Two Wine Theory In The Dock
In a previous post, I mentioned the “Two Wine Theory” developed in the Temperance movement which sought to prove there were two different wines in the Bible. This view posited that all references to wine that connote blessing and goodness indicated unfermented juice, and those portraying the negative effects of wine contained alcohol, and the distinction could be discerned in the Greek/Hebrew words. I also mentioned that there was zero linguistic evidence for this. It would be good to see for yourself. Let us call the Theory to the stand and interrogate its claim.
The information here is in condensed form from a paper by Reverend Tom Wenger Jr. which you can read in its entirety here. First, we will look at the Hebrew words for wine found in the Bible, then the Greek. Lastly, we will take a brief look at the stance of the historical church on the matter.
Hebrew
Yayin. The most common word for wine in Hebrew. Noah gets plastered on yayin (Genesis 9:21) and Mechilzedek also offers yayin to Abraham (Genesis 14:18) – a foreshadowing of the Lord’s supper. God also commands it to be used in rituals (Exodus 29:38, and others), and as a sign of blessing and grace. God condemns the abuse of yayin (Deuteronomy 28:39), but also commends it as a blessing to be enjoyed (Psalm 104:14,15).
Tirosh. Typically translated as “new wine”, it has been assumed that this was unfermented, freshly stomped grape juice that has just oozed out from between the toes of the mashers. This is not so. Tirosh has intoxicating effects (Hosea 4:10) and also is a good gift of God (Deut 7:12).
‘asis. Translated as “sweet wine”, is used both as a blessing (Joel 3:18) and bad news (Isaiah 49:26). Just like tirosh and yayin, ‘asis has both sides of the coin. I trust you see a pattern emerging.
Shekar. “Strong drink”. This is the fightin’ juice drink that Proverbs warns of (Proverbs 20:1), but also an ordinance of worship (Numbers 28:7).
Shemer. This is the good stuff that is only used in Isaiah to describe the wine we will enjoy in the heavenly feast (Isaiah 25:6).
Sobe. Often translated as “wine” or “beer”. We find an interesting use of the word in Isaiah 1:21-22, where Israel’s “best wine” has become diluted with water. In a previous post, I made the observation that this goes against the common assumption that wine was always cut with water so as to make it essentially non-alcoholic. Thinning wine seems to be similar to Jesus’s interdictions against being lukewarm.
Mishrah. Only found once in the Hebrew text, and refers to unfermented grape juice of the Nazirite restrictions (Numbers 6:3). Importantly, we can see here that the Hebrew can specify unfermented drink when it wants to.
In summary of the Hebrew, we can see that nearly all Hebrew words for wine are used to describe both the blessing and the badness. And when the Hebrew wants to, it can specify an unfermented drink.
Restrictions on the use of wine are seldom in the Old Testament, limited to priests and kings when ministering before the Lord (Leviticus 10:9), or presiding over courts. This is to ensure function and judgment are not impaired (Proverbs 31:4,5). Nazarites are subject to abstinence, avoiding any vine product whatever, including fresh grapes. Drunkenness is prohibited to the general population.
Greek
Oinos. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, oinos is used in place of most of the Hebrew words for wine mentioned above. Jesus turned water into oinos, and some pretty darn good oinos at that, as the master of the ceremony said it was a better vintage than the guests had been drinking (John 4). Becoming drunk on oinos is condemned (Ephesians 5:18, 1 Timothy 3:3). Paul commends the Romans to avoid oinos if it would toss a stumbling block in the path of a weaker brother (see Part 3 for the weaker brother argument defense). He also tells Timothy to tipple oinos for his stomach ailments (1 Timothy 5:23), and John’s apocalypse envisions the oinos of God’s wrath being poured out (Revelation 14:10).
“Fruit of the vine”. We see this phrase used specifically during the Last Supper. He says he will not drink again of the “fruit of the vine” until he drinks it new with his disciples in his father’s kingdom (Matthew 26:27-30). Many commentators believe He is referencing Isaiah 25 here, where Isaiah prophecies the sharing of wine in the celebration of God with his saints, and, as mentioned above, this wine is the good stuff. It has been argued that Jesus’s use of this phrase indicates a difference in the quality of the fruit, specifically that it was non-fermented. But this is reading into the text what is not there. This has been used as positive proof of abstinence by some and deserves a longer explanation. Wenger, in his paper, includes this passage from bible scholar Dunlap Moore:
The expression the “fruit of the vine” is employed by our Saviour in the synoptical Gospels to denote the element contained in the cup of the Holy Supper. The fruit of the vine is literally the grape. But the Jews from time immemorial have used this phrase to designate the wine partaken of on sacred occasions, as at the Passover and on the evening of the Sabbath. The Mishna (De. Bened, cap. 6, pars i) expressly states, that, in pronouncing blessings, “the fruit of the vine” is the consecrated expression for yayin.. . . . The Christian Fathers, as well as the Jewish rabbis, have understood “the fruit of the vine” to mean wine in the proper sense. Our Lord, in instituting the Supper after the Passover, availed himself of the expression invariably employed by his countrymen in speaking of the wine of the Passover. On other occasions, when employing the language of common life, he calls wine by its ordinary name.
Dunlop Moore, “Wine” – A Religious Encyclopedia of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal and Practical Theology
Gleukos. “New wine”. This does not mean grape juice or freshly squeezed stuff, but the unrefined wine that wasn’t very good. Peter, at Pentecost, was accused by the crowd of being drunk on gleukos, so it clearly could cause inebriation (Acts 2:13-15), but perhaps the bottom shelf brand that would leave a nasty hangover.
Oinos neos. This literally means “new wine”, and we find it in the Synoptic gospels referring to Jesus’s teaching about not putting new wine into old wineskins (Matthew 9:16-17). Some believe Jesus was equating oinos neos (assumed to be unfermented) with a “Nonalcoholic = New Covenant = Good”, and an “Alcohol = Old Covenant = Bad” equation. But this ain’t so. The reason the oinos neos ought not to be poured into old wineskins is because the expansion caused by the fermentation will pop the old, frail wineskins. The actual meaning is quite the opposite: the Old Covenant vessel is inadequate to hold the New Covenant kingdom expansion, and this expansion in the analogy is due to fermentation.
Trux. Similar to mishrah, this is the specific Greek word for “unfermented grape juice”. It is never used in the New Testament.
Lastly, restrictions to the use of alcohol in the New Testament are similar to the Old Testament. Church leaders should not be given to wine (1 Timothy 3:8, Titus 2:3). Obviously, drunkenness is a sin so don’t do it (lots of references). As mentioned above, the weaker brother situation is also a restriction; but is a situation, not a prohibition.
In summary of the Greek, we see the same words for wine used to indicate the proper and immoral use, as well as the blessing and wrath. No distinction can be found in the linguistics between good and bad, as the Two Wine Theory suggested.
Weight Of History
In situations where a new and alternative scientific theory is offered to explain natural phenomena, the burden of proof is on the novel theory to demonstrate how and why it is superior to the established explanation. The same is true here. Highlighting the historic position of the church towards the sacraments gives us more than a few data points we may track the church’s position through time.
Right out of the gate, Justin Martyr (200-265 AD) wrote of the Lord’s Supper and in his writings, we find two interesting nuggets
There is then brought to the president [presbyter, priest] of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water…
And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion
Justin Martyr, The First Apology, 65
At the time of Martyr’s writing, wine mixed with water was being used for the sacrament, at least among those he was referring to. This is not surprising, as we have learned the ancients had various dilution strengths of wine with water, which was mentioned in Part 2. What is also worth taking note of is the Myth of Mithras was at the time offering its own spin-off sacrament of bread with a cup of water to new initiates. Martyr doesn’t think too highly of this crew, calling them wicked devils. Tampering with the cup was one of the means the cult niggled its way into the church to plant heresy.
Clement of Alexandria (150-215) verifies early on the Lord used wine for the sacrament in his writings called The Instructor, which was a primer for Christian living.
For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, “Take, drink: this is my blood”–the blood of the vine…
And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, “I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.” But that it was wine which was drunk by the Lord, He tells us again, when He spake concerning Himself, reproaching the Jews for their hardness of heart
Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2.2.
The Third Synod of Constantinople (753) was pretty clear, as far as synods go.
The only admissible figure of the humanity of Christ, however, is bread and wine in the holy Supper. This and no other form, this and no other type, has he chosen to represent his incarnation . . .
Leaping forward to Martin Luther, we find him particularly intransigent, which is on brand. One gets the impression he had grown sick of being asked his thoughts on communion wine and had a packaged response. Someone asked about the sacrament for a sick person who was unable to stomach the sacramental wine, to which he said:
This question has often been put to me and I have always given this answer: One shouldn’t use anything else than wine. If a person can’t tolerate wine, omit it [the sacrament] altogether in order that no innovation may be made or introduced.’”
Martin Luther, “Table Talk” Luther’s Works 54:438) edited by THeodore Tappert
Luther ain’t the Bible, but I find the choice of words interesting – any innovation introduced into the Lord’s supper was an ick for him.
John Calvin gets in on the action in the 16th century:
When we see wine set forth as a symbol of blood, we must reflect upon the benefits which wine imparts to the human body. We thus come to realize that these same benefits are imparted to us in a spiritual manner by the blood of Christ. These benefits are to nourish, refresh, strengthen and gladden
John Calvin, Institutes Of The Christian Religion
The Belgic Confession (1561), Heidelberg Catechism (1563), Westminster Confession of Faith(1647), Westminster Larger Catechism (1648), and Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) all posit the use of wine in the sacraments. No confessions or catechisms in history suggest otherwise. Mentions of communion wine in these confessions are uninspiring. Wine is spoken of blandly, like a meteorologist reporting yesterday’s weather. There was no attempt to argue for their point because there was no one to argue with – nothing other than wine had ever been suggested. Wine for the sacrament was as unquestionable as water for baptism. Not until the mid-1800s do we see any “innovation”, to use Luther’s word.
When these innovations were introduced, biblical scholars met the challenge. Nineteenth-century theologians like A.A. Hodge (1823-1886), a contemporary of the grape juice swap, defended the historical position admirably. He is worth quoting at length.
The contents of the cup were wine. This is known to have been ‘the juice of the grape,’ not in its original state as freshly expressed, but as prepared in the form of wine for permanent use among the Jews. ‘Wine,’ according to the absolutely unanimous, unexceptional testimony of every scholar and missionary, is in its essence ‘fermented grape juice.’ Nothing else is wine. The use of ‘wine’ is precisely what is commanded by Christ in his example and his authoritative institution of this holy ordinance. Whoever puts away true and real wine, or fermented grape juice, on moral grounds, from the Lord’s Supper sets himself up as more moral than the Son of God who reigns over his conscience, and than the Saviour of souls who redeemed him. There has been absolutely universal consent on this subject in the Christian Church until modern times, when the practice has been opposed, not upon change of evidence, but solely on prudential considerations.
AA Hodge, Evangelical Theology; p. 347-348
I want to highlight Hodge’s last sentence, lest there be an accusation I have been cherry-picking data to obscure some robust, unfermented communion drink movement in church history. Through the Great schism of East and West orthodoxy, the fracture of the Reformation from Catholocism, and the numerous denominations shards that resulted, one thing that was always aligned was views of wine for the sacrament.
Grape juice, the young whipper snapper, has not provided the burden of proof necessary to justify its communion monopoly. It has challenged the old bull but can mount no meaningful defense. At the very least the history of the communion wine ought to rattle our brains and create a curious itch that needs scratching.
But there is an older and deeper danger in the grape juice swap, I fear, one that we are largely unaware of. That will be the subject of the next post.
Thought Butter 