Practical application of Pentecostal theology in politics, economy and social issues
Hosea 4:11 reads (NKJV, emphasis added):
“Harlotry, wine, and new wine enslave the heart.
What’s the difference between "wine" and "new wine"? Is it that "wine" is alcoholic while "new wine" is not, or is there a different distinction?
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Isaiah 65:1a
נִדְרַ֙שְׁתִּי֙ לְל֣וֹא שָׁאָ֔לוּ
I was ready to be sought by those who did not ask for me;נִמְצֵ֖אתִי לְלֹ֣א בִקְשֻׁ֑נִי
I was ready to be found by those who did not seek me. (ESV)
The ESV (also NRSV, NET, NASB; contrast NIV, HCSB) take these two verbs – “ready to be sought … ready to be found” – as tolerative nifals, I gather.
Joüon-Muraoka (a Hebrew grammar) says of the tolerative nifal נדרש:
generally with a notion of effective action….to allow oneself to be asked, and that effectively, hence practically = to answer (speaking of God)
Walkte & O’Connor (another Hebrew grammar) follow this idea, offering the translation:
I answered (< allowed myself to be sought by) those who did not ask (for me);
I revealed myself to (< allowed myself to be found by) those who did not seek me.
This “efficacy” nuance is different from the “ready to…” translation of the ESV etc.
How should we decide in what way to understand the nifal here? Is this verse intended to convey something already accomplished (revealed, answered) or merely offerred?
1. The other uses of the potentially “tolerative” nifal דרש (with subject = Yahweh) are in Ezekiel; mostly these could also be taken either way.
2. The LXX seems to carry a similar sense of “effective”: Εμφανὴς ἐγενόμην τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ζητοῦσιν, εὑρέθην τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ἐπερωτῶσιν· = I became visible to those who did not seek me; I was found by those who did not inquire after me. This may have more to do with reading them as passives (“was found” + reconciliation of “did not ask” with “was sought” –> “became visible”) rather than a reflection of the translator having read Jouon, but you never know.
Anonymous
is an important exegetical issue John Mushenhouse
Anonymous
Do not be deceived by such false teaching. It is saying, like the Corinthians, “look at me and my special spiritual gifts!” ppl who have the gift to drink but NOT get drunk John Mushenhouse Terry Wiles
Anonymous
Troy Day Is there an article that goes with this. All I see is a question about the difference between wine and the New Wine.
Marco Bolar
**Wine Versus New Wine in Hosea 4:11: A Theological Reflection**
In Hosea 4:11, the prophet articulates a profound critique of the spiritual and moral decay within Israel, using the metaphor of wine—both conventional and new—as a lens for understanding the nation’s disobedience to God. Traditional interpretations often describe ‘wine’ as a symbol of indulgence and distraction, leading to an estrangement from divine commandments. Conversely, ‘new wine’ typically signifies renewal, transformation, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
Pentecostal theology emphasizes the transformative power of the Holy Spirit, which can be likened to ‘new wine.’ In this framework, believers are called to embrace a fresh experience of divine grace and empowerment, distinguishing themselves from the ‘old wine’ of established traditions and rituals that may hinder spiritual growth. This dichotomy is particularly relevant within the Pentecostal movement, which sees an active and ongoing renewal of faith through the works of the Holy Spirit, akin to the ‘new wine’ that represents a breaking away from past constraints.
Engaging with Hosea 4:11 in this context invites deeper reflection on contemporary faith practices. It challenges believers to assess whether they are operating within the confines of old traditions or are open to the transformative potential of new experiences in faith, thereby fostering a vibrant spiritual life that reflects the dynamic presence of God in their lives.