tektonics.org

Wine, Alcohol, and the Bible

Get a stripped-down copy of this page.

Video version!

The word wine appears over 200 times in the KJV Bible. Overall, what is the Bible's

opinion of wine, and by extension, alcohol? It is the purpose of this study to decide

one way or the other, especially as some critics claim that the Bible offers

contradictory advice on this subject.

We begin with OT evidence, and with three key words in Hebrew:

tiyrowsh -- This word is translated "wine" in the KJV and "new wine" in some

newer versions. It refers to the initial squeezings of juice from the grape, and is

rarely used of fermented wine. Its newness is confirmed by its application as part

of the firstfruits dedicated to God (Deut. 14:23) and by its grouping with

agricultural products as a victim of drought (Hag. 1:1).

The term itself suggests something non-alcoholic. Only one verse suggests that it

may have alcohol, and as we shall see below, this is a toss-up. (It is therefore cited

1.

improperly by some critics as "advocating indulgence" of alcohol).

yayin -- This word is translated "wine" in most versions. In most contexts we will

see that it refers to a clearly alcoholic drink.

Some writers dispute this interpretation, however. Bacchiocchi [Bac.W, 62]

argues that yayin "was used to refer to variety of wines," including the newly

pressed juice and fermented, alcoholic wine. He notes that fresh (non-alcoholic)

wine before fermenting was called yayin mi-gat, or "wine of the vat," or from the

press, while older and fermented wine was called yayin yashan, or if it was much

older, yayin meyushshan or yashan noshan. He therefore concludes that yayin

often referred to fresh grape juice.

There are a few problems with Bacchiocchi's arguments, however. First, the

distinction between the various stages of yayin appears only in the rabbinic

literature from after the Christian era. No such distinction is found in the OT, and

the rabbinic references are between 500-1900 years after the OT references.

Unless there is some evidence that the distinctions were made much earlier than

the time of the rabbis, Bacchiocchi's argument cannot hold ground.

Second, since the OT makes no distinction in classes of yayin, Bacchiocchi must

generally employ a circular hermenuetic in support of his case: anywhere where

yayin is condemned refers to alcoholic wine, but anyplace where it is approved

refers to grape juice. We will explore individual cases below.

Finally, it should be noted that according to the rabbinic sources Bacchiocchi

uses, the yayin mi-gat was in it's unfermented stage for only three days. This

may be useful in addressing whether, even under the definition given, yayin ever

refers to non-alcoholic grape juice in the OT. We shall see that the Bible does

permit the consumption of alcoholic yayin, while condemning the use of it to the

point of drunkenness.

2.

shekar -- this word does not appear often, but is translated in the KJV as "strong

drink." The root of this word comes from a word meaning to be tipsy and is

associated with strong alcoholic drink. It appears to have been a product of dates

rather than grapes.

This interpretation is also disputed by Bacchiocchi [227]. He notes briefly, as he

does with yayin, places where shekar is forbidden to Nazirites and priests, and

where its corrosive effects are listed. Neither of these points equates with an

all-time, all-persons, all-amounts condemnation.

3.

Second, he cites the argument of Teachout [227] that "wine and strong drink" are

a hendiadys, so that they refer to the same thing, and under the assumption that

yayin is grape juice, shekar must be also. Obviously this point assumes the

earlier points as a basis.

A few other words are used for wine, such as the Chaldean chamar in Daniel. But the

above three words constitute the overwhelming majority of usages. Let us now begin

with OT references.

Gen. 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered

within his tent.

Here and Gen. 9:24 are the first mentions of yayin in the Bible. No explicit moral is

drawn from this use of wine, though it implicitly suggests that drunkenness leads to

trouble.

Gen. 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he

was the priest of the most high God.

This is the next place yayin is mentioned and no commentary is offered either way. It

would probably be better to say "allows" than "supports" as the latter term suggests a

direct advocation ("Go out and drink wine!"), which is simply not the case. It does

reflect the use of wine (and bread) as one of two ancient staples.

Gen. 19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that

we may preserve seed of our father.

The next several mentions of wine appear in the context of Lot's daughters making

him intentionally drunk for their own purposes. Once again a lesson is drawn

implicitly which speaks against wine consumption to the point of drunkeness; there is

no comment on consumption prior to that point.

Gen. 27:25, 28 And he said, Bring it near to me, and I will eat of my son's venison,

that my soul may bless thee. And he brought it near to him, and he did eat: and he

brought him wine, and he drank....Therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven,

and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine...

The first "wine" here is yayin, but the second is not -- this word is tiyrowsh, which as

we have noted, is likely non-alcoholic. This word is used for the next mention of wine

("new wine" in the NIV) in Gen. 27:37 as well.

Gen. 49:10-11 has an interesting reference to yayin:

The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet,

until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. Binding his

foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments

in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:

Bacchiocchi [Bac.W, 69] argues that yayin here means grape juice, for we have a

poetical parallelism in which yayin is called "the blood of the grapes", which he takes

to be grape juice. However, it is hard to see why alcoholic yayin would not be referred

to this way as well, and no reason is given as to why it cannot be.

As an added note, Sarna's commentary on Genesis notes that there is some evidence

that Judah was involved in a cloth-dying industry, so that what is in view here anyway

is not consumption at all, nor "washing of clothes" as such.

The next mention of yayin (Ex. 29:40) refers to its use in a drink offering. It is

mentioned several times in this context over the next few books (we will not repeat

these cites below), and this relates to one of Bacchiocchi's key arguments for yayin

being non-alcoholic. He refers to Lev. 2:11 [Bac.W, 88]:

No meat offering, which ye shall bring unto the LORD, shall be made with leaven:

for ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering of the LORD made by

fire.

Bacchicocchi argues that "leaven" (chametz in the first case, se'or in the second)

means "anything leavened or fermented" or "any ferment" and thus, fermented wine

could not have been poured out as an offering. He notes the inconsistent efforts of

medieval rabbis to explain this in terms of yayin elsewhere being a fermented drink,

and concludes that yayin must be grape juice at times.

There is some support for Bacchiocchi's position here. Though these words are never

used with reference to wine in the Bible, Budd and Milgrom in their commentaries on

Leviticus [61, 188] note that the Akkadian word-equivalent is used to refer to bread,

beer, and vinegar, so it is quite possible that fermented drink would be out of the

picture for this offering.

However, Milgrom also notes the answer: that the offering where yayin was involved

was not burned, but was poured out on the ground. The yayin therefore could be

fermented and not violate any of the strictures.

Finally there is a problem in Bacchiocchi's effort to note that other items used for

offerings, such as flour, oil and animals, "were all natural products," whereas wine

was not. Cakes and wafers were also used for offerings, as was leavened bread in

certain cases (Lev. 7:13), and they were not "natural".

Lev. 10:9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye

go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever

throughout your generations:

Critics mention this as an "against" passage, but fail to note the context. In this

passage a directive is given specifically to Aaron and his descendants not to consume

wine or "strong drink" before ministering at the tabernacle. This is a prohibition on

alcohol at a specific time and for specific persons only. This is also the first

appearance in the Bible of the term "strong drink" (shekar). At any event, this verse

does not advocate teetotalling for all persons or at all times.

Numbers 6:3 He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall

drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any

liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.

This verse refers again to a specific group, the Nazirites, and forbids the entire range

of alcoholic products to them -- yayin, shekar, and "liquor", or mishrah, which

appears only here in the OT -- unless a specific ceremony is offered (6:20).

Several references in Numbers and Deuteronomy hereafter refer to wine (and once,

shekar -- Num. 28:7) again as an offering. Deut. 7:13 refers to tiyrowsh and would

therefore be cited improperly as advocating alcoholic indulgence.

Deut. 14:26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth

after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy

soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt

rejoice, thou, and thine household...

This verse mentions both yayin and shekar, and clearly permits its use -- whatever it

is -- within a celebratory religious context. But one cannot get from these permission

to go so far as to get drunk.

Bacchiocchi [Bac.W, 228] cites Teachout's argument that since intoxicants were

forbidden to priests on duty (Lev. 10:9) on pain of death, it would be inconsistent "for

God to command the use of these same intoxicants by the worshippers in one of their

infrequent appearances before Him, especially when they were in the company of

those priests."

But the command is not directed towards use of intoxicants; the command is to lay

aside money for the purchase of goods, of which the wine and strong drink are just

one of several listed, along with food and "whatsoever thy soul desireth." This no more

allows intoxication than the permission to buy oxen or sheep allows gluttony or

overeating.

Indeed the warning of Lev. 10:9, within the didactic context of ancient law codes,

serves as warning enough to avoid intoxication. Tigay (Deut. commentary, 143) adds

the relevant note that in this time period, total abstinence was regarded as a sign of

mourning.

Bacchiocchi's alternate proposal, that shekar may simply be a sweet drink of some

kind, fails on the point that it elsewhere is regarded as having intoxicating properties

(see below). Moreover, though it could be valued for its sweetness, and even if

sweetness does reduce in correspondence with the level of alcohol [229], this does not

mean we are free to define it in black-and-white terms as either sweet or alcoholic, but

not both. (Cf. Is. 24:9)

Deut. 29:6 Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink:

that ye might know that I am the LORD your God.

Here again yayin and shekar are both mentioned. Some might read this as advocating

teetotalism (alcohol abstinence), but if it does it also advocates not eating bread. The

verse is made with reference to God's provision of manna for 40 years during the

Exodus, and that the Israelites during that time had no need for man-made

provisions.

A couple of references in Joshua speak of people carrying wine bottles, but say

nothing about wine consumption directly.

Both wine and strong drink are referred to in Judges as prohibited to Samson and his

mother as part of the Nazirite vow process. Yayin is mentioned as a staple in Judg.

19:19, with no moral directive one way or the other in view.

Tiyrowsh is mentioned in Judges 9:13 thusly: "And the vine said unto them, Should I

leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?"

This is a vine speaking in a parable of talking plants; some cite this in the "advocating

indulgence" department, but it is hard to see how this is the case, other than that it

reflects the idea that wine can change mood positively, according to the vine, at least,

who is hardly an authority on such matters and is indeed quite likely biased and

boasting.

1 Sam. 1:14-15 And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken? put away thy

wine from thee. And Hannah answered and said, No, my lord, I am a woman of a

sorrowful spirit: I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but have poured out

my soul before the LORD.

Here we have an implication -- from Eli at least -- that there is error in both yayin and

shekar when it results in drunkenness. Samuel mentions Nabal's consumption of

yayin (1 Sam. 25:37), and notes that David gave to each person in Israel a cake of

bread, some meat, and a flagon of wine (2 Sam. 26:39).

In 2 Sam. 13:28, Absalom suggests killing Amnon once he is "merry" with yayin --

once it has been consumed to the point his mood is altered. Someone brings yayin to

David and his men in 2 Sam. 16:1-2, along with bread, for the sake of sustenance.

Once again mere consumption is not condemned, but intoxication is seen to get one in

trouble.

Kings only mentions the juice of the new harvest, the tiyrowsh, as an agricultural

product (2 Kings 18:32). Chronicles repeats some of the wine references in Samuel. It

adds that yayin was given as a provision by Hirum of Tyre to Solomon's workers,

along with barley, wheat, and oil, and another man (1 Chr. 27:27) is mentioned as

having a yayin cellar. Tiyrowsh is mentioned also as an agricultural product.

Ezra mentions wine twice, as a provision along with salt and oil, using the Chaldean

word chamar. Nehemiah mentions wine several times, as something drunk by the

Persian king, and both yayin and tiyrowsh are mentioned along with corn, bread and

oil as a staple or agricultural product.

Bacchiocchi [Bac.W, 68] cites Neh. 13:15 as a supposed example of yayin meaning

non-alcoholic grape juice:

In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine presses on the sabbath, and

bringing in sheaves, and lading asses; as also wine, grapes, and figs, and all

manner of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the sabbath day: and I

testified against them in the day wherein they sold victuals.

Bacchiocchi reasons that yayin here is "probably" the pressed grape juice, "since it is

mentioned together with the treading of wine presses on the Sabbath."

It is hard to see a logical link here. There is no cause-effect relationship between the

two phrases; this no more makes the yayin non-alcoholic than the mention of sheaves

would indicate that the burdens could not include fully-made bread.

Esther mentions wine being consumed at Xerxes' banquet, and making him "merry"

to the point that he apparently commits a social gaffe with his wife. In the rest of the

book it is mentioned as present at banquets.

Surprisingly for its size, Job mentions yayin only three times -- twice as something

Job's kids were drinking while gathered together, and once referenced in a figure of

speech (32:19).

Psalms mentions the tiyrowsh as an agricultural product (4:7), and uses yayin as part

of a figure of speech (60:3 -- "Thou hast showed thy people hard things: thou hast

made us to drink the wine of astonishment."; see also 75:8, 78:65).

In 104:15 yayin is referred to as an agricultural product that "maketh glad the heart of

man." This could be read as "supporting" drinking, and again, if by this we only mean

it is allowed, but not to the point of intoxication, this is correct. The heart may be

made glad any number of ways -- sweetness, for example, a rare and expensive

commodity in the ANE.

Ps. 69:12 refers to people who consumed shekar singing mocking songs.

Bacchiocchi [Bac.W, 85] argues that yayin is proven in Psalms to be non-alcoholic,

because both it and tiyrowsh (which is generally agreed to be grape juice) are

described as gladdening the heart and causing joy (Ps. 104:14-15, 4:7). But again, it is

hard to see why both cannot be viewed as sources of delight, for different reasons, or

with no reference to intoxication, only flavor. Referring to both bread and grain (as in

104:14-15) as a source of joy would not make bread and grain identical.

Proverbs mentions wine and strong drink a number of times, and it is from these

mentions that Bacchiochi formulates his most oft-used arguments.

Prov. 3:10 So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out

with new wine.

Prov. 9:1-5 Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars:

She hath killed her beasts; she hath mingled her wine; she hath also furnished her

table. She hath sent forth her maidens: she crieth upon the highest places of the

city, Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: as for him that wanteth

understanding, she saith to him, Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine

which I have mingled.

Prov. 20:1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived

thereby is not wise.

Prov. 21:17 He that loveth pleasure shall be a poor man: he that loveth wine and oil

shall not be rich.

Prov. 23:20-1 Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh: For the

drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man

with rags.

Prov. 23:29-30 Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath

babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? They that

tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine.

Prov. 31:4-6 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for

princes strong drink: Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment

of any of the afflicted. Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine

unto those that be of heavy hearts.

The first cite uses tiyrowsh and concerns us no further. Several of the cites above refer

to yayin and shekar and describe its consequences. Bacchiocchi [Bac.W, 66] notes

23:29-35 and 20:1 in particular as warnings against yayin as (as he sees it) alcoholic

(versus non-alcoholic) yayin.

But Solomon's warning is specifically directed at those who "tarry long" at yayin

(23:30). The Hebrew behind "tarry long" is 'achar, meaning to procrastinate or loiter.

The warnings that follow may seem to suggest a more direct condemnation of all

alcohol:

Prov. 23:31-5 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour

in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and

stingeth like an adder. Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart

shall utter perverse things. Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of

the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast. They have stricken me, shalt thou

say, and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not: when shall I awake?

I will seek it yet again.

The condition being described here, however, is that of one who has indeed

procrastinated at yayin to the point of drunkenness. As such it condemns

drunkenness, but not merely yayin.

As a further point, I must fairly bring against Bacchiocchi's argument the same caveat

I have against Skeptics who misuse Proverbs and other Biblical wisdom literature.

Proverbs and other proverbial literature are not absolutes. They are ancient "sound

bites", not cohesive and complete arguments.

These passages can therefore no more be read as absolute condemnations of

comsuming alcohol than Prov. 26:4-5 ("Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest

thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his

own conceit.") can be read as contradictory.

This leads to an important point. Proverbs and other parts of the Bible reveal a

paradox recognized by the ancients: alcohol was a "food with two faces" [OrH, 9]. (As

noted elsewhere, this nature is embodied in the contradictory nature of Dionysus, the

ancient god of wine) Ancient writers referred to wine in terms both positive

("chemical symphony", "bottled poetry") and negative ("destroyer of homes", "opener

of graves") [ibid.].

A more detailed commentator explained the paradox: wine "drives all sorrows from

men's hearts when drunk in good measure, but when taken immoderately, is a bane."

[OrH, 13] Proverbs warns of wine's consequences, as the ancients all did, but this does

not equate with prohibition any more than Miller beer's warnings against drunk

driving do. (See also Hab. 2:5.) Thus as well Skeptics improperly cite such passages

(Prov. 20:1, 23; Hab. 2:5) as "more or less forceful" admonitions in favor of

teetotalism.

Proverbs 31:4-6 offers an interesting case. Again, it must be considered within the

context of proverbial literature and not taken as an absolute, neither as a total

prohibition (per Bacchiocchi, 234) nor as full permission. Bacchiocchi is probably

correct in supposing that 31:6 advocates alcoholic beverage as a pain reliever, used for

medicinal purposes. Prior to the advent of pain relievers, this was often the only

option available. However, it begs the question to say that it is an "ironical" statement

that "suggests that alcohol is fit only to kill the excruciating pain of someone in

distress." [236]

Ecclesiastes mentions yayin three times: as something the author consumed, as

something that "maketh merry," and something the writer tells the reader to consume

(9:7).

The Song of Solomon mentions yayin several times and compares it to love. Love is

better than wine (4:10), it is drunk with milk (5:1). Bacchiocchi [Bac.W, 69] supposes

that this must refer to grape juice, for he says the same author (in Proverbs) also

condemns yayin, but as noted, this sort of argument fails to appreciate the proverbial,

non-absolute nature of the condemnation and is not informed by the paradoxical

thought of the ancients on the subject. It was quite possible for the ancients to

simultaenously praise and condemn wine.

Isaiah mentions yayin and shekar several times.

Is. 5:11-12 Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow

strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them! And the harp, and

the viol, the tabret, and pipe, and wine, are in their feasts: but they regard not the

work of the LORD, neither consider the operation of his hands.

Is. 5:22 Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to

mingle strong drink:

This passage refers in particular to those who are "mighty" (the same word describes

the "mighty men of old") to drink wine and points to those who go out of their way to

get hold of it and experiment with it. It thereby condemns strong focus on drink, but

says nothing about moderate consumption.

Is. 24:9 They shall not drink wine with a song; strong drink shall be bitter to them

that drink it.

This verse encapsulates both sides of the two-faces paradox. It implies that wine can

be drunk with a song, but states that it will not be.

Is. 28:1, 7 Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim, whose glorious

beauty is a fading flower, which are on the head of the fat valleys of them that are

overcome with wine!...But they also have erred through wine, and through strong

drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong

drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong

drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.

This passage speaks of those who have been "overcome" with wine, and so speaks

against excess, but not against mere consumption. (cf. 51:21) In other places it is

mentioned as an agricultural product (16:10, 24:7, along with tiyrowsh, which is also

in 36:17 and 65:8, and is mentioned as a drink in 62:8) and as something consumed

(22:13, 24:7-9, 11, 55:1).

16:10 in particular is taken by Bacchiocchi as an example of where yayin means

unfermented grape juice:

And gladness is taken away, and joy out of the plentiful field; and in the vineyards

there shall be no singing, neither shall there be shouting: the treaders shall tread

out no wine in their presses; I have made their vintage shouting to cease.

Bacchiocchi reasons [Bac.W, 67] that "what the treaders tread out in the pressing vat"

is called yayin, and since the stuff in the vat must have been non-alcoholic, yayin

must sometimes mean non-alcoholic grape juice. Part of his appeal, however, rests

upon the unproven assumption that the rabbinic distinctions noted above existed at

the time of Isaiah. (See also Jer. 48:33.)

Second, it is noted that Gentry argues that yayin is spoken of in terms of what is being

produced, that "the end results are attributed to the substance which causes the

result." Bacchiocchi responds thusly with the rabbinic delineation, and adds that the

imagery of Is. 16:10 "deals with the joy of the harvest and treading of the grapes" and

what it is, not what it becomes.

In fact both Gentry and Bacchiocchi are making psychological assumptions here in

terms of what the treaders are looking forward to; but Gentry is on far firmer ground

because of parallel OT uses of the unmodified yayin.

55:1 is also taken to be referencing grape juice:

Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money;

come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without

price.

Bacchiocchi [Bac.W, 83-4] finds it "hard to believe" that alcoholic wine is in view here,

paired as it is with water and milk, "a natural, nourishing food". Bacchiocchi is

arguing in a circle here. He has assumed that the pairing is made under the heading

"natural, nourishing food" when it just as well is reckoned under a more general

heading, "things to drink and enjoy." Bacchiocchi has assumed a category distinction

based upon his own premise. (See also Song of Solomon 5:1.)

Jeremiah also mentions yayin several times. We see as usual warnings against

intoxication:

Jer. 23:9 Mine heart within me is broken because of the prophets; all my bones

shake; I am like a drunken man, and like a man whom wine hath overcome,

because of the LORD, and because of the words of his holiness.

Jer. 51:7 Babylon hath been a golden cup in the LORD'S hand, that made all the

earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are

mad.

Jer. 13:12 says, "Every bottle shall be filled with wine." There are no grounds for

supposing that it allows anything beyond moderation. The same may be said for other

verses such as Is. 55:1, Joel 2:19 -- which refers to tiyrowsh -- Amos 9:14, Is. 25:6,

Joel 3:18, and Ps. 104:15. Tiyrowsh is referred to once as an agricultural

product(31:12).

Yayin is given to the Rechabites by directive of the Lord for their refreshment (35:2,

5-6, 14), but which they refuse because of their family vows. It is mentioned as an

agri-product (40:10, 12. 48:33). Bacchiocchi [Bca.W, 68] takes the first two of these

three verses as proof that yayin could be non-alcoholic:

As for me, behold, I will dwell at Mizpah, to serve the Chaldeans, which will come

unto us: but ye, gather ye wine, and summer fruits, and oil, and put them in your

vessels, and dwell in your cities that ye have taken...Even all the Jews returned out

of all places whither they were driven, and came to the land of Judah, to Gedaliah,

unto Mizpah, and gathered wine and summer fruits very much.

Bacchiocchi comments, "Alcoholic wine was not gathered in the fields." Therefore

yayin can even be the fruit of the vine itself. But there is no reference here to the

fields, and oil is not taken from the fields either.

Lamentations mentions yayin as a product (2:11-12). Bacchiocchi [Bac.W, 68] takes

this as indicating that yayin could be non-alcoholic:

Mine eyes do fail with tears, my bowels are troubled, my liver is poured upon the

earth, for the destruction of the daughter of my people; because the children and

the sucklings swoon in the streets of the city. They say to their mothers, Where is

corn and wine? when they swooned as the wounded in the streets of the city, when

their soul was poured out into their mothers' bosom.

Bacchiocchi argues that "nursing infants are crying out for their normal fare of food

and drink" and "it is hardly imaginable that in time of siege and famine, little children

would be asking their mothers for intoxicating wine as their normal drink." Rather,

they wanted nourishing grape juice.

However, these infants were no more likely to be asking for "corn" either. Bacchiocchi

uses a translation that refers to "bread" but the word used is dagan, which refers to

grain. Moreoever, sucklings and "children" (this word is rendered elsewhere as

"infants") aren't going to be asking for corn, wine, or any particular thing coherently.

There is obviously more to this passage.

"Corn and wine" is used 10 times in the Bible -- sometimes with oil -- as

representative of the harvest as a whole (cf. Deut. 33:28). In all but this verse,

tiyrowsh is used rather than yayin, but the point is not what the kids are requesting

specifically, but that they are in essence, through their cries of hunger, asking why

there has been no harvest -- which feeds the adults, who provide them with their

nourishment in turn.

Ezekiel mentions yayin twice -- once as a product, and here:

Exek. 44:21 Neither shall any priest drink wine, when they enter into the inner

court.

This is again a prohibition limited to a specific time and place.

Daniel mentions yayin (and food) as something Daniel and friends refused from the

king's table and as something (along with good food) that Daniel abstains from after a

vision (10:3). One might read Daniel's refusal as opposing alcohol consumption, but it

no more does this than it opposes the consumption of food. Many reasons have been

proposed for Daniel's refusal, but Goldingay [Daniel commentary, 18] finds it most

likely that it was a way of Daniel and friends standing against full assimilation into the

Babylonian royal society. At best Daniel would suggest that we should not take the

food and wine from Nebuchadnezzar's table (or that of any pagan king) either.

Hosea mentions tiyrowsh several times as a product. It also mentions it in a passage

that is sometimes taken to understand that it could be alcoholic:

Hos. 4:11 Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart.

It would be argued that "new wine" (tiyrowsh), to take away the heart, must have

some alcoholic content. In this case Bacchiocchi's answer is suitable: as "whoredom"

signifies fornication with other gods, or idolatry (4:10), so "wine and new wine"

signify divine blessings, and these items were also used in idolatrous worship, rather

than in the worship of the true God. The properties of the wines are not in view, and

thus this is not opposing alcohol consumption. Hosea also implicitly disses

overindulgence:

Hos. 7:5 In the day of our king the princes have made him sick with bottles of wine;

he stretched out his hand with scorners.

Joel mentions yayin as a product cut off due to judgment (1:5) and as something the

people sell their children for (3:3), which again warns against dependence but not

against mere consumption. Tiyrowsh is referred to as a product a few times.

Amos mentions yayin as something used in religious ceremonies (2:8) and given to

the Nazirites (2:12) in violation of God's command. It is a product (9:14) taken by

judgment (5:11) and something drunk (6:6).

Bacchiocchi [Bac.W, 83] supposes that 9:14 references a non-alcoholic yayin:

And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the

waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine

thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.

Though it is not explained clearly, Bacchiocchi seems to argue that the parallel of

gardens/fruit somehow proves that yayin here is unfermented grape juice as a

"normal product of the vineyard." One is pressed to understand why fermented juice

cannot be regarded as a "normal product". This is like arguing that the people only ate

the fruit raw to be normal, and did not cook or prepare it in other ways. (See also

Amos 9:14.) Once again Bacchiocchi has assumed a category distinction that begs the

question.

Some passages in the minor prophets offer nothing new. We now move to the NT

examples.

The NT hardly mentions wine at all, and there are only two Greek words of interest:

oinos -- this is the most-used word. In this case, unlike with the OT yayin,

Bacchiocchi [Bac.W, 60-61] provides fairly solid evidence that oinos was

sometimes used to mean what we would call grape juice -- unfermented grape

products. Not all of his evidence is convincing.

1.

gluekos -- used only once, in Acts.2.

Several times in the Gospels, Jesus refers to oinos in parables; these would make no

statement about consumption one way or the other. Texts where Jesus associates with

drunkards no more proves that he drank alcoholic wine than his association with

prostitutes proves he was a pimp, or his association with Pharisees proves he was a

Pharisee.

Accusations of drunkenness by Jesus (Matt. 11:19, etc) are not conclusive as they

come from the mouths of adversaries out to discredit Jesus, and at any rate would

have no relevance either way for moderate consumption.

Oddly enough, oinos is actually not mentioned at the Last Supper; it is assumed that

the reference to "blood" parallels fermented wine. What is mentioned is the "fruit of

the vine," which Bacchiochi shows can mean merely grape juice [Bac.W, 156], though

it goes too far and beyond evidence to suggest that the word oinos was avoided when

Bacchiocchi has already argued that oinos did not have to mean something

intoxicating.

The argument that fermented wine would not be a suitable parallel to Christ's

untainted blood [ibid., 165] likewise begs the question. The evidence is perhaps best

regarded as equivocal, though church tradition does tip the balance in favor of a

non-alcoholic communion [168ff].

Here are some other passages cited as relevant:

Mark 15:23 And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received

it not.

One can see how this might be used to advocate teetotalism, but it would also suggest

an avoidance of myrrh and modern painkillers if we wish to take it that far.

Luke 1:15 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. (cf. 7:33)

John here is subject to a Nazirite vow, which as noted above cannot be expanded to an

all-time, all-persons, all-amounts prohibition. In this verse also is the only NT

mention of "strong drink."

John 2:3ff And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They

have no wine.

This is the one that really gets the pot boiling, since if Jesus produced wine with

alcoholic content, this is clear evidence that there is some leeway for consumption of

alcohol. Bacchiocchi [Bac.W, 138ff] notes the possibility that oinos refers to

unfermented grape juice, but as this is only a possibility, it is not conclusive.

One defining argument is that the governor of the feast called the oinos "good wine",

and Bacchiocchi's comment is that this title was commonly given to wines that had

been filtered so as to temper its effects [Bac.W, 129]. The filtering removed much (but

apparently not all) of the intoxicating effects, enabling more to be consumed.

Bacchiocchi jumps to the conclusion that this equates with total prohibition, but as he

does not show that the filtering process removed all alcoholic content, the argument

cannot be taken so far, so easily.

Of perhaps more persuasive bearing is the theological argument that the miracle of

Cana, representing as it did a divine act of creation, indicates that there was no

fermentation, because unfermented wine is "the only wine God produces" in nature.

But it is questionable whether the analogy can be pressed so far. The water was

originally drawn by men; how does this fit in? Furthermore, to make the point that

fermentation is a "process of decay", while scientifically and technically true, does not

hold much strength since decay of some kind begins in nature anyway, even if it is not

specifically fermentation. I am reminded here of Skeptics who say that Jesus could

not have been the Passover lamb because he was whipped first and was therefore not

without blemish. Typological matching does not require full precision in any scenario.

Oinos is also used medicinally in Luke 10:34.

Romans 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing

whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

For this verse, watch carefully: some Skeptics cut it off at "wine" and make it sound

like a full forbidding; the rest of the verse, and the context, makes all the difference.

Paul is referring here to the use of meat and wine in the context of those items being

purchased from pagan markets where they were dedicated to pagan gods, and eating

and drinking before those who find it offensive. It is not a broad condemnation of

eating flesh or drinking wine.

1 Cor. 9:25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things.

Neither wine nor any particular is mentioned here, but Bacchiocchi reads "temperate"

in terms of total abstinence. The word is also found elsewhere in the NT, referring to

restraint in sexual passion (1 Cor. 7:9), but also elsewhere with no specific referent

(Gal. 5:22, 2 Peter 1:6). It is also noted that in the context of Paul's athletic metaphor,

the word would suggest a "stern, self-denying discipline", and includes not taking

wine.

The parallel seems convincing, but it assumes that what constitutes temperance for

the athlete also constitutes temperance for the religious believer. Bacchiocchi quotes

advice to athletes against taking wine, but the same advice also says to "live on food

which you dislike...abstain from all delicacies...exercise yourself at the necessary and

prescribed times both in heat and cold" and "drink nothing cooling."

Is this advice -- written specifically to an athlete looking to gain a prize -- also

transferred over to the believer? The word here was actually used to refer to caution

against excess in a variety of areas; the places where Bacchiocchi finds it linked to

abstinence mean no more than that those writers considered such an extreme

necessary to be "temperate" -- Bacchiocchi is assuming a universal upon a particular.

Eph. 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the

Spirit...

Paul clearly admonishes drunkenness here, but it is hard to see, as Bacchiocchi

[Bac.W, 70, 93] supposes, that non-intoxicating consumption is forbidden. He argues

that the "wherein" could refer back to either the wine or the drunkenness, and in a

rather shameful moment resorts as far as suggesting that translators prefer to suggest

that it refers to "drunkenness" because they like to take a drink themselves now and

then.

In the end he admits that the grammatical evidence could point either way and resorts

back to a faulty interpretation of Proverbs 23 (see above) and citing translations

which prefer to make "wine" the antecedent.

We would agree with Bacchiocchi that Eph. 5:18 at least cannot be taken as sanction

for moderate consumption. On the other hand, his comparison to cocaine (and

whether a preacher saying "Don't get high on cocaine!" thereby "sanctions" moderate

use) merely begs the question and draws an improper analogy that assumes that the

effects and power of alcohol is the same as that of cocaine, which is clearly not the

case.

It also takes the analogy too far to suggest that "drunk with wine" verses "filled with

the Spirit" indicates a mutual exclusivity of wine and the Spirit, "because no one can

be filled with half of each." How can a comparison be made here, since one relates to

the physical and the other to the spiritual? A parallel to Luke 1:15 is of no relevance,

since that is made in the context of a Nazirite vow, and as shown in the link above,

there was a natural contrast made between those who were drunk with wine and those

under spiritual inspiration, and there is no reason therefore to see a direct connection

between the passages.

Quite weak is Bacchiocchi's attempt to explain why Paul did not simply say, "drink no

wine at all" [189] -- he argues that Paul may have been trying to allow for medicinal

use of wine as in 1 Timothy below, or else did not wish to imply that non-intoxicating

oinos was disallowed.

However, it was no harder for Paul to have made these delineations than it was for

Bacchiocchi to have done so. At best one may argue that the "medical exclusion" is

assumed in a didactic context (which it would also be anyway, had Paul said "none at

all"), and if indeed the Last Supper used non-intoxicating oinos, there would be no

need for the "grape juice exclusion" either. No one would think that drinking of grape

juice led to debauchery.

1 Tim. 3:2-3 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant,

sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach. Not given to wine, no

striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous...

1 Tim. 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to

much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre (cf. Titus 2:3)

These two verses at most would suggest restrictions upon bishops, deacons, and

others in positions of authority in the church rather than an all-persons, all-amounts

prohibition, and would therefore be cited wrongly as "total abstinence". "Sober"

(sophron), Bacchiocchi insists, must refer to total abstinence, but the cites he gives in

this regard are proverbial and far from convincing. Aristotle is quoted as saying that

"By abstaining from pleasures we become sober." This refers not to just alcohol, but

"pleasures" as a whole -- one may as well see this as a total prohibition of anything

enjoyable in some way.

A cite from a Jewish work tells us to live "soberly" and "not touch wine at all" but this

is "lest ye sin in words of outrage, and in fightings and slanders," and perish in sin. It

is quite understandable to see a connection between "soberness" and total abstinence,

yet it is not clear from such cites that moderate consumption is thereby forbidden, or

that this was not an individual value judgment of what sobriety required. The

expression of absolute prohibition is the sort of didactic formulation we would expect

in any event.

The second verse seems to be more permissive. Bacchiocchi [249] tries to explain this

in terms of the verse below, saying that "If Paul really believed that it was proper for a

Christian to drink alcoholic wine moderately, then he would not have given Timothy

such restrictive and qualified advice." He thus concludes that "not addicted to much

wine" is "most probably a loose form of speech intended to express abstinence from

the use of wine."

But as Bacchiocchi admits, the advice below is likely given to Timothy as one who has

historically been an abstainer. If this is so, it is not Paul's concern to lay down

permission to drink. Trying to turn this into a "loose" expression of abstinence

requires very "loose" treatment indeed.

Bacchiocchi also tries to add Rom. 14:21 into the mix, noting that if the above allows

deacons to drink moderately, it will be an example that may tempt the others who

cannot. But as noted, Rom. 14:21 is laid out in the context of behavior that is known

and visible to others. Bacchiocchi creates a straw man when he refers to deacons

drinking during home visitations.

Finally, Bacchiocchi draws from an interpretation suggesting that oinos here is grape

juice! It is not explained why advice would need to be given to be moderate in

consumption of grape juice, other than referring to "drinking contests" in which so

much juice was drunk that the stomach swelled and an emetic was needed. Unless

this was a problem in the church, it is hard to see how this can be of proven relevance.

Bacchiocci must come up with a contrived idea that a deacon invited into a home

might take advantage of their hosts' hospitality [253] and drink too many cups of

grape juice, and therefore be accused of gluttony. If this is the problem, why not just

specify gluttony only, and why single out grape juice?

1 Tim. 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and

thine often infirmities.

If fermented wine is meant here -- which is not certain -- this verse is a health

recommendation, and a sound one prior to the advent of advanced sanitation, and

does not involve getting drunk (a "little" wine -- the word means literally, "puny") nor

of course does it recommend any pattern of consumption.

1 Peter 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch

unto prayer.

This verse does not refer to wine, but is taken as an admonition of teetotalism by

Bacchiocchi [Bac.W, 197-8]. The case he makes for this has some virtue, as "watch"

(nepho) is very often used to refer to total abstention. However, here and in 1 Thess.

5:2, the reference is to be sober, as Bacchiocchi correctly notes, "in the context of

readiness for the imminent return of Christ." [203]

The point is a good one, but if as we have shown in our series on eschatology, this

return happened in 70 AD, then in essence any prohibition is now over with. But it

does serve well as a pointer for our conclusion.

Oddly enough, oinos is mentioned most often in the NT in the book of Revelation, in

the context of symbolizing judgment.

Conclusions

We are now ready to assert some definitive conclusions.

Drunkenness as a condition is condemned.1.

The vast majority of cites give no moral advice one way or the other.2.

Moderate consumption is not condemned, except within the context

of certain persons and certain times.

And this in turn leads to our final conclusion, which may seem a bit of a surprise,

but not if you think about it:

3.

In light of the times, even moderate consumption of alcohol by a

Christian is not a good idea.

Yes, this is where I reach. Why?

4.

It all works out from Romans 14:21 -- and that, just as the law about railings on roofs

applies today to balconies, so the Bible would suggest strongly that these are not times

to be enjoying fermented drink as the ancients were permitted to do. In ancient times

the choice of fermented beverage was limited and by modern standards fairly weak.

There was no equal to vodka or gin, or anything that would deliver a knockout punch

in a shot glass. Wine was often purposely diluted to prevent drunkenness while still

enjoying it. Generally such drinks were only affordable to the rich, or could only be

rarely consumed.

There is no parallel to our easy access to beer, wine, or vodka every day of the week

and from every 7-11 or supermarket. Being a drunkard was not an easy habit;

addiction was unlikely for all but the richest and most powerful (which fits in with the

warning in Proverbs to kings).

Easy access to cheap alcohol sharpens the warnings of the Bible and makes them

much more difficult to take in any other way today than very seriously. Addiction is

easier to fall prey to (at least in the US; an Australian reader has told me of mitigating

factors there which would change things, and one may also consider whether such a

view might be looked at differently in France, for example; though others have told

me now of high rates of alcoholism in these countries).

Of course, for some -- such as myself -- alcohol is not a temptation at all, and the

warnings may be unnecessary.

If I may divert for a moment -- since critics will perhaps suggest my own impure

motivations -- I have personally consumed alcohol in the form of fruit and ice cream

drinks, and found them no more desirable than those without it; I cannot stand the

smell of beer, which reminds me of stale urine; and when I sampled a martini, I would

have compared it to drinking my wife's Oscar de la Rente perfume, only that may

have been more pleasant. In short, I really don't understand the attraction of the stuff,

so I can hardly be accused by the likes of Bacchiocchi of harboring secret desires for

alcohol.

If any think to consume alcohol today, my counsel would therefore be not to do so,

but if you do, do so privately and with heavy restrictions upon yourself, based on your

own temperament and physiology -- not because the Bible has changed, but because

social factors have changed in ways that the Bible's writers could not have envisioned.

If their warnings within their social context are that strong, how much more so would

they be in an era of cheap and plentiful alcohol?

This is not to say that consumption of alcohol is now a ticket to perdition. However, it

is a behavior that needs to be carefully considered in light of innumerable other

factors -- and in my view, and for my part, you might as well save yourself the time

and have a snort of fruit juice instead; it's far better for you anyway.

-JPH

Sources

Bac.W -- Bacchiocchi, Samuel. Wine in the Bible. Biblical Perspectives, 1989.

OrH -- Origin and History of Wine. Gordon and Brach Publishers, 1996.

Will.W -- Williamson, G. I. Wine in the Bible and the Church. Presbyterian and

Reformed, 1976.

Original URL:http://tektonics.org/lp/nowine.html