THE BIBLE AND WINE.

Southland Times, Issue 19345, 10 September 1924, Page 9

THE BIBLE AND WINE.

To the Editor. Sir, —In your issue of 4th inst., “Fairfax Ghost” asks whether I would go so far as to assert that the deductions of the Rev. Stewart regarding the wine at Cana are to be found in the Scriptures. Does F.G. know the meaning of the word “deduction?” Here it is, fresh from the dictionary:— “Act or method of inferring or concluding; that which is deduced, an inference, a conclusion.” Rov. Stewart is contemporary with ourselves, therefore his deductions cannot be in the Scriptures; his deductions are the thoughts of his own mind, based upon his knowledge of ancient habits and customs, and of the general teaching of God’s Word. F.G. is right when he says that it is not likely that a drunken lot would invite Christ to a feast, and then he goes on to say that the words “well drunk” would imply that the company had drunk to satisfaction; those present had quenched their thirst, and had been refreshed. That is F.G.’s deduction. But were they satisfied? It does not look like it; see John 11, 3. “When they wanted wines the mother of Jesus saith unto him: They have no wine.” Now, it is, or was, looked upon in those days as a terrible disgrace for the giver of a feast to make insufficient provision for the wants of his guests, and no. doubt there was some consternation'. The Mother of Jesus was probably an intimate friend of the host; and was “in the know,” as the saying is, and like the sensible woman she was, she at once took her trouble to Jesus (what a lot of trouble it would"save if we all did the same). It might have ben an extra warm time, or the quality may have been extra nice; anyway it was all Seeing that the quantity provided for the whole feast whs exhausted, one would think that the feast was now nearing its conclusion, and I do not think it would take a very brilliant imagination to see what condition the guests would be in if they consumed an extra hundred gallons or so of alcoholic liquor. I am glad to notice that F.G. does not strain the expression “well drunk” to mean what so many liquor advocates do, that rhe guests were really intoxicated; he evidently shrinks from such blasphemy as much as I do. He then returns to the question of Bible teaching being the crux of the question, and he gives a few quotations. Before discussing them, allow me to give hiih another. He will find it in Luke VI, 43: “For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit, neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” What is the fruit of the liquor traffic? Now for his quotations. (1) “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man.” He will find the answer to that in the context, Matt. XV, 11-20. (2) “Do men gather grapes of thorns?” Here he misses the metaphor. See text, Matt. VII, 15-20. Answer—the same as Luke VI, 43, quoted above. But I will take him on his own ground, viz., “grapes coming from a good tree.” The vine is good, God made it, the fruit is good, God

made it. The juice or wine as God made it, is good, it is only when it decomposes, thereby fermenting, that the chemical change called alcoholic is set up, and it becomes unfit for human use. There is no alcohol in the fresh fruit or juice of the vine; it is through the process of decay that fermentation is set up, and alcohol is the result. If I paid F.G. a visit and he offered me fruit. I am quite sure that it would not be decayed fruit. (3) Is already answered in the foregoing. (4) “And the drink offering thereof shall be the fourth part of a hin for the one lamb. In the Holy Place shalt thou cause the ‘strong wine’ to be poured unto the Lord for a drink offering.” The term “strong wine” is, I take it, the issue in this quotation, which is from Numbers XXVIII, 7. The word in the original is sheehar, the same as is translated in No 5 as “strong drink,” and I will therefore take them together. (5) Readers will find the quotation, together with the reasons for the command or permission in Deut. XIV, 22-26, the ; ssue so far as our argument is concerned being with the meaning of the word translated “strong drink.” Not being myself a Hebrew scholar, and as I have a notion that possibly our Fairfax Ghost is better acquainted with spirits than classics, I hope he will accept the rendering of the author I have already quoted as follows: — “The phrase ‘lusted after,’ is in modern English a very unhappy one, when applied as in the case before us. The Hebrew verb, so rendered, means simply to desire, and here in a good, and not a bad sense. They could thus replace their literal tithes by whatever their souls might desire, if within proper limitation; by oxen, by sheep, by wine, or by strong drink. It is with these two latter terms that we are at present concerned. “In the Hebrew they are Yahyin and Sheehar, and both are generic terms. . . . Yahyin need not by any necessity be taken in this text to denote a juice of any vine, but may be regarded as synonymous with Leerosh---the solid grape, see Jer. XL, 10-12, where we are told that the Jews gathered wine and summer fruits very much. Again, it was a thing to be eaten, verses 23-26. Leerosh, the term used in the 23rd verse, was the only kind of wine that could be tithed.” As to Sheehar, our author says:—“From the relation which Sheehar here sustains to Yahyin, consistency requires that it be regarded also as a substance, at least in a semi-solid condition. This exigesis would suit the context well, and on that account may the more easily be substantiated. In its- original sweet condition it, denotes any fresh juice obtained from the palm tree, from dates, or from other fruits except that of the vine. Some of these are naturally of a syrupy character, and when preserved were generally reduced by boiling to the consistency of honey.” It will thus be seen that the translation strong drink is, as our author says, a “very unhappy one.” In his concluding remarks F.G. says that Jesus “Knew these fruits were servants to man, if not abused. It is when man abuses them that they become his master.” Can F.G. tell us of any way in which the fruits God made can be more thoroughly abused than by turning them into an article, itself a product of corruption, and a frequent cause of misery and destruction? I trust that he will apply his postscript to himself.—l am, etc., JAMES J. H. McLEAN.