Was wine in Jesus' day alcoholic?

Hi G. Thank you for your reply. I’m glad that we at least agree about part of John 2 - you admit that the LORD did NOT drink wine. I do believe that the LORD turned water into wine in John 2 also. I do not agree that HE was a hypocrite at all (though your embrace of the untrue accusations of HIM by the Religious rulers in Matt. 11: 18-19 makes me wonder what you think G). The LORD's Creation is filled with HIS many wonders. What men do with that creation is quite different than what the LORD himself did with it and what TRUE Believers are to do with it.

Your quote (and read) of Matt. 11: 18-19 suggests that you agree with what the Religious rulers said about Jesus in these verses. I don't.

The false accusation made against the LORD by the Religious rulers in the Matt. 11: 18-19 verses is a carrying out of Deut. 21:18-20. In the Deut. text, it is illustrated that a “rebellious son” is labeled a glutton and drunkard even though that son was NOT literally gluttonous and literally drunk – merely rebellious. The Religious rulers of Matt. were actually accusing the LORD of being a "rebellious son" as per Deut. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the LORD drank wine/alcohol. It shows the opposite.

The false accusations leveled against the LORD in the Matt. verses won’t stand under any read of the text, for reasons I have already mentioned throughout this thread. The LORD did NOT drink wine/alcohol (“oinos”). The Last Supper beverage was NOT wine (“oinos”) it was fruit ("gennema"). Thank you again G. I appreciate your follow up and comments.

latterrain77

[ September 30, 2002, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

Context. The passage is about Christ pointing out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. The previous verse says John the Baptist did not eat bread or drink wine, and they said he had a demon. Conversely, Christ *did* eat and drink, and they called him a glutton and a drunk.

Because otherwise, not only does the contrast to John the Baptist break down, and thus Christ's evaluation of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees not make any sense, but also if we apply your reasoning to the passage then we must conclude that Christ did not eat bread either.

He was not a glutton, even though he ate bread, wouldn't you agree? If you agree (and I think you do), then that is evidence that "the 'lesser degree' must be true when the 'larger degree' is plainly untrue".

Yes, "wine" is not specifically mentioned in the verse. But the context and Christ's point falls apart if it is talking about anything else.

 

The Lord drank fermented grape juice!

didn't, did, didn't did, didn't, did,
did, did, did, did, did, did, did
didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't didn,t

I said it last!

24 days and 7 pages later

Where did my hobbyhorse run off to

[ October 01, 2002, 12:47 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Hello from the "Beak of Blackbird!"

Way over in the book of 1 Samuel--little Hannah was praying there in the "ChurchHouse"(Our version of a Jewish temple/synogogue)--well, here comes the preacher, ole Brother Eli. "You been 'a drankin', ain't 'cha, Hannah!??

Of course, you and I know that Hannah was a Tee-toter!! And that she was under the influence of the blessed Holy Spirit! Far, far, far more reliable influence than intoxicating beverages!!

When Jesus was baptized in muddy Jordan--Mark says that He came out--and went into the Wilderness--being driven by the blessed Holy Spirit. He was being influenced by the Holy Spirit!! Jesus never has been under any other influence other than Him! He never had more than one "Influencer!" To say that Jesus injested intoxicating beverages--would be to say that Jesus had more than one influencer---a contridiction--of course, the very best that injested alcohol can do is to "mock" the real thing!

Some of you keep repeating what the Pharasees said about Jesus under the influence of Holy Spirit! Even Pilate knew the only reason the Pharasees were "trumpin'" the charges against Jesus was out of pure envy! If I were there in Palistine in those days--knowing what I know know--I wouldn't believe a word those Pharasees told me about Jesus--even if they held a pistol to my head and told me to believe them or else! Unfortunatly--the crowd was swayed toward the Pharasee's corner--probably because the majority of them had more than one influencer!--alcohol!! If it can be used to settle the nerves and to sweep thoughts under the table--it can also be used to stir the nerves and get folks to believing things they would not normally believe had they not been under its influence!

Your friend,
Blackbird

PS--GrannyGumbo's gun is smokin'! My "recon" patrol has spotted hostile territory and has zeroed in on the position--artillery will be coming, Granny, in five, four, three, two, one! 105's are on the way!

 

Dearest Friend Bro.Blackbird~"You are truly one Southern Baptist preacher I'd probably be able to put my faith in...Now ya betta take that as a mighty high compliment!

One of the reasons our granchilluns got took outta sunday school wuz 'cause da teacha wuz known to take a few sips ever now & then! [This was at an old-line SBC & da Preacha didn' care!]

Altho' I still love them, I have lost much respect for all those on the BB that have stated they drink alcoholic beverages (and I could say so much more on that, but I won't).

It is not the granny to whom they'll have to give an account one day...

Dare I say, "Lock n'Load"? hahaha

 

Thank God for that. No one could measure up.

Interesting comment. I believe Christ drank wine, but I don't believe he was packin' a Colt .45 under his robe. I don't believe guns are inherently sinful, but misused they are even more dangerous than alcohol. They also can cause weaker bothers to stumble, so perhaps you should consider abstaining.

 

It works both ways Granny.

Many are deeply offended by what they view as our "legalism".

Some Baptist (even Old School) use real wine in the Lord's Supper because they wish to re-enact the scene as nearly as possible (as they see it) and are offended by our grape juice.

What you just posted has no doubt offended them.

James 3:
2 For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.

HankD

 

Eight pages and over 100 posts? Cmon guys, is the issue that important?

 

Well~it's not "an issue" with me; but someone apparently thinks it is!

 

We ain't "whippin' a dead horse!" We're trying to "break a few buckin' broncos!" Seems like those on the posts who indulge in the stuff are just as offended at the Tee-toters for obstaining--as the Tee-Toters are of those who do indulge--even more so, if I say so myself.

I can get on here and try to talk some of the indulgers into seeing it my way and then ask them to become obstainers--but not one indulger has ever tried to get ole Blackbird to "whet his whistle" at the Long Branch--even with Miss Kitty keeping a watchful eye to make sure I don't get too much into my virgin blood system. Seems like if it were so good a thing to do--they ought to see if ole Blackbird would give it a whurl!!

Your friend,
Blackbird

PS--Jesus was a Tee-Toter!! Still is!!

 

Hi,

Sorry if this point has been made before; I skimmed through the other posts and couldn't find it.

Was wine in Jesus' day alcoholic?

"Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all." (Is 65:8)

Notice, the WINE is found IN THE CLUSTER. What is a cluster? A bunch of grapes. What kind of wine do you find in grapes? GRAPE JUICE. This proves that the Bible's definition of "wine" includes unfermented grape juice. This kind of wine has a "blessing" in it. Notice the following scriptures say the same thing:

"In that day sing ye unto her, A vineyard of red wine." (Is 27:2) Unfermented (not fermented) wine is found in a vineyard.

"So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine." (Prov. 3:10) Presses burst out grape juice, not champagne.

"I would lead thee, and bring thee into my mother's house, who would instruct me: I would cause thee to drink of spiced wine of the juice of my pomegranate." (SoS 8:2) Here the word "wine" is shown to apply to other fruit juice - here it's pomegranate juice.

"And gladness is taken away, and joy out of the plentiful field; and in the vineyards there shall be no singing, neither shall there be shouting: the treaders shall tread out no wine in their presses; I have made their vintage shouting to cease." (Is 16:10) Again, you tread out unfermeted juice; not alcohol.

But of course, "wine" is also used to apply to alcoholic grape juice:

"Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright." (Prov 23:31)

How do we know this is alcoholic wine? Well:

"At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things. Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast. They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not: when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again."

But what does verse 31 say? Don't even LOOK at this wine! And how can you be allowed to drink something you can't even look at???

So, there are two kinds of wine in the Bible, and the context sorts them out. If it's good, you can drink it (in moderation), and it's unfermented. If it's bad, you can't even look at it, and it's alcoholic. Other Bible verses back up this conclusion.

As for the question, yes, some wine in Jesus' day was alcoholic. But some was not. Those who say the Jews could not preserve grape juice are wrong - and there are various accounts from Josephus and others that show the Jews drank unfermented wine.

 

Thank you, Bartholomew!

That's coming from the other side of the "Big Pond", ya'll!

Stand by, Bartholomew! There'll be some over here that will be coming out of their bunkers to load up ole "Bertha"--trying to get a shot off in your direction before your next "incoming round" reaches them! Jesus was a Tee-toter! I believe you'd never pick up the smell of alcohol on his sweet breath!

Your friend,
Blackbird

 

Imagine my surprise.

I decided to begin this topic and found it already here.

This is an important issue. The church I belong to has begun using wine in the communion. As you can guess we have had some members to have a problem with this.

The fact that Kosher wine is on the market and short research on the subject proving the Jewish passover to make use of wine seems to support the stand that Jesus used wine.

My home church began to try and accomadate those members not wanting to use wine by offering in the communion grape juice for any who wished not to drink the wine.

However, this causes problems, because one must be considered biblical and the other not. If we desire to stay biblical we must determine which is used. Looking at the institution of the Lord's Supper we don't find Jesus using both to accomodate his disciples and we shouldn't.

The misconception is that the wine is an alcoholic drink.

This is true when it is abused as such. I believe the first biblical mention of the wine is in connection with Noah just after the flood, we all know the story.

The wine is representative of the Blood of Christ and in that represents the purity of that Blood. Grape juice cannot be said to be pure.

It is the same as using leavened bread in the service. The leaven represents sin, only by using unleavened bread are we staying true to the symbolical figure of the sinless body which was broken for us at calvary.

We just took communion this past Sunday evening and several members do not attend during this occassion. I do not know what the church will ultimately decide on the subject. However, the more closely you study scripture you find the wine to be that which is used.

We cannot truly say it does not matter because this would be admitting that it did not matter as to the diety of Christ. It is only because of His Sonship that He was able to be our "daysman." Apart from this we would have no savior nor even a mediator.

Forgive me for not providing scriptural support. I initially intended to begin this topic and find myself "unprepared." I will dig out my notes and come back with that support.

In my own study I have found the wine can be said to be used in scripture in the following manner:

representing the wrath of God...
representing doctrine...
representing the blood of Jesus...
and possibly representing abuse of Grace... (as may be seen in the case of Noah).

each of these would possess various subsets, the wrath of God would be compared to the mercy of God I guess, representation of doctrine being "sound" as opposed to error. Representing the purity of the blood of Christ as opposed to that of Adam's race; and representing the "drunkeness" of some who abuse Grace and in so doing harm the cause of Christ. (We all I think have abused Grace, I know I have). I mean those members who we see in worship when times are hard, who seem to "receive great blessing" for having been there, then we do not see them again until the next hard place. I shouldn't, but I wonder about the spiritual condition of these believers. It seems they almost fabricate these hardships just to receive "blessing" of renewal of fellowship. I don't know if you will understand my meaning in that, if not sorry for my inability to make it clearer.

I have seen some who are habitually absent, not in service or ministry in other places, who come to church because of family sickness, financial hardship, or whatever and shout all over the house of the blessings of God etc. but then are not seen again, only to return when the world has "overwhelmed" them. This is part of what I mean by an abuse of Grace. The wrong use of wine certainly is an abuse of the intended purposes of God, so too is the wrong use of the Grace which is in us.

Thanks for the post. I will find my notes so I can be more scripturally founded.

God Bless all in your walk and service to Him.

Bro. Dallas Eaton
Glasgow, KY.

 

forgive me if this point has already been made, however, Jesus refused the drink offered him on the cross not because it was fermented, but because it would serve to "numb" his awareness of the suffering he should endure as the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.

Without this the justice of God could not have been answered to.

Observe:

Matt. 27.34: "They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink." This was at the moment of first being lifted up on the cross.

cf. Mk. 15.23 Lk. 23.36 & John 19.29

Look at these to see context. The refusal came prior to being plunged to the depths of the endurance of the wrath of God on our behalf. After this is accomplished, the Bible records:

Matt. 27.48: "And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink." (does not say he refused it)

Mk. 15.23 records the refusal again. vs. 36 does not say he refused it.

Lk. 23.36 records: "And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar." (note the mocking of the soldiers, coming to Christ as if they were servants, offering a drink, which would serve to dull his senses and prevent his answering to the penalty of sin, not only in physical death, but spiritual seperation from God, possessing knowledge of that act of being forsakened). He refused because it was necessary to feel this, and because of the mockery in which it was offered.

John 19.28-30: "After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

This shows Jesus to have received the drink when his covenant with the Father was fulfilled. To misunderstand these throws the Scripture into a light of doubt as it would seem to show an inconsistency.

God Bless all in your walk and service to Him.

Bro.Dallas Eaton
Glasgow, KY.

 

Brother Frogman!

Which do you use?? If it were my church--I would clearly have to use the weaker grape juice--1. Because it best fits scripture demand. 2. Because of the known knowledge of offending the weaker brother and sister.

Your Brother,
Blackbird

 

The argument from 1 Cor. 8 often is appealed to to support the case of not using wine. I don't think the situation applies here.

1 Cor. 8.4: "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one." vs.7: :"...for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled."

The context is not concerning wine, but eating of meat offered in sacrifice to false gods, in the way of the offerer in Jewish sacrifices would partake of the sacrifice after offering it. This being accomplished in a temple built unto an idol, for service of the idol, the weak brother is unable to distinguish between the purpose of the meat (as offered to this false god) and the true purpose of the meat as to nourish.

The wine is used in the context of the Lord's Supper and at no time carries such distinction as ever being offered for use otherwise. The use of the wine should not be subject to this context because it is not similar in circumstance.

If I enter into a temple erected for service to a false god today and drank of the wine, or eat of the meat, then the comparable circumstance would arise, whereas the weaker brother, viewing my liberty as at vs. 10: "For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; vs. 11: "and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?"

This context is clearly speaking to those sacrifices, meat or drink offering given to false gods. The use of the wine is not offered in such a way.

As to the thought of those having experienced alcoholism, before or since salvation, when can we apply the words of Christ in answer to Paul's prayer for removal of the thorn in his flesh:
"And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness." 2 Cor. 12.9

Seems a stronger foundation in the doctrine of Grace is needful.

Sometimes, myself included, it is easier to feel sorry for myself for my sufferings than to leave those at the cross.

We are in the flesh and will remain so until receiving the 'adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body' Rom. 8.23

Or are we more in tune with Galatians:

3.3 "Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?"

As always myself included. I can receive nothing to distribute to you or anyone else, except I receive first to myself and whenever it speaks to me as to any hearers, I should take note. Not pointing fingers, nor making accusations, just acknowledging human nature as it is. We are prone to lean upon ourselves from time to time, regardless of the sweetness of the Grace we have received.

We forget: "For he had dominion over all the region on this side the river, from Tipsah even to Azzah, over all the kings on this side the river: and he had peace on all sides round about him. And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon. And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. And those officers provided victual for king Solomon, and for all that came unto king Solomon's table, every man in his month: they lacked nothing." 1 Kings 4.24-27

God Bless all in your walk and service to Him.

Bro. Dallas Eaton
Glasgow, KY.

 

noticed I didn't answer your question blackbird.

I use wine, because I believe Christ instituted His supper in the use of wine.

Not all in my church agree, though the church has decided to use wine and not to provide the grape juice as we once did, we view this as compromising, if the bible teaches wine, use wine, if grape juice use grape juice, but we experience chaffing when riding on the fence.

Because we believe the wine was used (fermented) we use wine. But not a bought wine, rather a homemade version which follows a close study of the biblical process we feel.

If the body decides to use grape juice this would be permitted, but the correct biblical teaching of using wine would not be ignored.

God Bless

Bro. Dallas
Glasgow, KY.

[ October 02, 2002, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

 

Hi Blackbird and Frogman!

Why not? Fermented wine is wine that has gone off! If grape jucie isn't pure, then how can alcoholic wine be pure???

But if you look at the passages, you'll find it was actually vinegar. I'm no chemistry professor, but I know vinegar is different to alcohol!

But nobody answered my point: In the Bible, the word "wine" is generic, and applies both to fermented and unfermented grape juice. Isaiah 16:10, 27:2, 65:8, & Proverbs 3:10 prove this. So the argument about whether Jesus made or drank wine or not is irreleavnt. What matters is was that wine alcoholic? Proverbs lays out a clear command with regard to what is clearly alcoholic wine:

"Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright." (Prov 23:31)

So how can we (or Jesus) drink it, when we're not even to look at it? Quoting verses where believers drink wine show only that unfermented wine is allowed.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

Proverbs 23.29 provides context:

"Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes?"

vs. 30 answers: "They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine."

your quote: vs. 31: "Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright."

vs. 32: "At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder."

I think sufficient has been said to show the context of the Lord's Supper does not prohibit the use of fermented wine. Those partaking of the Supper do not "tarry long,"--abusing the drink to drunkeness; nor do they "go to seek mixed wine"- which I believe is figurative of doctrinal purity.

Neither do those partaking of the Lord's supper "Look...upon the wine when it is red--either to long after the beverage, or to assume this wine (in the cup given to Christ to drink of) of the wrath of God can be drank of ourselves.

Further, any who do tarry, long after, and indulge this drink, as said above are not using the wine biblically, and are subject to the woe, sorrow, contentions, babblings, wounds without cause, redness of eye, being bitten as if by a serpent (reminescent of our Fall in Adam), and being stung as if by an adder.

Just some thoughts.

The Jewish passover used fermented wine, utilizing at least four cups, and on occassion five.

These four are said to represent: Israels redemption;
1. bringing out
2. delivering
3. redeeming
4. taking

or to the four cups of vengeance which God would use in the future to give the nations to drink (Jer. 25.15; 51.7; Ps. 75.8; and 11.16). While four cups of consolation would be handed to Israel, as it is written: "The Lord is the portion of my cup" Ps. 16.5; "My cup runneth over" Ps. 23.5; "I will take the cup of salvation" Ps. 116.13, which is alluded to also in vs. 17.

In all fairness I add this:

"The use of wine in the Paschal Supper, though not mentioned in the Law, was strictly enjoined by tradition. According to the Jerusalem Talmud, it was intended to express Israel's joy on the Paschal night, and even the poorest must have 'at least four cups, though he were to receive the money for it from the poor's box' (Pes. x.1).

The above info. is taken from Alfred Edersheim's work: "The Temple: Its ministry and services." p. 185.

The use of wine then commemorates the joy of freedom of deliverance, redemption, being brought out and being taken.

The wine was used in the Jewish Passover, the wine was fermented, and Jesus, (fulfilling the old, established the new), and used fermented wine in instituting the Lord's Supper.

God bless you in your walk and service to Him.

Bro. Dallas
Glasgow, KY.

 

Before this thread is closed... The wine in the Bible if drinking to much made people drunk.

The fruit of the vine is wine not grapejuice!

The Primitive Baptist, Old School, Old Line, Hardshell or other names you have heard to describe our brethren use WINE in our communion service. We have never up to this present time use grapejuice as a substitute or even thought about using it. I am the vine and ye are the branches is what the scriptures say... You are all feel to use grapejuice in your communion service but we don't.

What did the Pharisees mean when they called Jesus a gluttonus man and winebibber? He was one that ate and drunk to excess and his doctrine was the results of his drinking. I believe Jesus drank wine but not to excess and instituted wine in the Last Supper according to Brother Dallas... Don't tell anybody but Primitive Baptist also wash feet!... Brother Glen

[ October 02, 2002, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]