Replies

You apparently haven’t studied much about the meaning of the event, about Bible wines, nor about the character of Jesus as a missionary. Please open your Bible, read Chapter 2 of John, and show me where it says any place in the chapter that any wine was served at the feast prior to that made by Jesus, or that the wine he provided was not as having been freshly pressed, tasty, and other than unintoxicating.

That teaching sounds like that of a particular Independent Baptist Fundamentalist branch although others may hold it including Mormons. However Pioneer Baptist Church calls it a lie.

Lies:

1) The wine referred to in the Bible is actually non-alcoholic grape juice.

The Truth:

1) The wine mentioned in the Bible was real wine. Drunkenness is absolutely wrong, but a moderate use of alcohol is Biblical.

I Timothy 5:23 "...use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities."

Psalm 104:15 "And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart."

If the wine used in the Bible was simply grape juice, then why would the Bible warn us about drinking too much wine?

I Peter 4:3 "For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries"

Proverbs 23:29-30 "Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine."

Ephesians 5:18 "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;"

Also, if the wine in the Bible was simply grape juice then how was it that Noah, Lot, and countless others in the Bible became drunk?

Jesus Christ turned water into wine, and spoke of actual wine in Luke chapter five when he explained what happens when wine ferments in old bottles. Also in this passage, Jesus comments that old wine is better than new wine (not exactly a verse your average fundamental Baptist legalist likes to read from the pulpit.)

Luke 5:37 "And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better."

The Bible is quite clear, drunkenness is wrong and if you live the lifestyle of a drunk it is obvious that you are not saved.

I Corinthians 6:10 "Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Also, Romans 14 warns that you can offend people by what you eat and drink. Christians should be mindful of this. However, Christians should also realize that it is also offensive to lie and say that real wine was not drunk in the Bible and that to let a drop of alcohol touch your lips is sin. A legalistic view of wine leads people to doubt whether they can believe the Bible word-for-word--teenagers especially struggle with this hypocrisy.

Here is a Catholic perspective:

Jesus apparently drank enough wine that he was accused of drinking to excess. In his own words he proclaimed, "The Son of Man has come eating and drinking; and you say, ‘Behold, a glutton and a drunkard’" (Luke 7:34). So Jesus was accused of being a drunk.

The Greek word translated as "drunkard" in the above passage is oinopotes, which means a winebibber, one who drinks much wine. In fact, the first part of the word comes from the Greek word for wine, oinos, which occurs several times in the New Testament.

Some claim that Jesus drank grape juice or must (unfermented wine). But then why accuse him of being a drunkard? Other scriptural passages where oinos is found clearly indicate that, indeed, fermented wine, not grape juice, is being discussed.

For example, consider "Neither is new wine put into old wineskins; if it is, the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are destroyed; but new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved" (Matt. 9:17; see also Mark 2:22, Luke 5:37-38). The old skins burst because the wine contains yeast—the catalyst of fermentation—which causes expansion.

Similarly, "no one after drinking old wine desires new; for he says, ‘The old is good’" (Luke 5:39). Even in New Testament times it was known that wine gets better with age; grape juice does not.

The question regarding drinking wine then becomes, how much is too much?

Sure sounds like an argument for one who likes to drink!

Jesus apparently drank enough wine that he was accused of drinking to excess. In his own words he proclaimed, "The Son of Man has come eating and drinking; and you say, ‘Behold, a glutton and a drunkard’" (Luke 7:34). So Jesus was accused of being a drunk.

That's a pretty big assumption on cathoicism's part. So again...some context of this verse will bring things into their proper Biblical perspective.

Luke 7:31-35

To what then shall I compare the men of this generation, and what are they like? 32“They are like children who sit in the market place and call to one another, and they say, ‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not weep.’ 33“For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon!’ 34“The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ 35“Yet wisdom is vindicated by all her children.”

The Pharisees and the lawyers were attempting to discredit the Son of Man with these charges. They had rejected John the Baptist and now they were rejecting Christ.

Notice Jesus says, "you say" referring to the Pharisees and lawyers leveling these charges.

They first attacked John accusing him of having a demon. (very alinsky like these Pharisees)

Did John have a demon?

Not based on the Bible. Jesus just said he was greater than anyone born of woman. (btw...that would include Mary) So their first charge is false.

Next charge from the Pharisees and lawyers..."you say", "Behold a gluttonous man and a drunkard."

Did Jesus eat? Yes. Was He a glutton? No. For that would have been a sin and we know Jesus did not sin.

Did Jesus drink wine? Yes. At communion He drank wine. It was the symbol of His blood.

To excess?

No, for being drunk would have been a sin and we know Jesus did not sin.

Two of the worst groups in society from the Pharisees perspective were the tax collectors (often appointed by Rome and who used their office to benefit themselves) and sinners in general.

Again, the Pharisees are attempting to discredit His character. It's not the only time they did it.

These are the same ones who accused Him also of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub.

I'll ask you....did Jesus cast out demons by the power of Beelzebub?