TheOliveBranch
New Member
I found this site very interesting. It is the Jewish view of wine in the Bible:
Wine/Grape Juice in Biblical times
Wine/Grape Juice in Biblical times
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Was wine in Jesus' day alcoholic?
- Thread starter RomOne16
- Start date
Please reread my last post. Already addressed, and you did not respond to my comments. If he did not drink "wine", his point falls apart. Also if he did not drink "wine", did he also not eat "bread"?
Agreed and already addressed. Why would they accuse him of being a winebibber if he *didn't* drink wine, when they also accused him of being a glutton for eating bread? It just does not make sense, neither for the Pharisees to say, nor in Christ's response.
I disagree. I think your avoiding the plain sense of the passage.
Of course Jesus is and was a King. But the next verse gives the reason: "Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted." This is not possible with Christ, because he would not *abuse* wine and become drunk, forgetting the law or perverting his judgment. The passage is about abuse, and I've already repeated stated abuse of alcohol (or medication, or chocolate cake, or sex, etc) is wrong.
I don't exactly know why Christ did not accept it, but I suspect because it was mixed with gall and tasted bad. Also, just because someone drinks wine does not mean they are going to drink it every chance they get. But if he was absolutely opposed to wine, why did he even taste it to begin with?
I have not implied that anyone opposed to wine is a Pharisee. I did say that some here are making the same mistake, equating drinking with being drunk. In turn, I hope you are not implying I am a Pharisee: I agree many Christians would like to indulge in bad habits, but this is not at all why I believe Christ and the apostles drank wine.
No one is going to get me to believe that Jesus only drank water and goats milk his entire 33 years. And who can drink more than 1/2 glass of grape juice after age 20?
Wine at full strength, was the common drink of his time. As common as our "Ice Tea" here in the south. When one grows up on it, it takes a lot more to get you drunk. 1 glass for me and I'm already feeling it, but I suspect in his day, 5-6 glasses (clay cups, skins, whatever) would just about be the cut off point before they began to feel it.
If only Christ had moved to Maui, we would be drinking refreshing tropical drinks in Church. Banana/Pineapple, dash of rum, with little umbrellas. Darn it.
[ September 07, 2002, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]
Wine at full strength, was the common drink of his time. As common as our "Ice Tea" here in the south. When one grows up on it, it takes a lot more to get you drunk. 1 glass for me and I'm already feeling it, but I suspect in his day, 5-6 glasses (clay cups, skins, whatever) would just about be the cut off point before they began to feel it.
If only Christ had moved to Maui, we would be drinking refreshing tropical drinks in Church. Banana/Pineapple, dash of rum, with little umbrellas. Darn it.
[ September 07, 2002, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]
ChristianCynic
<img src=/cc2.jpg>
Oh dear, dear. Ain't them exclamation marks scary?
To say that Jesus drank alcoholic wine is not saying Jesus sinned. Lying, however, is a sin.
latterrain77
New Member
Hi BrianT. Thank you for your follow up. I appreciate your comments and your taking the time to make them.
You said: “I disagree. I think your avoiding the plain sense of the passage.”
No, I’m not avoiding the text at all. The plain sense of the Luke 7: 33-34 passage is EXACTLY what the passage itself says - and is very plain to see. V33 uses the word “wine” in context with John. V34 says NOTHING about the word “wine” in context with the LORD. Surely you can see this when you read the text?
Your previous post connected the word “wine” v33 (as that word is applied to John) and attempted to assign that word to Jesus in v34. I have argued against that because that is NOT what the text says.
You said, “Of course Jesus is and was a King. But the next verse gives the reason: "Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted." This is not possible with Christ, because he would not *abuse* wine and become drunk, forgetting the law or perverting his judgment. The passage is about abuse, and I've already repeated stated abuse of alcohol (or medication, or chocolate cake, or sex, etc) is wrong.”
Proverbs 31: 4-5 is NOT talking about abuse or any of the other things you mentioned. It is talking about the act of DRINKING alcohol with respect to Kings. The verses say nothing about becoming “drunk.” They say NOTHING about drinking too much. They say nothing about the “quantity of consumption” of the strong drink or wine mentioned. The verses say that the very act of drinking alcohol itself is prohibited for Kings. Jesus is a KING and therefore he would NOT have partaken of ANY alcoholic beverages.
You said, “I don't exactly know why Christ did not accept it, but I suspect because it was mixed with gall and tasted bad.”
Nowhere in the Matt. 15: 23 verse does it say that Jesus rejected wine because it “tasted bad.” In fact the verse flatly says “HE RECEIVED IT NOT” (Matt. 15: 23). The LORD rejected that wine for the Biblical reasons that I have already cited. KINGS are not permitted to drink alcoholic beverages (Proverbs 31: 4).
You asked, “But if he was absolutely opposed to wine, why did he even taste it to begin with?”
The verse does not say he “tasted it.” It say’s “HE received it not” (see previous comment). The LORD would not partake of alcohol even for the medicinal pain-killing purposes that it was given to HIM in this verse. Even under these circumstance, where some permission would be acceptable, the LORD still refrained! (1 Tim. 5: 23).
I hope this clears up some ideas for you Brian. As I said in my original post on this topic, I believe that drinking alcohol in ANY measure is prohibited for believers. If you disagree, and still feel it’s okay for a Christian to consume alcohol, then go right ahead and drink. I won’t try to stop you. As for myself, I will refrain because that is exactly what the Bible says we should do. Thank you again Brian. I appreciate your comments.
latterrain77
You said: “I disagree. I think your avoiding the plain sense of the passage.”
No, I’m not avoiding the text at all. The plain sense of the Luke 7: 33-34 passage is EXACTLY what the passage itself says - and is very plain to see. V33 uses the word “wine” in context with John. V34 says NOTHING about the word “wine” in context with the LORD. Surely you can see this when you read the text?
Your previous post connected the word “wine” v33 (as that word is applied to John) and attempted to assign that word to Jesus in v34. I have argued against that because that is NOT what the text says.
You said, “Of course Jesus is and was a King. But the next verse gives the reason: "Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted." This is not possible with Christ, because he would not *abuse* wine and become drunk, forgetting the law or perverting his judgment. The passage is about abuse, and I've already repeated stated abuse of alcohol (or medication, or chocolate cake, or sex, etc) is wrong.”
Proverbs 31: 4-5 is NOT talking about abuse or any of the other things you mentioned. It is talking about the act of DRINKING alcohol with respect to Kings. The verses say nothing about becoming “drunk.” They say NOTHING about drinking too much. They say nothing about the “quantity of consumption” of the strong drink or wine mentioned. The verses say that the very act of drinking alcohol itself is prohibited for Kings. Jesus is a KING and therefore he would NOT have partaken of ANY alcoholic beverages.
You said, “I don't exactly know why Christ did not accept it, but I suspect because it was mixed with gall and tasted bad.”
Nowhere in the Matt. 15: 23 verse does it say that Jesus rejected wine because it “tasted bad.” In fact the verse flatly says “HE RECEIVED IT NOT” (Matt. 15: 23). The LORD rejected that wine for the Biblical reasons that I have already cited. KINGS are not permitted to drink alcoholic beverages (Proverbs 31: 4).
You asked, “But if he was absolutely opposed to wine, why did he even taste it to begin with?”
The verse does not say he “tasted it.” It say’s “HE received it not” (see previous comment). The LORD would not partake of alcohol even for the medicinal pain-killing purposes that it was given to HIM in this verse. Even under these circumstance, where some permission would be acceptable, the LORD still refrained! (1 Tim. 5: 23).
I hope this clears up some ideas for you Brian. As I said in my original post on this topic, I believe that drinking alcohol in ANY measure is prohibited for believers. If you disagree, and still feel it’s okay for a Christian to consume alcohol, then go right ahead and drink. I won’t try to stop you. As for myself, I will refrain because that is exactly what the Bible says we should do. Thank you again Brian. I appreciate your comments.
latterrain77
latterrain77
New Member
Hi ChristianCynic. Thank you for your post. I appreciate your thoughts and thank you for bringing them to my attention.
Prov. 31: 6 shows that giving strong drink was used for medical “narcotic” effect, on those about to die or suffering. Non-kings could partake of this medicine under those circumstancs. A KING would not partake of this medicinal concoction as verse 4 already prevented them from doing so. This is why the LORD (a KING) would not receive the wine when it was given to HIM for this same analgesic purpose at the cross (Mark 15: 23).
The NASB translation of Titus 1: 7 that you used differs from the KJV translation (and many other translations) of the same verse. The KJV tranlation (and many others) are accurate (the word “given” in Titus meaning to “escape from” and “not going near”).
It hardly matters though, since even a Bishop (such as the one in Titus) could partake of a little wine for medical ailments (1 Tim. 5: 23). This is no longer necessary in our day of modern medicines.
You are correct that 1 Tim. 3: 2 does speak of hospitality. However, the verse does not speak of consuming alcoholic beverages. One does not need to serve alcoholic beverages to be hospitable to guests and company. Coffee is better (especially Starbucks Kenyan blend).
I agree with your interpretation of Colossians 2: 16. We should NOT judge any man by what he eats or drinks. Nevertheless, Colossians 2: 16 does NOT endorse alcoholic consumption. It DOES reject the idea of being judgmental about what others eat and drink. However, I do not feel it is judgmental to point out what the Bible says about “food or drink” including "alcoholic consumption."
Thank you again CC. I very much appreciate your thoughts and thank you for taking the time and effort to post them.
latterrain77
Prov. 31: 6 shows that giving strong drink was used for medical “narcotic” effect, on those about to die or suffering. Non-kings could partake of this medicine under those circumstancs. A KING would not partake of this medicinal concoction as verse 4 already prevented them from doing so. This is why the LORD (a KING) would not receive the wine when it was given to HIM for this same analgesic purpose at the cross (Mark 15: 23).
The NASB translation of Titus 1: 7 that you used differs from the KJV translation (and many other translations) of the same verse. The KJV tranlation (and many others) are accurate (the word “given” in Titus meaning to “escape from” and “not going near”).
It hardly matters though, since even a Bishop (such as the one in Titus) could partake of a little wine for medical ailments (1 Tim. 5: 23). This is no longer necessary in our day of modern medicines.
You are correct that 1 Tim. 3: 2 does speak of hospitality. However, the verse does not speak of consuming alcoholic beverages. One does not need to serve alcoholic beverages to be hospitable to guests and company. Coffee is better (especially Starbucks Kenyan blend).
I agree with your interpretation of Colossians 2: 16. We should NOT judge any man by what he eats or drinks. Nevertheless, Colossians 2: 16 does NOT endorse alcoholic consumption. It DOES reject the idea of being judgmental about what others eat and drink. However, I do not feel it is judgmental to point out what the Bible says about “food or drink” including "alcoholic consumption."
Thank you again CC. I very much appreciate your thoughts and thank you for taking the time and effort to post them.
latterrain77
Yes, I see it the word "wine" is not in the second phrase, *just as "bread" is not*. But I still think your wrong, for the reasons of contrast to point out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, which I've mentioned several times and which you've avoided several times.
Yes it is. For only abuse results in the things listed in the next verse.
Matt 27:34 says he "tasted", and *then* would not drink. This implies it tasted bad, as it was mixed with gall. The parallel passage in John 19:29 says he "received" it, but we know from the other passages this was not a complete receiving, just an initial acceptance and then not finishing.
latterrain77
New Member
Hi Brian. We just don’t agree on the v33/34 question. Regarding Proverbs 31: 4-5, the words and ideas of abuse, chocolate, food, and the other things you mentioned are NOT in the verses.
Your comment on Matt. 27: 34 and John 19: 29 is inaccurate. As you must know, the word in Matt. 27: 34 and John 19: 29 is VINEGAR – not wine! The original Greek word for “wine” in Mark 15: 23 is (“oinos”) which means wine. The Greek word in the Matt. 27: 34 and John 19: 29 is (“oxos”) which means VINEGAR. That is why the Bible records these verses in English as “wine” (Mark 15: 23) and Vinegar (Matt: 27: 34, John 19: 29).
There were a number of times during the cross experience (not just once) that vinegar concoctions were given to the LORD (Matt. 27: 34, Matt. 27: 48, Mark 15: 36, Luke 23: 36, John 19: 29, John 19: 30). Another time, the concoction was wine (Mark 15: 23). You are connecting the vinegar preparation with the wine preparation as the SAME. They are different. The words of each are different in both English and the original Greek.
latterrain77
[ September 08, 2002, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]
Your comment on Matt. 27: 34 and John 19: 29 is inaccurate. As you must know, the word in Matt. 27: 34 and John 19: 29 is VINEGAR – not wine! The original Greek word for “wine” in Mark 15: 23 is (“oinos”) which means wine. The Greek word in the Matt. 27: 34 and John 19: 29 is (“oxos”) which means VINEGAR. That is why the Bible records these verses in English as “wine” (Mark 15: 23) and Vinegar (Matt: 27: 34, John 19: 29).
There were a number of times during the cross experience (not just once) that vinegar concoctions were given to the LORD (Matt. 27: 34, Matt. 27: 48, Mark 15: 36, Luke 23: 36, John 19: 29, John 19: 30). Another time, the concoction was wine (Mark 15: 23). You are connecting the vinegar preparation with the wine preparation as the SAME. They are different. The words of each are different in both English and the original Greek.
latterrain77
[ September 08, 2002, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]
Did anyone read theolivebranch's link a few posts back? I think it sums alot of this stuff nicely. I'll post it again in case you missed it.
wine/grape juice Bible times
wine/grape juice Bible times
Jesus was sinless. He was pure. He had to be, to be our Saviour.
Fermentation is the spoiling and rotting of a liquid or juice.
Wine is the fermentation or rotting of grape juice.
Because Jesus was sinless and pure, He would not and could not consume a fermented product, and especially during the passover, because He was Jewish.
[ September 08, 2002, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Justified ]
ChristianCynic
<img src=/cc2.jpg>
It hardly matters though, since even a Bishop (such as the one in Titus) could partake of a little wine for medical ailments (1 Tim. 5: 23). This is no longer necessary in our day of modern medicines.
So what the Word of God says is trumped by 'modern medicines,' is it?
You are correct that 1 Tim. 3: 2 does speak of hospitality. However, the verse does not speak of consuming alcoholic beverages. One does not need to serve alcoholic beverages to be hospitable to guests and company. Coffee is better (especially Starbucks Kenyan blend).
That was absolutely not the point. This was brought up in case there was any dispute about the term "given to..." If a person ever drinks wine, that would be mean they are "given to" wine only if a person who is ever hospitable means that person is "given to" hospitality. It is only about consistency in understanding scriptural terms.
So what the Word of God says is trumped by 'modern medicines,' is it?
You are correct that 1 Tim. 3: 2 does speak of hospitality. However, the verse does not speak of consuming alcoholic beverages. One does not need to serve alcoholic beverages to be hospitable to guests and company. Coffee is better (especially Starbucks Kenyan blend).
That was absolutely not the point. This was brought up in case there was any dispute about the term "given to..." If a person ever drinks wine, that would be mean they are "given to" wine only if a person who is ever hospitable means that person is "given to" hospitality. It is only about consistency in understanding scriptural terms.
Yes, I see you are right. I was very sloppy in handling this aspect of the conversation.
Yes, I see that.
Here's a passage to consider:
Rom 14:13-23 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. [14] I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. [15] But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. [16] Let not then your good be evil spoken of: [17] For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. [18] For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. [19] Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. [20] For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. [21] It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. [22] Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. [23] And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
Summary: eating or drinking is personally wrong if you: 1. are causing a brother to stumble, and/or 2. doubt that it really is pure and not unclean. If you are convinced it is not a sin, and are not causing a brother to stumble, there is not a problem - in fact "happy is he", and it shows his faith before God. It is not drinking wine in itself that is a sin, but certain circumstances/reasons/abuses of it.
I agree.
Close enough, I'll agree for the sake of argument.
Now ya lost me. How did you make the jump: "drinking a fermented product" = "sin"?
Because Jesus was sinless and pure, He would not and could not consume a fermented product, and especially during the passover, because He was Jewish.
Now ya lost me. How did you make the jump: "drinking a fermented product" = "sin"?[/QB][/QUOTE]Originally posted by BrianT:
Because Jesus was sinless and pure, He would not and could not consume a fermented product, and especially during the passover, because He was Jewish.
The Jew's have a strict custom and law against the consuming of leaven and fermented products during passover, and the consuming of such things was strictly forbiden.
Rev. Joshua
<img src=/cjv.jpg>
Joshua
