03. The Question
The Question
True philosophy is based upon well-ascertained facts. As these never change, so the philosophy based upon them must be permanent. The laws of nature are facts always and everywhere the same. Not only are gravitation and evaporation the same in all parts of the world, but also in all ages. All the laws of nature are as clearly the expressions of the divine mind as are the inspired writings. God’s book of nature, with its wonderful laws, and God’s book of revelation, with its teachings, must be harmonious when they treat of the same things. The devout Christian has nothing to fear from the discoveries of true science. Though for a time they may seem to conflict with the teachings of the Bible, still, when more perfectly understood, it will be found that science, in all its departments, is the true and faithful handmaid of revealed religion.
All the laws which God has established, whether written on the rocks or in the processes of nature, are in exact harmony with the inspired records. This will be made apparent when the interpretation of the Bible, and the facts of science, and the operation of the laws of nature, are more thoroughly understood. The advocates of only fermented or intoxicating wines thus state their positions: “When the word is the same, the thing is the same; if, therefore, wine means intoxicating wine when applied to the case of Noah and Lot, it must have meant the same when used by David in the Psalms, and so of its correspondent in the Gospel narrative of the changing of water into wine.” “As Noah and others got drunk with yayin (wine), yayinmust in every text mean a fermented liquor.” “The word wine is undeniably applied in the Bible to a drink that intoxicated men: therefore the word always and necessarily means intoxicating liquor.” “The juice of the grape when called wine was always fermented, and, being fermented, was always intoxicating.” “Fermentation is of the essence of wine.” “This word (yayin) denotes intoxicating wine in some places of Scripture; it denotes the same in all places of Scripture.” “There is but one kind of wine—for wine is defined in the dictionaries as the fermented juice of the grape only.” These statements are clear and explicit. But it seems to me that, by a very summary and strange logic, they beg the whole question, and shut out all discussion. I am not disposed to surrender the argument to such sweeping declarations. At present I quote a few counter-statements.
Dr. Ure, in his Dictionary of Arts, says, “Juice when newly expressed, and before it has begun to ferment, is called must, and in common language new wine”—Bible Commentary, xxxvii. Littleton, in his Latin Dictionary (1678), “Mustum vinum cadis recens inclusam. Gleukos, oinos neos. Must, new wine, close shut up and not permitted to work”—Bible Commentary, xxxvi.
Chambers’s Cyclopaedia, sixth edition (1750): “Sweet wine is that which has not yet fermented”—Bible Commentary, xxxvii.
Rees’ Cyclopaedia: “Sweet wine is that which has not yet worked or fermented.”
Dr. Noah Webster: “Wine, the fermented juice of grapes.” Must, “Wine, pressed from the grape, but not fermented.”
Worcester gives the same definitions as Webster. Both these later authorities substantially follow Johnson, Walker, and Bailey.
Professor Charles Anthon, LL.D., in his Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, article Vinum, says, “The sweet unfermented juice of the grape was termed gleukos.”
One more authority: it is Dr. William Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, the most recent one, published and edited in this country by Rev. Samuel W. Barnum, of New Haven, Conn. Article “Wine,” page 1189, says, “A certain amount of juice exuded from the ripe fruit from its own pressure before the treading commenced. This appears to have been kept separate from the rest of the juice, and to have formed the sweet wine (Greek, gleukos, A.V. new wine) noticed in Acts 2:13.” Again he says, “The wine was sometimes preserved in its unfermented state and drunk as must.” Again, “Very likely, new wine was preserved in the state of must by placing it in jars or bottles, and then burying it in the earth.”
These authorities I now use as a sufficient offset to the unqualified statements already quoted. They prove that there are two sides to this question: Were there among the ancients two kinds of wine, the fermented and the unfermented?