus making one think he is warm when he is cold. It makes him think he is strong when he is weak; it makes him think he is rich and happy when he is poor, and miserable, and forsaken, and degraded. One more text, Prov. 31:6, 7, claims our attention here, first, because it is in perfect harmony with the above citations, and simply shows the mental effect of the use of fermented wine; and, secondly, because it is supposed by many to afford some evidence in favor of the use of intoxicants. While a casual reading of this text might seem to give countenance to such a supposition, the general teaching of the Bible forbids it; and the text itself does not necessarily show that the use of intoxicating beverages is good under any circumstances. Understand the verbs “give” and “let” used conditionally, not imperatively, as: “If strong drink is given unto him that is ready to perish,” etc., the result will be that it will cause him to “forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.” In short, it will blind him to his own true condition, destroy his consciousness of his needs, and thus place him beyond the reach of help. Such usage is found in all languages. We often hear: “Give him an inch and he’ll take an ell.” “Give a beggar a horse, and he’ll ride to perdition.” No one misunderstands such expressions, nor do they need mistake the import of the scripture under consideration.

In Isa. 55:1 wine is used as a symbol of gospel blessings, and in Rev. 14:10 it is used to represent the wrath of God. Would the same substance be used to symbolize both a blessing and a curse? Solomon says, “Look not upon the wine when it is red.” Paul said to Timothy, “Use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake.” Did Paul contradict Solomon? The Lord by the prophet said, “Woe unto him that giveth his neighbor drink,” etc. The Lord Jesus Christ made wine for a whole wedding party. Can anyone with any just appreciation of the work of Christ, believe that the kind of “drink” he made was the same as that against which the “woe” is uttered? All of these seeming contradictions vanish when we admit the “two-wine theory.”

A word concerning 1 Cor. 11:21, as it is the only text which contains even the semblance of an argument in favor of the assumption that the communion wine of apostolic time was fermented. But the Greek word here rendered “drunken” may mean simply to be filled, whether with food or drink must be determined by the context. Satiety, not drunkenness, is the antithesis of hunger. The Imperial Dictionary renders it as follows: “One is famished, another is surfeited.”

The people came together, and it appears brought their provisions with them; some had much, others had less; some ate to excess, others had scarcely enough to suffice nature. One was hungry, and the other was drunken, Methuei, was filled to the full; this is the sense of the word in many places of Scripture.

Dr. Macknight renders Methuei, “is plentifully fed.” And Dr. Lees says that “the great majority of expositors join in ascribing to the apostles’ words a charge of selfish repletion, but not of intoxication.” Thus 1 Cor. 11:21 gives no reasonable basis for an argument in favor of fermented wine.