Was wine mixed with water in biblical times?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill,

If people act like fools, whether they've a beer in hand when doing so or not, people will think them fools. On the other hand, if people act godly and respectably, and this with beer in hand, is it any right of others to judge them over a matter of liberty? Surely not. The Pharisees themselves accused Jesus of being a winebibber and glutton. Do you think he stopped drinking wine or eating because of their false accusations? Yes, we should be careful not to cause our brother to stumble, but we should also be careful not to think that a brother can continually say, "I'm offended! I'm offended!" once he has been shown that things such as this are matters of liberty and even gifts from God. For himself, he ought to refrain, but to press that charge to others is unfounded, and to judge a brother as sinning inherently when he takes a drink is the epitome of the Pharisaical mindset (i.e. making commandments out of the doctrines of men).

Like I said, I am not condemning my brethren. I just ask my brethren to consider the testimony of the believers in all they say and do.

Bill - I agree with you, and I for one will not associate with anyone who drinks, goes to bars or has anything to do with alcohol. My father was an alcoholic, my sister and brother are alcoholics.

Let those who care only about themselves drink, God tells us to be considerate of all men and aware of how even our unsinful actions may lead others astray.

Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak

Now while as a matter of one's own conscience, Christians have a good deal of freedom. But in the name of love Christians should restrict themselves from activities which bother the conscience of other Christians. It's written,

Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. Rom 14:13-20

This includes the consumption of alcohol. There are some who struggle against an addiction to alcholism. But while others don't have such an addiction or are not tempted along those lines, yet their free exercise of their right to partake of alcohol may lead those who are weak into temptation and into addiction.

Therefore it is best if Christians abstain from alcohol. And while they have the freedom to drink, they certainly don't have the right to get drunk. And, in the name of love for others, they should be careful that the exercise of their rights does not embolden the weak to fall into the sin of drunkenness.
 
jrdnoland said:
Let those who care only about themselves drink, God tells us to be considerate of all men and aware of how even our unsinful actions may lead others astray.

Jeff,

We allow many things to be said on the PB, but impugning motives in areas where the bible allows liberty is not one of them. You are so fixated on abstinence from alcohol that you fail to see the contradiction in your statement. Because some people are given to gluttony should we abstain from eating? Had you wrote that you have a scruple about drinking, so you personally abstain, that would be fine. However, you are accusing those Christians who drink of caring only for themselves. Therefore, what you really are accusing them of possessing an unloving spirit and of selfishness. You are speaking ill about your brother. This is a violation of the 9th commandment.

Until you can see the sin in your attitude towards your Christian brothers, and retract your statement, you are going to prohibited from further posting in this thread. If you wish to retract your statement please PM Joshua or myself and we will allow your retraction to be posted.
 
Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.

I wish people would stop using this verse as a proof for teetotalism. The context has to do with cultic scruples and not the sin of drunkenness. If this verse means what you seem to think it means, then we should all stop eating meat because it might encourage our brother's gluttony.

I will also remind you that the confession to which you subscribe commends the use of wine with the Lord's Supper.
 
I drink some. I even think it can be a good witness to drink moderately, so that unbelievers see there's freedom in Christ. But I also think kindness and sensitivity are called for toward those who've been hurt by the effects of alcohol abuse. There are many such people and the hurts go deep.

So if I have a friend who's seen alcohol abuse in his family, I might ask how he feels about it before drinking or serving alcohol in front of him. That's not the same as having a rule that we must all put aside alcohol completely because some are offended. Nor is it a legalism left over from the Temperance Movement. It's just being kind and acknowleging the many hurts alcohol has caused. I think sometimes, in our haste to defend Christian freedom, we forget compassion.
 
I drink some. I even think it can be a good witness to drink moderately, so that unbelievers see there's freedom in Christ. But I also think kindness and sensitivity are called for toward those who've been hurt by the effects of alcohol abuse. There are many such people and the hurts go deep.

So if I have a friend who's seen alcohol abuse in his family, I might ask how he feels about it before drinking or serving alcohol in front of him. That's not the same as having a rule that we must all put aside alcohol completely because some are offended. Nor is it a legalism left over from the Temperance Movement. It's just being kind and acknowleging the many hurts alcohol has caused. I think sometimes, in our haste to defend Christian freedom, we forget compassion.

Jack, this is a valid point and one which I would agree with, but if it's in reference to any of the previous posts, I don't see how it's applicable. Our brother condemned all use of alcohol and also condemned anyone who partakes of alcohol. This is where the line was crossed, not in his choice to abstain.

Also, let's be realistic here - if I had an acquaintance, whether Believer or not, and I knew that they truly struggled with alcoholism, then I would abstain out of respect for them. However, if out at dinner I'm not going to poll each person at all the tables around me for their opinion of alcohol before ordering a drink. I'm overweight and I have never, ever been asked by anyone if I minded if they enjoyed a second helping of dessert.
 
Isn't there maybe a wee bit of motive-impugning going on in both directions? Let's not forget anyone can read this forum

If you can't be more specific, then I am going to delete this post because it sounds as if you complaining about Bill's moderation.
 
I think sometimes, in our haste to defend Christian freedom, we forget compassion.
Indeed, and it ought to be the heart and desire of every Christian to be so-minded with dealing in such situations. As you noted, however, a blanket prohibition and condemnation of others who use their liberty in this area is legalism.

And there is nothing compassionate about allowing legalism to disguise itself as piety.
 
jrdnoland said:
Let those who care only about themselves drink, God tells us to be considerate of all men and aware of how even our unsinful actions may lead others astray.

Jeff,

We allow many things to be said on the PB, but impugning motives in areas where the bible allows liberty is not one of them. You are so fixated on abstinence from alcohol that you fail to see the contradiction in your statement. Because some people are given to gluttony should we abstain from eating? Had you wrote that you have a scruple about drinking, so you personally abstain, that would be fine. However, you are accusing those Christians who drink of caring only for themselves. Therefore, what you really are accusing them of possessing an unloving spirit and of selfishness. You are speaking ill about your brother. This is a violation of the 9th commandment.

Until you can see the sin in your attitude towards your Christian brothers, and retract your statement, you are going to prohibited from further posting in this thread. If you wish to retract your statement please PM Joshua or myself and we will allow your retraction to be posted.

Let me make myself clear, It is my opinion that those who care about their own liberties when those actions may lead other weaker people into bad habits is being selfish. Again, MY OPINION. Are we not allow to voice our opinions on this forum?
In my opinion, opinions can be voiced on the board. I would just question the wisdom of such a broad prohibition as your opinion is, in which it would make our Lord Jesus Christ guilty of sin.
 
I drink some. I even think it can be a good witness to drink moderately, so that unbelievers see there's freedom in Christ. But I also think kindness and sensitivity are called for toward those who've been hurt by the effects of alcohol abuse. There are many such people and the hurts go deep.

So if I have a friend who's seen alcohol abuse in his family, I might ask how he feels about it before drinking or serving alcohol in front of him. That's not the same as having a rule that we must all put aside alcohol completely because some are offended. Nor is it a legalism left over from the Temperance Movement. It's just being kind and acknowleging the many hurts alcohol has caused. I think sometimes, in our haste to defend Christian freedom, we forget compassion.

Jack, this is a valid point and one which I would agree with, but if it's in reference to any of the previous posts, I don't see how it's applicable. Our brother condemned all use of alcohol and also condemned anyone who partakes of alcohol. This is where the line was crossed, not in his choice to abstain.

Also, let's be realistic here - if I had an acquaintance, whether Believer or not, and I knew that they truly struggled with alcoholism, then I would abstain out of respect for them. However, if out at dinner I'm not going to poll each person at all the tables around me for their opinion of alcohol before ordering a drink. I'm overweight and I have never, ever been asked by anyone if I minded if they enjoyed a second helping of dessert.
Yeah, I wouldn't expect you to poll everyone. I wasn't trying to dispute any of the alcohol-is-okay points made in this thread. I'm on that side, too. It just felt a bit like compassion was being forgotten, and I thought we could all use the reminder that one goal is to act toward others out of kindness.

And there is nothing compassionate about allowing legalism to disguise itself as piety.
Excellent point. I would say that in many cases compassion means exercising our Christian liberty rather than let others continue to practice a false piety that makes them feel smug. Other times, compassion means abstaining. It takes discernment, doesn't it?
 
Calvin on Liberty of Conscience:
11. I will here make some observations on offenses, what distinctions are to be made between them, what kind are to be avoided and what disregarded. This will afterwards enable us to determine what scope there is for our liberty among men. We are pleased with the common division into offense given and offense taken, since it has the plain sanction of Scripture, and not improperly expresses what is meant. If from unseasonable levity or wantonness, or rashness, you do any thing out of order or not in its own place, by which the weak or unskillful are offended, it may be said that offense has been given by you, since the ground of offense is owing to your fault. And in general, offense is said to be given in any matter where the person from whom it has proceeded is in fault. Offense is said to be taken when a thing otherwise done, not wickedly or unseasonably, is made an occasion of offense from malevolence or some sinister feeling. For here offense was not given, but sinister interpreters ceaselessly take offense. By the former kind, the weak only, by the latter, the ill-tempered and Pharisaical are offended. Wherefore, we shall call the one the offense of the weak, the other the offense of Pharisees, and we will so temper the use of our liberty as to make it yield to the ignorance of weak brethren, but not to the austerity of Pharisees. What is due to infirmity is fully shown by Paul in many passages. “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye.” Again, “Let us not judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall, in his brother’s way;” and many others to the same effect in the same place, to which, instead of quoting them here, we refer the reader. The sum is, “We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbor for his good to edification.” elsewhere he says, “Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak.” Again “Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake.” “Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other.” Finally, “Give none offense, neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God.” Also in another passage, “Brethren, ye have been called into liberty, only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.”46 455455 61 461 Rom. 14:1, 13; 16:1; 1 Cor. 8:9; 10:25, 29, 32; Gal. 5:13. Thus, indeed, it is: our liberty was not given us against our weak neighbors, whom charity enjoins us to serve in all things, but rather that, having peace with God in our minds, we should live peaceably among men. What value is to be set upon the offense of the Pharisees we learn from the words of our Lord, in which he says, “Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind,” (Mt. 15:14). The disciples had intimated that the Pharisees were offended at his words. He answers that they are to be let alone that their offense is not to be regarded.

12. The matter still remains uncertain, unless we understand who are the weak and who the Pharisees: for if this distinction is destroyed, I see not how, in regard to offenses, any liberty at all would remain without being constantly in the greatest danger. But Paul seems to me to have marked out most clearly, as well by example as by doctrine, how far our liberty, in the case of offense, is to be modified or maintained. When he adopts Timothy as his companion, he circumcises him: nothing can induce him to circumcise Titus (Acts 16:3; Gal. 2:3). The acts are different, but there is no difference in the purpose or intention; in circumcising Timothy, as he was free from all men, he made himself the servant of all: “Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ), that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some” (1 Cor. 9:20-22). We have here the proper modification of liberty, when in things indifferent it can be restrained with some advantage. What he had in view in firmly resisting the circumcision of Titus, he himself testifies when he thus writes: “But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you,” (Gal. 2:3-5). We here see the necessity of vindicating our liberty when, by the unjust exactions of false apostles, it is brought into danger with weak consciences. In all cases we must study charity, and look to the edification of our neighbor. “All things are lawful for me,” says he, “but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth,” (1 Cor. 10:23, 24). There is nothing plainer than this rule, that we are to use our liberty if it tends to the edification of our neighbor, but if inexpedient for our neighbor, we are to abstain from it. There are some who pretend to imitate this prudence of Paul by abstinence from liberty, while there is nothing for which they less employ it than for purposes of charity. Consulting their own ease, they would have all mention of liberty buried, though it is not less for the interest of our neighbor to use liberty for their good and edification, than to modify it occasionally for their advantage. It is the part of a pious man to think, that the free power conceded to him in external things is to make him the readier in all offices of charity.

In summary, if a man has a scruple against alcohol, I will refrain from alcohol in his presence but I do not forsake liberty altogether by adopting his scruple. My liberty is exercised by my willingness to abstain, in charity, towards those who are weaker in this area.

There is the danger, however, of the weak conscience who then insists that his scruple is the norm and creates a law with which to bind the consciences of other men. "I have a problem with alchohol, therefore it is a sin for all other men to partake...." This, I believe, needs to be withstood to its face as a violation of the liberty that men are given before God. God, alone, is the Lord of the Conscience and has left it free from the scruples of men and whatever they might add to the Law of God in this matter.

Consequently, to the weak brother who exercises his scruple in love, I will not tempt or make him uncomfortable by drinking in his presence but I do not give up something in all situations for, as Calvin notes, we could scarcely do anything if we were to avoid every scruple of man. To the man, however, that adds to the Law of God with his scruple, this needs to be challenged as a basic denial of the Gospel.
 
I opened this thread with the intention of simply having a discussion about wine in biblical times and how this would compare with what we know today as alcoholic beverages. I am as guilty as anyone of causing it to run afoul into the broader area of Christian Liberty. This can't be helped with this subject. If we could conclusively prove how the early Christians viewed alcoholic beverages we would have an easier time with this, and I guess that's what I was going for.

Let me say this-- none of us learn our particular views about alcohol in a vacuum. What guides and binds my conscience is largely determined by how Christians around me treat the issue. When I say that I'm beginning to think that alcohol consumption may not be right for me, I'm not saying that because I think I have a problem with alcohol personally. It's because I'm under conviction that it's possibly something God doesn't want any Christians having anything to do with. This conviction means nothing unless it can be proved that what we drink today as alcoholic beverages is completely different from what would have been known in Biblical times (for holy people to drink). So that's the only question I myself am interested in further discussing.
 
It's because I'm under conviction that it's possibly something God doesn't want any Christians having anything to do with. This conviction means nothing unless it can be proved that what we drink today as alcoholic beverages is completely different from what would have been known in Biblical times (for holy people to drink). So that's the only question I myself am interested in further discussing.
It doesn't matter how different it was because, regardless, however much it was is not regulated by Scripture and yet we see that the abuse thereof had the potential to induce drunkenness. Ergo, alcohol is alcohol is alcohol. God has commended its proper and moderate use, and condemned its indulgent and inordinate use.

But it wouldn't be the same thing if in it's customary usage it was watered down so much that it would hardly have any intoxicating effect. That's the claim being made. Sure, a person could drink the unmixed wine, but that's supposedly what's being warned about in Proverbs 23:31 "don't gaze at the wine when it is red".

Or course, I still don't have an answer for Charlie's quotation out of Deuteronomy about buying "strong drink". I forwarded that one to poeple smarter than me but I'm waiting to hear back.
 
But it wouldn't be the same thing if in it's customary usage it was watered down so much that it would hardly have any intoxicating effect. That's the claim being made. Sure, a person could drink the unmixed wine, but that's supposedly what's being warned about in Proverbs 23:31 "don't gaze at the wine when it is red".

I normally try to avoid fundamental baptist type threads since they're so frustrating. At least I've been trying to avoid them lately. I'll point out though that the color red doesn't get you drunk. If you water down wine even three to one it is still stronger than most beers. And if you water down red wine until it's not red it's about 100 to one. And that sort of logic isn't reasonable to any educated person.
 
It's because I'm under conviction that it's possibly something God doesn't want any Christians having anything to do with. This conviction means nothing unless it can be proved that what we drink today as alcoholic beverages is completely different from what would have been known in Biblical times (for holy people to drink). So that's the only question I myself am interested in further discussing.
It doesn't matter how different it was because, regardless, however much it was is not regulated by Scripture and yet we see that the abuse thereof had the potential to induce drunkenness. Ergo, alcohol is alcohol is alcohol. God has commended its proper and moderate use, and condemned its indulgent and inordinate use.

But it wouldn't be the same thing if in it's customary usage it was watered down so much that it would hardly have any intoxicating effect. That's the claim being made. Sure, a person could drink the unmixed wine, but that's supposedly what's being warned about in Proverbs 23:31 "don't gaze at the wine when it is red".

Or course, I still don't have an answer for Charlie's quotation out of Deuteronomy about buying "strong drink". I forwarded that one to poeple smarter than me but I'm waiting to hear back.

I was under the impression that several posts answered the questions about alcohol content in biblical times and therefore your questions. See here, here, here, here, here, and here. I'm not sure what else you are looking for.
 
But it wouldn't be the same thing if in it's customary usage it was watered down so much that it would hardly have any intoxicating effect. That's the claim being made. Sure, a person could drink the unmixed wine, but that's supposedly what's being warned about in Proverbs 23:31 "don't gaze at the wine when it is red".

I normally try to avoid fundamental baptist type threads since they're so frustrating. At least I've been trying to avoid them lately. I'll point out though that the color red doesn't get you drunk. If you water down wine even three to one it is still stronger than most beers. And if you water down red wine until it's not red it's about 100 to one. And that sort of logic isn't reasonable to any educated person.


Tim, thank you for your warm invitation to ask questions, and to make me feel like a real idiot simpleton, or at worst, a fundamental baptist. I wish I were as educated as you, I would never have had to open this thread.

---------- Post added at 09:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 PM ----------

It's because I'm under conviction that it's possibly something God doesn't want any Christians having anything to do with. This conviction means nothing unless it can be proved that what we drink today as alcoholic beverages is completely different from what would have been known in Biblical times (for holy people to drink). So that's the only question I myself am interested in further discussing.
It doesn't matter how different it was because, regardless, however much it was is not regulated by Scripture and yet we see that the abuse thereof had the potential to induce drunkenness. Ergo, alcohol is alcohol is alcohol. God has commended its proper and moderate use, and condemned its indulgent and inordinate use.

But it wouldn't be the same thing if in it's customary usage it was watered down so much that it would hardly have any intoxicating effect. That's the claim being made. Sure, a person could drink the unmixed wine, but that's supposedly what's being warned about in Proverbs 23:31 "don't gaze at the wine when it is red".

Or course, I still don't have an answer for Charlie's quotation out of Deuteronomy about buying "strong drink". I forwarded that one to poeple smarter than me but I'm waiting to hear back.

I was under the impression that several posts answered the questions about alcohol content in biblical times and therefore your questions. See here, here, here, here, here, and here. I'm not sure what else you are looking for.


Thank you, yes, I know about those.

I didn't mean to make everyone so upset by asking to continue the discussion.

Sorry. Going to bed now.
 
But it wouldn't be the same thing if in it's customary usage it was watered down so much that it would hardly have any intoxicating effect. That's the claim being made. Sure, a person could drink the unmixed wine, but that's supposedly what's being warned about in Proverbs 23:31 "don't gaze at the wine when it is red".

I normally try to avoid fundamental baptist type threads since they're so frustrating. At least I've been trying to avoid them lately. I'll point out though that the color red doesn't get you drunk. If you water down wine even three to one it is still stronger than most beers. And if you water down red wine until it's not red it's about 100 to one. And that sort of logic isn't reasonable to any educated person.


Tim, thank you for your warm invitation to ask questions, and to make me feel like a real idiot simpleton, or at worst, a fundamental baptist. I wish I were as educated as you, I would never have had to open this thread.

---------- Post added at 09:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 PM ----------

It's because I'm under conviction that it's possibly something God doesn't want any Christians having anything to do with. This conviction means nothing unless it can be proved that what we drink today as alcoholic beverages is completely different from what would have been known in Biblical times (for holy people to drink). So that's the only question I myself am interested in further discussing.
It doesn't matter how different it was because, regardless, however much it was is not regulated by Scripture and yet we see that the abuse thereof had the potential to induce drunkenness. Ergo, alcohol is alcohol is alcohol. God has commended its proper and moderate use, and condemned its indulgent and inordinate use.

But it wouldn't be the same thing if in it's customary usage it was watered down so much that it would hardly have any intoxicating effect. That's the claim being made. Sure, a person could drink the unmixed wine, but that's supposedly what's being warned about in Proverbs 23:31 "don't gaze at the wine when it is red".

Or course, I still don't have an answer for Charlie's quotation out of Deuteronomy about buying "strong drink". I forwarded that one to poeple smarter than me but I'm waiting to hear back.

I was under the impression that several posts answered the questions about alcohol content in biblical times and therefore your questions. See here, here, here, here, here, and here. I'm not sure what else you are looking for.


Thank you, yes, I know about those.

I didn't mean to make everyone so upset by asking to continue the discussion.

Sorry. Going to bed now.

I am not upset at all brother. You are obviously free to ask away any and all questions you would like. I do however feel that some of your questions have been answered, yet you continue to press for more or different answers. I am just curious as to why these first answers are insufficient for you. If it's because it's not what you wanted to hear, then I am not sure what else to tell you.
 
Rick, I drink because I have children. It is my holy duty before God to train them in wisdom & moderation. So I must model these virtues in my everyday life. If I were so intemperate as to abstain from drinking then they would grow up with a warped view of what blessings God has provided. They might even grow to love their own religion more then they love Jesus. If this happened then I would be a great failure as a parent.

Thus to be a faithful, Godly father, I must drink.

Rick, I drink because of my concern for the lost. If I abstained then the lost people that I know might believe that I was a practitioner of "churchianity", and not a follower of Christ. Because the *one thing* that all nonbelievers do know about Jesus is that he made wine! And the *one thing* that non believers know about the bible is that it tells people that follow the scriptures that thay may drink. So the simpelist test that most non believers have for determining if you are a "Real" follower of Jesus or do you practice a "religion", is this; Do You Drink?

Thus to be a faithful godly witness for Jesus, I must drink.

As for you question about the low % of alcohol in ancient wine. That is anti-factual special pleading. Wine is made (as is any adult beverage) by the action of yeast eating sugar. That never changes. So the claim that ancient wine only had 2-4% alcohol is just silly. Any person that claims otherwise is simply ignorant of the basic process of fermentation, or lying.
 
I am not upset at all brother. You are obviously free to ask away any and all questions you would like. I do however feel that some of your questions have been answered, yet you continue to press for more or different answers. I am just curious as to why these first answers are insufficient for you. If it's because it's not what you wanted to hear, then I am not sure what else to tell you.


Sorry to snap away last night, brother. I think it really was past my bed time.

I think I've learned about all I can from this thread. Mods, please feel free to close it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top