Was wine in Jesus' day alcoholic?

Hello frogman. Thank you again for your excellent thoughts. I appreciate your follow up and research. I do not see Mary as representative of “the Law” as you suggest. It was the message in John 2, not the messenger that angered Jesus. Suppose Mary had asked the LORD to give a sermon – would he have been angry with her? Of course not! This shows that the LORD was angry at the MESSAGE not the messenger. That is why the context of John 2: 1-12 is focused on the subject of “wine.”

John 2: 6 (the waterpots) is not linked to Mary, but it is linked to the wine. That is why the water in those pots was turned into wine (the water was not turned into Mary).

Turning the water into wine was not an act of “law” but a miraculous act of GOD illustrating his Glory and power over creation. John 2: 11 show’s this to be so.

I do not see anything in the text to suggest that Jesus witnessed the governor taste the wine. Quite the contrary, the LORD told “others” to bring the wine to the governor (the LORD did not draw it, nor bring it himself - John 2:8). Accordingly, those who brought it were present, the LORD was not, in verse 9. Even if the LORD were present (which he was not), it would hardly matter since the LORD gave no instruction for anyone to drink the wine. The governor took it upon himself to “taste it.”

You said, “Thus, this is not accurate to suggest Jesus, who is God, would create the means of men to partake of sin.”

Mankind continually partakes of sin by corrupting GOD’s creation. GOD has nothing to do with that sin and man has everything to do with it (James 1: 13-15). What GOD creates as good, man seeks to make evil. GOD created this universe and everything that is in it (Gen. 1, John 1, Col. 1: 16, Eph. 3:9). There are many substances within GOD’s creation, created by GOD, that mankind can (and does) harness for sinful purposes. Yet, we surely know that the LORD has NOTHING to do with the evil, horror and sorrow that mankind has wrought with GOD’s creation (example: GOD creates food and mankind seeks gluttony). Mankind takes it upon themselves to misuse GOD’s creation for their own subverted desires. Furthermore, Isaiah 45: 7 offers some deep insight into this question (one that is far deeper than our present thread can handle).

The Nazarite condition that you mentioned (not consuming grapes or grape juice) only applies to the “Nazarite” during the “period of seperation” - which is limited in time scope (Numbers 6: 1-21) and not permanent. However, it is the "High Priest" standard (Lev. 10: 8-11) that is applicable to our topic. The LORD is positively our High Priest (Heb. 2: 17, Heb. 3: 1, Heb. 4: 14-15, Heb. 5: 10, Heb. 6: 20, etc).

According to Lev. 10: 8-11, it is unquestionable that a High Priest (such as the LORD is) and his sons (which every true believer is) were absolutely prohibited from drinking wine/alcohol in the congregation worship service. Don't these verses alone illustrate that “wine” (oinos) consumption in any Last Supper setting (including congregation service) cannot be possible? They also illustrate a powerful warning from GOD - it is a perpetual statute.

Unless you believe that the LORD was not our “high priest,” then the idea of drinking wine/alcohol in this setting goes straight out the window (in addition to all that I have previously argued against wine/alcohol throughout this thread for every other setting).

Regarding the fruit itself, the phrase “fruit of the vine” does not necessarily mean “grape juice” (though it could). There are MANY fruits of the vine in creation (i.e. grapes, kiwi, dates, figs, etc). For all we know, the actual fruit (genemma) juice in the Last Supper cup could have been ANY fruit from the vine (though it hardly matters, because it most assuredly was NOT wine “oinos” but rather fruit “gennema”).

Last thought frogman. The word “oxos” absolutely means “vinegar” (as we commonly use that word) and the word “oinos” absolutely means wine (as we commonly use that word). Just because some commentator says that “oxos” means “vinegar mixed with myrrh” does not make it so. In fact, that is flatly wrong. That is why the word “myrrh” (smurna, smurnidzio – strengthened embittered) is an entirely different word than “oxos” (vinegar) in the Greek. Nevertheless, neither of them (vinegar or myrrh) mean WINE (oinos). The Lord did NOT drink wine/alcohol.

Thank you again frogman. I very much appreciate your thoughts and enjoying the dialogue.

latterrain77

[ October 05, 2002, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

Good evening Brother Latterrain,

I too am enjoying the dialogue. The way I see it is this is a great opportunity to provide our scriptural stand. If I am right then our Lord will show you, if you are right, then I will be shown. I have no problem with accepting this. However, we cannot change one another's beliefs.

Nonetheless, the discussion is a blessing to me.

I am considering your latest offering and will get back to ya.

God Bless you in your walk and service to Him.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

Brother Latterain, you said:

If Christ had been angry over the message, rather than bowing to Mary, he would have taken the opportunity to deliver a sermon, or message on the evils of the wine; instead, he provided the request.

If I pray for something to happen in my life, and it is a sin in the sight of God, will He yet grant it, simply because I am a sinful creature?

No, Christ was definitely angry with the "Woman," if he was angry at all; he said: "...what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come."

Signifying the time was not for the open manifestation of His power;

Further, the context from vs. 4 to 6 would support the thought of reference to the Law. Note: "after the manner of the purifying of the Jews,"

Perhaps Christ did not witness the governor drinking the wine; but he had to know the purpose of the desire for wine; and had to surely know the governor would drink of it when it was served to him, yet He "...saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast."

He did not forbid its use; notice later in the same chapter how cleansed the Temple. vs. 13-16

I also believe Christ did not enter into the office of High Priest until He ascended into Heaven. While on Earth he was not fulfilling this office.

I must run for now, but I will check back later.

God Bless you in your walk and service to Him.

Bro. Dallas Eaton
God Bless you in your walk and service to Him.

 

Brother Latterrain you bring out an important point in the following:

The fermented wine is not corrupt; but rather the nature of man is corrupt.

This corrupt nature of man abuses the fermented drink to the point of drunkedness.

The purpose of God in giving to man the wine did not intend this.

we cannot escape the words of Christ to the Pharisees:

"And he called unto the multitude, and said unto them, Hear and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defilieth a man." Matt. 15.10 & 11

The fruit of the vine is speaking of the grape; the Jewish use of wine in the Passover never accepted anything but this and only those cultivated in Palestine.

I am not promoting the use of alcohol as a beverage. But I believe the church should use the particular items which Christ used in instituting the Supper. The fermented wine is used to show the purity of the Blood for which it symbolizes, just as the unleavened bread is used to symbolize the purity of His flesh.

I agree it is sad I must rely on commentators such as W.E. Vine; I do not know the Greek language myself. If I did though I don't readily have available any original manuscripts, so I find I must use these sources.

I find it difficult to believe the usage of vinegar by soldiers and common laborers to be of pure vinegar as we know it. My knowledge as a laborer in Telephone Construction and of most soldiers, teaches me this group would not readily content themselves with drinking vinegar. I believe this drink to be an inferior quality of wine (fermented). Perhaps made of grains, or some other fruit, but not necessarily the "fruit of the vine." The vinegar on my counter has the following ingredients:
Selected Sun-Ripened Grain. Diluted Water to a uniform Pickling and table strength of 5% (50 grains) Acidity.

God Bless you in your walk and Service to Him.
Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, frogman develops carpal tunnel syndrome, but he keeps going, and going, and going....

God Bless
Mrs. Frogman

[ October 06, 2002, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

 

Hi latterrain,

You said...

Just a point of clarity. The passage you cited begins... 8 And the LORD spake unto Aaron, saying,
9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:

Aaron was the father of the levitical priesthood.
Jesus according to Hebrews 5:6b ...Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
So this rule may not necessarily apply Jesus being the high priest of a different order, in fact...

Genisis 14:
18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

HankD

 

Amen; Brother HankD

Brother Dallas

 

Hello frogman. Once again, I thank you for the terrific comments and follow up. It is always a GREAT thing to do as the “Bereans” did and search the Bible for truth (Acts 17 – especially verse 11). I much appreciate your thoughts and insight on this subject.

I have considered your concept that the LORD was angry with Mary rather than at the message delivered in John 2. However, as I’ve already stated, I just don’t see it that way at all. When you think about it, anytime one becomes angry with “someone,” it’s almost always based upon what they have said.

You said, “If I pray for something to happen in my life, and it is a sin in the sight of God, will He yet grant it, simply because I am a sinful creature?”

Yes! I believe so. 2 Thess. 2: 11 show’s this very dynamic in action. Romans 1 (particularly verse 26) show’s a similar truth – only here the LORD can give up someone to sin if they remain entrenched in it.

You said, “Perhaps Christ did not witness the governor drinking the wine; but he had to know the purpose of the desire for wine; and had to surely know the governor would drink of it when it was served to him, yet He "...saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast."

In one sense, I agree with you. GOD knows everything that will occur. For example, the LORD knew that Judas would betray him (Matt. 26: 21), though the Apostles did not have a clue (Matt. 26: 22). Just as the LORD “allowed” Judas to betray him, he also “allowed” this man to taste the wine. Nevertheless, the LORD did NOT suggest anywhere in the John 2 text that anyone should partake of the wine (just as he himself did not partake of it). Furthermore, it is not necessarily so that one will partake of wine (or any other substance or behavior) simply because it is available. If one believes as I do, they would NOT likely partake of wine/alcohol.

You said, “He did not forbid its use; notice later in the same chapter how cleansed the Temple. vs. 13-16”

The cleansing of the Temple was obviously a separate matter than drinking wine. The Temple cleanse pertained to GOD’s wrath against the practice of Religion Rulers merchandising, profiteering, gaining mammon wealth or receiving monetary compensation through church function. However, the Bible is always the best commentator and it is loaded with chapter and verse that prohibit the consumption of wine/alcohol (many of which have been stated and re-stated throughout this thread).

You said, “I also believe Christ did not enter into the office of High Priest until He ascended into Heaven. While on Earth he was not fulfilling this office.”

The LORD has always been our High Priest making intercession for our sins – that is what a High Priest does! The LORD’s role as High Priest did NOT commence after the resurrection – it has always been his role throughout eternity and was plainly his role while he was on earth. Making intercession for our sins is PRECISELY what the LORD did while on earth and this is FLATLY taught in Luke 5: 24 (also in Matt. 9:2, Mark 2: 9, Luke 7: 48, etc). Making such intercession for sins is something that the “high priest” did (though only a “shadow” of the true which is vested entirely in Christ). If Jesus were NOT the High Priest during this time, then all of those sins that he forgave while on earth would have been without merit – something that the Religious Rulers insisted was the case (thankfully this is not the case). Lev. 10: 8-11 illustrates this dynamic, and show’s that wine/alcohol is not permitted in congregation settings.

You said, “we cannot escape the words of Christ to the Pharisees:

"And he called unto the multitude, and said unto them, Hear and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defilieth a man." Matt. 15.10 & 11”

The word “defile” is different than the word “harm.” If a man puts poison in his mouth, it will obviously harm him. However, if the one doing this then says to the world with his mouth, “it is wonderful and good for me to put this poison in my mouth” then he has also spiritually defiled himself (exactly as Matt 15: 10-11 states). On the opposite side: if a man puts poison in his mouth, it will harm him bodily. However, if after doing so he says with his mouth, “Oh lord what a wretched man that I am for putting this poison into my mouth. Forgive me LORD.” Then these words from his mouth do NOT defile him, but serve to deliver him, even though the poison he put into his mouth greatly harms him.

You said, “The fruit of the vine is speaking of the grape; the Jewish use of wine in the Passover never accepted anything but this and only those cultivated in Palestine.”

If it were wine, the word used in the inerrant Bible would have been wine (“oinos”). GOD very carefully chose NOT to use the word wine (“oinos”) when describing the Last Supper beverage. I must go with what the inerrant Bible actually says rather than what human historians say were the traditions of men two thousand years ago. Furthermore, there were many customs of the day that the LORD did not embrace. That is why many of the Religious Rulers were so angered at him (Matt. 15: 2 specifically and Matt. 15: 1-20 in it’s entirety).

You said, “I agree it is sad I must rely on commentators such as W.E. Vine; I do not know the Greek language myself.”

Neither do I in any “conversational” way frogman. Lexicons and Concordances are extremely valuable study tools (though I tend to avoid commentaries as they are often laced with the prejudices of the commentator). It also helps to have a good Greek Christian friend – like my buddy Jim!

You said, “I find it difficult to believe the usage of vinegar by soldiers and common laborers to be of pure vinegar as we know it.”

I agree. It’s highly likely that the soldiers and non-believers drank wine (“oinos”) not vinegar (“oxos”). The Bible does not say that the Roman soldiers drank vinegar (oxos). Actually, the Bible does not mention what the Roman soldiers drank at all.

You said, “My knowledge as a laborer in Telephone Construction and of most soldiers, teaches me this group would not readily content themselves with drinking vinegar.”

First, I must commend and thank you frogman. Telephone construction is a fantastic undertaking. We could not have an Internet connection and be on the BaptistBoard without the wonderful and productive service of Telephone Construction folks like you. Finally, I do agree that consuming vinegar (oxos) is not desirable to the palette (unless on a salad). Thank you again frogman. I very much appreciate your excellent thoughts.

latterrain77

[ October 06, 2002, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

Hi HankD. Thank you for your comments. The reference to Melchisedec makes no mention of the bread and wine being consumed - only that it was “brought.” If you think that this bread and wine were consumed, please show me where in the Genesis text it shows that this is so. I cannot find it. “Action” did take place in these verses (blessings and tithe) but not eating and drinking.

We agree that Aaron represented the “levitical” priesthood (as that term is often used). However, Aaron was unquestionably the symbolic “high priest” of the entire Jewish Exodus experience. For example, Aaron alone enters into the Holy place and makes atonement (Exo. 30: 10). He makes atonement intercession for others (Numbers 16: 46-48 – confirmed in Heb. 7: 25). This is precisely what a “high priest” does. Christ is positively and unquestionably our High Priest as Hebrews 3: 1 plainly states (and a high priest is, by definition, also a “priest.”). Aaron “interceded” for the Israelites in the Exodus experience and Christ “intercedes” for our sins in the Eternal experience.

WE believers are also priests (Rev. 1:6, Rev. 5: 10, Rev. 20: 6). Accordingly, the Lev. 10: 8-11 principle applies to us AND to Christ. This is why there are not any verses in the Bible showing that Jesus drank wine/alcohol (though many continue to insist that he did even without any Biblical evidence to show that he did). Lev. 10: 8-11 is clear and its connection to Christ (and us) is evident. We may NOT consume wine/alcohol in the congregation setting, and we may not consume it under any other setting either, for reasons already outlined throughout this long thread. Thank you again HankD. As always, I appreciate your thoughts on this and other subjects.

latterrain77

[ October 06, 2002, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

We may NOT consume wine/alcohol in the congregation setting, and we may not consume it under any other setting either,

Your {graciously edited by poster} thinking is evident here-- I Timothy 5:23, Colossians 2:20-21, Proverbs 31:6.

[ October 06, 2002, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: ChristianCynic ]

 

Brother Latterain,
I agree that we disagree, I do believe that Jesus used wine as a Jew in the passover meal. I do believe it was wine our Lord meant when He instituted His Supper I believe those in attendance also partook of this wine. I believe this is evident from the context 1 Cor. 11.23. I do not believe our Lord condones use of alcoholic beverages such as wine or any other for purposes of intoxication. I do believe He established the Lord's Supper with the use of the wine to represent the purity of His Blood. I believe scripture supports this.

I believe you are correct in referencing Lev. 10.8-11; as the type of Christ's High Priesthood. However, vs. 9 says: "...it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations." vs. 10 says: "That ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean."

1. The generations of this typical priesthood is ended; we are priests through Christ, but not under the Aaronic priesthood.

2. Then vs. 10 implies an influence of alcohol to the extent of impairment of judgement. This is an intoxicating effect, which the wine taken in Communion does not produce.

Heb. 8.4: "For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law."

affirms for me, Christ entered into the office of High Priest when He ascended.

Hebrews is the most excellent source to reference, since by virtue of its name, and study of its record refutes such return unto the bondage of the Law.

The offerings of the Old Testament were made by those bringing the offering; but always answered to Heb. 11.19: "Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure."

These are but a few offerings from Scripture; for the sake of space and time I will end here.

I am thankful for your discourse. I thoroughly enjoy studying the Word of God. The profit of being prodded to show why I believe in this way is a great blessing.

Gen. 14.18: "And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was priest of the most high God."

Again, there is no reason for the priest of the most high God to bring forth the "wine" here if it were not to be taken.

The Holy Spirit authored our Bible; if this was meant not to be used; He could have selected a different drink.

If Melchizedek was trully the "priest of the most high God" and the use of wine in this way was prohibited, why did he bring it forth to Abram?

God Bless you in your walk and service to Him.
Bro. Dallas

 

Bro. Latterrain you did say:

I still would like to know an estimate of how much of the rest of the Bible we can discount "due to modern medicines," and other technologies in science etc.

God Bless you in your walk and service to Him.
Bro. Dallas

 

Nonsense, what were they used for, paper weights?

Aaron vs Melchisedec.

Two different orders two different sets of rules.

HankD

 

Is not the fermentation stage of fruit also called the rotting stage, and do you really think that the Lord would use this to represent his blood?
The wine that Jesus made at the wedding feast, was it really fermented, for even the govenor of the feast could tell the difference between to good wine and the bad! Luke 5:39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, the old is better.

There is a distinct difference between fresh made wine that is not fermented, and that which has been around awhile, and when Jesus made the fresh batch it was not fermented as many believe.

 

Luke 5.39: "No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better."

(Bear in mind the context; vss.36-38)

Ref. Mk.2.21-22 and Matt. 9.16-17

Jesus is speaking of the doctrine of Grace we are under; which Paul defends in his letter to the Galatians, the desire to return to the "old wine" (doctrine of the Jews of Types and Shadows).

Though this new wine be better; it is contrary to the carnal mind which is "enmity" against God. We, by nature, desire "self-help."

God Bless you in your walk and service to Him.
bro. Dallas

 

latterrain77 said:

Thank you for your comments. The reference to Melchisedec makes no mention of the bread and wine being consumed - only that it was “brought.”

Ah, so Melchizedek was just showing his bread and wine to Abraham? "Abraham, in return for your giving me a tenth of all your goods, and because you are my honoured guest, I shall now parade my pumpernickel before you as a show of goodwill and friendship."

And I suppose when Acts says the early Church was "breaking bread from house to house" (2:46) it also means they were simply tearing loaves to bits, because it doesn't actually say they were consuming them.

If you think that this bread and wine were consumed, please show me where in the Genesis text it shows that this is so. I cannot find it.

It would seem self-evident, unless you are of the sort that believes the Bible must cater to the Dick and Jane crowd and spell out every single last detail explicitly and clearly.

I suspect, however, that most readers have no problem filling in the blanks.

[ October 07, 2002, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Hi frogman. Thank you again for your follow up. Our dialogue has been terrific and I’m very thankful for it. We do disagree on this subject, but I’m thankful to have had the opportunity to discuss it with you.

I agree that the “Aaron” priesthood is a “type” that shadowed the TRUE (which truth is only in Christ). The wine standard remains until the end of time – PERPETUAL according to Lev. 10: 8-11.

The text does not say anything about “drinking too much” or “impairing judgment.” It say’s “do not drink” (Lev. 10: 9). This means NO partaking – zero.

You said, “Heb. 8.4: "For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law." affirms for me, Christ entered into the office of High Priest when He ascended.”

I humbly disagree with this conclusion. However, for the sake of argument let’s assume you are correct. This would only mean that every generation of believer AFTER the resurrection (i.e. every believer over the last 2000 years) would be subject to the Lev. 10: 8-11 text! Accordingly, every believer after the resurrection could NOT partake of wine/alcohol in the congregation setting even using YOUR position!

The Melchezidec reference does not make any mention of the bread & wine being consumed. One cannot assume closure to any Biblical statement UNLESS it is specifically in the text itself or if it is corroborated elsewhere in the Bible (the scripture interprets scripture).

For example, Matt. 4: 24, Matt. 8:16, Matt. 9:2, Matt. 7:23, Mark 4: 8 – to name only a very few – all show “closure” to Biblical statements where the word “brought” was used in the text. Each statement about the thing being “brought” is promptly resolved, within the text, by granting a conclusion. This is NOT so of the Genesis 14: 18 text that you mention where the word “brought” is used and no conclusion is reached. There is no mention of the bread & wine being consumed (because it was not) and there is NO corroborating verse elsewhere in the Bible to support that it was. In addition, Heb. 3: 1 shows plainly and unquestionably that Jesus is a High Priest – and - the High Priest could NOT partake of wine/alcohol in the congregation settings. Jesus could not and WOULD not partake of wine/alcohol in any event because he was a KING and kings are prohibited from drinking wine altogether – Proverbs 31: 4.

Wine is a MOCKER and the LORD cannot be mocked (Proverbs 20: 1). Those who drink wine are NOT WISE and to say that the LORD drank wine is to say that he is NOT WISE (Proverbs 20:1). Furthermore, according to Proverbs 20: 1, those who believe that it is okay to drink wine are deceived!

Finally, I’ve not said that we should discount anything in the Bible (GOD FORBID). GOD also allows modern medicine and Jesus was clear about what a person should do when they are sick - he say’s we should go to a physician (Matt. 9:12, Mark 2: 17). I’m quite certain that most physician’s would be loathe to write a prescription for a glass of wine (especially when there are so many medicines that GOD has provided for us today).

Thank you again frogman. I much appreciate your thoughts and our dialogue. I wish you all of GOD’s greatest blessings in your search for truth.

latterrain77

[ October 07, 2002, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

latterrain77 said:

The Melchezidec reference does not make any mention of the bread & wine being consumed. One cannot assume closure to any Biblical statement UNLESS it is specifically in the text itself or if it is corroborated elsewhere in the Bible (the scripture interprets scripture).

In the context of the subject under discussion, the above assumption is, in a word, codswallop.

If the bread and wine were not consumed when Melchizedek brought them out (Gen. 14:18), please tell us what was done with them, or let us believe the obvious in peace. Thank you.

 

Hi Ransom. Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate your taking the time to express them.

You said, “It would seem self-evident, unless you are of the sort that believes the Bible must cater to the Dick and Jane crowd and spell out every single last detail explicitly and clearly.”

It is not self-evident to me at all Ransom. Not only is the language of eating/drinking NOT in the text itself but there is also no corroborating chapter/verse evidence to support the idea either. In fact, the EXACT opposite is the case.

First, Melchizedek is a King (Gen. 14: 18) so it would be IMPOSSIBLE for him to drink wine (Prov. 31: 4) in addition to the fact that the Genesis 14: 18 text does NOT say that he drank wine.

Second, to believe that Melchizedek drank this wine (even though the text does not say that he did) is to believe that Melchizedek was NOT WISE (Prov. 20: 1). Thankfully, we know that Melchizedek is VERY wise. That is why the Genesis 14: 18 text does not say that he drank it - because he didn't.

The Genesis 14: 18 verse only says that he “brought forth bread & wine” (which language itself sounds odd in context of eating & drinking). It does NOT say that he drank it and given the Proverbs verses above PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that he did not.

The Bible also says that Melchizedek himself was “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually” (Heb. 7:3).

This incredible language about Melchizedek shows a clear and direct link of Christ himself. Both Christ & Melchizedek are Kings (Gen. 14: 18) so it would be IMPOSSIBLE for either of them to drink wine (Prov. 31: 4). That is why neither of them did.

You said, “I suspect, however, that most readers have no problem filling in the blanks.”

It’s okay with me if folks see it differently than me Ransom. I hope that some will see it for what it actually says. It is up to GOD to open their understanding to see what some simply will never see (Luke 24: 45).

Thank you again Ransom. I appreciate your taking the time and effort to engage.

latterrain77

[ October 07, 2002, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

Hi HankD. Can you help me understand why you are so upset?

Melchizedek is a King (Gen. 14: 18) so it is an impossible idea that he drank wine (Prov. 31: 4). There is nothing in the Genesis 14: 18 text that says he drank wine. It only says that he "brought forth bread & wine."

If you think Melchizedek drank this wine (which he didn’t) then you must also believe that Melchizedek was NOT WISE (Prov. 20: 1).

Thank you HankD.

latterrain77