ENDTIME ISSUES 83: JESUS AND WINE
Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D.,
Retired Professor of Theology, Andrews University
In the ENDTIME ISSUES No. 81 we began a series of Bible studies designed
toclarify the Biblical teachings regarding the use of alcoholic beverages. I
feel that this is a timely and urgent issue that needs to be addressed because
the use of alcoholic beverages costs the American society over $117 billion a
year and claims at least 100,000 American lives per year, 25 times as many as
all illegal drugs combined. The problem is equally serious in most countries.
The real human cost of alcohol transcends statistical figures of
dollars, disabilities and death. No one can count the real cost of alcohol to
our society in terms of retarded children, violence in the home, child and
spouse abuse, divorce, rape, robberies, murders, sickness and death.
In our own Seventh-day Adventist church, long known as a champion of temperance
and abstinence, alcohol consumption is steadily rising. I have been made forcibly
aware of this trend by such things as: frequent pleas for help from pastors and
members facing drinking problems in their own congregations; published surveys
in our church paper, Adventist Review, indicating that 58 percent of
Adventist youth are experimenting with alcohol and 17 percent of Adventist
College students are habitual drinkers; lectures given on our college campuses
on alcohol recovery by visiting non- SDA experts; classes on substance abuse
taught on our campuses; counseling centers set up on our campuses specifically
to help students with drinking problems; the establishment by our General
Conference of two organizations to meet the challenge of the steadily rising
drinking of alcohol within the church: (1) a Study Commission on Chemical Dependency
and the Church, and (2) the Institute of Alcoholism and Drug Dependency. It is
evident that the drinking problem is assuming alarming proportions in our own
Adventist church.
A major factor which has contributed to the significant increase in the
consumption of alcoholic beverages on the part of Christians in general and
Adventists in particular, is the prevailing assumption that the Bible teaches
moderation, not total abstinence. Billy Graham himself stated in an interview:
“I do not believe that the Bible teaches teetotalism . . . Jesus drank wine.
Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding feast. That wasn’t grape juice as
some of them try to claim.” (Miami Herald (December 26, 1976), section
A, p. 18).
The example and teachings of Christ are normative for Christian beliefs
and practices. If, as many well-meaning Christians believe, Christ made fermented
wine at the wedding of Cana, commended it in the parables of the new wine
skins and the old wine, admitted to have used it in the
description of His lifestyle (“eating and drinking”) and commanded it to
be used until the end of time at the institution of the Lord's Supper, then there
can hardly be anything intrinsically wrong with a moderate drinking of
alcoholic beverages. Simply stated, “If wine was good enough for Jesus, it is
good enough for me!”
In view of the fundamental importance and far-reaching consequences of
the teachings of Christ and the apostles on drinking, in this ENDTIME ISSUES we
shall briefly examine some of the wine-related stories or sayings of Jesus. A
fuller treatment of these passages is found in chapter 5 of my book Wine in
the Bible, which I would be glad to mail to any interested readers. The
book has been favorably reviewed by scholars of all persuasions. The content of
the book is summarized also in two audio cassettes (one hour each). To receive
a copy of the book and /or cassettes, feel free to call us at (616) 471-2915 or
email us your request. Endtime Issues No. 83 Page 8 of 15
THE WEDDING OF CANA
Many well-meaning Christians believe that the “good wine” Jesus made at
Cana (John 2:10) was “good” because of its high alcoholic content. This belief
rests on three major assumptions. First, it is assumed that the Jews did not
know how to prevent the fermentation of grape juice; and since the season of
the wedding was just before Spring
Passover (cf. John 2:13), that is, six months after the grape harvest,
the wine used at Cana had ample time to ferment. Second, it is assumed that the
description given by the master of the banquet to the wine provided by Christ
as “the good wine” means a high-quality alcoholic wine. Third, it is assumed
that the expression “well drunk” (John 2:10) used by the master of the banquet
indicates that the guests were intoxicated because they had been drinking fermented
wine. Consequently, the wine Jesus made must also have been fermented. In view
of the importance these assumptions play in determining the nature of the wine provided
by Christ, we shall briefly examine each of them.
The first assumption is discredited by numerous testimonies from the
Roman world of New Testament times describing various methods for preserving
grape juice. We have seen in the ENDTIME ISSUES No. 81 that the preservation of
grape juice unfermented was in some ways a simpler process than the
preservation of fermented wine. Thus, the
possibility existed of supplying unfermented grape juice at the wedding
of Cana near the
Passover season, since such a beverage could be kept unfermented
throughout the year. “The Good Wine.” The second assumption that the
wine Jesus provided was pronounced “the good wine” (John 2:10) by the master of
the banquet because it was high in alcoholic content, is based on the taste of
twentieth-century drinkers who define
the goodness of wine largely in proportion to its alcoholic strength.
But this was not necessarily true in the Roman world of New Testament times
where the best wines were those whose alcoholic potency had been
removed by boiling or filtration.
Pliny, for example, says that “wines are most beneficial (utilissimum)
when all their potency has been removed by the strainer.”1 Similarly, Plutarch
points out that wine is “much more pleasant to drink” when it “neither inflames
the brain nor infests the mind or passions”2 because its strength has been
removed through frequent filtering.
The Talmud indicates that drinking to the accompaniment of musical
instruments on festive occasions such as a wedding was forbidden.3 The latter
is confirmed by later testimonies of rabbis. For example, Rabbi S. M. Isaac, an
eminent nineteenth-century rabbi and editor of The Jewish Messenger,
says: “The Jews do not, in their feasts for sacred purposes, including the
marriage feast, ever use any kind of fermented drinks. In their oblations
and libations, both private and public, they employ the fruit of the vine—that
is, fresh grapes—unfermented grape-juice, and raisins, as the symbol of benediction.
Fermentation is to them always a symbol of corruption.”4 Though Rabbi Isaac’s
statement is not quite accurate, since Jewish sources are not unanimous on the kind
of wine to be used at sacred festivals, it still does indicate that some Jews
used unfermented wine at wedding feasts.
“Well Drunk.” The third assumption
that the expression “well drunk” (John 2:10) indicates that the wedding guest
were intoxicated and thus “the good wine” provided b y Christ must also have
been intoxicating, misinterprets and misapplies the comment of the master of
the banquet, and overlooks the broader usage of the verb. The comment in question
was not made in reference to that particular wedding party, but to the general practice
among those who hold feasts: “Every man serves the good wine first; and when men
have drunk freely, then the poor wine . . .” (John 2:10, RSV). This remark forms
part of the stock in trade of a hired banquet master, rather than an actual
description of the state of intoxication at a particular party.
Another important consideration is the fact that the Greek verb methusko,
translated by some “well drunk,” can also mean “to drink freely,” as rendered
by the RSV, without Endtime Issues No. 83 Page 9 of 15 any implication of
intoxication. In his article on this verb in the Theological Dictionary of
the New Testament, Herbert Preisker observes that “Methuskomai is
used with no ethical or religious judgment in John 2:10 in
connection with the rule that the poorer wine is served only when the guests
have drunk well.”5
Moral Implications. The verb methusko in
John 2:10 is used in the sense of satiation. It refers simply to the large
quantity of wine generally consumed at a feast, without any reference to
intoxicating effects. Those who wish to insist that the wine used at the feast
was alcoholic and that Jesus also provided alcoholic wine, though of a better quality,
are driven to the conclusion that Jesus provided a large additional quantity of
intoxicating wine so that the wedding party could continue its reckless
indulgence. Such a conclusion destroys the moral integrity of Christ’s
character.
Moral consistency demands that Christ could not have miraculously
produced between 120 and 180 gallons of intoxicating wine for the use of men,
women and children gathered at the Cana’s wedding feast, without becoming
morally responsible for their intoxication. Scriptural and moral consistency
requires that “the good wine” produced b y Christ was fresh, unfermented grape
juice. This is supported by the very adjective used to describe it, namely kalos,
which denotes that which is morally excellent, instead of agathos, which
means simply good.6
NEW WINE IN NEW WINESKINS
Christ’s statement that “new wine must be put into fresh wineskins”
(Luke 5:38; Matt 9:17; Mark 2:22), is seen by moderationists as an indication
that Jesus commended the moderate use of alcoholic wine. This view rests
on the assumption that the phrase “new wine” denotes wine freshly pressed, but
already in a state of active fermentation. Such wine, it is said, could only be
placed in new wineskins because old skins would burst under pressure.
Fermenting New Wine? This popular
interpretation is very imaginative but not factual. Anyone familiar with the
pressure caused by gas-producing fermentation knows that no bottle, whether of
skin or glass, can withstand the pressure of fermenting new wine. As Alexander
B. Bruce points out, “Jesus was not thinking at all of fermented, intoxicating
wine, but of ‘must,’ a non-intoxicating beverage, which could be kept safely in
new leather bottles, but not in old skins which had previously contained
ordinary wine, because particles of albuminoid matter adhering to the skin
would set up fermentation and develop gas with an enormous pressure.”7 The
only “new wine” which could be stored safely in new wineskins was unfermented
must, after it had been filtered or boiled. Columella, the renowned Roman agriculturist
who was a contemporary of the apostles, attests that a “new wine-jar”
was used to preserve fresh must unfermented: “That must may remain always sweet
as though it were fresh, do as follows. Before the grape-skins are put under the
press, take from the vat some of the freshest possible must and put it in a new
wine-jar [amphoram novam], then daub it over and cover it
carefully with pitch, that thus no water may be able to get in.”8
Symbolic Meaning. This interpretation
is further confirmed by the symbolic meaning of Christ’s saying. The imagery of
new wine in new wineskins is an object lesson in regeneration. As aptly
explained by Ernest Gordon, “The old wineskins, with their alcoholic lees,
represented the Pharisees’ corrupt nature. The new wine of the Gospel could not
be put into them. They would ferment it. ‘I came not to call the self-righteous
but repentant sinners.’ The latter by their conversion become new vessels, able
to retain the new wine without spoiling it (Mark 2:15-17, 22). So, by comparing
intoxicating wine with degenerate Pharisaism, Christ clearly intimated what his
opinion of intoxicating wine was.”9
Endtime Issues No. 83 Page 10 of 15 “It is well to notice,” Ernest
Gordon continues, “how in this casual illustration, he
[Christ] identifies wine altogether with unfermented wine. Fermented
wine is given no recognition. It could be put into any kind of wineskin,
however sorry and corrupt. But new wine is like new cloth which is too good to
be used in patching rags. It is a thing clean and wholesome, demanding a clean
container. The natural way in which this
illustration is used suggests at least a general, matter-of-fact
understanding among his Jewish hearers that the real fruit of the vine, the
good wine, was unfermented.”10
IS OLD WINE BETTER?
In Luke Christ’s saying about new wine in fresh wineskins is followed by
a similar and yet different statement: “And no one after drinking old wine
desires new; for he says, ‘The old is good’” (Luke 5:39). Though this statement
is not found in the other Gospels, it forms an integral part of the narrative.
Moderationists attach fundamental importance to
this statement because it contains, in their view, Christ's outspoken
commendation of alcoholic wine. Kenneth L. Gentry, for example, speaks of “the
well-nigh universal prevalence of men to prefer old (fermented) wine over new
(pre- or unfermented) wine.
The Lord himself makes reference to this assessment among men in Luke
5:39: ‘And no one, after drinking old wine, wishes for new; for he says, The
old is good enough.’”11
Meaning of “New Wine.” The phrase
“new wine—oinos neos” is used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation
of the Old Testament), to translate both fermented wine as in Job 32:19 and
unfermented grape juice as in Isaiah 49:26. In the latter it translates the
Hebrew asis which designates unfermented grape juice. In the passage
under consideration it is legitimate to infer that “new wine” has the
same meaning in the whole passage, because it is used consecutively without
any intimation of change of meaning. The metaphors in both sayings are used
without confusion or contradiction. This means that if the “new wine” of verse
38 is, as shown earlier, unfermented grape juice, the same must be true of the
“new wine” of verse 39.
Meaning of “Old Wine.” Before
discussing whether or not Christ expressed a judgment on the superior quality
of “old wine” over “new wine,” it is important to determine whether the “old
wine” spoken of is fermented or unfermented. From the viewpoint of quality, age
“improves” the flavor not only of fermented wine but also of unfermented grape
juice. Though no chemical change occurs, grape juice acquires a finer flavor b
y being kept, as its fine and subtle particles separate from the albuminous
matter and other sedimentations. Thus, the “old wine” esteemed good could refer
to grape juice preserved and improved by age.
The context, however, favors the meaning of fermented wine, since Christ
uses the metaphor of the “old wine” to represent the old forms of religion and
the “new wine” the new form of religious life He taught and inaugurated. In
this context, fermented old wine better represents the corrupted forms of the
old Pharisaic religion.
Is “Old Wine” Better? In the light of this
conclusion, it remains to be determined if Christ by this saying is expressing
a value judgment on the superiority of “old [fermented] wine” over “new
[unfermented] wine.” A careful reading of the text indicates that the one who
says “The old is good” is not Christ but anyone who has been drinking
“old wine.” In other words, Christ is not uttering His own opinion, but
the opinion of those who have acquired a taste for the old wine. He says simply
that anyone who has acquired a taste for old wine does not care for new. We know
this to be the case. Drinking alcoholic beverages begets an appetite for
stimulants and not for alcohol-free juices. Christ’s saying does not represent
His approval of the superiority of old, fermented wine. Several commentators
emphasize this point. In his Commentary on the Gospel of Luke,
Norval Geldenhuys says: “The point at issue here has nothing to do with the comparative
merits of old and new wine, but refers to the predilection for old wine in the case
of those who are accustomed to drink it.”12 Endtime Issues No. 83 Page 11 of 15
R. C. H. Lenski states the same truth most concisely: “It is not Jesus
who calls the old wine ‘good enough,’ but he that drank it. A lot of old wine
is decidedly bad because it has not been prepared properly; age is one thing,
excellence with age quite another.”13
The Context of the “Old Wine.” The view that old, fermented wine is better than new wine, would be
false even if everyone on earth believed it! And in the passage we are
considering it is contradicted by the context in which it occurs and by the
whole purpose of the illustration. In the immediate context Jesus uses the same
word (palaios) of old garments, which He obviously did not esteem as
better than new ones. The statement about “old wine” seems to contradict the
preceding one about “old garment,” but the contradiction disappears when one
understands the purpose of the illustration.
The purpose of the illustration is not to praise the superiority of old
wine but to warn against an over-estimation of the old forms of religiosity
promoted by the Pharisees. Such religiosity consisted, as verse 33 indicates,
in the fulfillment of such external ascetic practices as frequent fasting and
public prayer. To justify the fact that His disciples did not adhere to such
external forms of religiosity, Christ used four illustrations: wedding guests
do not fast in the presence of the bridegroom (vv. 34-35); new cloth is not
used to patch an old garment (v. 36); new wine is not placed in old wineskins
(vv. 37-38); new wine is not liked by those accustomed to drink the old (v.
39).
The common purpose of all the four illustrations is to help people
accustomed to the old forms of religion, and unacquainted with the new form of
religious life taught by Christ, to recognize that the old seems good only so
long as one is not accustomed to the new, which in and of itself is better. In
this context, the old fermented wine seems good only to those who do not know
the better new wine.
WAS JESUS A GLUTTON AND A DRUNKARD?
More than nineteen centuries ago Jesus was accused of being “a glutton
and a drunkard” because He came “eating and drinking” (Luke 7:33-34: Matt
11:19). Moderationists find in Jesus’ description of His own lifestyle as
“eating and drinking” (Matt 11:19; Luke 7:34) an unmistakable proof that He
openly admitted having used alcoholic wine. Moreover, it is argued,
Jesus must have drunk alcoholic wine for His critics to accuse Him of being a
“drunkard.”
Social Lifestyle. This interpretation
ignores several important considerations. The phrase “eating and drinking” is
used idiomatically to describe the difference between the
social lifestyle of Jesus and that of John the Baptist. John came
“eating no bread and drinking no wine” (Luke 7:33), that is to say, he lived a
lifestyle of full social isolation, while
Christ came “eating and drinking,” that is to say, He lived a lifestyle
of free social association.
No Mention of “Wine.” A significant point
often overlooked is that Jesus did not mention “wine” in describing His own
lifestyle. While of John the Baptist Jesus said that he came “eating no bread
and drinking no wine,” of Himself He simply said: “The Son of Man has
come eating and drinking.” If Jesus had wanted it to be known that, contrary to
John the Baptist He was a wine-drinker, then He could have repeated the word
“wine” for the sake of emphasis and clarity.
By refusing to specify what kinds of food or drink He consumed, Christ
may well have wished to deprive His critics of any basis for their charge of
gluttony and drunkenness. The omission of “bread” and “wine” in the second
statement (Matthew omits them in both statements) could well have been intended
to expose the senselessness of the charge. In other words, Jesus appears to
have said, “My critics accuse me of being a glutton and drunkard, just because
I do not take meals alone but eat often in the presence of other people. I eat socially.
But my critics actually do not know what I eat.” Endtime Issues No. 83
Page 12 of 15
Even assuming that His critics actually saw Jesus drinking something,
they would have readily accused Him of being a drunkard, even if they saw Him
drinking grape juice, or water, for that matter. On the day of Pentecost
critics charged the apostles with being drunk on grape-juice (gleukos—Acts
2:13). This goes to show that no matter what Jesus drank, His unscrupulous
critics would have maligned Him as a drunkard.
Critics’ Accusation Unsafe. To infer that Jesus must have drunk wine because His critics accused Him
of being a “drunkard” means to accept as truth the word of Christ’s enemies. On
two other occasions his critics accused Jesus, saying: “You have a demon” (John
7:20; 8:48). If we believe that Christ must have drunk some alcoholic wine because
His critics accused Him of being a drunkard, then we must also believe that He had
an evil spirit because His critics accused Him of having a demon. The absurdity
of such reasoning shows that using critics’ accusations is not safe grounds for
defining Biblical teachings.
Jesus answered the baseless charge of His critics, saying: “Yet wisdom
is justified by all her children” (Luke 7:35). Textual evidence is divided
between “children” and “works,” but the meaning of this cryptic statement
remains the same, namely, that wisdom is to be judged by its results. The
wisdom of God is vindicated by the works of goodness to which it gives birth.
Thus, to infer on the basis of the aspersions of His critics that Jesus drank
wine shows a complete lack of wisdom. The results of His life of self-denial
speak for themselves.
THE COMMUNION WINE
Fundamental importance is attached to the “wine” of the Last Supper
because Christ not only used it, but even commanded it to be used until
the end of time as a memorial of His redeeming blood (Matt 26:28-29; Mark
14:24-25). It is widely believed that the wine of the Last Supper was alcoholic
for two main reasons: (1) the phrase “fruit of the vine” is a figurative
expression which was used as the funtional equivalent of fermented wine, and
(2) the Jews supposedly used only fermented wine at the Passover. This belief
is discredited by several important considerations.
“The Fruit of the Vine.” The language
of the Last Supper is significant. In all the synoptic gospels Jesus calls the
contents of the cup “the fruit of the vine” (Matt 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke
22:18). The noun “fruit” (gennema) denotes that which is produced in a natural
state, just as it is gathered. Fermented wine is not the natural “fruit of the
vine” but the unnatural fruit of fermentation and decay. The Jewish historian Josephus,
who was a contemporary of the apostles, explicitly calls the three clusters of
grapes freshly squeezed in a cup by Pharaoh’s cupbearer as “the fruit of the
vine.”14 This establishes unequivocally that the phrase was used to designate
the sweet, unfermented juice of the grape.
“All” to Drink the Cup. If the
contents of the cup were alcoholic wine, Christ could hardly have said: “Drink
of it, all of you” (Matt 26:27; cf. Mark 14:23; Luke 22:17), especially in
view of the fact that a typical Passover cup of wine contained not just a sip of
wine, but about three-quarters of a pint.15 Christ could hardly have commanded
“all” of His followers to drink the cup, if its content were
alcoholic wine. There are some to whom alcohol in any form is very harmful.
Young children who participate at the Lord’s table should certaintly not touch
wine. There are those to whom the simple taste or smell of alcohol awakens in
them a dormant or conquered craving for alcohol. Could Christ, who taught us to
pray “Lead us not into temptation,” have made His memorial table a place of irresistible
temptation for some and of danger for all? The wine of the Lord’s Supper can never
be taken freely and festally as long as it is alcoholic and
intoxicating.
The Law of Fermentation. Further
support for the unfermented nature of the Communion wine is provided by the
Mosaic law which required the exclusion of all fermented articles during the
Passover feast (Ex 12:15; 13:6, 7). Jesus understood the meaning of the letter
and spirit of the Mosaic law regarding “unfermented things,” as indicated by
His warning against “the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Matt Endtime
Issues No. 83 Page 13 of 15 16:6). “Leaven” for Christ represented corrupt
nature and teachings, as the disciples later understood (Matt 16:12). The
consistency and beauty of the blood symbolism cannot be fittingly represented
by fermented wine, which stands in the Scripture for human depravity and divine
indignation.
We cannot conceive of Christ bending over to bless in grateful prayer a
cup containing alcoholic wine which the Scripture warns us not to look at (Prov
23:31). A cup that intoxicates is a cup of cursing and not “the cup of
blessing” (1 Cor 10:16); it is “the cup of demons” and not “the cup of the
Lord” (1 Cor 10:21); it is a cup that cannot fittingly symbolize the
incorruptible and “precious blood of Christ” (1 Peter 1:18-19). This gives us
reason to believe that the cup He “blessed” and gave to His disciples did not
contain any “fermented thing” prohibited by Scripture.
Historical Testimonies. Jewish and
Christian historical testimonies support the use of unfermented wine at
Passover/Lord's Supper. Louis Ginzberg (1873-1941), a distinguished Talmudic
scholar who for almost forty years was chairman of the Department of Talmudic
and Rabbinic Studies at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, provides
what is perhaps the most exhaustive analysis of the Talmudic references regarding
the use of wine in Jewish religious ceremonies. He concludes his investigation
by saying: “We have thus proven on the basis of the main passages both
of the Babylonian Talmud and that of Jerusalem that unfermented wine may be
used lekatehillah
[optionally] for Kiddush [the consecration of a festival by means
of a cup of wine] and other religious ceremonies outside the temple.”16 Ginzberg’s
conclusion is confirmed by The Jewish Encyclopedia. Commenting on the
time of the Last Supper, it says: “According to the synoptic Gospels, it would appear
that on the Thursday evening of the last week of his life Jesus with his
disciples entered Jerusalem in order to eat the Passover meal with them in the
sacred city; if so, the wafer and the wine of the mass or the communion service
then instituted by him as a memorial would be the unleavened bread and the
unfermented wine of the Seder service.”17
The custom of using unfermented wine at Passover has survived through
the centuries not only among some Jews, but also among certain Christian groups
and churches. For example, in the apocryphal Acts and Martyrdom of St.
Matthew the Apostle, which circulated in the third century, a
heavenly voice instructs the local Bishop Plato, saying: “Read the Gospel and
bring as an offering the holy bread; and having pressed three clusters from the
vine into a cup, communicate with me, as the Lord Jesus showed us how to offer
up when He rose from the dead on the third day.”18 This is a clear testimony of
the use of freshly pressed grape juice in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.
The practice of pressing preserved grapes directly into the communion
cup is attested by councils, popes and theologians, including Thomas Aquinas
(A. D.1225- 1274).19 The use of unfermented wine is well-documented especially
among such Eastern Churches as the Abyssinian Church, the Nestorian Church of
Western Asia, the Christians of St. Thomas in India, the Coptic monasteries in
Egypt, and the Christians of St. John in Persia, all of which celebrated the
Lord’s Supper with unfermented wine made either with fresh or dried grapes.20 Endtime
Issues No. 83 Page 14 of 15
CONCLUSION
In the light of the foregoing considerations we conclude that “the fruit
of the vine” that Jesus commanded to be used as a memorial of His redeeming
blood was not fermented, which in the Scripture represents human corruption and
divine indignation, but unfermented and pure grape juice, a fitting emblem of
Christ’s untainted blood shed for the remission of our sins.
The claim that Christ used and sanctioned the use of alcoholic beverages
rest on unfounded assumptions, devoid of textual, contextual and historical
support. The evidence we have submitted indicates that Jesus abstained from all
intoxicating substances and gave no sanction to His followers to use them. May
we follow the example of Jesus by abstaining from any substance that intoxicate
our body and impairsour mind.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário