Was wine in Jesus' day alcoholic?

[latterrain77]

Hi frogman. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Just to let you know that the word “vinegar” (“oxos”) is NOT the same as the word “wine” (“oinos”). Jesus NEVER took any wine. You quoted verses that say “vinegar” (oxos). The verses that say “wine” (oinos) NEVER show the Lord partaking of it. That is why the English translates “vinegar” (oxos) for the one, and “wine” (oinos) for the other.

Also, you quoted Mark 15: 33 (which uses the word wine “oinos” and shows that Jesus did NOT receive it), and then you related it to Mark 15: 36 (which uses the word VINEGAR “oxos” NOT wine “oinos”). They are obviously different. I’m sure this was just an oversight on your part. Jesus did NOT drink wine. Neither should we, nor should we encourage others to do so. Thank you again frogman.

latterrain77

 

[latterrain77]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
Hi,

"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.

"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???

Hi Bartholomew. Great verses that you raised. Thank you!

latterrain77

[ October 02, 2002, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

[Frogman]

Thanks for pointing out my humanity.

Yet it is historically common (according to Josephus, Adam Clarke and others) that there were women apothecaries in Jerusalem who did mix wine with vingegar, gall etc. to concoct drinks with a purpose of anesthesia, Jesus refused the drink during the time of His suffering, but as I did show, he received it to succor His thirst just prior to proclaiming "It is finished."

There is no reason to believe the fruit of the vine is anything but wine. Wine was a common drink in Bible Times, water was scarce, or not safe, and milk could not be preserved, nor could grape juice, wine however, (even as the eternal Blood of our Lord which it symbolizes), did hold the properties which enabled it to be preserved.

The truth is Jesus did drink of the fruit of the vine, and will drink of that fruit again in His Father's Kingdom. (Lk. 22.18; Mk. 14.25; Mt. 26.29).

Any plea to abstain from alcoholic drink is virtuous, but the wine is not used as a beverage in our Communion.

When Christ performed the miracle recorded in John 2 he turned water into wine, the governor of the feast complemented the bridegroom for having preserved the best wine until last, an uncommon practice obviously vs. 9-10, waiting til the guests senses were affected by the drink and provided a lesser quality drink.

In light of this context, why would Jesus perform such a miracle of changing water into wine, if He cared for our partaking of it, (in the Lord's Supper), why did he not care for these wedding guests to drink of it?

Teaching such as this is why so people will not accept scriptural as the true word of God. God is not the author of confusion, satan is. By being able to show such contradictions to the carnal mind, satan is furthering his program. If we add to the doubt of scripture, then we are aiding him in this endeavor.



God bless you in your walk and service to Him.

Bro. Dallas
Glasgow, KY.

 

[Frogman]

Hello Bro. Bartholemew,

I answered your question already, the looking is figurative of longing for the wine.

No matter how we hash scripture brethren, Christ did drink the fruit of the vine, this fruit is recognized as wine. The use of the wine in context with drunkeness shows its condition of fermentation.

The wine used in Communion is not to be abused as a beverage it is a reverent symbol of the Blood of Jesus and approved of God in that usage. Because it was instituted by the Son of God, the Second Person of the Godhead.

God Bless you in your walk and service to Him.

Bro. Dallas
Glasgow, KY.

 

[tyndale1946]

Frogman said:

Any plea to abstain from alcoholic drink is virtuous, but the wine is not used as a beverage in our Communion.

Primitive Baptist know a lot about Landmarkers and know no other Baptist to our knowledge that uses wine in the communion service beside us... Brother Glen

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by 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

YOU WIN! I failed to prove, using scripture, that Jesus did in fact drink fermented wine. I suppose that makes you king of the mountain. But then I must ask you to prove, using scripture, that a day is 24, 60 minute hours in length. Or, that a month is 30 - 24 hour days, or that a Year is 365 - 24 hour days. You see, according to you, it is only by biblical proof that we can know the truth!

 

[DocCas]

Yelsew, once again I remind you of the Baptist Board rules. This forum is for Baptists Only. Please do not violate the Board rules.

 

[Yelsew]

Genesis 19: 30-36. And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
31. And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
32. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
33. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
34. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
35. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
36. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

Grape Juice? I don't think so! Fruit of the vine? Probably, or some other fruit!

Where did the daughters get the wine? Did the cave they were in come equipped with wine?

What period of time are we talking about here? It takes a while to make wine, and a quantity of fruit sufficient to make a quantity of wine enough to cause Lot to be senseless enough to not know that he was being used sexually. As an old man, he would have to be capable of passing his seed into his daughters. Do I doubt the bible? NO! but the wine had to have time to ferment! So depending what time of the year God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, the events of the above scriptures could have been up to 20 months after Sodom. Not that that's important.

The point here is that fermented wine was known to very early generations of man. Therefore it is a hand-me-down tradition that would have been commonly practiced and generally available in the days of Jesus. Did He? No one knows for sure, Could he? the possibility exists! Consider Peter's Vision of the sheet full of "forbidden" foods; though it is unlikely that wine was among the forbidden things because it was so readily available to the common man. Like guns, wine itself is not what does us in, it is we who do ourselves in.

 

[Frogman]

Any plea to abstain from alcoholic drink is virtuous, but the wine is not used as a beverage in our Communion.

Just want to clarify. We do use wine in our Communion. But because it is biblical. Thought perhaps my wording made it sound as if we did not.

Bro. Dallas
Glasgow, KY.

 

[latterrain77]

Hi Yelsew. Thank you for your comments. I’m not, in any earthly way, the king of any mountain. Like you, I’m just a fellow believer searching for Biblical truth. The purpose of our dialogue (and of the board) is to try and learn from one another. There is no “pecking order” and no contests – at least not for me. All fellowship and dialogue are in the spirit of cooperation – not competition. I very much appreciate and enjoy your posts Yelsew. We don’t have to agree on something to learn from one another. I know that I have learned much from my dialogue with you and I’m thankful for that.

By the way, the Bible does speak about "earth time" and a daily passage of time (and the evening and the morning were the first day, 2nd day, etc) Genesis 1: 5, 1:8, 1: 13, 1: 19, 1:23, 1:31. John 11: 9 also shows that a “day” (hemera) is comprised of 12 literal hours, and an evening “night” would be comprised of the other 12 hours. The Greek word “hemera” (day) means “the time of space between dawn and dark.” The Greek word “opsios” means evening (dawn- late night). Together, 24 hours. Thank you again Yeslew.

latterrain77

 

[latterrain77]

Hi frogman. Thank you for your follow up. It is much appreciated. I must, however, humbly and respectfully disagree with you. You said, “There is no reason to believe the fruit of the vine is anything but wine.” Well, there is very good reason to believe that it is NOT wine because the Bible tells us what it is – FRUIT “gennema” – not “oinos” wine.

The word wine in the Bible is “oinos.” The word fruit is “gennema.” The word vinegar is “oxos.” Each one is DIFFERENT from the other because each one means something different from the other. In English we say “wine” when it is wine (we do not call a bottle of wine a bottle of vinegar). We say “fruit” when it is fruit (we do not call a bowl of grapes or kiwi a bowl of wine). We say vinegar when it is vinegar (we do not call our vinegarette salad dressing a wine salad dressing). To say that “vinegar” is wine is obviously absurd. Some of the verses you quoted used the word VINEGAR (oxos) and you referred to them as WINE (oinos). They are different - obviously different.

The communion service beverage is used for the SAME reason as the Last Supper one. The Last Supper juice was NOT wine (oinos). It was fruit (gennema) as the Bible plainly teaches.

We agree that Jesus drank from the “fruit of the vine” (gennema – fruit, not oinos – wine). However, that fruit of the vine is NOT wine. If it were, the Bible would have called it wine (oinos). The Bible calls it gennema (fruit).

Jesus turned water into wine in John 2 but he did NOT partake of it. WHERE in John 2 does it say that the LORD partook? It does NOT. Mankind might, because mankind always abuses GOD’s creation (as a result of sin). If it were anything otherwise, the LORD would have partaken of the John 2 beverage (as he did with the Last Supper beverage which was NOT wine “oinos” but rather fruit “gennema”).

You said; “Teaching such as this is why so people will not accept scriptural as the true word of God. God is not the author of confusion, satan is. By being able to show such contradictions to the carnal mind, satan is furthering his program. If we add to the doubt of scripture, then we are aiding him in this endeavor.”

I appreciate your thought on this one frogman. We agree entirely that GOD is not the author of confusion. However, man often is. That is precisely why GOD gave us his perfect and inerrant Bible, so that we can search for truth from it and clarify error when it is taught. Accordingly, I would like to point out that if the Bible clearly teaches that WINE is wine and VINEGAR is vinegar, why did you try to create the illusion that VINEGAR (oxos) is wine (oinos) in your post? THAT creates confusion for those who may not have read your post carefully, and might not have noticed that you were wrongly using the words vinegar and wine interchangeably. As already pointed out repeatedly, they are very different words. Thank you again frogman. I very much appreciate your comments on this subject.

latterrain77

 

[Bartholomew]

Hello brothers!

Originally posted by Frogman:
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.

Ah, but they do look upon upon it! Of course it's wrong to "tarry long at the wine"; but what is the command? It is not to drink it in moderation, but not to look at it! So, either you do communion blind-folded, or you don't use fermented wine.

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

But how do we know that this wine was fermented? Just because it is now is no reason - the Jews do loads of things that have been corrupted from their original intent. Like I keep saying (and which nobody seemsto be understanding), in the Bible the word "wine" is generic; it applies to fermented and unfermented grape juice! The context explains it. Of course Lot got drunk off wine - obviously that was fermented wine! Obviously the wine of Proverbs 23 is alcoholic, and the command is don't look at it! Here's some more alcoholic wine (again the context tells us it's fermented):

"It is not for KINGS, O Lemuel, it is not for KINGS to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink: Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted." (Proverbs 31:4&5)

Jesus was a king; and so are Christians:

"And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth." (Rev 5:10)

So there we have it: the Bible commands us both not to drink wine, and not to look at it. This wine, in context, is obviously fermented. The only way to justify the drinking of fermented wine is to find a Bible passage that says it's OK to drink wine; and where that wine is obviously fermented. But the wine that has a blessing in it is actually unfermented:

"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." (Isaiah 65:8)

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

[Bartholomew]

Hi Bro. Dallas,

Originally posted by Frogman:
I answered your question already, the looking is figurative of longing for the wine.

What reason is there to think it is figurative? Surely it means what it says? "Look not thou upon the [obviously fermented] wine when it is red" means just that. And if you can't look at it, how can you drink it???

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:

Surely it means what it says? "Look not thou upon the [obviously fermented] wine when it is red" means just that. And if you can't look at it, how can you drink it???

I can't prove it, but I'm pretty sure blind people are able to drink liquids. Besides, that verse says nothing about white wine.

 

[Frogman]

Good morning Latterain77, you wrote:

Jesus turned water into wine in John 2 but he did NOT partake of it. WHERE in John 2 does it say that the LORD partook? It does NOT. Mankind might, because mankind always abuses GOD’s creation (as a result of sin). If it were anything otherwise, the LORD would have partaken of the John 2 beverage (as he did with the Last Supper beverage which was NOT wine “oinos” but rather fruit “gennema”).

You have a good arguement, but it won't stand. The Bible says Jesus turned the water into wine, (eliminating the vine, fruit of the vine, winepress, and process of fermentation), perhaps Christ did not partake of the wine. Even so, he created something sinful, thus providing for those already in "dead in trespasses and sin" to add to that yet another sin. This makes God (the Son, essentially God because of his place in the Godhead) the author of sin.

This kind of thinking is what I meant when I said we aid satan in confusing those of the world.

If Christ felt drinking the wine was sinful, He certainly would not have made this substance for any to drink of. Isn't that a reasonable conclusion.

Yes, the first result of the pressed grape is the juice of the grape, yet the grape itself possesses sugars and is naturally capable of fermentation.

The Jews definitely used wine in the Passover, Christ took from the Jewish Passover and made His Supper, our communion.

Jesus has answered this in scripture, and we should remember as we cut and paste, scripture should not be subject to an editorial layout design. That being said, I appreciate your dialogue, as without it is impossible for me to search my beliefs, or you to search your own, to discover the scriptural basis.

Matt. 15.10-12: "And he called 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 defileth a man. Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?"

cf Matt. 5.20

Again we hear Christ at Mk. 7.14-23.

As before I stated, I believe it is virtuous to abstain from alcoholic drink as a beverage.

The Bible says: "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit." Eph. 5.18

So, we should not drink of this as with a purpose for drunkeness, but the purpose of which God has given it to us.

Also consider:

"Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works." Ecclesiastes 9.7

"Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child, and thy princes eat in the morning!
Blessed art thou, O land, when thy king is the son of nobles, and thy princes eat in due season, for strength, and not for drunkeness." Ecc. 10.16-17

God Bless you in your walk and service to Him.

Bro. Dallas
Glasgow, KY.

 

[Frogman]

Good morning Brother Bartholomew you wrote:

What reason is there to think it is figurative? Surely it means what it says? "Look not thou upon the [obviously fermented] wine when it is red" means just that. And if you can't look at it, how can you drink it???

The wine is often used as figurative for the wrath of God, meaning upon the nations and upon Babylon: Rev. 14.10; 16.19; 19.15.

Also can be seen as such in Is. 63.1-3;

The wine can be seen figuratively as doctrinal error: Rev. 14.8; 17.2 and 18.3.

Yes, the Bible should be taken literal, however, the depth of God's word is much often manifold.

1 Cor. 2.1-16 (esp. note 9-13).

God Bless you richly in your walk and service to Him.

Bro. Dallas

Glasgow, KY.

 

[latterrain77]

Hi frogman. Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your thoughtful commentary on this subject. I’m glad that you now agree the Lord did NOT drink wine in John 2: 1-12. This brings some agreement on an important aspect of our dialogue.

However, I do not understand how you have reached the conclusion that Jesus created the “John 2” wine for consumption purposes by any group. John 2: 1-12 is very clear that this is not so.

In John 2, the LORD was angered at the request for wine (John 2: 4). Jesus specifically directed that this miraculously created wine be brought ONLY to one individual, not to any “group” of individuals, and nowhere does it say that it was to be brought to this one individual for drinking (John 2: 8). Nowhere does any of the John 2 text state that Jesus created this miraculous wine for consumption purposes by anyone! The Lord simply says, “…bear (bring) to the governor of the feast” (John 2: 8). This one individual (to whom ONLY the Lord directed this wine to be delivered) tasted it (John 2: 9) at his own discretion, NOT by any such direction from the LORD. That is what sinful men will do with wine (or any other part of GOD’s creation) when left to there own devices. However, the Lord himself did NOT partake of that wine nor did he direct any others (who?) to partake of it.

The reason for creating this miraculous wine (made instantly from “custom purification” water – verse 6) is described in John 2: 11. It was made to illustrate Christ’s power over Creation (“manifest his glory”– verse 11). If you think I’m wrong, please cite the verse in John 2 where Jesus directs this miraculous wine to be consumed by anyone.

There are MANY natural substances found in creation, created by GOD, which can be extremely harmful to man. The unleashing of these GOD created substances for evil intent (such as alcohol consumption, drug addiction, birth control pills, etc) is something that is derived from the evil heart of man (Jer. 17: 9, Matt. 15: 19), not from the finger of GOD.

So frogman, how from these verses did you reach the incredible conclusion that the LORD would be the “author of confusion” simply because he created miraculous wine (or any other substance in his creation) that is wrongly used by man? I see no such language in the text. Please cite chapter and verse.

Real “confusion” comes when we attribute plainly unbiblical behavior to Jesus that is contrary to what the Bible actually says. That is why we must look to the inerrant Bible to find answers to our perplexing issues. That is why it does not say ANYWHERE in the Bible that Jesus drank wine/alcohol. Because he did NOT.

So, in conclusion, John 2: 1-12, like every other part of the Bible that speaks on this subject, serves only to undermine the unbiblical idea that Jesus drank wine/alcohol or, that it is somehow “okay” for Christians to drink wine/alcohol. According to the Bible, alcohol consumption is simply NOT a sustainable idea (except in the sole instance for medicine purposes when a “little” may be used -1 Tim. 5: 23 - which itself is no longer necessary due to modern medicines). Thank you again frogman. I much appreciate your input on this subject.

latterrain77

[ October 04, 2002, 07:05 AM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

[Frogman]

Good Evening Brother Latterrain,

I believe Jesus was angry at Mary, check the context. vs. 4: "Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come."

Mary is representative of the Jew, Jewish Religion, the Law.

vs. 5: "His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it." (Check the response of the people when Moses returned to them with the Words of God Ex. 20.19)

also vs. 6: "And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apeice." (showing the connection to the Law; also showing the inability of man to "fill" himself (as they were evidently empty). "Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them to the brim." (Water symbolic of the Spirit of God, all these {the empty stone waterpots} symbolic of the "deadness" of the Jewish religion.

Vs. 8: "And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it." (Serving the recently created wine, through the power of Christ in creation as you said, to the governor of the feast this and the following:

vs.9: "When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine..." Leads me to believe Jesus, if not taking the wine at this time, certainly witnessed this man doing it; I also do not believe God created sin, but that it was found in Lucifer the fallen Angel. Thus, this is not accurate to suggest Jesus, who is God, would create the means of men to partake of sin.

Of him is it said:"...Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John 1.29 He did not take it away by bringing it forth, but by paying the penalty because of it.

{**Read Numbers 6.1-4 with particular attention to vss. 3 & 4} This appears to me an abstinence from the use of fermented wine, because of holiness (seperation to a Nazarite vow) also excludes the use of the grape, moist and dried; vs.3 and as well any item or "fruit of the vine" as in vs. 4.

If it were Jesus' intention to remove the use of fermented wine from the Lord's Supper, we could not in good conscience use grape juice either.

Bear in mind I am not supporting the drinking of alcohol as a beverage, but believe the purpose for which the Lord has given in His Supper is correct.

May God Bless you in your walk and service to Him.

Bro. Dallas Eaton
Glasgow, KY.

 

[Frogman]

I am not a dr. nor a nurse, but what modern medicines are not made up with an content of alcohol, or by synthetic makeup even worse in making the effect of numbness. Such as some prescription pain medication. (Hydrocodone, etc.)

Also address how much of the rest of the Bible is outdated because of "modern Science."

Bro. Dallas

[ October 04, 2002, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

 

[Frogman]

Bro. Latterrain,

You said:

Hi frogman. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Just to let you know that the word “vinegar” (“oxos”) is NOT the same as the word “wine” (“oinos”). Jesus NEVER took any wine. You quoted verses that say “vinegar” (oxos). The verses that say “wine” (oinos) NEVER show the Lord partaking of it. That is why the English translates “vinegar” (oxos) for the one, and “wine” (oinos) for the other.

From W.E. Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of O.and N. Testament Words

VINEGAR: oxos (strong's 3690) akin to oxus, meaning "sharp" denotes "sour wine," the ordinary drink of laborers and common soldiers; it is used in the four Gospels of the "vinegar" offered to the Lord at His crucifixion. In Matt. 27.34 the best texts have "oinos, "wine" (Rv). Some have oxos (KJV "vinegar"), but Mk. 15.23 (KJV and RV) confirms the RV in the passage in Matthew. This, which soldiers offered before crucifying, was refused by Him as it was designed to alleviate His sufferings; the vinegar is mentioned in Mark 15.36; so Lk. 23.36; and John 19.29, 30. In the Septuagint Numbers 6.3; Ruth 2.14; Ps. 69.21; and Prov. 25.20.

Mk. 15.23 identifies the drink Jesus refused as being mixed with myrrh; "...but he received it not."

Myrrh is used as a noun and a verb.

As a verb: smurnizo (strong's 4669) is used transitively in the NT, with the meaning "to mingle or drug with myrrh," (Mk. 15.23) the mixture was doubtless offered to deaden the pain (Matthew's word "gall" suggests that "myrrh" was not the only ingredient). Christ refused to partake of any such means of alleviation; He would retain all His mental power for the complete fulfillment of the Father's will. (Vine's)

The drink Jesus refused was "mixed wine." He refused this to prevent the numbing effects of the drink. Used as a noun, myrrh denotes embalming the word construction is "smurna" (4666) The word is of Semitic origin, Heb. mor from a root meaning bitter, [it] is a gum resin from a shrubby tree, which grows in Yemen and neighboring regions of Africa; the fruit is smooth and somewhat larger than a pea. The color of myrrh varies from pale reddish yellow to reddish brown or red. The taste is bitter, and the substance astringent, acting as an antiseptic and a stimulant. It was used as perfume, Ps. 45.8, where the language is symbolic of the graces of the Messiah; Prov. 7.17; Song of Solomon 1.13; 5.5; it was one of the ingredients of the Holy anointing oil for the priests, Ex. 30.23; it was used also for the purification of women, Esth. 2.12; for embalming, John 1939; as an anodyne see B [quoted above, usage as a verb]. it was one of the gifts of the Magi Matt. 2.11.

At John 19.29 Jesus is offered a sponge filled with vinegar and he received it according to vs. 30. This vinegar was the common (cheap) fermented drink of soldiers and laborers; Jesus only refused the "mixed wine" which was purposed to deaden his nerves, and lessen the suffering; It is this suffering, to the full depth, which has permitted salvation for us.

God Bless you in your walk and service to Him.

Bro. Dallas
Glasgow, KY.

[ October 04, 2002, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: Frogman ]