p. 8 | EDITORIAL by C. M. S.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jun 25, 1914

EDITORIAL

By C. M. S.

Wine and the Bible

THERE are a number of words in the original languages of the Bible that have been translated by the English word wine which do not mean what the English word wine means. That word, to us, always conveys the idea of a liquid, a drink, and almost always a fermented drink. The meaning of those original words was not restricted to the idea of something to drink. Some of these terms referred to what were solid substances, but which could be turned into intoxicants by human ingenuity. They sometimes referred to substances which were used regularly as foods and not as drinks. Where they refer to fermented drinks, such beverages are denounced and condemned, as for instance in the texts quoted in the previous article from Proverbs 20 and 23.

We shall examine a few New Testament texts:—

“Neither do men put new wine into old wine skins: else the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins perish: but they put new wine into fresh wine skins, and both are preserved.” Matt. 9:17.

The “new wine” referred to in this scripture was the fresh juice of the grapes. It has generally been inferred that the grape juice would soon ferment, and as the old skin had lost its elasticity, the fermenting juice, as it swelled, would burst the skin. But this is not the correct idea. If fresh grape juice was put into a fresh wine skin and tightly closed, the juice would remain fresh and sweet until used. But when a wine skin had been emptied, and the air came in contact with that which remained attached to the inside of the skin, fermentation would begin. Then if fresh wine (grape juice) were placed in that skin, the ferment would attack the fresh grape juice, and the whole contents of the skin would ferment, and the resultant swelling of the fermenting juice would burst the skin. Thus both the wine skins and the wine would be ruined. Who has not seen a tin of preserves bulging with the internal pressure of the fermenting contents?

The bulging of the top and bottom of the can indicates to the dealer or to the purchaser that the contents have fermented and are spoiled as food. The object of the ancient householder was to preserve these grape products in an unfermented state, except when he wished to make an intoxicating drink. To make sure that the jam or preserves or sirup or grape juice should not ferment, it had to be specially prepared before putting it into the skin bottle, and the process for doing this was well known and continually practiced both by the Hebrews and by other ancient peoples. Says Dr. Fenton:—

Jesus wished to show John’s disciples that before he could form an organization, or church, to be the instrument of continuing his doctrines, he had to prepare his disciples by a course of mental education to receive his spiritual teaching, freed from the “dead rituals” of the Sadducean priesthood of Jerusalem, and then inspire them with a newly created organization to preserve and serve out the gospel doctrines to mankind.

The interpretation put upon his parable by the ignorant commentators of the Dark Ages, that he is insisting upon the drinking of intoxicants, is little short of blasphemy, and it is a disgrace to our better-informed age that writers should say that “Christianity has given a sacred character to wine and its use.”

“And when they had mocked him, they took off from him the purple, and put on him his garments. And they lead him out to crucify him. . . . And they offered him wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.” Mark 15:20-23.

The wine, when “mingled with myrrh,” had a stupefying or narcotizing effect, and would have reduced the pains of the torture on the cross. It was offered our Saviour in mercy. Why did he not receive it? It has been held by many that, in order to be a perfect sacrifice, our Lord felt that he must sense all the pains of his cruel execution. But the reason that has Scripture proof behind it has not been emphasized as it should have been. The wine which the merciful centurion offered our suffering Redeemer was the wine served out to the Roman soldier as a part of his ration, and it was a fermented drink, an intoxicating drink. (The myrrh was added to this fermented drink on this occasion for the reason stated above.) The real reason for our Saviour’s refusal to drink the soldiers’ wine is found in this scripture:—

“Drink no wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tent of meeting, that ye die not: it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations.” Lev. 10:9.

To Christ as our high priest — the true antitype of the whole priesthood system — all intoxicating drink was forbidden. He was now entering upon the great Passover service, a service in which leaven, or ferment, was to have absolutely no part. It must not even be found in the dwellings of the people. With this thought in mind, consider the import of the following scripture:—

“Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened. For our Passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ: wherefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” 1 Cor. 5:6-8.

Leaven, ferment, whatever typified decomposition and death, must be excluded from the Passover service; for the purpose of Christ’s ministry in our behalf was to put an end to death and to displace death with life. For that reason he denied himself the drink offered by the centurion.

Of the forerunner of Christ, his herald, we read:—

“He shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink.” Luke 1:15.

If intoxicating wine were good for mankind, the Word of God would encourage its use rather than discourage it and discountenance it by such references as the above and others previously given.

“John the Baptist is come eating no bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a demon. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold, a gluttonous man, and a wine-bibber.” Luke 7:33, 34.

What is the force of this text? Does it show that our Saviour was a drinker of intoxicating liquors?—Not by any means. Our Saviour was there showing the inconsistency and the wicked perversity of his accusers. Did John have a demon?—No. But the Pharisees said he had. They bore false witness against John. Likewise did they pervert the truth and bear false witness against Christ in defaming him as a drinker of intoxicating beverages because he drank the common table beverage of the Jewish nation, the unfermented, diluted juice of the grape.

But, says one, the Saviour made wine at the marriage in Cana, and made a wine which his companions there declared to be of the best. This must have been intoxicating, because habitual drinkers of wine do not consider unfermented wine as "the best." The trouble comes from the preconceived notion that the guests at this wedding feast were habitual users of intoxicating liquor. There is nothing to indicate it, nothing to indicate that this householder was setting before his guests a condemned drink. The incident is recorded in John 2: 1-10; and over it many have stumbled, and have unintentionally accused our Lord of doing what he did not do. The misconception comes from attributing the English meaning of the word wine to the word as used in the Bible, and from supposing that all who anciently drank "wine" drank the intoxicating beverage which we today know by that name. Such is very far from being the case. What were called their "best wines" were not fermented at all. As throwing light upon the customs of the people at that time, I quote again from Dr. Fenton:—

The ordinary drink of the Romans, learned writers tell us, was juice of the grape, which they mixed with water; both hot and cold, . . . and sometimes with spices. Fermented wine was rare in early Roman times; was used only as an act of worship in the [heathen] temples, and men under thirty years of age, and women all their lives, were forbidden to use it. (See Valerius Maximus, book ii, 1, 5; vi, 3; Aulus Gellius, book x, 23; Pliny, xiv, 13.)

Fresh grape juice was called mustum, and to make it keep without fermentation, it was boiled until it became thick, like our treacle, or molasses, and in that state was called defrutum, that is, made from fruit, and stored away in large jars for future use, to be eaten spread upon bread, as we do butter or treacle, or mixed and stirred up in water, as we do sugar in tea, to make a drink, as stated above. The Greek scientist Aristotle says that by keeping for a time in skins or jars, it became as thick as butter, and had to be cut out by spoons. The Roman writer Pliny records that when the grape juice was boiled down to one third of its bulk to secure the finest flavor,—that is, to be made into the "best wine,"—it was called sapa, from which word came our vocables "sapid," well-flavored, and "savory," delicious in taste. To give variety of flavor, herbs and spices were often boiled in the juice during its preparation. Such was the "best wine" of the ancients, the sweetest and nicest flavored to the taste,—not as we imagine and mean, the most intoxicating, when we speak of "best wine."—'The Bible and Wine,' pages 89, 90.

This insight into the customs of the peoples of that time easily disposes of the charge that our Saviour made an intoxicating beverage at the marriage feast in Cana, and thereby added to the intoxication of the guests. The charge is an utterly unjustifiable one, and wrongs both our Saviour and the cause for which he gave his life.

The Bible being the Word of God, and God having given heaven's best for the good of man, it is wholly inconsistent to claim that the Bible encourages or even condones the use of alcoholic drinks. No fair interpretation of the Scriptures will lead any honest-hearted soul to bring that accusation against God or to lay against our Saviour the charge of creating that which will debase and destroy mankind.

C. M. S.