Categories
Reference

Drink, Strong

The following article is reproduced from the public-domain version of the International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (1913).

James Orr, M.A., D.D., General Editor

John L. Nuelsen, D.D., LL.D.
Edgar Y. Mullins, D.D., LL.D.
Assistant Editors

Morris O. Evans, D.D., PhD., Managing Editor

[ Underlining added for emphasis ]

DRINK, STRONG

(שׁכר, shēkhār; σίκερα, síkera; from שׁכר, shākhar, “to be or become drunk”; probably from the same root as sugar, saccharine): With the exception of Num 28:7, “strong drink” is always coupled with “wine.” The two terms are commonly used as mutually exclusive, and as together exhaustive of all kinds of intoxicants.

Originally shēkhār seems to have been a general term for intoxicating drinks of all kinds, without reference to the material out of which they were made; and in that sense, it would include wine. Reminiscences of this older usage may be found in Num 28:7 (where shēkhār is clearly equivalent to wine, as may be seen by comparing it with Num 28:14, and with Exo 29:40, where the material of the drink offering is expressly designated “wine”).When the Hebrews were living a nomadic life, before their settlement in Canaan, the grape-wine was practically unknown to them, and there would be no need of a special term to describe it. But when they settled down to an agricultural life, and came to cultivate the vine, it would become necessary to distinguish it from the older kinds of intoxicants; hence, the borrowed word yayin (“wine”) was applied to the former, while the latter would be classed together under the old term shēkhār, which would then come to mean all intoxicating beverages other than wine (Lev_10:9; Num_6:3; Deu_14:26; Pro_20:1; Isa_24:9). The exact nature of these drinks is not clearly indicated in the Bible itself. The only fermented beverage other than grape-wine specifically named is pomegranate-wine (Son_8:2 : “the juice of my pomegranate,” the Revised Version, margin “sweet wine of my pomegranate”); but we may infer that other kinds of shēkhār besides that obtained from pomegranates were in use, such as drinks made from dates, honey, raisins, barley, apples, etc. Probably Jerome (circa 400 ad) was near the mark when he wrote, “Sikera in the Hebrew tongue means every kind of drink which can intoxicate, whether made from grain or from the juice of apples, or when honeycombs are boiled down into a sweet and strange drink, or the fruit of palm oppressed into liquor, and when water is colored and thickened from boiled herbs” (Ep. ad Nepotianum). Thus shēkhār is a comprehensive term for all kinds of fermented drinks, excluding wine.

Probably the most common sort of shēkhār used in Biblical times was palm or date-wine. This is not actually mentioned in the Bible, and we do not meet with its Hebrew name yēn temārīm (“wine of dates”) until the Talmudic period. But it is frequently referred to in the Assyrian-Babylonian contract tablets (cuneiform), and from this and other evidence we infer that it was very well known among the ancient Semitic peoples. Moreover, it is known that the palm tree flourished abundantly in Biblical lands, and the presumption is therefore very strong that wine made of the juice of dates was a common beverage. It must not be supposed, however, that the term shēkhār refers exclusively to date-wine. It rather designates all intoxicating liquors other than grape-wine, while in few cases it probably includes even wine.>/p>

There can be no doubt that shēkhār was intoxicating. This is proved (1) from the etymology of the word, it being derived from shākhar, “to be or become drunk” (Gen_9:21; Isa_29:9; Jer_25:27, etc.); compare the word for drunkard (shikkār), and for drunkenness (shikkārōn) from the same root; (2) from descriptions of its effects: e.g. Isaiah graphically describes the stupefying effect of shēkhār on those who drink it excessively (Isa_28:7, Isa_28:8). Hannah defended herself against the charge of being drunk by saying, “I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink,” i.e. neither wine nor any other intoxicating liquor (1Sa_1:15). The attempt made to prove that it was simply the unfermented juice of certain fruits is quite without foundation. Its immoderate use is strongly condemned (Isa_5:11, Isa_5:12; Pro_20:1; see DRUNKENNESS). It was forbidden to ministering priests (Lev_10:9), and to Nazirites (Num_6:3; Jdg_13:4, Jdg_13:7, Jdg_13:14; compare Luk_1:15), but was used in the sacrificial meal as drink offering (Num_28:7), and could be bought with the tithe-money and consumed by the worshipper in the temple (Deu_14:26). It is commended to the weak and perishing as a means of deadening their pain; but not to princes, lest it might lead them to pervert justice (Pro_31:4-7).

Written by D. Miall Edwards


Categories
Booze In The Bible Reference

Bacchus and Anti-Bacchus

Below are links to a two-part article written by John MacLean in 1841. Dr. MacLean was Professor of Ancient Languages at the College of New Jersey at the time.

In this two-part article, John MacLean examines the claims made in two articles:

Bacchus, by Ralph Barnes Grindrod

Anti-Bacchus, by Rev B. Parsons

In John MacLean’s introduction he says:

The comparative merit of the two Essays we shall not undertake to discuss, as our purpose is merely to examine some of the positions assumed, and to show that they are utterly untenable, being contrary to the word of God and the testimony of antiquity. So far as the object of these Essays is to promote temperance, we cordially approve it and we only regret that in the prosecution of an object so important, and so benevolent, the authors have not confined themselves to arguments which will stand the most rigid scrutiny. 

These two articles form the foundation of modern prohibitionist arguments, and John MacLean refutes them soundly.

The Princeton Review
Volume 13, Issue 2
April 1841
pp. 267-306
Bacchus and Anti-Bacchus, Part 1
The Princeton Review
Volume 13, Issue 4
October 1841
pp. 471-523
Bacchus and Anti-Bacchus, concluded

The distribution of these documents was made possible by: Princeton Theological Seminary.

Articles in The Princeton Review were published without identifying their authors. However, in 1868 an index was published which made it possible to identify the Authors, such as John MacLean.