Should Christians Drink Intoxicating Beverages? Compare the Production

I've heard this probaby hundreds of times:

Fermented wine was used to purify and keep the water for extended periods of time.

What is the evidence that this was indeed the practice?

And

What is the evidence that adding fermented wine to water cleanses it?

There are certainly hybrid grapes out there, but it's worth noting that the main classifications of wine--Pinot Noir, Malbec, Blaufraenkisch, etc..--are based on grape varieties that are more or less "landraces", varieties of grapes identified with a particular region, and today's wine industry is tremendously conservative in promoting "old vines" and such. The main innovation in the past two centuries is the use of American rootstock, which does not host an aphid that nearly destroyed the European wine industry in the 1800s. We are not talking about any revolution like we've seen for wheat, rice, or corn in the past century.

To draw a picture, the symptoms described in Proverbs 23 occur at .15-.2% BAC or higher, which for a man my size (210 lbs) means about nine alcoholic drinks or more. In terms of beer, that's close to a gallon, and in terms of wine, that's about two bottles, or about 1.5 quarts. Now if you assume that the wine of the past was far weaker, you'd be assuming that the drinkers somehow had...shall we say....much larger and more capable bladders than men of today.

So the evidence we have suggests that ancient wines were....pretty similar in strength to those of today. Yeast has always died at about 16.5% alcohol, which limits any non-distilled spirit, and vitis vinifera has been a wonderful sugar-producing fruit for millenia. Even if it were weaker, you've got raisin wines like those of Shiraz in Iran (no kidding), that for millenia have gotten quite strong.

So in terms of making alcohol more prevalent and dangerous today, what you've got is differences in the overall amount of food that can be converted to alcohol (and a serious analogy to gluttony, ahem), as well as the process of distillation.

Really, if you want to strike a blow against drunkenness, you can get a bonus strike against gluttony if you eliminate grain subsidies. Most of the really hazardous drinks out there, as well as most cheap beer, is made from our country's huge surplus of corn.

To draw a picture, the symptoms described in Proverbs 23 occur at .15-.2% BAC or higher, which for a man my size (210 lbs) means about nine alcoholic drinks or more. In terms of beer, that's close to a gallon, and in terms of wine, that's about two bottles, or about 1.5 quarts.

I think these are off. I’ll try to check these, but these amounts of wine are way too much.

Here's a link that includes the chart I'm referring to. Typical glass of wine is a bit more than 5 ounces, so .17 = ~ 9 drinks ~45 ounces, typical bottle of wine is .75l ~25.4 ounces, 1.8 bottles ~ 1.5 quarts. And here's a link that describes the effects vs. BAC. For distilled spirits, getting to the Proverbs 23 level still requires 13-14 ounces, or over half a fifth. For the legal limit to drive, divide those numbers in two. Still a hefty amount of liquor, and what it means to me is that even a small person can have a drink without risking getting drunk.

Long and short of it is that by and large, drunkenness does not "sneak up" on a person, but rather the sheer volumes required make it a choice. Another point of reference; to get that drunk (.17% or so) also requires about half your daily calories, which is why Dostoevsky noted "the drunk does not eat" in one of his short stories.

I’ve never read a camping book or hunting book that said bring along a bottle of wine so you can purify the water. Also never read it in ancient literature. If anyone knows of such documentation, I’d love to know it.

They knew the basics about clean water in ancient times and it was available. Imagine if you drank alcoholic wine 24 hours a day because there was nothing else for you to drink. There likely would have been constant drunkenness.

For more:

Clean Drinking Water & Wine in Bible Times

https://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2016/12/clean-drinking-water-wine-in-bible-times.html

And, they had multiple ways of making non-alcoholic wine available throughout the year.

David R. Brumbelow

Here's an article on how alcohol can kill bacteria. More or less, it dissolves the cell membranes in the same way rum emulsifies butter in hot buttered rum. This is also why hand sanitizers use alcohol.

Probably three effects here. First, as wine/beer is drunk, its contact with pathogens in the mouth/digestive tract disables or kills them, and second, the brewing process for beer is at 170F, well above the temperature at which almost all bacteria are destroyed--the one exception I can think of is some bacteria that live in Yellowstone's geysers, and those are not pathogens. Finally, the alcohol in the barrel/cask prevents bacteria from colonizing it.

Regarding "I've never seen a camping book that told me to take alcohol along", it's worth noting that settlers on the Oregon Trail typically brought along a few gallons of whiskey for exactly this purpose, and the presence of Greek style amphorae is almost a better indication of Greek influence than temples. Really, until the 20th century, armies the world around traveled with a fair amount of liquor as not only a comfort, but a disinfectant.

There is ancient writing on watering down wine, for a whole slew of reasons. But that should not be stretched to the point that all wine was always watered down, because that was clearly not the case in ancient writing. I think the author is stretching to try to develop a point that he holds to. I do not advocate drinking, but that is a personal choice. I hate seeing silly arguments created for it. When I was younger we were taught ancient wine was not fermented. That has obviously been shown not to be the case. The latest trend is to try the watered down argument. But again, it is weak. Alcohol was abused in ancient times and it is abused today. Alcohol was consumed in moderation in ancient times and there are plent of Christian and non-Christians who consumer alcohol in moderation today. If it was all about the % or technique, the Bible would discuss that. It is about how to treat alcohol, period. Just like anything else, it should not consume, control and fill you.

"the watered down argument ... is weak"

For the Lord your God is bringing you into a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and springs, that flow out of valleys and hills. -Deuteronomy 8:7 NKJV

Many modern writers say ancients used wine to purify bad water. But it seems the ancients never said that.

Look up, “Does wine purify bad water.” It seems you would have to have a higher alcohol content than what the ancients possessed (they had not discovered distilling alcohol). And it would apparently defeat the purpose of hydrating your body, since alcohol is a diuretic.

They mixed wine with water for a number of reasons (but not to fix bad water):

They could then drink more; to rehydrate thick wine; it was easier / lighter to transport if it was concentrated, you just added water when ready to drink it; etc.

Aristotle spoke of a wine so thick you had to scrape it from the wineskin.

Ancients also added salt and/or seawater to wine. One ancient writer said almost all wine of Italy had salt in it. Check out lactic fermentation, a way to preserve food and drink with little or no alcohol.

See “Food in the Ancient World From A to Z" by Andrew Dalby. Author is a historian and linguist.

A pro-drinking secular authority said, “Concentrating grape juice down by heating is still used to make the popular shireh of modern Iran and was known to the ancient peoples of Mesopotamia as well as the Greeks and Romans. It enables fruit to be preserved, and, diluted with water, it produces a refreshing, nonalcoholic beverage.” -Ancient Wine: The Search For The Origins of Viniculture, Princeton University Press.

Also, you can buy Pekmez today, a concentrated, non-alcoholic wine / grape juice. Also called grape molasses.

David R. Brumbelow

The only Biblical reference I'm aware of that clearly references watered down wine is Isaiah 1:22, which speaks of it as if it were a disgrace and a curse. You have other cases where the wine is being mixed, like Isaiah 5:22-3 and John 2 (the master of the feast is likely getting ready to mix the wine because he believes it'll be inferior),but it's not clear what it's being mixed with.

I suspect that a good portion of what is going on is that previous commentators, wed to the prohibitionist mindset in the mid to late 1800s, could not quite bring themselves to ignore all those vineyards being planted and tended (and used as a picture of God's care of His Church no less!), so the compromise was to assume that the wine was watered down.

More or less, the exegetical techniques known to the world as "wishful thinking" and "well, they must have been like us, no?".

The impression I got from them was that as an ordinary daily beverage, wine was diluted in polite society. From my recollection, this was always the case. Of course, some would drink it undiluted, especially if they wanted to get drunk. That doesn't impeach the notion that the general expectation was to drink it diluted.

My impression of the dilution was not so much to purify the water but to extend the supply (and minimize the risk of negative effects). Wine (or other beverages) were limited by the quantity of grapes you could grow and so on. Diluting it stretched your supply. I suppose there might be other reasons for this as well, but it was one reason.

In any case, rather than repeating talking points, if Christians really want to get an understanding of the topic, I recommend going to your local library and getting some of the books on the history of alcohol production and consumption. I recommend secular authors because they have on axe to grind, they are usually pro alcohol, so they aren't going to make arguments that are so slanted towards abstinence that they distort the facts. Unfortunately, some Christian writers, though well-intended, have at least distorted the facts by overstating some things and making leaps of logic, etc, to establish their views.

I am for total abstinence for a variety of reasons, to be clear (in case someone reading doesn't know my views). I do think that we can make a case for abstinence without distorting or misunderstanding the history.

For me, the limit about one glass. And I usually drink about 1/3rd of a glass of wine when I do. If I feel the effects, then I'm done.

According to the chart from Forbes, for a 240lb male like me, three drinks (5oz x 3 = 15oz = 444ml = 60% of one bottle) would put me into the "DRIVING SKILLS SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED" range, though still under the legal limit. So according to that, my personal standard is quite a bit below.

Still, and this was my point, SharperIron moderate drinkers are going to be drawing a line at or before "DRIVING SKILLS SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED" (.04) not "LEGALLY INTOXICATED" (above 0.8). And what it takes to get 0.4 is 2-3 glasses of wine, depending on sex, weight, etc.

I recently got a Coravin which is great. With that, I can drink a bottle slowly over 3 weeks.

Regarding secular sources on watering down wine, the best I've found is a suggestion that rabbis in Israel generally eschewed that, but later on, hellenized Jewish rabbis in the diaspora (affected by Greek culture) started to argue that it was more cultured (i.e. more "Greek") to water it down. So my take is that when we're talking about the Gospels, we're definitely talking straight wine, and when we're talking about the epistles, it may be mixed, depending on whether Jews or Gentiles are the primary recipients of the epistles.

Dan's got a great point regarding dosage, because one does start to "feel" the alcohol long before one gets to the legal limit of 0.08, let alone the typical level people are at when arrested for DUI of 0.17--yes, interesting to me that it's about what Proverbs 23 is writing about.

It's also worth noting that since alcohol is absorbed very quickly into the bloodstream, the only way it can "sneak up" on you is if you're guzzling it. Which is a dumb behavior even if you're drinking soft drinks, really--just look at the calories in a Super Big Gulp of Mountain Dew.

Alan D. Butcher, Ale & Beer: A Curious History (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart Inc., 1989).

Alan D. Butcher, (1989). “Even the Romans added unlikely things to their wine, perhaps for variety, or to give a different flavour as we do with spirits in cocktails, or to dilute its strength; some classical wines could be cut as much as twenty to one with water and still be drinkable, a commentary on the harshness of Greek and Roman wines.” p. 28

Hugh Johnson, Vintage: The Story of Wine (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989).

Hugh Johnson, (1989). “The Greeks did mix their wines - and in fact they rarely drink them straight. It was normal to add at least water (usually seawater), and the more formal the occasion and elaborate the food, the more spices and aromatics were added to the wine.” p. 44

Hugh Johnson, (1989). “The Greeks loved their wine and rhapsodized over it, but reading them does not leave the impression that they were hard drinkers. Water in the wine had two obvious purposes: it stretched the supply of a commodity which may have been too expensive for some citizens, and it meant you could go on drinking longer. Their word ‘symposium’ means nothing more or less than ‘drinking together’.” p. 44

Hugh Johnson, (1989). “The taste of the Augustan age (Augustus reigned from 27BC to AD14) was for wine that was sweet and strong, and very often cooked in much the same way as madeira is today. Usually it was drunk diluted with warm water - even with seawater. Madeira and water, whether cold, warm or sea, is not exactly to your taste or mine. And yet there is no doubting the Romans’ discrimination between one kind and another, or the technical refinement they put into making their best wines.” p. 62

Hugh Johnson, (1989). “The ‘plebs’, the lower classes, and the army often had to make do with less than wine; either with posca, which was vinegar mixed with water, or lorca, the thin and feeble brew made by soaking the pressed skins and stalks in water and fermenting the result. French peasants had to make do with the same until the last century - ‘piquette’ they called it. The soldiers who crucified Christ gave him a sponge full of their vinegar ration.” p. 71

Hugh Johnson, (1989). “The first account of the actual Christian practice after St Paul was written by St Justin to the far-from-sympathetic Emperor Marcus Aurelius in about 150 ... ‘at the end [of the gathering]’, he wrote, ‘prayers being finished, bread, wine and water are brought; the person presiding prays and gives thanks as well as he is able.’ The water and wine were mixed by deacons in a way that recalled certain Jewish rituals.” p. 80

Jancis Robinson, ed., The Oxford Companion to Wine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994).

Jancis Robinson, ed., (1994). “The simplest and most obvious form of adulterating wine is to add water. This is not necessarily fraudulent. In Ancient Greece, for example, no civilized man would dream of drinking undiluted wine.” p. 5

Jancis Robinson, ed., (1994). “Traditionally societies have wanted to drink wine because it tastes good, with or without food, and is sometimes used to cook food. It was popular not least because of the dangers associated with drinking unclean water.” p. 324

Jancis Robinson, ed., (1994). “The real issues [in Roman culture] were how and when you drank. First and foremost mixing wine with water was an essential mark of civilized behaviour. Only barbarians, Scythians, and Germans drank wine neat. Unmixed wine was supposed to have a deleterious effect on both physical and mental health. Even a half and half mix of wine and water was considered a heady brew.” p. 347

Jancis Robinson, ed., (1994). “Wine was almost always drunk diluted with water: the ratio varied, normally ranging between 2:3 and 1:3, which would give a range in alcoholic strength of about three to eight per cent (roughly the same as British draft beer). Weaker mixtures are disparaged in comedy (and even 1:3 called for a good wine), but 1:1 was considered by some dangerous to the health, and the regular drinking of unmixed wine, a habit confined to barbarians, was believed by some Spartans to have caused the insanity and death of their King Cleomenes.” p. 467

Actually, Don, I'd argue you agree--the Greeks and Romans diluted their wine, which your sources prove, and some of mine suggest that the Hebrews did not. There were probably some Jews in Israel who would do things the "Greek" way, but keep in mind that the Jews of Israel had fought the brutal Maccabean wars not that long ago precisely because of Greek customs being brought into Judea. I therefore believe that not that many would follow them, just out of association.

It's also worth noting that the Greeks and Romans watered things down in order to drink immense quantities of liquor, so to argue that somehow it makes drunkenness less likely is to ignore this reality. We can even see this today, because the "sweet spot" for drinks to get one drunk quick--alcopops and mixed drinks--is about 5-15% alcohol, heavily sugared, etc.. A really scary thing I saw recently was an "alcopop" with 12% alcohol in a 12 ounce can--the can suggesting to most Americans "I should drink this in one sitting." Irritating to Dan or I, possibly dangerous to women half our weight.

I guess not. But from memory in one of those books the Jews of the first century also diluted their wines, different ratios though. Can't quite remember the exact ratio.

Anyway, I think these sources disprove a lot of common claims about historic alcohol usage.

BTW, the Hugh Johnson of the one book I cited seems to have been a well respected authority on this, other books cite him a lot. He lived in Seattle, I think, and passed away a few years (maybe 10) back.

My point is that everyone who makes strong assertions about this needs to go to sources like this to find out what secular research shows. The dates on these books are late 80s and 90s, I think that I was looking into this somewhere between 1999 and 2005. Likely there are more recent publications. You don't have to buy the books, just go to your library and get them. Best to educate yourself from sources that don't agree with you so you can have an informed opinion (and to evaluate the claims of those who agree with you).

Wine that was produced in ancient times was mixed with a lot of water.

When they drank the wine, the alcoholic content was not strong enough for them to become easily drunk by it. To get drunk, a person would have to drink many glasses of it. …

Because of this difference in alcoholic content, Paul could encourage Timothy to drink a little wine as medicine for his stomach without concern for his becoming drunk.

It is important for our purposes to note that in Isaiah 1:22, the watering down of wine is a curse. That stands against the idea that diluting wine was normal or preferred in OT times.

While wine in modern times is often around 15% alcohol, this is driven largely by sugar content in the grapes and also by production methods. Ancient wine was lower (10-12, most likely) and then possibly diluted, probably to about 4-6%. Those are basically the alcohol content of modern beer. So, contrary to the article, it would not have been difficult to get drunk on ancient wine, even if diluted.

Furthermore, it was impossible to seal up unfermented fruit juice because it began to ferment starting the very first day it was pressed in the vat.

I wasn’t sure what you were trying to say here. They certainly had technology to seal up unfermented juice. It just didn’t stay unfermented. Our grape juice wouldn’t either unless you pasteurized it and sealed it.

-----------

I agree with most of what you said about Modern Production. It's not really true that seeds (varieties) are chosen to increase alcohol, at least that’s not the main concern. Bert said in the comments that “today's wine industry is tremendously conservative in promoting ‘old vines.’” It's not exactly true that this is out of being conservative. Old vines are very much preferred in wine making. Some are over a hundred year old. Some grape vines are grafted onto old “rootstalks.” The old vines have deep roots and are able to produce grapes that are very concentrated in sugar and flavor. Many regions are actually pretty arid and too much rain early in the summer will result in grapes that are too big too early and don’t give good juice for wine. Minimal rain forces the plant to get water and nutrients from the soil, which is ideal. That’s why a deep root system makes great wine.

I'm not talking about the age of the vines or depth of the roots as much as I am about the consistency of the genetics of grape varieties. Pinot noir, for example, is believed to be millenia old and very close to the original wild vitus vinifera. Other Greek and Judean varieties are also millenia old.

What this means is that the differences between ancient and modern grapes are not that great, and that therefore--as we would infer from Proverbs 23--the amount of alcohol in ancient wines would not be that different from today's.

I've heard people claim that it was only 3%, for example, and at that level, it would take about 2-3 gallons of wine to get to the symptoms in Proverbs 23. The trouble with that is that when one injests that much water, one throws off electrolytes and the kidneys shut down. Hangovers and feeling no pain would be the least of one's issues at that point!

I asked this question years ago on SI, and as I recall it didn’t elicit a response. Here’s my question:

Joe Christian walks into a restaurant and orders a steak. Along with it he orders a glass of wine. On the table, before he was even seated, was a glass of water. As he enjoys the meal, he finishes the wine as well as the glass of water. Assume it was a typical 16 oz. water glass & a typical 5 oz. glass of wine. Hasn’t he diluted the wine (at around a 3:1 ratio) during the course of consuming the meal? What’s the difference if the wine is mixed with water prior to or during consumption?

Larry, good to see you walking these hallways again. Welcome back!

Regarding your question, in terms of blood alcohol, I'd guess that (my habit of) having a glass of water along with wine and a steak (or whatever) would be about the same. One thought regarding the disinfectant nature of alcohol is that I'd bet that straight wine would clear the bacteria and such from one's throat better than wine mixed with water (many effects being nonlinear with concentration), so I'd guess the Hebrew pattern of drinking straight wine would be more effective than the Greek pattern of pre-mixing wine into something like "sangria".

I don't see a strong Biblical argument for either, mind you, but just for thinking's sake...

I haven’t posted much in the past 3 years or so, but I still check in here occasionally. I was in Rochester recently in the vicinity of your church. Had lunch at Five West while I was there.

While reading this thread the focus on dilution as being the big difference between wine in the Bible vs. wine today in the original article and in many of the responses began to be a bit too much for me to not put my 2 cents into the conversation.

It may be true that back then it might have been prudent, even necessary, to mix wine with water (to lower the alcohol percentage and/or make suspect water potable), but to use that to justify alcohol consumption then vs. now seemed to me quite a stretch. If is was permissible then, today it seems just an issue of “dosage.” And the thrust of the conversation seemed ignorant of how responsible Christians who choose to consume alcohol today actually do so. My point being that “dilution” often occurs today not necessarily pre-consumption, but during or post-consumption.

The issue over dilution (and to what extent) is meant to compare apples to apples. The ancient practice was clearly different from present practice, so we are arguing about cultural differences which does make a difference on present day decision making.

I will grant that drinking wine with a meal (with or without other beverages) makes some difference on the overall effect. I don't think anyone disputes that. (My observation of those drinking wine with meals is that they take precious little water, though, so I doubt there is much dilution going on.)

Further, I would like to dispute Bert's constant assertion that the Jews didn't dilute their wine. Do a google search on "did ancient Jews dilute their wine." You will find many articles asserting they did. I don't know where Bert gets his idea, but he keeps repeating it. I haven't seen it anywhere other than in Bert's posts. The articles I have seen is that the Jews typically diluted their wine on a 3 to 1 ratio (3 water, 1 wine).

The dilution argument isn't meant to say, "see they would have to drink a ton to get drunk" -- clearly some would drink much and get drunk, and of course some would drink it straight in order to get drunk.

The dilution argument is simply to say wine and culture then (Bible times) was not the same as wine and culture today. (On average of course, you can find some exceptions.) The differences between eras impact the question of whether it is wise to drink alcohol today.

One more thing, the dilution argument is only one of several arguments. There are others. I have introduced examples of my research to show that the ancients did indeed dilute their wine. The point is that you cannot assume that when the Bible describes the consumption of wine that it is exactly the same as consumption today. I think it is a signifcant difference.

Don, if you've found "numerous articles", link them. Let's see who they are, and what their sources are. My take is that when I look at Isaiah 1:22 and secular sources, the practice of dilution seems to have at least started with the Greeks, and thus would have been an unlikely practice to have been adopted by the Judeans who had fought a very bloody war against the Greeks not that long before.

(flavoring and mixing, yes; it's my guess that this is what is going on with the master of the feast in John 2, and he's shocked that this batch emphatically does not need any help from him--and notice that the jars are full, indicating that good wine is not mixed)

More or less, my take on "diluted" is that it's a pattern among the Greeks that "fundagelical" commentators have assumed was the pattern among the Judeans.

I didn't answer Larry's question (Is wine with a meal and a glass of water = dilution?). I think we all know the answer is yes in terms of dosing. I just contmeplate drinking diluted wine-water and think, yuk...

Ok - next time I open a bottle, I'm going to dilute some of it and try it.

---

To Don, Historically, they might have, sure. But Isaiah 1:22 paints diluting as a curse, even if a low-level one. So even if they did, I don't see what that changes. I mean there was a description of bread in Ezekiel that was also a curse and I don't eat bread like that. I don't think we have to.

I don't drink alcohol, so the dilution thing is not an issue for me. I have however begun to dilute milk for economic reasons. I figured out that if you buy whole milk and add water that if you are careful it will be just like 2% and no one will notice. I have to be careful though otherwise someone in the house will ask what is wrong with the milk.

First, I'm not going to do your googling for you. You know how to do it.

Second, how is it that Isa 1.22 has anything to do with Israelite practice? The statement is a metaphor for Israel's value, it isn't a comment on what Israel practiced nor a curse on someone who practiced such.

22 Your silver has become dross,
Your drink diluted with water.

Their silver and wine, which used to be valuable, had become worthless: dross metal and watered-down wine. Dross is the residue left in the smelting process after pure silver is removed. Like worthless dross, the nation would be “thrown away.” The people would be exiled if they would not repent and turn to the Lord.

John A. Martin, “Isaiah,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 1037.

How could beautiful and valuable silver degenerate completely into worthless waste metal (v. 22)? How could expensive sparkling wine turn into cheap, watered-down booze? Both products suffered a deterioration of quality because large dosages of impurities diluted them. This is what had happened in Jerusalem (v. 23).

Gary V. Smith, Isaiah 1–39, ed. E. Ray Clendenen, The New American Commentary (Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2007), 113.

I would challenge you to find a commentary that makes this about Israel's customs or practices. It is a metaphor for what the rulers were, not a comment on what the people did.

You all want to justify your point of view, so you are grasping at this straw, thinking it covers you.

It is a metaphor for what the rulers were, not a comment on what the people did.

How were to people able to understand this metaphor if it had no relation to things people actually did? Do you think it was talking about ground water getting into cisterns and making the wine worthless as opposed to people diluting the wine themselves? Either way, it still seems to mean that diluted wine was worthless.

Do you not understand Hebrew parallelism?

22 Your silver has become dross,
Your drink diluted with water.

What is dross? It is the impurities left over when silver is purified. In other words, all the good of Israel has turned into something worthlesss.

In parallel, the metaphor of wine "diluted with water" is saying you are worthless, you have no value. The metaphor is saying the rulers are worthless.

More on "diluted":

kjv & esv translate "mixed"

Young's Literal translates "polluted"

TWOT says:

1151 מָהַל (māhal) circumcise, weaken.

The Aramaic “cognate,” mĕhal, means to circumcise, but in Hebrew the word appears only once and that in a figuarative sense, “to cut wine” (Isa 1:22). Keil and E. J. Young point out that this semantic development is paralleled in other sources, e.g. Latin, castrare vinum and French, couper du vin. So much water has been added to the wine that its character has been weakened. The Aramaic word and the Hebrew (if that also means “circumcise”) is doubtless a by-form of the root mûl “to circumcise” (q.v.).

Walter C. Kaiser, “1151 מָהַל,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 491.

Here is E. J. Young as referenced by Kaiser above:

weakened - Literally, 'cut.' By means of cutting the wine is impaired. sou'ek is fine wine, used here in parallel with kaspek, 'thy silver.' The metal that was so pure that light could find in it a clear reflection, as well as the fine wine of the land, was destroyed, the wine having been weakened (lit., cut, mutilated, circumcised, castrated) by water.

E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, Vol 1, 82.

I repeat, those who want to make this out to be some kind of curse against diluting the wine are misusing the text. Eisegesis, not exegesis. Their wine (their rulership) has no value, because it is so disfigured and mutilated.

What is dross? It is the impurities left over when silver is purified. In other words, all the good of Israel has turned into something worthlesss.

In parallel, the metaphor of wine "diluted with water" is saying you are worthless, you have no value. The metaphor is saying the rulers are worthless.

I'm not sure which one of us is being more obtuse here. Isn't the parallelism that speaks of the rulers mentioning TWO things that are worthless? The silver that has become dross is now worthless because it has become dross, which is worthless, and the wine that is diluted with water is worthless because it was "destroyed, the wine having been weakened (lit., cut, mutilated, circumcised, castrated) by water." (per your quote from E. J. Young)

I have no problem whatsoever with the idea that the passage means that the rulers were worthless, but if you had said that "their silver has become dross" is "not a comment of what the people did," I would have told you that the people would have had to have practiced silver purification in order to have understood the metaphor of "dross being worthless." Likewise, the people would have had to have witnessed wine being diluted with water in order to know the worthlessness of diluted wine. If diluted wine isn't worthless, then the parallel to worthless rulers isn't really a parallel, is it?

The first mention of Isaiah 1:22 in this thread is when Bert wrote, "The only Biblical reference I'm aware of that clearly references watered down wine is Isaiah 1:22, which speaks of it as if it were a disgrace and a curse." Now the words "disgrace" and "curse" are not mentioned in the passage, and perhaps "curse" is too strong of a word, but wouldn't "disgrace" be appropriate to describe something that is claimed by the writer to be worthless and thus suitable to be used as a metaphor for their worthless rulers?

Some people might claim that Israelites could dilute their wine for drinking and it wouldn't be worthless until it reached the levels indicated by Isaiah 1:22, but Isaiah 1:22 doesn't give any specific levels at which the wine has become weakened. It just uses dross and diluted wine as metaphors for worthless rulers, so it's understandable why someone would see diluted wine in this passage as being a disgrace.

I won’t be dragged into a back and forth with you. You either don’t understand Bible interpretation or you don’t want to.

You don't have to respond to anything. I'll take it that you either don't understand the concept of metaphors or you don't want to.

So I agree many drinks do have higher concentrations of alcohol, via distillation, I would not say the same thing of wine or beer. The limits would have been reached when the alcohol began killing the microbes needed to produce more alcohol. The Jews appear to have felt it was the wine, not the water that needed cleansing, to make it a bit weaker.

I would also suggest before next time thinking through the metaethics underlying the position you intend to take, a virtue theory is going to be different than a deontological approach. I believe Galatians 5-6 favors virtue in these regards.

Don, I would appreciate less “or you don’t want to” and “You all want to justify your point of view, so you are grasping at this straw.”

Certainly debates like this can be frustrating. We each might suspect the other is grasping at things and we might suspect the other is frustrated and desperate to justify a cherished point of view. But it’s easy to stay into ad hominem when you go that way.

participants refuse to engage actual data presented.

One can only conclude some other motive is involved. That is not ad hominem.

OK, so Don agrees that wine diluted with water is worthless, and the verse therefore indicates that, at least at the time of the Prophet, diluted wine was seen as undesirable. Agreed.

And for reference, Don, I did my own "Google" search, and what I found, again, is very consistent with the links you provided; watering down wine appears to be a Greek habit initially that was sometimes found among Jews in the Diaspora, but was relatively unknown in Israel. And I am still unclear on why any sane person would recommend the wine-drinking habits of the ancient Greeks as any antidote to drunkenness is beyond me. They had temples to Bacchus/Dionysius.

It is no discussion when participants refuse to engage actual data presented.

Oh, do you mean a refusal like when someone says, "I won’t be dragged into a back and forth with you."? I WAS engaging with the data you presented. I even used part of one of the quotes you presented as I asked you some questions. You were the one who shut down the conversation.

OK, so Don agrees that wine diluted with water is worthless, and the verse therefore indicates that, at least at the time of the Prophet, diluted wine was seen as undesirable. Agreed.

Bert, what fallacy is it when you put words in someone else's mouth? I am sure you know (I don't).

The point is that Isa 1.22 says "Your silver has become dross" (ie, it isn't silver) and adds a parallel metaphor "Your drink is cut with water" to the point, according to the commentaries, that it is no longer water. He is describing, not silver, not wine (actually "drink", probably beer or some kind of grain alcohol), but the rulers.

To put it in our vernacular, Isaiah is criticizing the rulers as being "empty suits" (or in a western sense, "all hat, no cattle"

That is the point of the passage.

If silver was transformed to dross, it wouldn't be silver any more

If wine (drink) had all its substance cut so that it had become water, it wouldn't be water any more

No one runs around with dross and says "look at how much silver I have"

No one shares around water and says, "look at how much wine (drink) I have"

The verse isn't commenting on Israelite practice with wine at the time at all. That isn't the point.

And for reference, Don, I did my own "Google" search, and what I found, again, is very consistent with the links you provided; watering down wine appears to be a Greek habit initially that was sometimes found among Jews in the Diaspora, but was relatively unknown in Israel. And I am still unclear on why any sane person would recommend the wine-drinking habits of the ancient Greeks as any antidote to drunkenness is beyond me. They had temples to Bacchus/Dionysius.

First, I am not recommending any drinking habits. I oppose all consumption of alcohol as a beverage.

Second, I don't see dilution as an antidote to drunkenness. Obviously people can get drunk on diluted alcohol. It might taste funny and take longer, but drunkenness is still possible.

The reason I bring this up at all is to correct statements you made about the history of alcohol use. I think you have mischaracterized the practices of the ancients. I think if we went back through this thread we would find you mischaracterizing the practices of the Gentiles, and I am certain you are mischaracterizing the practices of the Jews of the first century.

Here are the links supporting that assertion. Some of these are blogs, so you will have to track down their sources. Nonetheless, they make the point that Jews commonly diluted their wine.

Was New Testament Wine Alcoholic? - Christ and Culture (sebts.edu)

The Fruit of the Vine - BYU Studies (note source)

Common Table Drink. “The ordinary table beverage of the Mediterranean world in Roman times was wine mixed with water.” This mixture was not only preferred for reasons of taste and custom, but mixing water with wine also helped to purify the water. The wine was poured through a strainer (to remove lees and insects) into a large bowl, where it was mixed with various amounts of water. From there it was poured into individual cups or bowls. Jewish literature before and after the first century records mixing wine with water: “It is harmful to drink wine alone, or again, to drink water alone, while wine mixed with water is sweet and delicious and enhances one’s enjoyment” (2 Macc. 15:39). Rabbi Eliezer (circa A.D. 100) is quoted in the Mishnah: “They do not say the Benediction over the wine until water has been added to it.” The ratio is thought to be one part of wine to two parts water, but later Talmudic sources record a one to three mixture.

^{2Ma 15:39 For as it is hurtful to drink wine or water alone; and as wine mingled with water is pleasant, and delighteth the taste: even so speech finely framed delighteth the ears of them that read the story. And here shall be an end.}

Why Did the Rabbis of the Talmud Speak of Diluting Wine? – Excerpted

Note, this one says that diluting wine came from the Greek world. I don't deny that. However, the point is that during the Second Temple period (ie, post Maccabees to Christ) Jews commonly diluted wine.

Alcohol in the Bible - Wikipedia

(Ok, so yes, Wikipedia - not an unbiased source necessarily)

Alcoholic wine in the ancient world was significantly different than modern wines in that it had much lower alcohol content and was consumed after significant dilution with water (as attested by even other cultures surrounding Israel), thus rendering its alcoholic content negligible by modern standards.^[6][101][8] The low alcoholic content was due to the limitations of fermentation in the ancient world.^[9][6] From the Mishnah and Talmuds, the common dilution rate for consumption for Jews 3 parts water to 1 part wine (3:1 dilution ratio).^[6] Wine in the ancient world had a maximum possible alcoholic content of 11-12 percent (before dilution) and once diluted, it reduced to 2.75 or 3%.^[6] Other after-dilution estimates of neighbors like the Greeks have dilution of 1:1 or 2:1 which place the alcohol content between 4-7%.^[101]

To close: I am only arguing against your assertion that the Jews did not dilute wine. I'm pretty sure I've read it in the secular books I quoted earlier, but I didn't find that reference in my notes. Nonetheless, these websites repeat the things I remember reading.

What is the point of bringing up dilution? The point is to simply say that drinking culture in Bible times was quite different from drinking culture today. Thus, in trying to understand Bible teaching about the subject, we need to take this into consideration.

But to repeatedly assert that the Jews did not dilute wine in the face of apparent evidence to the contrary shows an unwillingness to take all these facts into consideraton. Your mind is made up, don't bother me with the facts.

I wouldn't draw on 2nd temple Judaism in relation to the practices from the time of Isaiah, a lot may have changed between these two points in time.

Might I also suggest examining Christian practice here? Why is it that teetotaling is primarily a feature that starts with American Christianity?

All of this dilution talk made me curious. If in fact wine was commonly diluted with water in Biblical times, would it follow that a person drinking it then would have a lower alcohol intake than a person who chooses to drink in moderation today?

Let's assume a person consumes a half-gallon (64 oz.) of liquid per day. (Google gives a variety of responses on recommended and average consumption per day, based on geographic location, weight, and various other factors, but let's just select 64 oz. for our purposes here.)

A 3:1 dilution ratio would mean that 48 oz. of that total would be water, and 16 oz. wine. Now, for ease of calculation, let's assume the wine is 12.5% ABV. Under those parameters, a person would have a daily consumption of 2.0 oz. of alcohol.

Now, let's say a person today consumes a glass of wine daily with their dinner (as part of their overall daily 64 oz. liquid intake). A 5 oz. glass of wine with a 12.5% ABV contains .625 oz. of alcohol.

2.0 oz. compared to .625 oz. would mean that the person back then would be consuming over 3 times as much alcohol on a daily basis as someone who chooses to drink in moderation today. To take in as much alcohol today, a person would need to drink 3+ glasses of wine on a daily basis. And as I've already pointed out de facto dilution today can occur simply by someone consuming other beverages along with the wine.

I don't drink wine, but it's realizations such as this that prevent me from judging other Christians who choose to do so in moderation.

This is just the problem ofnthe heap. Looking for a specific quantity of alcohol doesn't resolve much because the body filters alcohol out during the day, so drinking it in higher concentrations will have an impact on its effects-so will drinking on an empty stomach, body weight, etc.

Distilled liquor is a problem in this regard--I mentioned that to Forrest when I saw the first one. But with wine or beer--I'm not sure what we're are talking about is significant (hence the problem of the heap, distilled liquor is too concentrated, but we can't set an absolute point of x-concentration is where it goes bad).

I don't think one can argue teetotaling from the New Testament without exercising some faulty technique. And no, that isn't my trying to salve my consciousness, I don't drink, and don't plan to start unless a doctor tells me I should. I think there is a problem of trying to boil this down to a rule, I think Paul in Galatians is arguing against an ethic of rules, his discussion of sanctification seems to better fit a virtue theory of ethics than deontological ethics. I plan to do an article on that point and it's part of my final dissertation chapter (dissertation still in progress), as I won't go through my reasoning, but this is one of those issues that can't be.resolved by trying to impose man made rules as a fence around the law, because what inevitably happens is eventually we treat the fence as if it were part of the law itself. Drunkenness is wrong, but a tradition of the elders doesn't ultimately help us to develop the Christian ethic or ethos.

If silver was transformed to dross, it wouldn't be silver any more

If wine (drink) had all its substance cut so that it had become water, it wouldn't be water any more

No one runs around with dross and says "look at how much silver I have"

No one shares around water and says, "look at how much wine (drink) I have"

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I didn't realize you were assuming that the second part of the parallelism was meaning a complete transformation to water. I don't think a Biblical understanding of parallelisms requires one to exaggerate the meaning of "cut" to that degree. None of the commentaries you quoted described the "weakening" by water as a sort of compete transformation.

I guess I suspected you might be thinking of a huge amount of dilution because my last paragraph in a previous post started with "Some people might claim that Israelites could dilute their wine for drinking and it wouldn't be worthless until it reached the levels indicated by Isaiah 1:22, but Isaiah 1:22 doesn't give any specific levels at which the wine has become weakened." I still stand by that assessment, but at least now I understand where your mind was at.

Do you not understand Hebrew parallelism?

22 Your silver has become dross,
Your drink diluted with water.

What is dross? It is the impurities left over when silver is purified. In other words, all the good of Israel has turned into something worthlesss.

In parallel, the metaphor of wine "diluted with water" is saying you are worthless, you have no value. The metaphor is saying the rulers are worthless.

Agreed. Hence I point out, Don, by your own words, that the Hebrew attitude towards diluted wines, at least in the time of Isaiah, is that it was about the same as that of drinkers of real beer towards Bud Light and Coors Light. Or, as a coworker of mine noted when I noted that Anheuser-Busch was canning water to send to hurricane zones, "That's nothing. Coors has been doing that for decades!"

Hence I point out, Don, by your own words, that the Hebrew attitude towards diluted wines, at least in the time of Isaiah, is that it was about the same as that of drinkers of real beer towards Bud Light and Coors Light.

But Bert, Don's "own words" were saying that the Hebrew attitude toward drinking-practice dilution was different from the Hebrew attitude toward Isaiah 1:22 dilution. He sees Isaiah 1:22 dilution as a near total dilution. I don't think it needs to be read that way, but if is it true, then it really wouldn't be comparable to the drinking practice of diluting wine.

Take my tithe and "spend the silver on anything [I] want: ... wine, beer (CSB) [ESV, strong drink], or anything [I] desire. [and] feast there in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice with [my] family" (Deut 14:26)

Note this is the same "strong drink" that is cautioned against in Proverbs 20:1, "Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler"

This informs that in some contexts שֵׁכָר is approved!

Every English translation that I've found suggests that the wine is simply watered down, not replaced with water, and the Hebrew word for "diluted" means "weakened", Strong's 4107. So the words used do not suggest that a strict parallelism on the lines of what Don suggests is the right way to interpret this verse.

(another way of viewing the matter is that people can and do extract valuable metals from dross or slag, especially when it's precious metals like silver)

(one exception I found in translations is the "Good News" translation, but given that translation's/paraphrase's abyssmal accuracy, I'm pretty sure we're not going to start a "Good News Only" movement on the basis of its translation of Isaiah 1:22)

All in all, I just don't see a whole lot of justification for the notion that the Hebrews of ancient Israel watered down their wine. Not that it makes a huge amount of difference, really; the major question is whether one's allowed to join Jesus when you're invited with Him to the wedding at Cana and the like, and whether we ought to assume that the extensive vineyards of ancient Israel were indeed used for the ordinary purpose we'd assume from the Bible's narratives about wine-presses, wine-skins (bursting), the old wine being better, and the like.

Craig, I’m in agreement with you that Deut. 14:26 clearly answers the question of whether or not drinking alcohol is always wrong. Of course, it has to be taken together with all the other verses giving us warnings as well (and I’m not saying you are suggesting otherwise).

New Christians, particularly immature ones, usually want to know only if the Bible forbids or allows alcohol in beverages. If it’s allowed, then they don’t want to countenance any restrictions. Of course, the Bible is much more nuanced on this topic than most want to deal with. Many pastors don’t like to mention the verses that talk about alcohol in any positive fashion, as they feel that will give the impression that they are approving of any use of it, which will lead to license rather than biblical liberty.

Like Dan said above, we need to be much more careful than to assume that all people on either side of this issue (and this applies double to people on the other side than our own) want to justify their own point of view rather than wanting to get to what scripture actually says in order to obey it.

Dave's comment about not seeing possibilities between drunkenness/alcoholism and abstinence is the excluded middle, and it's common in our circles. It's not a simple question of whether one can wear blue jeans; it's the question of whether allowing it will result in our communities going "full hippie" or "Woodstock". It's not a question of whether a bit of modern music is permissible and advisable; it's the question of whether it'll result in our church services becoming all "hip-hop" and death metal.

I have to suggest that our "tribes" would have far less strife if we believed we could find a "happy medium". And back to this subject, a glass of wine gets one to .02-.04% BAC, depending on one's size and gender (less if one is really heavy), too drunk to drive is .08% BAC, and the level described in Proverbs 23 is 0.15-0.2% BAC.

And that's your criteria for "do you have the freedom to drink?", in my view. If you can't sit down to a glass of wine without drinking enough to be a bad candidate for driving, or getting so plastered you can't feel it when you fall down, abstain. Or if you simply don't want to bother, abstain.

Or if you can hold back, and enjoy it, and can afford it, go ahead. Enjoy.

To clarify, this would not be the excluded middle. The law of the excluded middle means there is no middle between A and not A. Dave is saying A therefore B, I don't think that works, but the law of the excluded middle is important to keep distinct.

Otherwise carry on.

While that post may have been a little muddled, my main point was to address those Christians on either end of the discussion who assume that people from the opposite point of view only want to justify their position rather than come to a realization that other believers who want to understand and obey the scriptures can have a difference of opinion given the number of different scriptures on this topic.

Personally, I don’t agree with either those who are prohibitionists, or those who think any use of alcohol short of drunkenness is perfectly OK. I’m not sure I can get to an exact excluded middle on this without reframing the argument, as prohibition and abstention are two different things, as are moderate use and any use.

I believe the scriptures indicate that a “middle” position on this topic can result in either abstentionists or moderate partakers, and I can happily get along with either. And I further believe that those who partake moderately also need to consider the testimony and stumblingblock passages to know when they can or should restrict their liberty for the sake of others. I don’t agree with the arguments that “wisdom” would indicate it’s a sin to ever partake today, or that considering others means only abstention is acceptable.

I’m not sure where I’m saying A therefore B, unless you are referring to what I said about Deut. 14:26. Just because I believe that passage indicates that at least one use of alcohol is acceptable (which to me clearly means it’s not always wrong), I certainly don’t think that verse indicates that unrestricted use of alcohol up to the point of drunkenness is perfectly fine for the believer. It’s not addressing all uses of alcohol. That’s why we have other scriptures to fill in some of the blanks.

My point wasn't that your ethical case was wrong, it was that you shouldn't describe it as the law of the excluded middle. That is a hard and fast rule of logic that is always true--in logic the middle ground on the truth value of a proposition doesn't exist--a proposition is either true or false, there is no middle ground between true or false.

What you are describing isn't the law of the excluded middle, however, so it's best not to describe it that way, which was my point. You are noting a tension between what you (and I for that matter) believe to be two different, but both true propositions.

1. The Bible doesn't condemn all use of alcohol.

2. Drunkenness is condemned in Scripture.

I could add

3. The Bible appears to endorse moderate use of alcohol in some instances.

Might I suggest what you are looking for is something Aristotle called the Golden Mean, that a virtue is the proper balance between two vices. The classic example is that courage is the mean between recklessness and cowardice.