-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
wine
- Thread starter IAMWEAK_2007
- Start date
- Status
standingfirminChrist
New Member
The instruction on the new wine and the wineskins is found in the first 3 of the 4 Gospels.
I will deal with the instance that gives us the most information. Luke 5:37-39.
And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. No man also having drunk old [wine] straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better. (Luke 5:37-39)
The main lesson Jesus was teaching here was that legalism and grace could not walk hand in hand. The Pharisees had to change their system completely in order to understand the Word He preached and taught.
J. Dwight Pentecost wrote:
The parables clearly indicate that Christ did not come to reform an old worn out system but to introduce something new... Rather, what He was introducing had to be entirely separated from the old. The incident closed with Christ's words that if men would taste His wine, that is, if they would accept what He was offering them, they would not want the old. However, the Pharisees, having tasted the old, were satisfied with it; they had no desire for what He was offering them. The Parables of Jesus (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids Michigan 1967
Some have tried to explain the analogy of the new wine and old bottles, by suggesting that old bottles would not stretch enough and would not hold the wine while it was in the process of fermenting. New bottles would be able to expand with the gas bubbles brought about by the fermenting wine. In explaining the parables this way, they narrow it down solely to the practice of keeping and drinking alcoholic wine. But when one looks at the context of the parable, one will see that Christ was not speaking of fermented wine at all.
To say it had to be fermentation Christ was speaking of is deceptive in the least; for sweet, unfermented wine was also kept in the same kind of wineskins. As we look at the parable, the context has a stronger argument for the preservation of unfermented wine and not the fermented wine.
It is obvious that the wine Jesus spoke of was not fermented. For if it were already fermented there would be no drastic changes in the wine to cause the skin to break open. If the goal was to have fermented wine, the skins would have been left open to allow the wine to ferment before sealing the bottles... eliminating the worry of the skins bursting open.
In light of the text, the goal had to have been to keep the unfermented wine in the wineskins from fermenting... eliminating the worry of the skins bursting.
Rev. B Parsons writes:
The art required was to keep the new wine from fermenting, not to keep the bottles from bursting. -- Anti-Bacchus: An Essay in the Crimes, Diseases, and other Evils connected with the use of Intoxicating Drinks (Published by John Snow, London)
So what about the old bottles? Parson goes on to explain:
The difference between the new bottles and the old consisted not in the relative proportion of their strength; but arose solely from the fact that the new bottles had in them no fermented matter. -- Anti-Bacchus: An Essay in the Crimes, Diseases, and other Evils connected with the use of Intoxicating Drinks (Published by John Snow, London)
If new wine was poured into old wineskins, the particles of yeast that were from the previous wine would cause the wine to ferment, thus breaking the skins.
Galatians 5:9 tells us that "A little leaven (fermentation) leaveneth the whole lump.
The intention was to keep the wine sweet and unfermented. That is why it was put in new bottles! Christ's teaching had to remain uncorrupted just as the new wine.
Dr. William Patton writes:
The new bottles, or skins, being clean and perfectly free from all ferment, were essential for preserving the fresh unfermented juice, not that their strength might the force of fermentation, but being clean and free from fermenting matter, and closely tied and sealed, so as to exclude the air, the wine would be preserved in the same state in which it was put into the skin. -- Bible Wines or Laws of Fermentation and Wines of the Ancients (Sane Press, Oklahoma City)
Dr. Patton continues:
Columella, who lived in the days of the Apostles, in his recipe for keeping the wine "always sweet," expressly directs that the newest must, be put in a "new amphora," or jar. -- Bible Wines or Laws of Fermentation and Wines of the Ancients (Sane Press, Oklahoma City)
Parson agrees with this conclusion, for in his writings we read:
The vessel they required was not one that could bear fermentation without breaking, but one that would effectually preserve the wines from fermenting; and, therefore, the text alludes to the custom of preserving wines from fermentation, which both Pliny and Columella inform us was common at that very period when the Saviour uttered these words. -- Anti-Bacchus: An Essay in the Crimes, Diseases, and other Evils connected with the use of Intoxicating Drinks (Published by John Snow, London)
There is no way that Jesus was comparing His teaching of the Kingdom of Grace to eventual fermentation... fermentation is a process of decay. Christ's Kingdom will not be in decay.
Our Lord's teaching must remain uncontaminated. If Christ's teaching was put into old skins (the legalistic traditions of the Pharisees), it would eventually be contaminated, bringing an uncertain sound. Chaos would be the result.
Jesus nowhere condones the use of alcoholic beverages in these verses as proven by the context. Clearly He is teaching against alcohol, not for it.
I will deal with the instance that gives us the most information. Luke 5:37-39.
And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. No man also having drunk old [wine] straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better. (Luke 5:37-39)
The main lesson Jesus was teaching here was that legalism and grace could not walk hand in hand. The Pharisees had to change their system completely in order to understand the Word He preached and taught.
J. Dwight Pentecost wrote:
The parables clearly indicate that Christ did not come to reform an old worn out system but to introduce something new... Rather, what He was introducing had to be entirely separated from the old. The incident closed with Christ's words that if men would taste His wine, that is, if they would accept what He was offering them, they would not want the old. However, the Pharisees, having tasted the old, were satisfied with it; they had no desire for what He was offering them. The Parables of Jesus (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids Michigan 1967
Some have tried to explain the analogy of the new wine and old bottles, by suggesting that old bottles would not stretch enough and would not hold the wine while it was in the process of fermenting. New bottles would be able to expand with the gas bubbles brought about by the fermenting wine. In explaining the parables this way, they narrow it down solely to the practice of keeping and drinking alcoholic wine. But when one looks at the context of the parable, one will see that Christ was not speaking of fermented wine at all.
To say it had to be fermentation Christ was speaking of is deceptive in the least; for sweet, unfermented wine was also kept in the same kind of wineskins. As we look at the parable, the context has a stronger argument for the preservation of unfermented wine and not the fermented wine.
It is obvious that the wine Jesus spoke of was not fermented. For if it were already fermented there would be no drastic changes in the wine to cause the skin to break open. If the goal was to have fermented wine, the skins would have been left open to allow the wine to ferment before sealing the bottles... eliminating the worry of the skins bursting open.
In light of the text, the goal had to have been to keep the unfermented wine in the wineskins from fermenting... eliminating the worry of the skins bursting.
Rev. B Parsons writes:
The art required was to keep the new wine from fermenting, not to keep the bottles from bursting. -- Anti-Bacchus: An Essay in the Crimes, Diseases, and other Evils connected with the use of Intoxicating Drinks (Published by John Snow, London)
So what about the old bottles? Parson goes on to explain:
The difference between the new bottles and the old consisted not in the relative proportion of their strength; but arose solely from the fact that the new bottles had in them no fermented matter. -- Anti-Bacchus: An Essay in the Crimes, Diseases, and other Evils connected with the use of Intoxicating Drinks (Published by John Snow, London)
If new wine was poured into old wineskins, the particles of yeast that were from the previous wine would cause the wine to ferment, thus breaking the skins.
Galatians 5:9 tells us that "A little leaven (fermentation) leaveneth the whole lump.
The intention was to keep the wine sweet and unfermented. That is why it was put in new bottles! Christ's teaching had to remain uncorrupted just as the new wine.
Dr. William Patton writes:
The new bottles, or skins, being clean and perfectly free from all ferment, were essential for preserving the fresh unfermented juice, not that their strength might the force of fermentation, but being clean and free from fermenting matter, and closely tied and sealed, so as to exclude the air, the wine would be preserved in the same state in which it was put into the skin. -- Bible Wines or Laws of Fermentation and Wines of the Ancients (Sane Press, Oklahoma City)
Dr. Patton continues:
Columella, who lived in the days of the Apostles, in his recipe for keeping the wine "always sweet," expressly directs that the newest must, be put in a "new amphora," or jar. -- Bible Wines or Laws of Fermentation and Wines of the Ancients (Sane Press, Oklahoma City)
Parson agrees with this conclusion, for in his writings we read:
The vessel they required was not one that could bear fermentation without breaking, but one that would effectually preserve the wines from fermenting; and, therefore, the text alludes to the custom of preserving wines from fermentation, which both Pliny and Columella inform us was common at that very period when the Saviour uttered these words. -- Anti-Bacchus: An Essay in the Crimes, Diseases, and other Evils connected with the use of Intoxicating Drinks (Published by John Snow, London)
There is no way that Jesus was comparing His teaching of the Kingdom of Grace to eventual fermentation... fermentation is a process of decay. Christ's Kingdom will not be in decay.
Our Lord's teaching must remain uncontaminated. If Christ's teaching was put into old skins (the legalistic traditions of the Pharisees), it would eventually be contaminated, bringing an uncertain sound. Chaos would be the result.
Jesus nowhere condones the use of alcoholic beverages in these verses as proven by the context. Clearly He is teaching against alcohol, not for it.
Last edited:
standingfirminChrist
New Member
webdog said:
As it is now 348 AM, and I am getting tired, I am going to wait and give you an explanation of Isaiah 25:6 later this afternoon. But I will tell you now that the wine mentioned here is not an alcoholic wine as you would claim. Explanation will be later today.
Bro. Williams
New Member
npetreley said:
Jesus is not giving a round of good advice here, on the distillery of wine and the correct storing thereof for the benefit of the said substance. He is using that statement as an illustration. This proves nothing concerning the pro or con of drinking for the Christian. (Nor was he giving beginner level sewing lessons in the previous verse to the one mentioned - it is an illustration).
To further this thought, the Isaiah passage is surely a reference to New Jerusalem or the millenium. In either state our bodies are glorified, which they are not today. IF it is alcoholic wine then, that doesn't play the same as today.
So let me rephrase the original question: Are there any admonitions for the Christain to drink other than for medicinal purposes?
That's your hermeneutic? Words only mean the same thing when they're describing something physical?webdog said:
But time is physical. If it weren't gravity couldn't affect it. (I'm assuming you've been introduced to the theories of general relativity and the observations that confirm them.)
It really isn't as "simple" as you want it to be, is it?
Besides, neither the Hebrew nor the Greek manuscripts mention wine. They mention yayin and tirosh, oivos and oinos, and gleukos. Five distinct words with distinct meanings.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
And in this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined. (Isaiah 25:6)
Some writers say that ‘wines on the lees’ were left to stand for long periods of time after fermentation. The lees were tiny particles of grape skins which would, over time, sink to the bottom of the wineskin. Some also explain that ‘wines on the lees well refined’ referred to the process of filtering off the lees after the wine was fully alcoholic. If that is the case, Isaiah 25:6 might read:
And in this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of fermented wines, of fat things full of marrow, of wines well refined, strong and alcoholic. (Isaiah 25:6)
A problem should be seen immediately with that line of thinking. In the light of God’s Word, the wine being alcoholic in nature would be impossible. If writers would consider what is written in the Word of God with prayer and common sense, they would be able to write more truthfully when writing about God’s Word.
One cannot doubt that alcoholic wine was used in light of other verses in the Word of God (Proverbs 20:1; 23:29-31), But the fact that the Lord is setting forth a feast for the people of God, a blessing, is enough to show it is not that drink made through a process of decay that is penned down in Isaiah 25:6.
Commentators such as Barnes, Clarke, Delitzsch and others reveal to the reader that fermented wines were left to stand on their lees; but to assume that the above verse is speaking of this practice is another thing, as unfermented wines were also permitted to stand in this way. Also, the word ‘lees’ in Isaiah 25:6 (shemer) can also refer to the preserving of wines.
Young’s Literal Translation states:
[FONT="]And made hath Jehovah of Hosts, For all the peoples in this mount, A banquet of fat things, a banquet of preserved things, Fat things full of marrow, preserved things refined.[/FONT]
The method of preservation is not sure here, but we do need to understand and know the full scope of the text before attempting to interpret this passage.
The Rev. B. Parsons wrote:
Shemer, is derived from shamar, to preserve, and the word literally means “preserves;” it sometimes refers to “lees” or “dregs,” but this cannot be its meaning in Isaiah 25:6. There it signifies “preserved wine,” or “preserves;” for no one could suppose that God would promise to make all people a feast of “refined lees,” or “refined dregs.” Indeed the idea of its being lees or dregs is contradicted by the assertion that it was well defecated or filtered. How this preserve was made, or in what manner the wine was preserved, we cannot say. The juice may have been kept in the same manner as Columella directs, or it may have been boiled down to a sirip, as we find was the case with most wines in Palestine. It’s being “well refined or filtered,” seems exactly to correspond with the words of Pliny. “Utilissimum vinum omnibus sacco viribus fractis;” “The very best wine is that which has had its strength broken by the filter.” It is worthy of remark that the word zaqaq, used by the prophet, and rendered “well refined,” is the same word as the Latin “saccus, a filter,” and in Latin sacco has the same signification: and it is not a little remarkable that both the Roman naturalist and the Jewish prophet should have used the very same word to express the manner in which the very best wine was produced: Pliny says, “The best wine is that which has had its strength broken by the filter;” and Isaiah tells us, “And in this mountain will the Lord God make unto all people a feast of fat things, full of marrow, of preserved wines well refined or well filtered.”
Plutarch asserts that the most esteemed wines, and esteemed because they would not intoxicate, were those which had been well refined or filtered: and Columella also directs that the filter should be used in making sweet or unfermented wines…; nor when he condescends to feast the nations, will give them which may be termed, “saluberrimum” and “utilissimum;” most useful and wholesome. -- Anti-Bacchus: An Essay in the Crimes, Diseases, and other Evils connected with the use of Intoxicating Drinks (Published by John Snow, London)
H. C. Leupold, in his Exposition of Isaiah, also states that the wine has to be wholesome:
If the wine is stressed first as being particularly good, that may be due to the fact that a feast is called a mishteh, “a drinking,” but without any unwholesome connotation. H.C. Leupold, Expositon of Isaiah (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan 1968)
Common sense will tell you alcoholic wines are not wholesome. They pollute and weaken the human body.
Some writers say that ‘wines on the lees’ were left to stand for long periods of time after fermentation. The lees were tiny particles of grape skins which would, over time, sink to the bottom of the wineskin. Some also explain that ‘wines on the lees well refined’ referred to the process of filtering off the lees after the wine was fully alcoholic. If that is the case, Isaiah 25:6 might read:
And in this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of fermented wines, of fat things full of marrow, of wines well refined, strong and alcoholic. (Isaiah 25:6)
A problem should be seen immediately with that line of thinking. In the light of God’s Word, the wine being alcoholic in nature would be impossible. If writers would consider what is written in the Word of God with prayer and common sense, they would be able to write more truthfully when writing about God’s Word.
One cannot doubt that alcoholic wine was used in light of other verses in the Word of God (Proverbs 20:1; 23:29-31), But the fact that the Lord is setting forth a feast for the people of God, a blessing, is enough to show it is not that drink made through a process of decay that is penned down in Isaiah 25:6.
Commentators such as Barnes, Clarke, Delitzsch and others reveal to the reader that fermented wines were left to stand on their lees; but to assume that the above verse is speaking of this practice is another thing, as unfermented wines were also permitted to stand in this way. Also, the word ‘lees’ in Isaiah 25:6 (shemer) can also refer to the preserving of wines.
Young’s Literal Translation states:
[FONT="]And made hath Jehovah of Hosts, For all the peoples in this mount, A banquet of fat things, a banquet of preserved things, Fat things full of marrow, preserved things refined.[/FONT]
The method of preservation is not sure here, but we do need to understand and know the full scope of the text before attempting to interpret this passage.
The Rev. B. Parsons wrote:
Shemer, is derived from shamar, to preserve, and the word literally means “preserves;” it sometimes refers to “lees” or “dregs,” but this cannot be its meaning in Isaiah 25:6. There it signifies “preserved wine,” or “preserves;” for no one could suppose that God would promise to make all people a feast of “refined lees,” or “refined dregs.” Indeed the idea of its being lees or dregs is contradicted by the assertion that it was well defecated or filtered. How this preserve was made, or in what manner the wine was preserved, we cannot say. The juice may have been kept in the same manner as Columella directs, or it may have been boiled down to a sirip, as we find was the case with most wines in Palestine. It’s being “well refined or filtered,” seems exactly to correspond with the words of Pliny. “Utilissimum vinum omnibus sacco viribus fractis;” “The very best wine is that which has had its strength broken by the filter.” It is worthy of remark that the word zaqaq, used by the prophet, and rendered “well refined,” is the same word as the Latin “saccus, a filter,” and in Latin sacco has the same signification: and it is not a little remarkable that both the Roman naturalist and the Jewish prophet should have used the very same word to express the manner in which the very best wine was produced: Pliny says, “The best wine is that which has had its strength broken by the filter;” and Isaiah tells us, “And in this mountain will the Lord God make unto all people a feast of fat things, full of marrow, of preserved wines well refined or well filtered.”
Plutarch asserts that the most esteemed wines, and esteemed because they would not intoxicate, were those which had been well refined or filtered: and Columella also directs that the filter should be used in making sweet or unfermented wines…; nor when he condescends to feast the nations, will give them which may be termed, “saluberrimum” and “utilissimum;” most useful and wholesome. -- Anti-Bacchus: An Essay in the Crimes, Diseases, and other Evils connected with the use of Intoxicating Drinks (Published by John Snow, London)
H. C. Leupold, in his Exposition of Isaiah, also states that the wine has to be wholesome:
If the wine is stressed first as being particularly good, that may be due to the fact that a feast is called a mishteh, “a drinking,” but without any unwholesome connotation. H.C. Leupold, Expositon of Isaiah (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan 1968)
Common sense will tell you alcoholic wines are not wholesome. They pollute and weaken the human body.
First, the text never reads "strong and alcoholic". Wine will ferment until it reaches about 14%, and that's it. The lees are the sediment from the dead yeast after full fermentation. Wine is made today in the same was it was 2000 years ago.
The second problem I have with whoever you got this from is the above bolded. Scripture is being interpreted with a presupposition already in place, which is NOT how to interpret Scritpure. The rest is almost pointless to read, because proper hermeunetics has already been violated.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
Aaron,
It is only proper hermeneutics when webdog says it is. He thinks the Lord will be serving alcohol, that which is a product of decay, in heaven. Yet the Word of God states otherwise as I have shown many times.
It is only proper hermeneutics when webdog says it is. He thinks the Lord will be serving alcohol, that which is a product of decay, in heaven. Yet the Word of God states otherwise as I have shown many times.
standingfirminChrist said:
:laugh: This cracks me up... Of course, ignoring the clear and natural interpretation as alcoholic wine in favor of "preserves", the suggested alternative reading must go:
And in this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of grape jelly, of fat things full of marrow, of well preserved grape jelly.
Sounds like quite a feast! (Hopefully Coca Cola will still be around
)readmore said::laugh: This cracks me up... Of course, ignoring the clear and natural interpretation as alcoholic wine in favor of "preserves", the suggested alternative reading must go:
And in this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of grape jelly, of fat things full of marrow, of well preserved grape jelly.
Sounds like quite a feast! (Hopefully Coca Cola will still be around
Forget Coke. I sure hope there's plenty of peanut butter.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
Mock and jest all you want. I am sure God is not laughing.
- Status