WWJE - What would Jesus eat?

Q. What did Jesus eat and drink?

A. A query on the radio, whether Jesus was a vegetarian, brings to mind the interesting question of what foods Jesus ate and drank while he was here on the earth. While we might make some guesses based on what were the common foods of the Jewish culture in that chronological period, the following answers will stick to references in Scripture. The answer divides into two categories – what is stated that he ate & drank, and what is implied that he ate & drank.[i]

Stated

• Fish - Luke 24:41-43 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them.
• Honey with comb - Luke 24:41-43, see above.
• Water - John 4:7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.
• Bread - Mark 15:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
• Fruit of the vine - Mark 14:24-25 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
• Vinegar - John 19:29-30 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Implied

• Bread and wine - Luke 7:33-34 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!
• Wine - John 2:1-11, Matthew 11:19
• Lamb - Matthew 26:17 Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? Luke 22:7-8 Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.[ii]
• Figs - Mark 11:13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
• Corn/grain - Matthew 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.
• Loaves/bread - John 6:11 And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would. John 21:13 Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise.
• Fish - John 6: 11, 21:13, see above.[iii]

---

[i] Most references are not specific. For example, the Bible tells us Jesus made wine at a wedding, but does not specify that he drank it. We know Jesus multiplied loaves (of bread) and fish, but on that occasion the Bible does not specify that he ate. Yet most would agree that his communal partaking is at the least implied.

[ii] Exodus 12:21 Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover.

[iii] Some other references related to Jesus eating or drinking: Matthew 9:10, Mark 9:41, Luke 5:30, Luke 7:36, John 4:8, 31, John 12:2

Church history, Spurgeon, and Wine

In studying the topic of wine in biblical times – and comparing to the teetotal viewpoint of many Baptist in the United States – I wondered what story that church history told about wine.[i] My conclusion is similar to that presented by Edward H. Jewett in The Two-Wine Theory Discussed by Two Hundred and Eighty-six Clergymen. The “two-wine” theory (and its companion idea that any positive biblical references to wine must actually mean fresh grape juice instead of fermented juice) is a mere youth in church history, a quirky child born out of the Prohibition movement. This is not to say that views of temperance or even abstinence are new – but this odd way of supporting them is.

Initially the modern temperance movement was a stand for moderation, and in particular targeted the distilled liquors with high alcohol content. Eventually it moved to total abstinence. The slogan of the women of the Anti-Saloon League became “lips that touch liquor shall not touch ours.”[ii]

The evolution of the views of England’s “Prince of Preachers,” Charles Haddon Spurgeon, mirror the evolution of the views of many a Baptist on the temperance/abstinence question. In 1865 he clearly states he is not a teetotaler (though he recommends that children be “brought up to abstain from alcoholic liquors”).[iii]

In 1877, Spurgeon reviewed The Wines of the Bible: an Examination and Refutation of the Unfermented Wine Theory by A. M. Wilson in his paper The Sword and the Trowel.[iv] Wilson’s book refuted the new-fangled idea that there could be any such thing as “unfermented wine.” Spurgeon recommended the book and agreed with Wilson. Spurgeon writes,

“‘UNFERMENTED wine’ is a non-existent liquid. Mr. Wilson has so fully proved this that it will require considerable hardihood to attempt a reply...Mr. Wilson has written the thick volume now before us to settle the matter, and we believe that he establishes beyond reasonable debate that the wines of the Bible were intoxicating, and that our Lord did not ordain jelly or syrup, or cherry juice to be the emblem of his sacrifice.”[v]

Nevertheless, within ten years Spurgeon’s Metropolitan Tabernacle was using “unfermented wine” at the Lord’s table! In response to the question raised as to what they used at their communion services, Spurgeon wrote in June of 1887,

“We use Frank Wright’s unfermented wine at the Tabernacle, and have never used any other unfermented wine…Mr. Wright’s is the pure juice of the grape…So far as we are concerned, we use no wine but that produced by Messrs. Frank Wright, Mundy, and Co.”[vi]

Because of this evolution, various isolated citations may be used to show that Spurgeon supported the drinking of wine and its use in communion – or that he opposed it both as a beverage and in communion! Church history shows us some interesting information, but the Bible is our sole rule of faith and practice. To attempt to prove temperance and especially total abstinence by odd twistings of the Bible is both weird and shameful. Reasons to abstain from the use of beverages containing alcohol may be biblically supported without resorting to eisegesis.[vii]

---

[i] I shall hope to later put together some of that evidence in a blog post.

[ii] There was even a song, The Lips That Touch Liquor Shall Never Touch Mine.

[iii] As cited in Spurgeon: Prince of Preachers by Lewis A. Drummond (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1992), p. 449. Drummond says that in his early years Spurgeon “enjoyed a pint of ale or a glass of wine in the evening” (p. 439) but “later in life Spurgeon did ‘take the pledge’ and became a teetotaler.” (p. 449)

[iv] London: Hamilton, Adams & Co., 1877

[v] Unfermented Wine

[vi] The Autobiography of Charles H. Spurgeon, Compiled from His Diary, Letters, and Records by His Wife and His Private Secretary, Vol. IV 1878-1892, Susannah Thompson Spurgeon, Chicago, IL: Fleming H. Revell, 1900, p. 135

[vii] For example, our concern for weaker brothers and sisters (1 Corinthians 8:13; Romans 14:2), wisely-applied caution (Proverbs 20:1), avoiding the power and subjugation of this element (1 Corinthians 6:12), and in all these deferring the minor concern of what we drink to the greater issues of life (Matthew 6:25). My interpretation of the facts scattered throughout the entire Bible is that drunkenness is absolutely condemned but any restriction against drinking wine is not absolute.

On the so-called “two-wine” theory

“IF some future Disraeli should undertake to write an account of the literary curiosities which have appeared during the present century, he will find abundance of material for a leading article in what has been written and published in support of the generic or two-wine theory. The literature thus produced is curious—indeed, unique—on account of the gigantic assumptions and blunderings, misunderstandings and misinterpretings, sanctimonious misjudgings, and acrimonious accusings of opponents contained in it, as well as for the amount of time wasted, and the sums of money spent in propagating a delusion. It is certain to be known through coming generations as the leading craze of the nineteenth century.

“When, and by whom, the theory originated, is a matter of some doubt; but its birthplace was in the United States, and the time, about fifty years ago. Attractive as a novelty, and offering, as was supposed, a powerful support to the cause of teetotalism, it called out the interest and vigorous advocacy of many, both learned and unlearned. And, as is usual in such cases, there was a jumping at conclusions, before the matter had been carefully examined on all sides. Ancient literature was ransacked, and everything possible was gathered up that had any apparent bearing on the subject. By zeal outrunning discretion, passages were torn from their connections and pressed into the service, whether they had any legitimate bearing upon it or not—thus setting at defiance, as the result has shown, every principle of literary truth and honesty.”

From the “Preface” of The Two-Wine Theory Discussed by Two Hundred and Eighty-six Clergymen, on the Basis of “Communion Wine”, by Edward Hurtt Jewett (Fifth Edition, New York, NY: E. Steiger & Co., 1890, p. v)

The Wedding at Cana

John 2:1-11 – And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: and both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, and saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

Simple facts in the text of what the Bible says.

1. The word “wine” (English; oinos, Greek) is used five times, with no distinction as to what kind of wine. There was “wanted wine,” (1) “no wine,” (1) “made wine,” (1) and “good wine” (2) – with the implication of “worse wine” (v. 10; though only “worse” is used it is in reference to wine). The difference in the wine in the story of the wedding of Cana is first the difference of presence and absence. It is never a difference of kind, but of quality! No other differences can be observed in the text without an interpreter bringing them in from outside the text![i]

Simple observations in the text of what the Bible says.

1. Good wine is capable of intoxicating. “Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine (καλον οινον); and when men have well drunk (μεθυσθωσιν), then that which is worse (ελασσω, lesser, worse in quality).”

2. The governor of the feast called the wine he was drinking “good wine.” “but thou hast kept the good wine (καλον οινον) until now”

3. Jesus made the good wine that the governor of the feast was drinking. “the water that was made wine...This beginning of miracles did Jesus”

Simple conclusion in the text of what the Bible says.

Jesus performed a miracle. He made good wine, the equivalent of a fermented wine, from water.[ii] “This beginning of miracles did Jesus”

The final answer to the entire “wine debate” is here in this record. Why look we for another?

---

[i] Such insertion is found in the translation work of Stephen Mills Reynolds in his A Purified Translation: “And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, ‘They have no wine.’…When the master of the feast tasted the water that had become grape juice,…And he said to him, “Every man at the beginning sets out the good beverage,…” Using the two-wine preconception Reynolds translates oinos “negatively” as alcoholic wine, “positively” as grape juice, and “neutrally” as a beverage. This was not in the text, only in his mind.

[ii] I write “the equivalent of a fermented wine” not to equivocate, but simply because the entire processes – from growth on the vine to harvest, from the winepress through fermentation, and to table – were all immediately duplicated and rendered unnecessary by the miraculous power of the Lord Jesus Christ.

After that he may drink wine

The Nazarite vow is often mentioned as an example for abstinence today, because of its restriction of drinking wine and strong drink. The entire context of the Nazarite is a separation while under his vow from things that were otherwise allowable. In addition to wine and strong drink, the Nazarite was prohibited from grapes, raisins, grape juice (“liquor of the grape”, KJV), grape vinegar – in fact any product of the grapevine (“nothing that is made of the vine tree”, KJV). Separation from “all things grape” was not the only restriction, however. The Nazarite must not cut his hair but rather allow his locks to grow. He also could not touch a dead body, even an immediate member of his family. (Under the law even a priest could become unclean for the death of an immediate family member.) The Nazarite would fulfill the number of days of his vow (apparently determined by the one making the vow), make the proper offerings, “and after that the Nazarite may drink wine.” Here “may drink wine” is a figure of speech, a synecdoche in which “wine” stands for being released from the entire vow. Being released, they may drink wine, strong drink and the liquor of grapes; eat grapes, raisins, and other products of the grapevine. Restrictions concerning hair and dead bodies default to the regular customs prior the vow.

That the Nazarite was commanded to abstain from the consumption of wine and strong drink while under his vow shows that he normally drank (or could drink) these products. After the vow is completed the Nazarite “may drink wine.” This is clear to the casual observer (and the not so casual!). It allows for the use of wine as a beverage. The Nazarite vow is devastating to the case for prohibition, unless one can prove that wine and strong drink do not here stand for a fermented beverage of the vine tree. Interestingly, in his exhaustive work on wine in the Old Testament, Robert Teachout tries to blunt the effect of this by translating wine (yayin) as “grape juice” in Numbers 6:20: “and afterward the Nazirite may drink grape juice.” Unless the release is only to “drink grape juice” the effort is nullified. The statement represents the fulfillment of the vow and return to normalcy. Teachout translates “wine and strong drink” (yayin and shekar) as “intoxicating wine” in verse 3. Is the Nazarite only released to drink grape juice, while remaining under all the other restrictions of the vow, or does Numbers 6:20 mean the Nazarite is released from the restrictions of the entire vow after its duration ends and offerings are made? The answer is obvious, and should give pause to the abstentionist and prohibitionist.

How does the Bible define drunkenness?

The thoughts on this post began with a pastor asking the question, "Would you mind telling me how I as a pastor can know when a member of my flock is guilty of drunkenness?" The Bible-believing Christian must answer this the same way regardless of his or her position on drinking in moderation or abstention. Go to the Bible and find out what it says about drunkenness. We won't find a fine dividing line that we can determine with a breathalyzer. That is a secular and legal approach. In our state we legally define that point with blood alcohol level -- 0.08 blood alcohol concentration (at least while driving).1 BUT the question now before us is how the Bible, our rule of faith and practice, defines it. There we will find guidance. Inspired, inerrant guidance at that!

Please consider the following points from Scripture.

There is a point at which one passes from "drinking wine" to drunkenness; that is, these are two different states. For examples, Genesis 9:21 "And he drank of the wine, and was drunken..." Deuteronomy 29:19 "And it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst:"

The Bible speaks of "drunken" but also of an exceeding state of that: 1 Samuel 25:36 "And Abigail came to Nabal; and, behold, he held a feast in his house, like the feast of a king; and Nabal's heart was merry within him, for he was very drunken" The "very drunken" state is most obvious, but drunken might not be quite as readily observable.

Certain actions, states or physical signs are often associated with drunkenness in the Bible, such as staggering, shaking and vomiting. Psalm 107:27 They reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wit's end. (Cf. Jer. 23:9, Isa. 19:14; Prov. 23:29). [We understand other things can also cause these signs, such as sickness.]

Actions or states unrelated to alcohol sometimes are mistaken for drunkenness. 1 Samuel 1:13 "Now Hannah, she spake in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard: therefore Eli thought she had been drunken." (Cf. Acts 2:15)

Drunkenness is associated with loss of control of one's senses or actions. Sometimes "loss of control" can be in a good way -- being controlled by the Spirit. Ephesians 5:18 "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;" There are also other figures in the Bible that speak of being "drunk" on something other than wine/strong drink that seem to generally share the meaning of not being in control or possession of one's faculties. (Cf. Job 12:24-25; Lam. 4:21; Rev. 17:2)

Drunkenness is caused by an excess of wine. Compare Eph. 5:18 and I Peter 4:3. For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:

This may be simplistic. Perhaps it does not draw as exact a line as you may want. But looking at these verses are a starting place for a BIBLICAL definition of drunkenness.

1. I'm not sure if it is proper to say this defines drunkenness legally so much as to say it is the point where driving becomes illegal. For example, I don't think BAC has anything to do with "public intoxication" in Texas, which appears to be at a law officer's discretion.

Just when you think you know....

Just when you think you know all about Baptist history, you learn something new!

The only distilled beverage native to the United States is bourbon. A Baptist preacher from Kentucky, Elijah Craig (1738–1808), is credited with the invention of bourbon whiskey. He and his brother Lewis and the “Traveling Church” came from Virginia and arrived in central Kentucky circa 1781. Apparently, a number of Kentucky churches trace their lineage to this beginning.

According to Wikipedia, “He was ordained a Baptist minister in 1771, and was imprisoned briefly in South Carolina, apparently for disturbing the peace with his sermons. He then moved to what was then Bourbon County, Kentucky and settled in the area of Frankfort, Kentucky in 1785. In 1777, he became pastor of Blue Run Church.”

The first Baptist college founded west of the Allegheny mountains – Georgetown College (in Georgetown, KY) – has a connection back to Elijah Craig. He founded the Rittenhouse Academy in 1798. Silas Noel, a Frankfort, KY lawyer and minister, helped persuade the Kentucky legislature to charter the Kentucky Baptist Education Society in 1829. Citizens of Georgetown offered to raise $20,000 and donate the assets of Rittenhouse Academy for a new college. Therefore, Georgetown’s roots are fed from Craig’s school.

I ran across the bourbon info in “The excommunication of wine” in the Searcy, Arkansas Daily Citizen (Thursday, February 8, 2007 6:38 PM CST) That article carried this interesting paragraph:

“It took less than one hundred years for the majority of American Churches to end eighteen centuries of the virtually universal use of wine and begin serving grape juice at communion services. This swift change in public perception is akin to the drop in sales of orange juice and bread caused by the recent Atkin’s Diet brouhaha. In this sense, Prohibition can be viewed as one of history’s most successful marketing campaigns.”