Featured Wine in the first century

Yes.

 

Phillip - I'm assuming you're talking about the same pastor that you've told us about before. If so, then put his comment in context: Most of the rest of his statements pretty much lack in actual intelligence and/or research and historical fact; why should this one be different?

Second, if you get the opportunity, ask him about the wine that Nehemiah took to the king. If he says that didn't contain alcohol, either, then ask him about the wine that Noah drank in Genesis 9; then ask him about the wine Lot drank in Genesis 19.

If he's like some of the others that I've had dealings with, who are really adamant about the "new wine" thing, those questions should confuse him for a while.

 

I've heard the same "new wine" argument. It simply does not make.

Grape juice, left without any refrigeration, will almost instantly begin the fermentation process. The mention of Jesus about old wine skins and new wine skins was instantly recognized in His day for what it was -- new wine fermented quickly -- so quickly that placing in in already stiffened skins would cause them to burst.

No, while the wine may have lacked some level of sophistication that we have today (and I even doubt that) it was indeed wine with the capability of producing drunkenness hence the admonitions about HOW MUCH one drinks (not that one drinks). I can find no statement in the Scriptures that alludes to actual absence of drinking save for those who took the Nazerene vow (which is not what Christ did -- He was FROM Nazereth -- we are never told He took the vow).

Water would have been the poison of that day as it is today in many 3rd world nations. Thinking along that line, then imagine the utter amazement of the people when Jesus turned WATER into wine. We see the miracle as water into wine. They saw the miracle as poison into good stuff (not to mention into wine). We might imagine drinking the water. They, likely not so much, though it was used for drinking somewhat.

 

Thanks for some great answers folks. :thumbsup:

 

Paul, in I Tim 3 said deacons should "not be give to much wine."

It is some wine, not much wine, but but definitely not no wine.

By the way, I am a deacon, but I'm a teetotaler. Am I wrong? Does Paul mean deacons SHOULD drink wine, just not much?

 

I think it is permissible, but not commanded nor necessary. Also, define "much".

 

Right.

And if I may add, though I'll probably be marked as a reprobate for this, I do not think that occasionally getting "drunk" is condemned in Scripture either.

Of course this depends upon how one defines "drunk". I don't think it is good to get out of your mind with it- but to drink to the point in a controlled and responsible atmosphere where one is very relaxed and "loose" is not condemned in Scripture (not to the point where he is a real danger to himself or others.)

In fact there are Scriptures that seem to encourage an occasional intoxicated rejoicing in the goodness of God.

Take Deuteronomy 14:26 for example- "You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household."

Let me quickly add that being a "drunkard" is explicitly condemned in Scripture.

But being a drunkard no more means getting relatively intoxicated a few times a years than being a glutton means eating to the full at Thanksgiving, Christmas and Independence Day every year.

 

Perhaps Paul had the Lord's Table in mind for those who wanted to abstain from wine completely and said "oino pollo" as new wine was only available right after the harvest. Otherwise they would have to abstain from the Table during the off months.

HankD

 

From Josephus' first century Antiquities of the Jews account of Pharoah's butler and Joseph:

 

I don't suppose I see your point here, Jerome.

What is it?

Is it that there WAS grape juice in Bible days? That doesn't seem to be much of a point since I don't think there is a person on earth of sound mind in the history of the world who would deny that.

Is it your point that they DRANK grape juice in Bible days? Again, I don't think these is a person in the history of the world who would dispite that.

Since I know you are too intelligent to make such a meaningless point, I just don't know what your point is.

Could you expound on it so we all can know what you are trying to say?

 

Grape Juice?

Oh, is that what Jospehus meant? New wine?

 

I think (but I don't know for sure) that Jerome is calling attention to the fact that the freshly squeezed juice given to the king was called "wine".

"Wine" in the Bible could mean either fresh grape juice or fermented grape juice "good wine" is probably aged and mellowed fermented grape juice.

I have read somewhere that in Israel of Jesus day, fresh grape juice was reduced by boiling it into a kind of paste (similar to a very thick jam) for children and then eaten or mixed with clean water to make reconstituted "new wine" for its sweetness minus the alcohol.

HankD

 

If one is KJVO or KJV-preferred, Paul literally told Timothy to quit drinking water altogether and drink wine.

23Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.
:laugh:

 

I am still confused, Jerome.

I don't know of a single Christian in the world who believes that the term "new wine" CANNOT refer to freshly squeezed grape juice.

So I still don't see the point of the post. Do you know of any Christians in history who have ever purported that every single time when the Bible speaks of "new wine" that it CANNOT ever speak of freshly squeezed grape juice?

Maybe it is your contention that it must ALWAYS refer to freshly squeezed grape juice?

 

Your post triggered a memory. I have a friend who was the king of malaprops. The stuff he said kept his friends in stitches.

For instance, he had us rolling on the floor with this one: "I don't drink, except i do occasionally take a little wine for municipal purposes."

If you don't know what a malaprop is, you can look it up.

Now back to the discussion.