Eliaphet Nott's First Shot: Wine in the Hebrew Bible

 

Eliphalet Nott, whom I introduced earlier in this series, offered in his major contribution to a theology of wine, an extended discussion on a Biblical understanding of wine.  And, while Mr. Nott dealt with wine in both Old and New Testaments as well as what he dubbed "An Inquiry Extended to Profane Writers" (Lecture IV), we must be content to take in only sections, so to speak, in order to avoid information overload.

A note about the documentation for this essay on Nott's theology of wine is surely in order.  Far too few will take the time to actually check my interpretation of Nott.  And, I offer no assurances I possess a bias-free approach.  I do hope, under God, I will not intentionally skew Nott's meaning either for or against my own position.  That said, when the time is available, I will post the entire unedited Lecture online for anyone interested in primary sources.  Let's begin.

As already stated, Nott begins his understanding of wine with a solid, unshakable conviction that Scripture remains primary:  "The Bible is at once the unerring standard of faith as well as the authoritative rule of life...We may err in our interpretations of the languages of the Bible, but the Bible itself never errs..." From there, Nott quickly moves into the dilemma he finds on the pages of God's Book, beginning with an open concession toward the moderationist mantra: 

"Is it to be denied that wine is spoken of in the Bible, in terms of commendation; that it is employed as a symbol of mercy; that it was offered in sacrifice; that it was distributed to the guests at the passover; at the supper of our Lord, and at the marriage in Cana of Galilee? No, this is not to be denied." (53). 

Far be it from him, he writes earlier, to "defend opinions contrary to the announcements of the Bible."  Denying what Scripture affirmed found no home in temperance theology according to Nott.

Now he is ready to assume his inquiry to the contrary and hence asks a series of rhetorical questions about other obvious truths asserted just as clearly in God's Word:

"Is it to be denied, that [wine] is also spoken of in terms of reprobation; that it is employed as a symbol of wrath, forbidden to Nazarites, forbidden to Kings: that to look upon it, even, is forbidden, and that it is declared that they who are deceived thereby are not wise." (Ibid). 

For Nott, Scripture, at least as it is viewed from a surface observation, appeared strangely at odds with itself.  But, he assumed, since Scripture does not--indeed cannot--contradict itself, he found himself rhetorically querying again:  "What shall we say to this? Can the same thing in the same state be good and bad, a symbol of wrath, a symbol of mercy, a thing to be sought after, and a thing to be avoided? …And is the Bible then inconsistent with itself?"  

Nott's answer is an unequivocal "Certainly not!" assuring the reader that what seems a blatant inconsistency vanishes and the Bible thus stands in perfect harmony with itself.  For Nott, then, the unerring Bible implies an erring interpreter if such clear contradiction exists. 

The solution to such flawed interpretation presents itself within the Hebrew text itself when it is carefully followed.  In other words, the answer to wine being blessed and wine being cursed lies intrinsically embedded within the diversity of the Hebrew language.  Nott says:   

“No less than nine words are employed in the Hebrew Bible to express the different kinds of vinous beverage formerly in use; all of which kinds of beverage are expressed in our English version by the single term, WINE; or by that term in connection with some other term expressive of quality. [Yayin, Tirosh,  Ausis, Sobhe, Ifamar, Mesech, Shemarin,  JSshisha, Shechar]”  

From Nott’s understanding, these Hebrew terms expressed sweeping implications for a proper view of wine in Scripture, the diversity pertaining to which, wine is seen as wine “in the grape”, “on the vine”, “in the cluster” “in the vineyard”, “in the vat”, “in the press” “in the cup”, “in the flask”--virtually in every conceivable state and degree of fermentation--wine is called wine in the English Bible.  No wonder Scripture appears to contradict itself with both the blessing and cursing of the same element.

Hence, because the English Bible veils the rich diversity of the Hebrew, flawed interpretations inevitably follow.  Hear Nott in his own words:

“The term wine, therefore, as used in our English Bible, is to be regarded as a generic term; comprehending different kinds of beverage, and of very different qualities; some of which kinds were good, some bad; some to be used frequently and freely, some seldom and sparingly; and some to be utterly and at all times avoided.”

Indeed, Nott makes this astute observation and then proceeds to test his observation in the laboratory of God‘s Word:

“By a mere comparison of the passages in which the term wine occurs, this will be rendered probable.  For it were difficult to believe that the wine by which Noah was dishonored; by which Lot was defiled; the wine which caused prophets to err in judgment, and priests to stumble and fall; the wine which occasions wo and sorrow, and wounds without cause; wine of which he who is deceived thereby, is not wise; wine which Solomon styles a mocker, and which is alluded to by One who is greater than Solomon, as a symbol of wrath; 

it were difficult to believe that this wine, the wine mingled by harlots, and sought by libertines, was THE VERY WINE which wisdom mingles; to which wisdom invites; wine which priests offered in sacrifice; evangelists dispensed at communion-tables, and which, making glad the heart of man, was a fit emblem of the mercies of God. 

There is a wine of some sort spoken of very frequently in the Bible, with express disapprobation, or in connection with drunken feasts, or as an emblem of temporal and eternal judgment. And there is also a wine spoken of perhaps as frequently with express approbation, or in connection with religious festivals, or as an emblem of temporal and eternal blessings.

That wines of such different qualities, and presented in such different aspects and even in such frequent and frightful contrast, were one and the same article, in one and the same state, would seem, even though history, both sacred and profane, had been silent, quite incredible. How much more so now, that in place of silence, history, both sacred and profane, hath spoken; and spoken, not of their identity, but known and marked dissimilarity."

For Nott, the key to both understanding and solving the polarization between those who view wine in the Bible as a good, commendable creation of God to be enjoyed--in moderation of course--and those who see in Scripture the clearly revealed condemnation of intoxicating drink which hardly receives approval from Deity, finds itself in the door of the Hebrew language itself.  Consequently, Nott begins an elaborate analysis of the way the nine different Hebrew words teases out in the entire Old Testament revelation.

Nott categorizes the way wine is employed in the Old Testament by making a distinction between two broad categories of scripture usage.  First, he assembles texts which speak of wine in a good sense or “good wine“.

Among those are texts like "Therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn, and (tirosh) wine" (Gen.27.28) and  “All the best of the oil, and all the best of the (tirosh) wine, and of the wheat, first fruits of them which they shall offer unto the Lord, them have I given thee" (Numbers 28.12)” and “And (yayin) wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengthened man's heart" (Psalm 104.15).   

The second broad category in which Nott assembles Scripture are those clear texts where “bad wine” is spoken of or alluded to:  "For their vine is the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah. Their (yayin) wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps" (Deut. 32.33); "Who hath woe; who hath sorrow; who hath contention; who hath babbling; who hath wounds without cause; who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the (yayin) wine; they that go to seek (mesech) mixed wine; look not thou upon the (yayin) wine when it is red; when it giveth his color in the cup; when it moveth itself aright. At the last, it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder" (Proverbs 23: 29-32); "(Yayin) wine is a mocker, (shechar) strong drink is raging, and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise" (Proverbs 20.1)

The above are samples merely of passages (which if necessary could be extended) in which wines are distinguished, according to their qualities: some are good and some bad; wine that is a blessing, and wine being a curse; wine, to be presented at sacrifice, and wine, that might not be drank in the house of the Lord. 

Good wine, occasioning joy and gladness, and not so good wine, occasioning woe and sorrow.  There is wine, the emblem of heavenly joy, and wine, the symbol of endless misery; red wine, the especial care of the Almighty; and red wine, that might not be looked upon, indeed wine, as mocker.

Nott capitalizes first on this broad distinction between good and bad wine, recognizing "in the sacred writings, we take our stand.   And be it remembered, it is not against the moderate use (in ordinary times) of good, healthful wine, which the Bible sanctions and employs as an emblem of mercy, but against the use of bad, deleterious wine which the Bible reprobates and employs as an emblem of wrath, that we array ourselves…” 

For Nott, Scripture teaches that this wine as emblem of wrath is wine in which poison is contained in the quantity and intensity indicated, no matter how generated or whence derived.  The conclusion Nott offers from his sweeping look at the diversity of Hebrew language on the fruit of the vine in the Old Testament revelation should cause pause to those who insist on perpetuating a generic, one-size-fits-all understanding of wine in Scripture:

“That the term wine is always used, either by sacred or profane writers, to indicate the same beverage or to indicate the beverage for which we now use it, is an error which cannot fail, on full examination, to be corrected.”

After detouring through a bit of Greco-Roman culture, focusing on Classical Greek and Latin writers whose views on wine are virtually identical with the variety of wines in the ancient world of the Old Testament--both good wines and bad--a subject we will invariably get around to exploring, Nott takes the reader back for another look, a much deeper look, at the variety of ways the Hebrew Scriptures view what the English translation invariably translates with the single syllable word--wine.

Beginning with Jacob, who, according to Deut. 32.14, drank the pure "blood of the grape'' Nott begins a tedious trip through the various ways by which the fruit of the vine is declared to be wine.  He concludes:  "Here there can be no mistake. The blood of the grape, that is, grape juice in its natural state, is, in the judgment of these high authorities, WINE".

In demonstrating such, Nott assemblies, in almost encyclopedic form, the multiplicity of ways the produce of the grape is vied as wine:

• THE FRUIT OF THE VINE IS DECLARED TO BE (tirosh) WINE, AS EXPRESSED IN THE VAT:  "And the floors shall be full of wheat, and the vats shall overflow with (in Hebrew, tirosh; in Greek, oinon ; in Latin, vino; and in English) wine"(Joel 2.24)

• IT IS DECLARED TO BE (tirosh) WINE, IN THE PRESS BY WHICH IT WAS EXPRESSED. "So shall thy bams be filled with plenty, and thy presses burst out with (tirosh, oinon, vino) new wine" (Proverbs 3.10)

• IT IS DECLARED TO BE (tirosh) WINE IN THE CLUSTER FROM WHICH IT WAS EXPRESSED: "Thus saith the, Lord, as the (tirosh) new wine is found in the cluster and one saith, destroy it not, for a blessing is in it ; so will I do for my servants sakes, that I may not destroy them all" (Isaiah 65.8)

• IT IS DECLARED TO BE (tirosh) WINE IN THE VINEYARD, WHERE THE CLUSTER IS RIPENED: "And the vine said unto them, should I leave my (tirosh, oinon, vinum) wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?" (Judges 9.13)

• IT IS DECLARED TO BE WINE WHEN ASSOCIATED WITH CORN AND OTHER PRODUCTS, IN THEIR NATURAL STATE CONSIDERED A BLESSING: "Therefore God give thee of the dew of Heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and (tirosh, oinou, vini) wine" (Genesis 27.28)

• IT IS DECLARED TO BE WINE WHEN ASSOCIATED WITH CORN AS GATHERED FROM THE FIELD:  "That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy (tirosh, onion, vinum) wine and thy oil" (Deut. 11.14)

• THE FRUIT OF THE VINE IN ITS NATURAL STATE IS DECLARED TO BE (ausis) NEW WINE: "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that the ploughman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes, him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop (amis, glukasmon, dulccdinum) sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt" (Amos 9.13)

• IT IS DECLARED TO BE (yayin) WINE IN THE PRESS:  "In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine presses on the Sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, as also (yayin, oino, vinum) wine, grapes and figs"

• IT IS DECLARED TO BE (yayin) WINE IN THE VINEYARD: "But ye, gather ye (yayin, oinon, vindemiam) wine and summer fruits, and oil, and put them in your vessels, and dwell in your cities that you have taken" (Jeremiah 40.10)

• FINALLY THE FRUIT OF THE VINE, IN ITS NATURAL STATE, IS DECLARED TO BE (hhemer) RED WINE IN THE VINEYARD: In that day sing ye to her (hhemer) a vineyard of red wine" (Isaiah 27.2)

Seeing such various and consistent usages of the fruit of the vine in Hebrew easily made, for Nott, one compelling case: 

“what the terms were which the sacred writers actually employed to denote the fruit of the vine in the press, the vat, the cluster, and the vineyard, admits of no debate. They called the fruit of the vine in this state tirosh, amis, hhemer, yayin, rendered over and over again, oinos in Greek, vinum or merum in Latin, and wine in English.  By the name wine, and by no other name, this article has always been known to the reader of the English Bible."

Summing up Nott's elaborate linguistic analysis of the various Old Testament words invariably translated as "wine" in the English Bible, it seems clear that, from the fruit of the grape itself; to its natural juice; its cluster on the vine; the treading of grapes; the immediate extracted juice of the grape can and is considered, Biblically speaking, wine.

If this is so, it seems clearer how some types of wine are commended in Scripture and some types flat out condemned.  And it is the former not the latter about which moderation should be concerned.  Indeed, the latter wines are to be absolutely avoided;  that is, total abstention from that which God condemns.

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[volfan007]

peter,

man, you're good! this is great stuff. the verses you bring out, or that nott brought out, should be eye opening about "wine" being grape juice in some context, and "wine" should be considered fermented alcohol in some other contexts. depending on the context.

i'm looking forward to the rest of this.

david

[volfan007]

oh, btw, that was very good exegesis. :)

david

[William Marshall]

Bro. Pete,

I have a couple of questions about your take on Nott's arguments. First, after quoting a number of passages that refer to 'good' wine and a number of passages that refer to 'bad' wine you commented:

"The above are samples merely of passages (which if necessary could be extended) in which wines are distinguished, according to their qualities: some are good and some bad; wine that is a blessing, and wine being a curse; wine, to be presented at sacrifice, and wine, that might not be drank in the house of the Lord."

It seems that the Bible does not distinguish them according to their 'qualities' but according to their use, or misuse. For example, when wine is used to 'gladden the heart' it is viewed as a blessing (good), when it is 'tarried over' it is bad. Could use then be the distinguishing issue in these passages?

Second, Nott concludes from Deut. 32:14 that the phrase "the blood of the grape" refers to grape juice, thus 'wine' in the Bible can be referring to grape juice. How does he substantiate this interpretation of "the blood of the grape"? Are there other OT passages that speak about grape juice using this phrase?

Thanks for the discussion.

william

[Byroniac]

That's a good point. I'm interested in seeing it explained how yayin can be both good and bad. It sure sounds like a difference in use, as opposed to a difference in quality, to me.

[David R. Brumbelow]

Maybe those who abstain from beverage alcohol are not so ignorant after all. Maybe they actually get their convictions from holy and sufficient Scripture.

Still enjoying your posts and comments on the subject. Especially your closing comments in the thread to your previous post.

I think I know where you're going, and I love it when a plan begins to come together :-).
David R. Brumbelow

[Tim B]

Peter,

My study of both biblical and secular references to "wine" leads me to conclude that several of the words translated "wine" such as Tirosh, Yayin and Oninos are not technically descriptive of a particular beverage but of a general category of beverages derived from the grape. The closest comparison of word usage I can think of would be the way we use the word "punch." Depending on the party the punch may or may not contain alchol. In a given context the guests know whether it is or not. If one were to later write about the party and mention that there was "punch" to drink, it would be incorrect for the reader to assume without further evidence that the punch either did or did not contain alcohol.

Tim

[peter]

Dear William,

Well, I had a comment all typed up to send, but through a bit of West Georgia stupidity, lost it all.  Anyway, I am glad you logged on.  And, know your questions are excellent.

The two broad categories Nott offered between wine that is 'good' and wine that is 'bad', stems I think, from the nature of the study he presented.  Good and bad pertain to properties latent within the grape and the development of the grape itself.  And that is the focus of the study--wine. 

On the other hand, you offer an interesting substitute, William:  Rather than employing the terms 'good wine',  'bad wine', substitute one's use of wine and one's misuse of wine. 

Or, not to place words into your mouth, one could say, I think, and remain consistent with your alternative; Biblically, a 'good use' of wine is to 'gladden the heart' and a 'bad use' of wine is to 'tarry long' with it.  I hope I have not failed your intent by teasing it out a bit.

For Nott, however, as well as the temperance theologians at large, such a scenario would not work for several reasons. First, the nature of the study Nott presents focuses on the language of Scripture itself--specifically, the Hebrew text of the Old Testament.

Granted he compares the Greek of the LXX and the Latin of the Vulgate, but ever is he concerned with the language of Moses and the Prophets.

Thus the sophisticated analysis of the Hebrew text itself bears out, through the diversity of its language, the focus on the properties of the grape, the ’must’ the vineyard, the vat, the extracted juice, etc etc.

Coincidently, William, this is significant for those moderationists who appear incorrigibly wed to the idea that abstentionists woefully lack any Scriptural embeddedness in their view.

To the contrary, Nott’s view is sustained by an appeal to the very Hebrew language itself, which delivers, at least from my perspective, not only a first shot, but a nuclear blast. The pop-view of wine on the internet today--especially among Baptist bloggers--is hopelessly addicted to a ’concordance-run’ of the text--and the one, single English word wine--after which is joyously pronounced all is well with our bottles of wine…in moderation, of course.

Post-Nott and other temperance theologians which I intend to present, my hope is, abstentionists will possess a few resources that bear huge potential in guarding their face as moderationists persistently poke them in the eye--Scripture alone, Scripture alone, Scripture alone. O.K. Nott says, let’s dance.

Perhaps more significantly, substituting use/misuse of wine for good/bad wine, not only moves the study away from the linguistic value the Hebrew text offers to a thoroughly Biblical understanding of wine and wine’s properties, it also shifts the focus from wine to human behavior. Use and misuse are latent properties of behavior, not grapes. Or, as before, a good use of wine is to ’gladden the heart’ and a bad use--in your terms, misuse--of wine is ‘tarry long’ with it.

The problem that arises, however, is that one needs not at all the Hebrew text to come to such a conclusion. Wine is used this way or that. Thus, it’s focus is the person who uses or misuses. From Nott’s standpoint, his Hebrew analysis would be moot in determining such a scenario. Why? The tacit assumption in such categories as use/misuse is the foregone conclusion that wine is neutral and it’s only how we use it that’s significant. But whether wine is neutral stands as the very question Nott examines. Indeed, he’d be tempted to charge the old error of begging the question.

For the record, I think also Nott may right here handle the moderation’s golden cliché--’it’s about drunkenness, stupid’ No, not according to Nott. Rather it’s primarily about what the Scripture says about wine and wine’s properties. And, I suppose, from what I gleaned from him, he may accommodate not so much to the use or misuse of wine. For, in the end, good wine ought always to be used with joy, with gladness, with thanksgiving as a gift from God, a blessing from Heaven being sustained by the sustenance it affords.

But the bad wine--the wine that is mocker, that bites and stings, that is dubbed the ’cup of condemnation’ the symbol of God’s wrath, wine that seduces those who ’even look upon it’ with its sparkle, its redness; the wine that staggers prophets, confuses priests, forbidden to Kings and the House of God, that wine…the bad wine is not to be used at all. In short, one may could say it’s not about the use or misuse of wine. Rather, it’s about the use or nonuse of wine, good or bad respectively.

Grace, William. I hope things are well for you and Glenna in Sikeston. With that, I am…

Peter

[peter]

Tim,

Thanks, Tim. I very much like the analogy of 'punch' Great comment.

All have a wonder-filled Lord's Day. With that, I am...

Peter

[Byron Smith]

Peter:

Yayin is Strong's 3196, which says, "From an unused root meaning to effervesce; wine (as fermented); by implication intoxication: - banqueting, wine, wine [-bibber]." I am still interested in an answer to the question William Marshall raised, in how such can be both bad and good in Nott's reasoning. Perhaps next installment?

And if you do not mind a link to an opposing view, which abstentionists would do well to read and interact with, please see this link (or see my blog for the link this results in):

http://tinyurl.com/3xbbbf

I believe the moderationist view is more compelling.

[Byroniac]

In the interest of fairness, the entire exchange can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/398jxc

[peter]

Byron,

According to Nott's analysis, yayin is a comphrehensive term. It is used in more than one sense or 'kind' of wine, both intoxicating and non-intoxicating varieties. Context makes the difference.

As for William's question, I/m unsure what part you are speaking which I did not address.

Links are great. Honestly, though, as far as 'fairness' goes, I think it about time we acknowledge this as a geniune discussion over Scripture. And for that, abstentionists have been villified as 'moral legalists' 'tradition-driven' 'inventing sin' where no Scripture argument exists. If nothing else happens, I hope the fruit of discussion at SBC Tomorrow demonstrates that latent within the moral position of abstinence from alcoholic beverages for pleasurable purposes exists Biblical rootedness.

I think it's fine you believe 'moderation' to be more persuasive. From Nott's standpoint, Moderation has only to do with those elements that are good for us--in this case, being moderate in use of 'good wine'. However, moderation cannot be appealed to in using that which is bad for us--in this case, bad wine. Wine that is bad, is poison. And, no justification exists in Scripture or moral reason to be moderate in posioning ourselves.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Byroniac]

Peter:

I want to clarify something. That "in the interest of fairness" wasn't directed to you, but to me. I linked directly to material that only supported my view. The second link I gave points to the entire exchange, between a moderationist and abstentionist on this issue. I should have just given the second link in the interest of fairness.

Thanks.

[William Marshall]

Bro. Pete,

Thanks for your thorough response, I appreciate you taking the time. I still have a struggle though: if Nott's argument is that there is a Hebrew word, or words, for 'bad wine' and a separate Hebrew word, or words, for 'good wine', then what are those Hebrew words? Likewise what do you do with the Hebrew word 'yayin' which is placed in the bad and good list. In other words, it is 'yayin' that gladdens the heart (Psalm 104:15) and 'yayin' that is a mocker (Proverbs 20:1)? It seems that Nott wants to see more in the individual Hebrew words than is actually there.

Also, if it can be demonstrated that there are Hebrew words that refer to 'bad wine' and Hebrew words that refer to 'good wine', then can it also be demonstrated that the 'bad wine' words refer to intoxicating wine while the 'good wine' words refer to non-intoxicating wine (grape juice)?

Again, thanks for your time. I hope you are enjoying that grand-baby (I am sure you are!!!)

william

[peter lumpkins]

William,

Your response is perceptive and I am glad you're taking the time to study this out for yourself.

If I implied that Nott divided the 9 Hebrew words he mentioned--especially yayin--into categories that are absolute with no overlapping whatsoever, I beg to retract.  I did not mean to posit such for Nott surely does not.

Nott's thesis is that the diverse and rich language of the OT incontrovertibly reflect, in Hebrew culture, the same phenomenon that's found in other antiquated cultures--various kinds of wines, both toxic and nontoxic were available for consumption.

And similarly, the various Hebrew words translated as 'wine' in English Bibles are used in ways we moderns never employ the language.  Thus, yayin (wine in English Bibles) is found as wine (yayin) in the press (Neh. 13.15).  This necessarily is unfermented since wine in the press is freshly extracted grape juice; and wine (yayin) in the vineyard (Amos 5.11).    It was common practice of ancients to indulge in fresh wine right on site, similar to my practice growing up to take a salt shaker and head for the apple tree :^).

That yayin is employed in various ways to describe both toxic and nontoxic beverages is not a problem.  Indeed, it is the very solution Nott offers to the otherwise blatant contradiction in Scripture--on the one hand Scripture commending wine as a good thing from God that 'maketh glad a man's heart' and on the other hand condemning wine as a 'mocker' a 'poison' a product that should not even be 'looked upon' and certainly not 'sought after' or 'tarried over'.

As for one word pointing to two different things possessing varied properties, one could think of the term 'angel' or 'spirit', both of which could be taken as good or bad, depending on other factors.  More times than not, context of the word usage is a dead giveaway.

I encourage you to continue teasing this out William.  Nott is compelling, at least to me.  But, as you can see from the posts since Nott, he is not alone among his historic peers in embracing his position based primarily on the study of Scripture alone.

And yes.  We are very much enjoying our grandbaby.  Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[William Marshall]

Bro. Pete,

In my first comment I suggested that the solution to the apparent contradicion in Scripture concerning wine was solved by how people use or misuse wine. Yet, you said that that solution went away from Nott's argument which was based on the Hebrew words. Thus, in my second comment I asked about the different Hebrew words and you said that interpreting them (particularly yayin) depends upon context and not just the words themselves. So how do you distinguish between references to toxic (alcoholic) and non-toxic (non-alcoholic) wine? You cannot just insert that all negative uses of wine refer to alcoholic wine while all positive uses refer to non-alcoholic without some defense.

Rather, like the words you cited ('angel' and 'spirit') the Bible treats the terms for wine neutrally, while treating the misuse of wine negatively (drunkeness) and the proper use of wine positively (with certain restrictions for Kings and priests), thus solving the apparent contradiction. This can be demonstrated by the above references to yayin (Psalm 104:15, a good use of wine, and Proverbs 20:1, a misuse of wine). I am still struggling to see the dichotomy between 'good' and 'bad' wine in the actual text.

Thanks again,

william

[Chris]

William,
Not to speak for Peter but I fail to see your use/miuse analogy sufficent when it come to angel and spirits. Angels and spirits are either good or bad. One does not misuse a good angel/ spirit thus rendering it bad. The goodness or badness is a demonstration of the inner character (content) not the usage. To me it seems that the analogy breaks down too easily and the character analogy bears more weight.

Similarly you state elsewere that your understanding of the John 2 rendering for "well drunk" must be considered alcohol. Could it not be as stated the past tense of "drank a lot of" thus nullifing the need to assume it was "they were drunk", rather "they had consummed much"?

One point I find interesting is if they were well drunk, why would the quality have mattered to them? I did my share of free bar tending before my walk with Christ, much in political social circles. I never seen a drunk distinquish quality after they had consumed more than 3 drinks. Booze was booze, the cheep stuff was just as good as the expensive to a palate already innoculated.
Chris

[Keith Schooley]

Chris--

The point you make is precisely the point that the master of the feast makes in John 2: the better wine should have been brought out first, since by the time people are tipsy, they don't care about the quality anymore.

Your argument that "when men have well drunk" in John 2:10 could mean "they had consummed much" does not accord with the Greek. The word is Strongs 3184. Look it up for yourself. It means to be intoxicated.

Peter--

I think our brother William's point is that Nott's argument from Hebrew words doesn't really resolve anything if the words themselves don't clearly line up into "good wine" "bad wine" categories. As long as the English reader understands that the word translated "wine" can mean "fresh grape juice" (and most English readers either know that or can glean it from context), then we're still reduced to gleaning from context what type of "wine" is being described, and whether the difference lies in the "wine" itself or in the use to which it is put.

As a matter of fact, if the several Hebrew words for "wine" really don't resolve into "good wine" "bad wine" categories, that actually tallies against the thesis that the difference is in the wine itself; for if the difference in types of "wine" is so significant, and there are all these different words available for use, then why wouldn't some have been used clearly and exclusively for "good wine" and others for "bad wine"? And if some of the words are more specific and others are more general (which is plausible), then why would the Holy Spirit ever inspire the human authors to use the more general term sometimes in warning against "bad wine" and sometimes in praise of "good wine"? Why wouldn't a more specific term, available for use to specify a particular type, be used instead of (the presumably broad) "yayin" in such passages as Psalm 104:15 (good yayin) and Proverbs 20:1 and 23:29-32 (bad yayin)?

[William Marshall]

Chris,

I see what you are saying about the 'angel' and 'spirit' analogy. All I was trying to say is that with both of those terms you have to look at the context in order to determine whether they are bad or good. It seems that the same thing can be said of the terms used for wine (you must look at the context to judge).

As for John 2, the term translated 'drunk freely' in the ESV could be translated simply 'drunk' as it is in other contexts. Thus, the term is normally associated with drunkeness (as it seems to be here).

On your other point, that is exactly the argument of the master. He is saying that normally at wedding feasts people serve the good wine first until people have drunk so much that they do not notice that you are now serving poor wine. The master marvels at the bridegroom because he is serving the good wine (that Jesus made) when most people would be serving the bad wine. Thus your observation fits with what the master is saying.

william

[peter lumpkins]

William,

Thanks for the good discussion. I see what you are saying about the Hebrew words not solving the issue entirely. However, I don't think I've said that it did nor is it in the original post.

What has been said, is that there are various Hebrew words behind the English word invariably translated 'wine', which shows, at least to me, the issue stands more complex than what first appears.

Understand: this is only the 'first shot', so to speak, that Nott offers as he builds his case. It is not the whole case.

Did he misfire? I don't think so. How many English Bible readers actually read 'wine' as being freshly, pressed, in the vat, non-intoxicating juice as a possibility? Or, wine as actually more of a thick paste similar to today's jam? Few, I’d say.

Once again, William, pertaining to 'good/bad' categories, I am perfectly open to viewing better categories to explain the biblical usage of the family of words translated 'wine'. But making those categories into the way we use or misuse the element we call wine possesses two insurmountable difficulties from my perspective:

First, it's a subtle shift of subject. The issue is no longer what the Bible--indeed even IF the Bible--has anything to say about 'wine' per se and if so, what that is.

Rather, it speaks of our behavior concerning wine--whether it is moral or immoral--depending on our use or misuse respectively. I suppose that means moderately or immoderately.

No one on either side of the question believes drunkenness is sanctioned by Scripture. That's a given. So we need not discuss that here.

On the other hand, it seems to me moderation assumes that what one is supposed to be moderate about is perfectly alright in and of itself. That is, the substance possesses neutral properties about it--which brings up the second difficulty with use/misuse categories.

You write: "the Bible treats the terms for wine neutrally, while treating the misuse of wine negatively (drunkenness) and the proper use of wine positively."

The assumption seems to be in such a statement, William, is that there exists no wine products which possess properties which, biblically speaking, are products from which we should abstain. Or to put it another way, you accept only one type of wine--the good wine. How that squares with wine which is dubbed a ‘mocker’, ‘rage’, ‘snake’s bite’, ‘adder’s sting’, ‘wine of astonishment’, ‘cup of condemnation’, ‘cup of fury’, and other not so niceties symbolizing God’s wrath you will need to explain. Also, from my perspective, it will do no real good to plead misuse here for the simple fact that misuse cannot fit these descriptions, for each of them speaks of the product itself, not our use or misuse of them.

Simply, there is no moderation for consuming snake’s poison, a mocker or a cup of fury. These are types that Proverbs 23.30 says ‘look thou not upon it’. It seems to me, that carries with it the idea of turning away from consumption, not trimming down on consumption.

If Nott is correct here, then not only does the Bible condemn drunkenness, but it also condemns the product that makes for drunkenness.

Grace Guys. With that, I am…

Peter

[Chris]

William and Keith,

Let's move the conversation forward on the next post so we don't tease the thread to death. I intend to study both text in reference to the greek and not Strongs. As for making the master of the parties point, I think not, rather the master would not have known it good once drunk/intoxicated/buzzed, ah but fresh grape juice after many pails of day old stuff, now that would excite the palate. The difference is in the freshness.
Looking forward to furure discussions on Peter's next post.