Was Jesus a wine bibber

[Flyboy]

1. As I pointed out before, Jesus' entire life here on earth was preparation for His return to heaven to be our High Priest. His entire life was the "before the priest went to the temple to perform his priestly duties" for Him.

2. Jesus Himself gave the instructions to the Isrealite priests that they should never drink alcoholic beverages before going to the temple to do their duty as a priest. If they did, they were to killed right then and there. It was obviously a very serious sin for a priest to break this prohibition.

3. Since the laws regarding the priesthood had not changed since Christ gave them He was also bound by this law. To drink alcohol during His lifetime would have been for Him to sin and would have disqualified Him to be our High Priest.

4. Jesus lived according to all the laws of God. The Bible tells us He did. Did He break this law?

Gary, what other things did God give as instructions to the Israelites before they went in for temple duty? Did Jesus, in his entire life, also do none of these other things? Did Jesus always have clean hands and clothes? It seems that the purpose of the rules given to the Israelites was to be as pure as possible. Jesus, as a sinless man, could have been no purer and thus he was already adequately preparing himself for the temple. Your idea that a glass of wine would somehow blemish that purity, IMHO, just doesn't hold up.

And doesn't the evidence you give regarding prep for the temple actually seem to provide evidence to the contrary of your position? If God is giving them specific instructions on when not to have drink, then the clear implication is that it was okay at other times, particularly since the only other prohibitions we have are to not be a drunkard.

And I wonder why the spies came back from Canaan with such large grapes? To us, in modern times, we may just think "great big fruit", but the message to the Israelites at the time may well have been something else. The symbolism of the grape to the Israelite is much stronger than, say, an apple or an orange, or a fig or an olive.

[Gary K]

Yes, that is a bit of a stretch, Gary.

Did he live here as a Levite? Or a Nazarene?

Did he die as a priest or the sacrificial Lamb?

As Flyboy has already pointed out, the clear implication of the verse with which he opened this thread is that Jesus' critics saw him tip a cup of wine with sinners and exaggerated to call him a wino, a drunkard. The kernel of truth of their false witness was that they had seen him drink at least a sip of wine, the stuff served by the sinners he was eating and drinking with. For them dining with unclean sinners was worse than getting drunk or being a glutton, really.

Stop trying to spin it to contemporary Adventist lifestyle standards that really aren't Biblically based, but EGW based. Nothing wrong with us having our own standards and peculiar traditions, standards and customs. But let's be honest and not try to twist Scripture to try to make it seem to be the basis. Let's be honest that EGW is our source of Adventist tradition, custom, lifestyle standards. Nothing wrong with that.

Don't you realize that twisting, spinning and exaggerating facts is the same kind false witness that Jesus was condemning in the OP verse?

Tom,

Of course Jesus died as the Lamb of the world, but that was not His only role while here.

Do you deny that Jesus, while here on earth was also a priest, although not High Priest until after His death and resurrection?

While the earthly priests had a much shorter preparatory time before they went to the temple to fulfill their priestly duties, Jesus' entire time here on earth was His time of preparation. Do you deny that?

[Gary K]

That's OK. Cigars stink, so you can keep it. But stop blowing smoke up our skirts.

Let's unpack the Greek/Roman context for this substance that was at the scene of the crucifixion. The "vinegar" or sour wine was not the condiment of today. They were not doing a Food Channel cooking show. Do people routinely drink vinegar as a beverage? These were Roman soldiers. Thayer's Lexicon says that oxos was "the mixture of sour wine or vinegar and water which the Roman soldiers were accustomed to drink." Oxos was the Greek word used to describe what the Roman soldiers would have called posca. I doubt they would have had a supply of cooking vinegar to quench their thirst. This was the cheap booze of the Roman soldiers.

The word posca is Latin for an unfamiliar beverage (not cooking condiment) among the Greek-speaking people of the eastern Mediterranean region where sweet wines were the norm. Since the Greeks didn't have a word for posca, sources written in Greek, such as Plutarch and the Gospels, use the word oxos, more literally "sharp" or "sour".

So what was posca? It was the cheap wine commonly drunk by Roman soldiers. Why was it cheap? It was spoiled wine mixed with water and herbs to make it more palatable. Basically they reused wine spoiled by faulty storage. The good wine was saved for the officers. The spoiled wine was not wasted, it was given to the Roman foot soldiers in their rations. You may be right that taste-wise it was a lot like vinegar. It wasn't good sweet wine. It had spoiled and tasted bad or sour. It was bad soured wine, but wine nonetheless.

As for Jesus' first refusal of it mixed with gall... Gall was a poison. It was given to the crucifixion victim to speed up the death process, like the practice of breaking their legs or stabbing them with knives and spears. It probably did have a sedative effect, but this was no act of mercy for the victim. It was to get it over with quicker so the soldiers could leave.

Jesus refused it the first time, not because he wanted to feel the full pain. He tasted the poison mixed with the nasty wine. It was not time and that was not the way he was to die. While it is unknown whether the second offer of the posca had gall in it, notice that Jesus did die immediately after taking that drink.

Tom,

The Roman legions were famous for their strict discipline and you want us to accept the idea that the Roman soldiers regularly drank intoxicating beverages on duty in place of water. Really? This highly disciplined army was half-drunk all the time? Give me a break. Do not expect me to believe such bunk. No army with good discipline has ever allowed their soldiers to be drunk, or even half-drunk, while on duty.

Marc Antony was known as a drunk, and his personal army, a foreign legion made up of Greeks, did drink regular wine all the time. They had a ration of 5 liters a day of wine, which sounds about right liquid intake for the heat and armor the soldiers had to wear. The rest of the Roman legions called them "drunken Barbarians". Sounds to me like the Roman army thought of them and their drinking habits with scorn. That's a strange attitude to take if they were doing exactly the same thing.

The most popular drink the Roman army had was called Posca. It is described by modern historians as watered down vinegar. It is made by leaving alcoholic wine open a specific way that transforms the alcohol into acetic acid, which is anywhere from 4% to 18% of vinegar by mass. You know, a sour wine that no longer has alcohol in it. That allowed the Roman soldiers to add a small amount of the sour wine they made to the local water so the acetic acid would kill most of the bacteria in the water. Then they could drink the water without getting sick, and without getting drunk.

All that information comes from non-SDA sources. Ellen White had nothing to do with it. It's historical fact.

The very name, sour wine, describes the taste of an acidic drink. And, a mixture of vinegar and water is very good for cutting the taste of a dry mouth, which had to be a very familiar taste to a Roman foot soldier.

[Tom Wetmore]

The point I was trying to make was that the Roman posca beverage or even the sour wine or vinegar should not be understood to be the same as the much more refined and processed vinegar that we use today in cooking. Yes, it was diluted (however, sometimes mixed with good wine instead of water) and spiced up to make it drinkable, and as used had a low alcohol content. But it was still likely more than the 0.5% of today's vinegar. (For comparison, beer is only 3-4 % alcohol and wine about 11%.) So even at the diluted ratio you described, it could have had about as much as weak beer.

Let me debunk your mind... I did not say or imply that the Roman soldiers were undisciplined drunkards. But even if they had what amounted to the equivalent of weak beer it is unlikely they would have been intoxicated and unfit for duty. They indeed did avoid the stronger wine that the officers would have had. (The descriptions of the provisions of the Roman army included wine for the officers and posca for the soldiers.)

Also lurking in the back of my mind was the previous discussion had around here about EGW and vinegar. She condemned its use, although admitting to her own fondness for it. The vinegar in her day was mostly homemade from cider, wine or whiskey and most likely did not have all the alcohol removed from it which could explain her condemnation of it as bad for you. I think it fair to say that if in the 19th Century it was not the refined product we know today, it was even less so in the 1st Century. (And that is not accounting for "lost in translation" already alluded to, of exactly what is being discussed...)

And then there is her statement, "Let not one drop of wine or liquor pass your lips, for in its rise is madness and evil." This statement, among others of similar import, has lead to the typical Adventist thinking that nothing short of complete abstinence from any alcohol is essential to lead a pure and holy life. It has forced the sort of "logic" we see here and in Bacchiocchi's book that attempts to remove the alcohol from the wine spoken of in the Bible, at least any that passed Jesus' lips or that was the product of a miracle of Jesus. That sort of logic is bunk.

[Textus Receptus]

When questions like this are presented, in order to attempt to find the truth, one has to ask - is drinking intoxicating drinks in line with the character of Jesus?

Let's apply logic to the bible. During His first miracle at the wedding feast of Cana, Jesus made 6 firkins, or about 150 gallons. Now, do you really believe that Jesus would make 150 gallons of wine for the guest to keep drunkeness going? If this was alcoholic wine then Jesus did cause all who were there to drink to excess. This is clearly a sin in the Old Testament as stated in Leviticus. Not only would His excessive drinking have been a sin, but causing others to do so is also a sin. Jesus was trying to prove to Israel that He was the Messiah - a hard notion to try to get across if the laws of Moses were not kept.

Secondly, we have to assume that Jesus drank new wine "grape juice" during the last supper since unleavened bread (made without yeast) is symbolic of His sinless life. Since wine is made with yeast, why would Jesus accept a symbolic gesture of His body being sinless in offering unleavened bread, and then in turn imbibe a drink that contains yeast?

Alcohol doesn't have much favor in the bible. One only has to do is review the biblical evidence - Noah naked Gen. 9:21, Lot being sexually active with his own daughters (Gen. 19:33), The Golden Calf Ex. 32:6, 25, Amnon raping his half-sister (2 Sam. 13:28)

[miz3]

And then there is her statement, "Let not one drop of wine or liquor pass your lips, for in its rise is madness and evil." This statement, among others of similar import, has lead to the typical Adventist thinking that nothing short of complete abstinence from any alcohol is essential to lead a pure and holy life. It has forced the sort of "logic" we see here and in Bacchiocchi's book that attempts to remove the alcohol from the wine spoken of in the Bible, at least any that passed Jesus' lips or that was the product of a miracle of Jesus. That sort of logic is bunk.

Look when those who are arguing from the position that Jesus Christ was an absolute "teetotaler" then any form no matter how weak or diluted would be a sin. Thus, those who are arguing that the liquid at the cross was such and such weak is foolish because even the smallest amounts of "alcohol" would destroy there case. That includes the source make up. Therefore unless what Christ took on the Cross was either pure water, pure undiluted juice, or some other pure acceptable SDA drink, the pro-welches group loses the issue.

[miz3]

Textus Receptus,

The ground you are commenting on has already been answered in earlier posts.

[Gary K]

When questions like this are presented, in order to attempt to find the truth, one has to ask - is drinking intoxicating drinks in line with the character of Jesus?

Let's apply logic to the bible. During His first miracle at the wedding feast of Cana, Jesus made 6 firkins, or about 150 gallons. Now, do you really believe that Jesus would make 150 gallons of wine for the guest to keep drunkeness going? If this was alcoholic wine then Jesus did cause all who were there to drink to excess. This is clearly a sin in the Old Testament as stated in Leviticus. Not only would His excessive drinking have been a sin, but causing others to do so is also a sin. Jesus was trying to prove to Israel that He was the Messiah - a hard notion to try to get across if the laws of Moses were not kept.

Secondly, we have to assume that Jesus drank new wine "grape juice" during the last supper since unleavened bread (made without yeast) is symbolic of His sinless life. Since wine is made with yeast, why would Jesus accept a symbolic gesture of His body being sinless in offering unleavened bread, and then in turn imbibe a drink that contains yeast?

Alcohol doesn't have much favor in the bible. One only has to do is review the biblical evidence - Noah naked Gen. 9:21, Lot being sexually active with his own daughters (Gen. 19:33), The Golden Calf Ex. 32:6, 25, Amnon raping his half-sister (2 Sam. 13:28)

Good points.

I'd like to further point out that God allowed us to have divorce, not because it was something He thought we should do, but because we are so spiritually bankrupt. God allowed Abraham to be polygamus because of his lapse in faith. Much evil came from that lapse in faith.

None of those highly negative things were God's ideal for us. Maybe God allowed the moderate use of wine, but that didn't mean the use of a poison to "relax" is His ideal for us. To say that Jesus would have dabbled in any of these behaviors that were not God's ideal for us is to denigrate the spotlessness of Christ's charater and His love for His Father. He would never have participated in anything less than God's ideal for us, for He came to do just the opposite. He came to show the world that God's ideal for us is possible. That was His mission. That was His goal.

[miz3]

Quote:

Good points.

I'd like to further point out that God allowed us to have divorce, not because it was something He thought we should do, but because we are so spiritually bankrupt. God allowed Abraham to be polygamus because of his lapse in faith. Much evil came from that lapse in faith.

None of those highly negative things were God's ideal for us. Maybe God allowed the moderate use of wine, but that didn't mean the use of a poison to "relax" is His ideal for us. To say that Jesus would have dabbled in any of these behaviors that were not God's ideal for us is to denigrate the spotlessness of Christ's charater and His love for His Father. He would never have participated in anything less than God's ideal for us, for He came to do just the opposite. He came to show the world that God's ideal for us is possible. That was His mission. That was His goal.

So I guess then that when Jesus Christ ate meat (fish, lamb), He was showing us the ideal diet. Or is the ideal diet vegetarian, or is the ideal diet vegan and ate a diet that was less than His spotless self?

Your logic would lead us in the wrong direction.

If God drank only welch's grape juice so as to maintain His spotless character then what happened to Christ's diet? Ouch!

Did Christ miss what Ellen White said or was going to say?

[Tom Wetmore]

Gary,

As was said earlier, (and just reiterated by miz3) that standard from your perspective also dictated the totally absurd conclusion in another thread that Jesus had to have been a vegetarian since God's ideal for us was not to eat meat. But to do so has to rewrite Scripture that specifically says that he did eat flesh food. (And by the way, in your idea that he was priest and in training to be high priest, the priest was expected to eat some of the sacrificial meat. So if Jesus was a priest in training as you say, he would have done so...)

The position you are taking likewise has to totally ignore the facts of the miracle at the wedding in Cana. According to the taste test of the steward of the wedding, Jesus had turned the water into the good fermented wine that would be intoxicating to those who drank it. The steward could taste the bite of the alcohol.

I am basing my reading of the account on the Greek word used in John 2:10. The word is methyo, a verb that means quite simply, "to be intoxicated." It is derived from the root Greek noun, methe which only and unambiguously means "intoxication or drunkenness." The steward said such good wine is usually served first and the poorer quality wine later after the guests are too intoxicated to be able to taste the difference or care.

It is a wrong-headed focus that says that what we consume when we eat and drink, things from outside of us, s what makes us sinful or in the Jewish vernacular, unclean. Have you not read the clear words of Jesus in response to that very error of the Jews - "It is not what goes into a man's mouth that makes him sinful, it is what comes out. What goes in passes through and is excreted."

What we eat and drink is not a moral issue. As Paul said, "The kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking..."

[Dr. Rich]

And in this case Paul was right. Thanks Tom.

[phkrause]

And in this case Paul was right. Thanks Tom.

Selective now are we?? Unreal!

[ClubV12]

PK, even a blind squirrel can find a nut on occasion. :)

[Parade Orange]

JESUS ate the food of the day

the food of the region

the food that was available

its not a sin to eat meat

it is a sin to drink strong drink

[Dr. Rich]

PK, your comment lacks respect. To deceive anyone the words of Paul MUST be as close to the truth as he can get. Have you ever taken a look at a counterfiet 20 dollar bill? If it was in blue, orange, red, yellow it would be simple to see the difference. So let it go PK, you go ahead and believe what you want but when the day comes for judgment, you will not have anyone to blame but yourself. I have chosen the words of Jesus given to us by His eyewitnesses as my foundation. I have yet to find anyone who can honestly tell me that those words are all lies.

[Woody]

Quote:

PK, your comment lacks respect.

I've found pk to provide the most respectful comments of any of us. So, I object to your comment.

Quote:

So let it go PK, you go ahead and believe what you want but when the day comes for judgment, you will not have anyone to blame but yourself

Praise God our salvation has very little to do with knowledge. All the blabber that goes on here on this forum - has little to do with salvation but a lot to do with ego.

Check out the "Truth is over-rated" thread.

[miz3]

Praise God our salvation has very little to do with knowledge. All the blabber that goes on here on this forum - has little to do with salvation but a lot to do with ego.

Woody nails it again!

[phkrause]

PK, your comment lacks respect. To deceive anyone the words of Paul MUST be as close to the truth as he can get. Have you ever taken a look at a counterfiet 20 dollar bill? If it was in blue, orange, red, yellow it would be simple to see the difference. So let it go PK, you go ahead and believe what you want but when the day comes for judgment, you will not have anyone to blame but yourself. I have chosen the words of Jesus given to us by His eyewitnesses as my foundation. I have yet to find anyone who can honestly tell me that those words are all lies.

I don't think it does Dr. Rich. You have claimed here over and over that anything Paul has to say is a lie, period. Than you say you agree with something that he wrote. Just because it agrees with your agenda. But thanks for allowing me to believe in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. And yes I also agree that I have not been able to find any lies in the words of Paul or our Lord and Savior.