Close Topic Options

Wine or Grape Juice?

Wine or Grape Juice?

There is the recorded 'first miracle' of Christ where he turned water into wine, but was it wine as we know it or was it grape juice?

There is a definite distinction in the scriptures;
1. On one hand drunkeness is considered to be an evil, a negative, a sign of wickedness...
2. Drinking of the juice of the grape was also a time of happiness, and celebration...

So the question is... did the early Saints drink fermented grape?

Juice Grape Wine

Two things, first I don't think it was wine as we know it since at that time they didn't have the technology and all the aditives that they have now when they make wine. Second, definetly in my opinion was not grape juice either. Let me quote from 'Jesus The Christ' by Talmage.

"It was customary to provide at wedding feasts a suffience of wine, the pure though weak product of the local vineyards which was the ordinary table beverage of the time'.

I have also another source (non-LDS) for those who believe it was grape juice:

"The obvious answer to the question, "Did Jesus turn water into wine?" is yes. At the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee recorded in John 2:1-11, Jesus turned water into wine. However, this question does not usually ask what is meant by it. What is usually meant is "Did Jesus make intoxicating wine?" And the answer is no. Let me explain.

The word translated "wine" in English ( in Koine"š Greek) can refer to either alcoholic or non-alcoholic wine. At present, the term "wine" is almost used exclusively of alcoholic wine, but let us never be guilty of interpretation based solely upon modern day definitions. Consider these examples of the word "wine" being used in Scripture with reference to unfermented grape juice.
   

Joel 1:10 says "The field is wasted, the land mourneth; for the corn is wasted: the new wine is dried up, the oil languisheth." (This refers to grapes dried up in the fields, which could not be  intoxicating.)  Isaiah 65:8 says "Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy
them all." (Alcoholic wine in the cluster? No, the juice of the grape while in the cluster could not be intoxicating.)
Jeremiah 48:33 says "And joy and gladness is taken from the plentiful field, and from the land of Moab; and I have caused wine to fail from the winepresses: none shall tread with shouting; their shouting shall be no shouting." (The wine of fresh squeezed grapes coming out of the winepress is grape juice and could not be fermented.) Certainly other passages could be considered, but these are sufficient to illustrate that the word "wine" can refer to alcoholic wine
or simply grape juice.


"So, how do we know when it refers to grape juice or intoxicating wine?" The context in which the word is found will determine whether it refers to alcoholic or non- alcoholic wine. So, consider the context.

The immediate context of John 2:1-11 is quite clear. The guests at the marriage feast of Cana were able to discern between the quality of the drink that the Lord had made and that which had already been served. If intoxicating wine had been served, and people "well drunk" or "drunk freely"
(American Standard Version,1901) of it (verse 10), then they would not have had such keen discernment. Though the amount is not specified as to what they had previously drunk, if they consumed the six waterpots that Jesus had the servants fill with water and which contained "two or  three firkins apiece" (verse 6), then they would have consumed somewhere between 106 to 162 gallons of booze! This is far more than enough to make the most casual drinker drunk. Those who twist this account to condone social drinking say the term "well drunk" refers to the idea that the crowd was so drunk that they could not distinguish. However, the point of "the governor of the feast" to the bridegroom is that the guests were able to discern between the "worse" and the "good wine." If it is the case that these wedding guests were so drunk that they could not distinguish, then the Lord made the six pots of alcoholic beverage for those who were already strongly under the influence, and caused them to be even more drunk! Thus, the "good wine" of the wedding feast of Canaan must
have been the fresh juice of the grape.

Also, consider the logical consequence of those who want to use this passage to justify the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Their argument goes something like this: "Since Jesus produced alcoholic wine, then it is morally right for a person to drink it." However, notice that their logic takes them further than most of them want to go. Since Jesus produced alcoholic wine (as they claim), then not only would it be morally right to drink it, it would be morally right to produce it, sell it, distribute it, and make a living from it. But since that would most certainly cause someone to stumble, then it must be morally right to cause someone to stumble. However, the logical consequence of their argument would oppose the Lord's teaching (Luke 17:1-2). No, the reasoning is a foolish argument that has no foundation in scripture.

Further, consider the general context of the Bible. Habakkuk wrote, "Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!" (2:15). The sin Habakkuk is rebuking is the sin of contributing to drunkenness.
If Jesus supplied intoxicating wine to the wedding guests at Cana, then He contributed to their intoxication. Not only did Jesus contribute to it, He, also, condoned and encouraged people to get completely soused! Since intoxication is sinful, then Jesus sinned, and the "woe" of Habakkuk would be upon Him. If this be the case, then it would be better for Jesus "that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea" (Luke 17:2). As a perfect man, Jesus could not have turned water into alcoholic wine and offer such to others.

Another passage to consider in this context is Proverbs 23:31-32, which says, "Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder." If Jesus had turned water into intoxicating wine, then
He would have caused others to look upon the wine when it is red opposing the wisdom of Solomon.
Since, Jesus is "greater than Solomon" (Matthew 12:42), He would know the wisdom of sobriety and would not tempt others with an intoxicating beverage. Again, Solomon wrote, "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise" (Proverbs 20:1).

"What, then, was the miracle of the wedding feast in Cana?" The miracle of Cana was that Jesus surpassed or transcended the normal amount of time and the natural process that it takes to produce and harvest grape juice. That, which normally takes months, took Jesus but a moment. Augustine wrote, "For he on that marriage-day made wine in the six jars which he ordered to be filled with water he who now makes it every year in the vines; for, as what the servants had poured into the water- jars was turned into wine by the power of the Lord, so, also, that which the clouds pour fourth is turned into wine by the power of the self-same Lord." (As quoted in "Bible Wines" by William Patton, page 91.)

"How could this be? Did they have any methods of preservation of grape juice in the first century?" Yes. In fact, they had several methods. In the book "Bible Wines," the author, William Patton, discusses four methods that the ancients used for the preservation of grape juice. One such method is to keep air completely excluded a method often used today. R. C. Foster in his book,
"Studies in the Life of Christ," said, "A Greek wine ship of the second century B.C. Found by divers off the southern coast of France several years ago contained a great number of wine flasks that had been sealed so tight that after more than 2,000 years the sea water had not seeped into them."

With close examination, we must conclude that the Lord did not make intoxicating wine at the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee. "Did Jesus turn water into wine?" Yes. "Did Jesus turn water into intoxicating wine?" Absolutely Not!

Alcohol has caused and/or contributed to broken homes, every kind of accident imaginable, disease both physical and mental, poverty, and crimes of every kind. Since its effect is such, it is beyond my own imagination why anyone would ever want to justify its use let alone mar the Lord's perfect example with its production and distribution. Its use is not social in any way but is in every way
antisocial. Its defense by sweet-talking, soft- pedaling, so-called preachers is religiously hypocritical, morally irresponsible, and socially despicable. It has victimized the unborn, children, teenagers, the middle aged, and the old. It has victimized business people and laborers, country folks and city folks, the rich and the poor. There is probably not one person who has not felt its evil bite and its viperous sting! It is beyond my reasoning power to understand how people who claim to be spiritually minded and morally upright will rationalize its use. Blood has filled our streets because of this vile beverage.
Graves have filled our hills and vales because of this evil drink. Reproach has filled our nation because of this wicked intoxicant. Corruption has filled our society because of this corrupted liquor.
Shame and disgrace has filled our homes because of this malicious booze. Rather than justifying its use, let us stand diametrically opposed to it for "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise."

Source: Chuck Northrop
https://www.churchesofchrist.net/authors/Ch...istliv/wine.htm

Wine or Grape Juice? Studies Doctrine Mormon

Have you ever heard the expression "you can't put new wine in old bottles"  Does that sound funny to you?  How would a bottle break by putting new wine in it?  

The answer is easy, a bottle at the time of Christ was made of camels skins.  It was filled with wine, or grape juice if you want to call it that.  If it ferminted, the skin would become fragile because of the firmintation.  After the old wine (wine that has firmented) was emptied from the bottle made of camels skins, it would be impossible to fill it up again because it would break.  So they could not put new wine in old bottles.

Now another interesting point, camels skins were expensive and it was more practical in those days to hurry and drink the "new wine" before it turned into "old wine" so that they could reuse the bottle.  So most of the poor jews (the ones Jesus was found around most of the time) were more likely to be practicle and therefore non alcholic wine (grape juice)

Juice Grape Wine

BrianT, excellent explanation! thanks for sharing it here. So we can say that in fact was grape juice and not pure wine...why then the word used in the bible is 'wine'?

Juice Grape Wine

The word wine just means juice.  Back then they did not separate the two words like we do, they did not have to.  What we call wine today was old wine to them, what we call grape juice now is what they called new wine back then.  

Wine or Grape Juice?

I must ask this...why are members so afraid to admit Christ drank wine and they come up with the grape juice story? He drank wine people full stop. Geez, Its not like we're saying he got drunk or something.

Wine Grape Juice

I know what you mean SuzieSu. I think it's just because of the way modern church members view the word of wisdom, which actually is a view that comes from personal opinions of leaders who encouraged the prohibition movement in the US. Jesus does indeed drink alcoholic wine. We are told he will in fact drink it with us again. Just read the word of wisdom. Since GOD revealed the WoW in our modern language (at the time of JS that is), it must have this meaning. At Joseph Smith's time, it was far from customary to call Juice "wine." And even if that definition was used, than one would have to be consistent with the next verse, and say that it displeases the LORD to drink Welche's Grape Juice (or anyother for that matter).

Matter of fact, they could make quite intoxicating wine back then. It was actually meant to be intoxicating. I studied ancient philology, so of course I learned a lot about ancient Greek and Roman wines, which can be extended to early Hebrew studies. They made wine, and very intoxicating wine. It was on average stronger than modern wine, which is exactly why they had to add water to it. For sacrament though we are supposed to drink undiluted wine for symbolic reasons. Not so it is more intoxicating, but because it symbolizes the purity of the blood of Christ that was spilled. But back to ancient wines. Ancient wines had to have alcohol in them, because that was used to preserve it. It was also healthier often, because the acidity of the alcohol helped kill bacteria, and could be less dangerous than drinking water.

About the camel skin bottles: Wine was not kept in bottles, but in clay jars. Thus the wine could very well ferment. Wine never was intentionally fermented in camel skin, that is correct, but to say that the camel skins were used before wine was fermented is incorrect. Wine was kept in jars, and then poured from the jars into bottles for travelling or easier drinking. The skin only brickles if the wine is left there too long.

Alcoholic wine has always been an important and sacred beverage to the followers of Christ (even Noah used it, and in one case abused it). The Holy ordinances have always included alcoholic wine, and to say otherwise is simply incorrect. Therefore we should be careful about what we all spin and turn in order to make all positive wine references to mean grape juice. Here it would actually be interesting to read the Septuagint, for the Greeks actually had a word to denote "juice" and "wine", so we could expect the Rabbi's to have translated the instances accordingly (but not necessarily, for example Hebrew does not distinguish between man/husband and woman/wife, whereas the Greek language does, but not in the Greek scriptures...).

I do agree that the masses of wine made and the savior being there seem that people would not be drinking in excess. If that means the wine was intoxicating but the crowd so large that people cannot get drunk of the little they drank, or whether it was in fact not intoxicating, I cannot tell. I do note John 2:10, which clearly refers to intoxicating wine being normally used, suggesting that intoxicating wine was used here as well as it is used in comparison for otherwise why would it be so significant that the good wine was brought after people had already drank? Because now not everyone may enjoy it anymore perhaps.

Wine Grape Juice Mormon Doctrine Studies

Name: Brian

Comments: I will like to refer to the person who posted this:

Do you have any scientific or historical references for this?