H) DEUTERONOMY, CHAPTER 14

 

 

Another (made) complicated passage is Deuteronomy 14:26, and one that Christians really have a more difficult time explaining, where it mentions “strong drink,” as being acceptable.  This totally flies against the instruction given in Leviticus 10:9-11:  “[9] Do not drink wine [“yayan” fermented] nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die[LEST WHAT HAPPENS?]:  it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations: [10] And that ye may put difference [PUT WHAT?] between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; [11] And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the Statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.”  But does the Bible generally contradict Itself, or are we misappropriating this passage?  For this passage clearly states:  “and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God.”  Deuteronomy 14:26.

 

Notice that the” tithe” offering that the offeror was bringing in Deuteronomy 14:23, was unfermented “wine [Tiyrosh = Fresh grape-juice (as in just squeezed), rarely fermented, new].”  Now we can break verse 26 down properly.  This verse is discussing the bringing of the “tithe” unto “the place which the LORD thy God shall choose,” verse 25.  And that is to “bestow that money [“tithe”] for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth.”  Verse 26.

 

Don’t miss this point.  These things you “bestow[ed] that money [the “tithe”]” on is given to “the LORD thy God,” not for you!!!  For you wouldn’t want to fall into the category of Malachi 3:8:  “Will a man rob God?  Yet ye have robbed Me.  But ye say, Wherein have we robbed Thee?  In tithes and offerings.”  Then, in verse 26, after you have paid this “tithe,” (see verse 28 to prove again that this is a “tithe” offering) then “thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household.”  This would be with your own money; which is also used in verse 27.  Plus, you would ONLY be eating that which is approved by God.

 

You would not want to be eating and drinking the Lord’s “tithe” money.  Thus, this cannot possibly be referring to the “tithe” being spent upon “whatsoever thy soul lusteth after,” for you!!!  But rather, for your lust and zeal for the Lord.  In a side note:  According to Numbers 15:7, “fermented wine” could be used for a Biblically acceptable offering.  Note, “offering.”  Unless you now consider this verse to be speaking of “Indian Givers.”

 

Therefore, we can see that God’s ideal has always been for a higher, more sanctified way of life.  Deuteronomy 29:6states: “Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink:  that ye might know that I Am the LORD your God.”  This flies in the face of His earlier statements made because of “the hardness of” their hearts.  Here however, God is quite clear as to the manner in which He would have His people live, even going to the point of cursing and wiping out the names of drunkards from the “Book of Life” (see Deu. 29:19-20).

 

The Christian need not be in doubt as to God’s Will and Standards in these matters, and is therefore without even the limited excuse which men had in Old Testament and early Church times (Mat. 19:9; 1Ti. 3:2; Tit. 1:7-8).  Something to keep in mind is that when God says, “Don’t,” what He really means is: “Don’t hurt yourself.”

 

Note:  How the “fermented” wine was used by the priests in the tithe offering is unclear and needs more study.  If you have some insight into that, let me know.  Maybe in order to start a fire easier for the lighting of the Candles?

 

 

I) PSALM, CHAPTER 104, VERSE 15

 

 

According to this verse “fermented wine,” i.e., “yayin,” “maketh glad the heart of man.”  Whereas, in Judges 9:13, the “wine” referred to there is “unfermented,” i.e. “tiyros,” and is the kind of “wine” that “cheereth God [WHO?] and man.”  Granted, it may “glad[en]” men’s hearts, such as a drug that one becomes addicted to and enjoys for a season; but is it pleasing to God?  Plus, I am confident that it was not recommended to be used in excess.

 

 

J) PROVERBS, CHAPTER 31

 

 

A quick look at Proverbs 31, verses 6 & 7.  For those who would dare to use these verses as acceptable times for the use of “strong drink,” consider verses 4 & 5, where there is no appropriate time given for those who need or want their reasoning faculties to always be exercised.  It is also to be noticed that in Christ’s day, “the ladies of Jerusalem provided for criminals on their way to the place of execution a drink of medicated wine, which might deaden the pain of suffering.  This was the draught rejected by Christ, Who willed to taste the full bitterness of death.”  As recorded in, “The Pulpit Commentary.”  Thus, our Lord Himself would never touch “fermented wine.”  See His rejection of it while upon the cross (Mat. 27:34).  Therefore, why would anyone truly wanting to follow our Lord’s examples in all of life’s adventures want to do otherwise?

 

However, there is something to be said for those who are in constant pain, dying, or are terminally ill.  To sooth the situation is somewhat acceptable when necessary.  Medicine, taken in moderation, for a small period of time, to ease the pain, is totally acceptable.  But to become addicted, needing it every day, or whenever you happen to think you may need it when you could have done without it, is learning towards trouble.  Therefore, fermented wine, within Proverbs restrictions mentioned in verses 4-7, is Biblically acceptable.  See Paul’s instruction to Timothy for his upset stomach (1Ti. 5:23).

 

 

K) ISAIAH 25:6

 

 

Many Christians use this expression, “wines on the lees” (I’m uncertain as to whether or not “wines” should be plural here), to justify drinking “fermented wine” now because we will be drinking it in the future.  I can see their point.  However, if we are to stand on that premise, then we are to ignore our Lord’s instructions of NOT to drink it NOW, which would also incur the injunction of not to drink it in the future.  Remember, nothing dies in Heaven.

 

Let’s look at the Hebrew word itself, which is “semer.”  This word is derived from “shamar,” and both come with the concept of, “to keep, to preserve, to retain, to retain the strength and color of the wine which is left to stand, old wine, wine with rich color and flavor.”

 

A clear instruction in Jeremiah 48:11 gives us a distinct understanding of what “wines on the lees” really means.  The verse instructs that the wine has not been poured, or “emptied from vessel to vessel,” and its “taste remaineth in” it, and its “scent is not changed.”  Also, Zephaniah 1:12 teaches us that wines, unless retained for a considerable time “on the lees,” lose their flavor and strength, and are of much less value (see John 2:10).

 

This may be a poor explanation, but if our Lord has prepared mansions for us to live in, in the future, and He has stated that He will “not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom,” Matthew 26:29, then we can see what kind of “wine” He is really specifying.  Note that it is “fruit of the vine,” fresh grapes, unfermented, but kept “on the less” so as to be ready for us at the “supper of the Lamb,” Revelation 19:9, just as the mansions are waiting to be occupied.  Also, our Lord wants to “drink it new.”  This can mean, “fresh and unfermented,” or, that He has not had it for a long time, or both.

 

The foregoing considerations indicate that the Biblical approval or disapproval of “wine” is determined not by the amount of wine consumed, rather, by the nature of the “wine” itself (as stated earlier).  Thus, those who would advocate that the casual drinking of fermented wine is acceptable, or that a little fermented wine with dinner is tolerable or suitable with our Lord, are on unholy ground.

 

 

L) LUKE, CHAPTER 5

 

 

Our next objection is Christ’s statement that “new wine must be put into new bottles,” Luke 5:38, (see also Mat. 9:17; Mark 2:22).

 

Modernists see this statement as an indication that Jesus Commended the moderate use of alcoholic wine.  This view rests on the assumption that the phrase “new wine” denotes wine freshly pressed, but already in a state of active fermentation.  Such wine, it is said, could only be placed in new wineskins because old skins would burst under pressure.  Fair argument.  However:

 

This popular interpretation is very imaginative but not factual.  Anyone familiar with the pressure caused by gas-producing fermentation knows that no bottle, whether of skin or glass, can withstand the pressure of fermenting new wine.  As Alexander B. Bruce points out, “Jesus was not thinking at all of fermented, intoxicating wine, but of ‘must,’ a non-intoxicating beverage, which could be kept safely in new leather bottles, but not in old skins which had previously contained ordinary wine, because particles of albuminoid matter adhering to the skin would set up fermentation and develop gas with an enormous pressure.”  Alexander Balman Bruce, in his work, “The Synoptic Gospels in The Expositor’s Greek Testament,” (Grand Rapids, 1956), page 500.  Rather, the imagery of new wine in new wineskins is an object lesson in regeneration.  A fresh new start; which is the “context.”  Don’t ever ignore “context.”  Fermentation is hardly fresh.

 

As aptly explained by Ernest Gordon, “The old wineskins, with their alcoholic lees, represented the Pharisees’ corrupt nature.  The new wine of the Gospel could not be put into them.  They would ferment it.  ‘I came not to call the self-righteous but repentant sinners.’  The latter by their conversion become new vessels, able to retain the new wine without spoiling it (Mark 2:15-17, 22).  So, by comparing intoxicating wine with degenerate Pharisaism, Christ clearly intimated what his opinion of intoxicating wine was.”  Ernest Gordon, in his work, “Christ, the Apostles and Wine.” “An Exegetical Study,” (Philadelphia, 1947), page 20.

 

To be fair, the context does also (DUAL APPLICATION) lean in favor towards the meaning of fermented wine, since Christ uses the metaphor of the “old wine” to represent the old forms of religion and the “new wine” to represent the new form of religious life He taught and inaugurated.  In this context, fermented old wine better represents the corrupted forms of the old Pharisaic religion.  In the immediate context, Jesus uses the same Greek word “palaios,” of old garments, which He obviously did not esteem as better than new ones.

 

The statement about “old wine” seems to contradict the preceding one about “old garment,” but the contradiction disappears when one understands the purpose of the illustration, which is not to praise the superiority of “old wine” but to warn against an over-estimation of the old forms of religiosity promoted by the Pharisees.  Such religiosity consisted, as verse 33 indicates, in the fulfillment of such external ascetic practices as frequent fasting and public prayer.

 

To justify the fact that His disciples did not adhere to such external forms of religiosity, Christ used four illustrations:

 

1) Wedding guests do not fast in the presence of the bridegroom (vs. 34-35);

2) New cloth is not used to patch an old garment (v. 36);

3) New wine is not placed in old wineskins (vs. 37-38) and;

4) New wine is not liked by those accustomed to drink the old (v. 39).

 

 

M) LUKE, CHAPTER 7

 

 

More than twenty centuries ago Jesus was accused of being “gluttonous, and a winebibber,” because He came “eating and drinking” (Luke 7:33-34: Mat. 11:19).  Modernists find in Jesus’ description of His Own lifestyle as “eating and drinking” as an unmistakable proof that He openly admitted having used alcoholic, fermented wine.  Moreover, it is argued, Jesus must have drunk alcoholic wine for His critics to accuse Him of being a “drunkard.”

 

This interpretation ignores several important considerations.  The phrase “eating and drinking” is used idiomatically to describe the difference between the social lifestyle of Jesus and that of John the Baptist.  John came “eating no bread and drinking no wine,” Luke 7:33.  That is to say, he lived a lifestyle of full social isolation, while Christ came “eating and drinking,” which is to say, He lived a lifestyle of free social association.

 

A significant point often overlooked is that Jesus did not mention “wine” in describing His own lifestyle.  While of John the Baptist it is said that he came “eating no bread and drinking no wine,” Luke 7:33, Jesus of Himself simply said:  “The Son of Man has come eating and drinking.”  If Jesus had wanted it to be known that, contrary to John the Baptist, He was a wine-drinker, then He could have repeated the word “wine” for the sake of emphasis and clarity.

 

Even assuming that His critics actually saw Jesus drinking something fermented, they would have readily accused Him of being a drunkard (even if they saw Him drinking grape juice, or water, for that matter, which they did).  And, as we will see later, on the day of Pentecost, critics charged the Apostles with being drunk on grape-juice (“gleukos,” Acts 2:13, a non-alcoholic mixture).  This goes to show that no matter what Jesus drank, His unscrupulous critics would have maligned Him as a drunkard.  Sounds like politics to me.

 

 

N) ACTS, CHAPTER 2

 

 

Let’s look at Acts 2:13 again, which states: “Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine [Greek, “Gleukos,” meaning, “sweet wine, fresh juice, new wine”].”  In essence the “Others” were “mocking” the disciples by saying: “These men are drunk from grape juice.”  They were “mocking” them for being drunk on none other than the pure juice of the grape!  Thus, in view of the established meaning of “gleukos” as un-intoxicating grape juice, the irony of the charge is self-evident.  What the mockers meant is, “These men, too abstemious to touch anything fermented and have made themselves drunk on grape juice.”

 

Now here is an important point.  This would also indicate that the disciples were known for their abstinence of alcoholic wine, and where also known for their consumption of the pure juice of the grape (their normal or actual choice of beverage).  And, “The force of Peter’s plea is more fully realized when we consider that in all their feasts they were forbidden to drink anything but water, until the fourth hour.”  “Prophetic Gift in the Gospel Church,” by J.N. Loughborough.

 

This than, becomes an indirect but very important proof of their abstinent lifestyle and of the abstemious (self-denying) life-style of their Teacher.  Some assume that the mockers would not have accused the Apostles of being drunk unless they had seen some of them drinking “alcoholic wine” on previous occasions, or prior to this episode.  The weakness of this reasoning is that it assumes that the accusation of the mockers was based on the factual observation of the Apostles drinking.  Mockers however, do not necessarily base their slander on a factual observation; because, if the mockers really wished to charge the disciples with drunkenness, they would have accused them of being filled with “wine” (“oinos”) and not with “grape-juice” (“gleukos”).  Doesn’t that make more sense?

 

 

O) EPHESIANS, CHAPTER 5

 

 

The most difficult text for Christians to answer however, is Ephesians 5:18, when Paul says, “And be not drunk with wine [Greek, “Oinos,” either fermented or unfermented, but obviously fermented here], wherein is excess.”  Some have taken this to mean just don’t become intoxicated, while at the same time condoning the free use, although minimal, of fermented liquor.

 

NOW STAY WITH ME.  I believe this reasoning is true, but only to the point that Paul was trying to emphasize a point.  So, before you jump on me for my rash statement, please consider the context of the verse by finishing the rest of its thought and meaning, i.e., “but be filled with the Spirit.”

 

What Paul is really saying is, “Do not [at all, Don’t do this, Don’t drink any of this] be drunk with the cares of this world [verse 7, “Be not ye therefore partakers with them,” verse 11, “have no fellowship with” them], which leads to excessive living, but [herein lies the KEY -- “but,” in other words, the opposite of, as opposed to what he just stated preceding the “but” -- Don’t do the first part of the verse and the context of Chapter 5, “but” do] be filled with the Spirit [verse 9, “For the fruit of the Spirit is. . .” verse 15, “walk circumspectly].”  We are thus called to be sacred vessels filled in “excess” with God’s Holy Spirit, “not drunk with wine,” or any portions of it, not even as a little you may have before or after dinner.  Thus, the antithesis suggests that the contrast is not between moderation and excess, but between fullness of wine [earth’s cares] and fullness of the Spirit.  Got it?  I hope so.

 

By contrast, in the light of the numerous ancient and modern translations which have rendered the relative clause of Ephesians 5:18 as a condemnation, not of drunkenness but of “wine” itself as the cause of perdition, it would appear that on account of their predilection for “wine,” some English translators have chosen to save the face of “wine” by condemning drunkenness instead.

 

For example, the famous “Latin Vulgate” (written about A. D. 400; a Roman Catholic invention; I mean translation of which Protestents are supposed to be protesting against), reads: “et nolite inebriari vino, in quo est luxuria.”   Let me translate that for you:  “And be not inebriated with wine, in which is voluptuousness.”  The connection between vino, “wine,” and “quo,” the word for “which,” is unmistakable in this Latin translation, because the relative “quo” has the same neuter gender as that of “vino,” upon which it depends.  Thus, it and we should be condemning any use of “fermented wine.”  It is rare to agree with Catholicism.  So please excuse me.

 

Remember, this is a Roman Catholic translation of the Bible and they believe it is proper to have fermented wine.  They even, of course, condone fermented wine for use in the service representing Passover (Communion).  And non-Protest churches are falling into this trap also.

 

Numerous other modern translations follow the rendering of the “Latin Vulgate” in its faithful literalness in an effort to clarify the spiritual application (which is what we should always be looking for in God’s Word) of “wine” verses “Spirit.”  For example, the “French Synodal Version” reads: “Ne vous enivrez pas de vin:  car le vin porte a la dissolution.”   Translation:  “Do not inebriate yourselves with wine, for wine leads to dissoluteness [decadence; overindulgence; licentiousness; self-indulgence].”

 

To remove any possibility for misunderstanding, the translators have repeated the word “wine” in the relative clause.  The same clear connection is found in the French translation of David Martin, in the French Version, “d’Ostervald,” which is in the margin of the “New American Standard Bible,” and in “Robert Young’s Translation,” also in “The Good News German Bible” (“Die Gute Nachricht”), and in the “Italian Protestant Version, Riveduta,” by Giovanni Luzzi, as well as in the “Italian Catholic Version,” produced by the “Pontifical Biblical Institute.”

 

 

P) FIRST TIMOTHY, CHAPTER 5

 

 

In First Timothy 5:23, Paul instructs Timothy to, “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine [“oinos,” unclear as to it being unfermented or fermented] for thy stomach’s sake.”  The Greek word used in this passage is “oinos,” which is nondescriptive, since we have no associating terms around it.  However, if you consider that evidently Timothy must have been living under the Nazarene vow (see Judges 13:7) and drinking only “water,” then obviously Paul would have been instructing him to break that lifestyle and have a little grape-juice to help his stomach.  Paul would hardly have asked Timothy to jump from water to alcohol.

 

It is well-known that the pure, “fresh juice of grapes,” has a soothing effect on stomach ulcers.  It is also a well-known fact that “fermented wine” can contribute to upsetting the stomach.  Thus, Paul would never be recommending “fermented wine” for stomach therapy.

 

Also consider that Paul did not say to Timothy, “drink,” but he said, “take.”  A doctor, when prescribing the dosage of a medication to a patient, uses the verb “take.”  Similarly, the adjective “little,” implies a very moderate use of wine.

 

Now notice:  The Greek verb “take,” Greek, “kraomai,” as mentioned, is used by a doctor when prescribing the dosage of a medication to a patient.  Similarly, the adjective “little,” Greek, “oligos,” implies a very moderate use of wine.  This sounds more like a doctor’s prescription to a patient to “take” something that is healthful and medicinal, rather than a general principle for all people to follow in order to take something that is not healthy; but might be in a little quantity.  One has to stretch really hard all of these Biblical texts once the spiritual meaning is brought out as I hope I have done.

 

Earlier in the same Epistle, Paul tells Timothy that the requirements of a Christian Bishop are not only to be abstinent (“nephalion”), but also a non-participant at drinking places and parties (“me paroinon,” 1Ti. 3:2-3).  The Apostolic admonitions to abstinence are expressed through the Greek verb “nepho” and the adjective “nephalios” (see 1Th. 5:6-8; 1Pe. 1:13; 4:7; 5:8; 2Ti. 3:2 & 11; 4:5; Tit. 2:2).

 

There is noteworthy unanimity among “Greek Lexicons” on the primary meaning of the verb “nepho,” clearly meaning, “to abstain from wine,” and of the adjective “nephalios,” meaning, “abstinent, without wine.”  See, for example, G. W. Lampe, in his work, “A Patristic Greek Lexicon,” (Oxford, 1961), s. v. “Nepho;” James Donnegan, in his work, “A New Greek and English Lexicon,” 1847 edition, s. v. “Nepho;” and Thomas S. Green, in his work, “A Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament,” 1892 edition, s. v. “Nepho;” also E. Robinson, in his work, “A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament,” (New York, 1850), s. v. “Nepho;” along with G. Abbott-Smith, in his work, “A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament,” 1937 edition, s. v. “Nepho;” additionally, Hesychius of Alexandria, in his work, “Hesychii Alexandri Lexicon,” 1858 edition, s. v. “Nephalios;” considered along with Demetrios C. S. Byzantios, in his work, “Lexicon Epitomou tes Ellenikes Glosses,” 1939 edition, s. v. “Nephalios.”  It is therefore reasonable to assume that the Apostle would not have instructed Timothy to require abstinence of Church leaders without first teaching him the same principle in regards to wine.

 

The fact that Timothy had been drinking only “water” also implies that he had been following his master’s counsel very scrupulously.  The abstinence of a Christian minister from “fermented wine” was based on the Old Testamentlegislation prohibiting priests to use intoxicating drinks (Lev. 10:9-10).  The natural instruction would be that a Christian minister should be no less Holy than a Jewish priest, especially since the reason for the “Mosaic Law” remained the same:  “(10) And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; (11) And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.”  Leviticus 10:10-11.  Thus, our conclusion must be that “Paul advised Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach’s sake and oft infirmities, but he meant the unfermented juice of the grape.  He did not advise Timothy to take what the Lord had prohibited.”  “ST, September 6, 1899.”

 

 

Q) FIRST PETER

 

 

In the First Epistle of Peter, the admonition to physical abstinence, expressed through the verb “nepho,” occurs three times in this Epistle of Peter’s (1:13; 4:7; 5:8).  It is noteworthy that in all the three texts, Peter’s own exhortation to abstinence is given in the context of readiness for the imminent Return of Christ.  This implies that Peter, like Paul, grounds his call to a life of abstinence and holiness in the certainty and imminence of Christ’s Return.  As such, we are to be ready with soberness, as opposed to drunk with the cares of this world.

 

In fact, the admonition to “be abstinent” assumes a radical form in First Peter 1:13, because it is followed immediately by the adverb “teleios,” which means “perfectly,” or “completely.”  Thus, the correct translation is, “be completely or perfectly abstinent.”  Unfortunately, most translators, presumably because of their predilection for drinking, have chosen to make “teleios” a modifier of the following verb “elpisate,” meaning “set your hope,” thus, rendering it “set your hope fully,” as in the “RSV.”  Certainly then, you should agree that we are to set our “hope to the end,” First Peter 1:13, meaning, on the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, and not to the “hope” of becoming intoxicated (see 1Pe. 4:7).

 

The correct translation and understanding of First Peter 1:13 4:7; 5:8, “be sober,” again, the Greek being, “G3525; nepho,” meaning, “to abstain from wine.”  That is pretty clear instruction.

 

Also, it is noteworthy that the “Latin Vulgate,” Jerome’s famous “Latin Translation,” which has served as the official “Roman Catholic Bible” throughout the Centuries, translates “teleios” as a modifier of “nephontes,” thus, “sobrii perfecte” means, “perfectly sober.”  In the correct view and understanding of this verse then, Jerome’s Translation reflects accurately the intent of Peter, who repeats his call to abstinence twice in his Epistle.

 

Thus, the correct translation should be and could have been:  “Therefore gird up your minds, being wholly abstinent [of worldly love], set your hope upon the grace that is coming to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.”  It is significant that all the admonitions to abstinence contained in the context of Peter’s discourse, is that one be ready for the preparation of the imminent return of Christ.  Therefore, the example of being sober and not drunk with fermented wine at Christ’s Second Coming (or ever if you are to be ready at all times) is admonished.  How this is missed is beyond me, except to say that people are not spiritually minded when dealing with God’s Word, and they have to have their addicted to alcoholic beverages at the ready when Christ Comes.  Or at least at the dinner table in moderation, of course.

 

In an interesting side note, of the eight times in the Book of Revelation where “wine” is used, it is used symbolically to represent either “human depravity,” or “Divine Retribution,” and NEVER human authentication or justification.  Therefore, the Apostolic admonitions to total abstinence could have constituted one of the most telling indications of the Biblical teaching on total self-denial.  But Alas!

 

Several times, Peter (1Pe. 1:13; 4:7; 5:8) and Paul (1Th. 5:6-8; 2Ti. 4:5), urge believers to be abstinent in preparation for Christ’s Second Coming.  Unfortunately, these admonitions are largely unknown because of the translators’ bias which render the verb “nepho,” which really means “ne = do not, pino = drink,” as, “be sober.”  There is noteworthy unanimity among “Greek Lexicons” on the primary meaning of the verb “nepho” as meaning, “to abstain from wine,” and of the adjective “nephalios,” as meaning, “abstinent, without wine.”

 

The Biblical truth expressed in Isaiah 28:7, where priests and prophets are rebuked for having become “confused with wine,” “erring in vision,” and “stumbling in judgment,” because of “through wine [yayin; fermented], and through strong drink [needs no Hebrew word for me to explain that to you],” is brought out even fuller when the “Talmud” brings out this truth most graphically stating:  “When the wine enters the system of a person, out goes sense, wherever there is wine there is no understanding.”

 

Our God gave this specific instruction to the High Priest Aaron concerning the priests:  “(9) Do not drink wine [yayin; fermented] nor strong drink [“shekar”], thou, nor thy sons with thee, when you go into the Tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die [how much stronger language should our Lord have used here, other than “DIE?”]; it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations: (10) and that ye may put difference between the holy and the unholy, and between the unclean and the clean; (11) And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the Statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.”  Leviticus 10:9-11 (see also Eze. 44:23).  In other words, if you wish to drink (“strong wine”) anything fermented, you are no longer “holy” in God’s sight.  Think about that for a minute.

 

If one really wants to be confused in regard as to the Biblical use of “Fermented” and “Unfermented” Biblical wine, consider Genesis 49:10-12:

 

10. The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh Come; and unto Him shall the gathering of the people be.

11. Binding His foal unto the vine, and His ass’s colt unto the choice vine; He washed His garments in wine [“yayin,” fermented], and His clothes in the blood of grapes [unfermented wine]:

12. His eyes shall be red with wine [“yayin,” fermented], and his teeth white with milk [unfermented wine].

 

Here we see a picturing of the Second Coming of our Lord, which will be sweet for those in the unfermented wine camp, but bitter for those in the fermented wine camp.  Those of you who have to justify your consumption, be advised.

 

 

R) IN CONCLUSION

 

 

To conclude the point of this discussion then, we must ask ourselves, does the Bible differentiate and condemn the drinking of “wine,” “fermented” and “unferemnted,” thus making it a sin against our body temple?  And/or, does God want us to live as if we’ve taken the “Nazarene Vow” in regards to the use of “wine” (or any other thing as far as that goes), and live our lives based upon a higher standard, which Jesus Himself has set?

 

Please discover the following verses in regards to the proper Biblical use of Wine:  Genesis 9:21; 19:32-35; Judges 13:4 & 7 & 14; First Samuel 1:15; Proverbs 20:1; 23:20 & 29-32; 31:4-8; Isaiah 5:11 & 22; 28:7; Hosea 4:11; Habakkuk 2:15; Luke 1:15; Romans 13:13; 14:21; Ephesians 5:18.  And for examples where the Bible wholeheartedly approves of its use as a Divine blessing for people to enjoy in the “unfermented” aspect, please see:  Genesis 27:28; 49:10-12; Psalm 104:14 & 15; Isaiah 55:1; Amos 9:13; John 2:10 & 11.

 

Thus, since Biblical “fermented wine” is denounced as “treacherous,” Habakkuk 2:5, and as “a mocker,” Proverbs 20:1, that “bites like a serpent and stings like an adder,” Proverbs 23:32, shouldn’t the Bible help us to understand that it would be better to avoid the shame and suffering caused by drinking “fermented wine,” in which Scripture admonishes no moderation, but total abstinence, i.e., “Do not [even] look at wine,” Proverbs 23:31.

 

For grape juice used as a positive symbol, see Genesis 27:28; 49:10-11.  In Deuteronomy 33:28, it is used to represent the Divine blessing of material prosperity.  For the blessing of the Messianic age, see Joel 2:18-19; Jeremiah 31:10-12; Amos 9:13 & 14.  For the free offering of God’s saving grace, see Isaiah 55:1.  For the wholesome joy God offers to His people, see Psalm 4:7; 104:14-15.  And, for the acknowledgment of God through the use of “grape juice” as “tithe offerings and libations,” see Exodus 29:40; Leviticus 23:13; Numbers 18:12; Deuteronomy 14:23.

 

For wine used as a negative symbol, see Isaiah 19:14; Revelation 14:10; 16:19; 17:2; 18:3, where it represents apostasy, immorality, corruption, and Divine wrath.  Where it represents the distortion and perception of reality, see Proverbs 23:33; Isaiah 28:7.  Where it represents the incapacity to make responsible decisions, see Leviticus 10:9-11.  Where it represents the weakened moral sensitivities and inhibitions, see Genesis 9:21; 19:32; Habakkuk 2:15; Isaiah 5:11-12.  Where it causes physical sickness, see Psalm 60:3; Proverbs 23:20-21; Hosea 7:5; Isaiah 19:14.  And where it disqualifies an individual for both civil and religious service, see Leviticus 10:9-11; Proverbs 31:4-5; Ezekiel 44:23; First Timothy 3:2-3; Titus 1:7-8.

 

From the source, “Adventist Review,” October 2018, there has been a recent study (I know; all “Studies” can tend to be “Biased,” however, this one is the most extensive and was done to both look for the benefits of “wine” and or its “side-effects.”  As published in “The Lancet,” in the August 23, 2018 edition, which is a prestigious scientific journal based in the United Kingdom, this landmark study integrates an honest data analysis from 694 data sources collected over a 26-year period from 195 locations around the globe.  Thus, this study is the first global integrated metadata analysis that has been accomplished on alcoholic use.

 

I refer to this “study” because, first of all, its honesty, and second of all, because the methodology is strong and the researchers could have used the analysis of others and improved upon them.  But they didn’t, because of their wanting to be honest.  Their conclusions are groundbreaking and should be definitive in world health news.

 

Their conclusions are astonishing:

1) “Alcohol is a major factor in global mortality and disease burden and the highest risk factor for those aged 19-45.”

2) “All-cause mortality was associated with any level of alcohol use.”  DID YOU SEE THAT?  “Any level of alcohol use.”

3) “Risk of many types of cancers increased with any level of alcohol use.”

4) Grapes in their natural form are beneficial to health.  However, once fermentation takes place, see above.

 

 “Satan gathered the fallen angels together to devise some way of doing the most possible evil to the human family.  One proposition after another was made, till finally Satan himself thought of a plan.  He would take the fruit of the vine, also wheat, and other things given by God as food, and would convert them into poisons, which would ruin man’s physical, mental, and moral powers, and so overcome the senses that Satan should have full control.  Under the influence of liquor, men would be led to commit crimes of all kinds.  Through perverted appetite the world would be made corrupt.  By leading men to drink alcohol, Satan would cause them to descend lower and lower in the scale.”  RH, April 16, 1901, paragraph 7; CCh:101; Te:12.  Let alone the Drug consumption.

 

“There is no class guilty of greater perversion and abuse of His precious gifts than are those who employ the products of the soil in the manufacture of intoxicating liquors.  The nutritive grains, the healthful, delicious fruits, are converted into beverages that pervert the senses and madden the brain.  As a result of the use of these poisons, thousands of families are deprived of the comforts and even the necessaries of life, acts of violence and crime are multiplied, and disease and death hurry myriads of victims to a drunkard’s grave.”  RH, November 8, 1881, paragraph 1.

​