Was wine in Jesus' day alcoholic?

[latterrain77]

Hello Yelsew. Welcome to the board and thank you for your comments. While I understand your thought, I disagree with the conclusion. The Bible uses the word wine (“oinos”) in a number of places and it specifically did NOT use the word wine (“oinos”) with respect to the Last Supper beverage. If the Last Supper beverage were wine (“oinos”) then the word used would have been wine (“oinos”). The word fruit (“gennema”), as used to describe the Last Supper beverage, is an entirely different word than wine (“oinos”).

KINGS are forbidden to drink wine (Proverbs 31: 4). Jesus is the KING of Kings (1 Tim. 6: 15, Rev. 17:4) and of course HE would not violate Biblical truths.

I humbly disagree with your statement, “to conclude that Jesus did not drink wine because it is not specifically stated he did so, is pure speculation…” Using such logic, one could assume that because the Bible does NOT specifically say the LORD did not have sexual relations, it does not mean that he did not have them (which of course, HE did NOT).

Actually, the Bible is very plain in illustrating that the LORD did NOT partake of wine or alcholic beverages (see above and my prior comments on this thread). The Bible flatly shows that the LORD rejected wine, even when used for medicinal purposes (Mark 15: 23). There is nothing in the Bible to illustrate that the LORD drank wine. Only the opposite is shown to be so. If you know of a verse that shows the LORD drinking wine/alchoholic beverages, please post chapter and verse.

Thank you for your thoughts Yelsew and welcome again to the Board.

latterrain77

 

[Yelsew]

I suppose then that when Jesus was in the wilderness He did not drink water. The scriptures do not speak of him drinking anything. However, it has long been known that the body can survive for extended periods without food, but not longer than 4-7 days max without water. Is it safe then to assume that Jesus did consume water? Or does one speculate that Jesus, being divine God survived by some means not at our disposal?

 

[Mickes]

I think if you read every verse about strong drink and wine you will see a difference in them.also I am italian and grew up drinking wine but since I started studying the kjv bible you will see there is surely a difrence between wine and new wine . Also my parents just came from thier first vist to italy and found wine was very week almost no alcohol in most of it they also found fresh wine that was like grape juice.Another thought is apple cider some is alcoholic and some is not but we can look at who the provider is to know if it would be fresh or fermented. If you consider the Lord Jesus your king and almighty father you can beshore he would not provide a stumble block to his children.

 

[Helen]

In Matthew 11:19, we read the following (approximately the same in every translation):

The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.' But wisdom is proved right by her actions.

You cannot refer to someone who eats nothing as a glutton; in the same way, you cannot refer to someone who does not consume any alcoholic beverage at all as a drunkard. Although we know Jesus was not a 'drunkard,' the fact that that term was tossed around does indicate he drank real, actual wine.

 

[Mickes]

does this mean when someone says that all the football players on a school team are useing drugs that they are all drug addicts off course not and it does not mean that all are guilty of useing drugs just because someone says or accused someone in a statement does not mean it is so

 

[Helen]

But this was not an 'all' thing. This was a direct reference to Jesus quoted by Jesus Himself. When the verse preceding it says that John came neither eating nor drinking, this cannot be considered an indication that he ate NOTHING and drank NOTHING. He had taken Nazarite vows from the evidence we see, and did not eat certain foods and did not drink wine. Jesus is showing the comparison and how people reacted to the two of them. Both obviously drank water. But only Jesus, of the two of them, drank wine as well, as indicated by this quote. And evidently the wine had alcoholic content (although we don't know how much), or no one could have been called a drunkard!

It is not the glass of wine that is a sin or wrong. It is getting drunk that is wrong. For some that means never touching the stuff under any circumstances. But keep in mind that one can lose one's control of one's mind just as easily on tranquilizers, pain medications, etc., So if a person abstains entirely from alcohol but is dizzy and silly because of drugs, is this not essentially the same as being a drunkard?

We are told to stay sober. That is the point. And whatever is required in your life to stay sober, do it. Evidently Jesus had wine with some meals. This was not a sin. But drunk He never was, for that is what His Word specifically says is wrong, and He did no wrong.

 

[Mickes]

if he drank with others even a little would he not be putting a stumbling block in front of them? and this he tells us not to do also. how drunk is drunk who decides. if you have one glass are you not drunker then you were before I feel there are places where he drinks wine but it was not alcoholic as i recently found out is found in europe

 

[Helen]

Why is a glass of wine a stumbling block to anyone?

 

[Mickes]

it may not be to you or I, but it is to the person that can not handle it, and therefore causeing them to get drunk ( putting it in front of them as a stumbling block)

 

[Mickes]

this is a great discussion and enjoy finding new facts have to go will check back later

 

[GrannyGumbo]

My concern is for any young person who may be reading all this...I hope you realize that alcohol and drugs are your enemies! The dope pusher, the beer company, they direct their advertising toward you for one purpose: to make a dollar.

If their product kills you, so what? They have made their $$$. The "cool Christian" sez, "I can drink and be a good Christian too." A better name for this type is "fool Christian".

Such people are a disgrace to the name of Christ and a far cry from the Bible pattern for Christian living. Romans 12:1,2(KJBible)

The Baptist church covenant reads, "We also engage...to abstain from the sale and use of intoxicating drinks as a beverage."

Some would even try to make God a party to their drinking by saying that He sanctioned it. Jesus would never have gone against the clear teachings of the Scripture. He would not give anyone something that would intoxicate them.

The Child of God must think of his influence on those around him. Drinking ruins the influence of the saint on the lost person. Instead of trying to excape through a temporary relief, the Holy Spirit should be allowed to help one escape to Christ (permanent relief).

 

[Yelsew]

It is good that the Baptist church organizations take a stand against Alcohol and Drug abuse, so long as it is a social stand and not a doctrinal stand. Not one of us was around nor do we have proof of any kind regarding the true essence of wine and strong drink as mentioned in the bible. What we do have is "tradition".

When I was in Europe for the first half of the 70's and again for a couple years in the early 90's, I can testify to you that the average alcohol per volume for bottled wine in France, Spain, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Northern Italy was labeled as 12%, that is 12% of a liter of wine was alcohol. some batches came as high as 19%. Germany's homeland beers were labeled as being about 12% (near beer in the US cannot exceed 3%). Since wine making is a well established tradition in the European and the Mediterranean areas, one must conclude they are today making it much the same or nearly the same as they did in the days when Jesus walked among us. There is no reason to think otherwise. Even some parts of the early church made wine, as some still do today.

Yes, there were some places where wine with low alcohol content, less than 5%, was served with meals, almost as a complementary beverage.

 

[latterrain77]

Hi Yelsew. I have provided numerous chapters and verse to support my claim that the LORD did NOT drink wine/alcoholic drink (see thread) - I even provided a verse where the LORD specifically rejected it. I have provided evidence, in both English and the original Greek, that the LORD did NOT drink wine (“oinos”) at the Last Supper.

You have still not provided a single chapter and verse to back up your position. If you do not provide Chapter and verse in your next post, then it will be evident that you cannot do so. Thank you again for your comments Yelsew.

latterrain77

 

[latterrain77]

Hi Helen. Thank you for your comments concerning “wine.” A few points, if I may. The Son of Man came eating and drinking what? Just because the Religious rulers called the LORD “oinopotes” (winebibber, drunkard) - meaning “tipsy” - hardly means that it is true. The religious rulers said other outrageous untrue things about HIM too (Mark 3: 22).

Do you believe that the LORD was a “drunkard?” (tipsy) as the verse says? If no, then how do you reconcile this verse? (unless you agree that the Religious Rulers said this untruthfully as they did about the LORD in other places too). Thank you Helen. I appreciate your comments and thoughts (as always).

latterrain77

 

[Mark-in-Tx]

Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:
My concern is for any young person who may be reading all this...I hope you realize that alcohol and drugs are your enemies! The dope pusher, the beer company, they direct their advertising toward you for one purpose: to make a dollar.

If their product kills you, so what? They have made their $$$. The "cool Christian" sez, "I can drink and be a good Christian too." A better name for this type is "fool Christian".

Such people are a disgrace to the name of Christ and a far cry from the Bible pattern for Christian living. Romans 12:1,2(KJBible)

The Baptist church covenant reads, "We also engage...to abstain from the sale and use of intoxicating drinks as a beverage."

Some would even try to make God a party to their drinking by saying that He sanctioned it. Jesus would never have gone against the clear teachings of the Scripture. He would not give anyone something that would intoxicate them.

The Child of God must think of his influence on those around him. Drinking ruins the influence of the saint on the lost person. Instead of trying to excape through a temporary relief, the Holy Spirit should be allowed to help one escape to Christ (permanent relief).

I totally dissagree. It is sad to me that you have taken your conviction and slammed everyone who dissagrees with you over the head. I hope you will think WWJD before you put your post together.

Your friend Mark-in-Tx

 

[Helen]

Hi latterrain77,

Of course I do not think the Lord was ever 'tipsy', let alone drunk! You already knew what I thought there from my previous posts! My point was that there was absolutely no basis for referring to Him as a drunkard or wine-bibber if He NEVER had wine! But Jesus did not deny having that wine when He referred to their statement, did He?

Apart from Jesus, however, this thread was asking if wine in Jesus' day was alcoholic and I would have to say a definite yes, it was. We know from reports of the Romans' orgies, if nothing else, that they were quite good at fermenting fruits and grains!

And about Jesus being the King of kings and therefore not touching alcohol. That is an interesting point. For the sake of argument, I would mention that He did not come as King in the incarnation, but as servant.

However I understand your point and do find it rather uselessly speculative to guess what Jesus did or did not eat and drink, actually. His Person and work remain, and He is God. That is enough.

Granny Gumbo, now that you have passed judgment on me, let me mention that far more young people have been driven from church by legalism than even liberalism. Young people (and I was one, once) know the difference between a glass of wine and a drunken binge. They are not stupid. There is NNE reading this thread who would ever think that anyone is promoting alcohol to youngsters or even to anyone. We are arguing its biblical legality, not its health or disaster consequences.

However I will say this unequivically to all those who take such a stand against alcohol: it is far, far safer medicinally than many OTC or prescription medications when it will do the same thing. Its uses are limited, but that does not negate the fact that it has uses medicinally. Many people, like me, react badly to a number of drugs. But I know exactly what to expect from an ounce or two of wine. In addition, take a pill and you cannot stop its affects. With wine you can take a little and stop if it is affecting you wrongly or too fast. That is another safety factor.

Alcohol occurs naturally, by the way, and evidently did before the Flood, too. Noah knew exactly what he was doing in fermenting the grapes or he would have spit it out at the first sip. What he did not know what the effect the vastly lowered air pressure would have and that is why he passed out. Keep in mind that Noah is called a righteous man.

 

[Yelsew]

Latterrain77,

I could post the entire bible and you would not accept it because you are standing with your nose buried in the details of scripture and therefore cannot see the whole message.

We do not communicate in individual words, except in words such as "bull" or "poppycock" etc., words that convey a meaning generally understood by the hearer.

The Scriptures are not a collection of disectable words that must be taken literally as disected or "translated". The scriptures are a collection of thoughts that convey messages and impart the thoughts of the author. Though inspired by God, the messages of the authors vary in content and style based upon the individual author's experiences with God. Else, all the authors would write alike, include exactly the same content and present in the same style. How boring!

When I read the bible, I deliberately attempt to place myself in the scene so that I can experience that which the author is trying to convey in its setting. Therefore context is important. The fact that Jesus ate and perhaps drank with sinners does not to me automatically mean that Jesus is likewise a sinner, or that He drank to excess as many sinners do.

I do not think for even a minute that when we face our heavenly trial that the Judge is going to ask what book, chapter, and verse we acted, or failed to act, upon. He is instead going to ask us our understanding of His commandments and how we applied them.

He is not going to ask us if we believe that His Son drank wine or what the alcohol content of the wine was. We are going to confess to him how we used wine, drugs or other substances, without referring to His Son.

So, pull you nose back from the details long enough to understand the conditions of Man in which Jesus was born and lived. What was Israeli life like? What were the customs and norms of the society. What temptations did Jesus face that are common to man?

If you want to believe that Jesus never touched alcoholic beverage, that's OK with me. I will continue to believe the possibility exists that He did taste wine, and that the wine may well have been fermented, based on the society in which Jesus lived. Besides, Jesus told His disciples before His mock trials and crucifixion, that he would not again taste, "the fruit of the vine" which is widely understood to mean 'wine', with them until he returned to them. He was also non-specific as to it being new or old fruit of the vine.

Luke 5:39 states that old wine is preferred because it tastes better.

Luke 10:34 states the Samaritan "doctored the wounds of the beaten and robbed stranger by pouring in oil and wine. He certainly would not have poured in grape juice, there is no cleansing or healing value there in. The Samaritan carried wine with him while traveling. Mayby only the Samaritans did so, but I find that hard to believe in an area where there is little free running drinkable water available. In Paul's day, it was quite arid in the middle east, they had little irrigation, and no drinking fountains or rest stops along the byways.

Consider the possibilities, along with the facts! For at least 3 years, Jesus did not have a place to call home, instead he slept wherever he was at "bedtime". He ate whatever was available and drank whatever was available in a dry and arid land. One possibility exists that he drank fermented wine because it was all that was available to Him when he was traveling from town to town. Ruling such out based on lack of scripture proving otherwise is the miss use of scripture, and shows a lack of understanding on the part of the one so doing.

 

[Rev. G]

Hi G. Thank you for your comments about “wine.” The examples you provided do not say that the LORD drank wine. In John 2, it says Jesus turned water into wine but it does not say anywhere that he drank that wine. If you think I'm wrong, please tell me where it says in John 2 that the LORD drank wine.

We have a conversation going on two threads, don't we friend? It doesn't state in John 2 that he drank it. However, my point was that our Lord turned water into wine. It seems from your statement that you agree with that. Is that correct? If so, then is Jesus a hypocrite in your opinion? Turning water into wine so that others might be tempted to get drunk, or turning water into a "sinful substance"? I know what your response will be ("NO!"), but how do you get out of it with your assertion?

Did Jesus ever drink? YES! As has already been pointed out from the Scriptures.

"For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard ["wine-bibber", KJV], a friend of tax collectors and 'sinners.'"
- Matthew 11:18-19

Jesus wasn't drinking "grape juice."

Rev. G

 

[latterrain77]

Hi Helen. Thank you for your reply. I’m glad that you do NOT believe the LORD was a drunkard and that you DO disagree with the untrue statement made by the Religious rulers against the LORD in Matt. 11: 18-19. Why though do you assume that a “lesser degree” must be true when the “larger degree” is plainly untrue?

Nowhere does it say that the LORD had ANY wine in this verse. It says HE “came eating and drinking.” Drinking what? Eating what? The Religious rulers would have called the LORD a drunkard even when HE drank water! They would call him a glutton even when HE ate NOTHING in the wilderness (Matt. 4: 1-11). They dared to falsely call him something even worse even when it was clear that he was not what they called him (Mark 3: 22).

Significantly, the false accusation made against the LORD by the Religious rulers has nothing to do with literal eating and drinking. These hypocrite Religious rulers were carrying out a concept laid out in Deut. 21:18-20. In Deut 21: 18-20, it is plainly illustrated that a “rebellious son” is labeled a glutton and drunkard even though that rebellious son was not literally gluttonous and literally a drunk! The phrase "gluttonous and drunkard" is a figure of speech used in Deut. 21: 18-20 to describe a “rebellious son.” The Religious rulers in Matt 11: 18-19 were actually accusing Jesus of being a “rebellious son” as that idea is defined in Deut. 21: 18-20.

To claim the LORD drank wine (“oinos”) when the word wine (“oinos”) is not in the Matt. 11: 18-19 text is a mistake – especially when the argument is based upon a false accusation leveled against the LORD by the Religious rulers. We know the LORD rejected wine (Mark 15: 23) and Kings are not permitted to drink wine (Proverbs 31: 4). We are Kings too (1 Tim. 6: 15, Rev. 17:4) so we are not permitted to partake of wine/alcohol either. We know that the “Last Supper” beverage was NOT wine (“oinos”) as that word is nowhere used in that text. Concerning wine/alcohol we should follow the LORD’s direction and REJECT it (Mark 15: 23). Thank you again Helen. It's always great to hear from you.

latterrain77

 

[latterrain77]

Hi Yeslew. Thank you for your reply. You still have not provided any verses to illustrate your point - because it is NOT possible to do so. That is because the LORD did NOT drink wine/alcoholic beverages and the Bible will not permit the idea that HE did.

You said “Luke 5:39 states that old wine is preferred because it tastes better.” Where does it say in this verse that the LORD drank wine? Well, this verse very obviously does not say that the LORD drank wine. It merely passes commentary that “man” (not the LORD) prefers old wine than new wine. This verse illustrates the exact opposite of your position.

You said, “Luke 10:34 states the Samaritan "doctored the wounds of the beaten and robbed stranger by pouring in oil and wine. He certainly would not have poured in grape juice, there is no cleansing or healing value there in…” Pouring wine into bodily wounds as an antiseptic is quite obviously not the same thing as drinking it Yeslew. Would anyone drink “rubbing alcohol?” Furthermore, the antiseptic of Luke 10: 34 was not poured into Jesus (but into the robbed stranger). Jesus rejected wine, even for Medicinal purposes (Mark 15: 23). Thank you again for your comments Yeslew.

latterrain77