Wine In The New Testament

[Abulafia]

Nehor, are we talking Commandments as in the Mosaic Law or something else? There were a lot of 'commandments' given historically. If you were a certain type of Jewish Christian you would probably consider it a commandment to keep Kosher and have your boys circumcised. You might also consider it a commandment to be the husband of one wife in the intertestamental period if you were a Christian, an Essene or part of the Qumran community.

[maxrep12]

It is interesting to me that most discussions about the WoW, fail to acknowledge the Temperance Movement, which preceded the WoW. It is quite likely that Joseph borrowed generously from the movement:

 

 

In 1826 Marcus Morton had founded the American Temperance Society June, 1830, theMillenial Harbinger quoted in full, and with the hearty personal endorsement of Alexander Campbell, an article from the Philadelphia “Journal of Health,” The above in turn was quoting a widely circulated book, “The Simplicity of Health,” which article most strongly condemned the use of alcohol, tobacco, the eating intemperately of meats.

 

On October 6, 1830, the Kirtland Temperance Society was organized with two hundred thirty nine members. Among its members were listed a George Smith, several Morleys, a Wells, a Coe, and a Lyman. names all associated with the history of Mormonism.

 

A few years before the Word of Wisdom, Robert Owen had abolished the use of ardent spirits in his community at New Harmony.

 

Whitney R. Cross points out that “the temperance movement … began much earlier… During the 1830′s it attained national scope. … Further, if alcohol was evil because it frustrated the Lord’s design for the human body, other drugs like tea, coffee, and tobacco must be equally wrong … Josiah Bissell…. had even before the 1831 revival ‘got beyond Temperance to the Cold Water Society—no tea, coffee or any other slops.’ “

[Abulafia]

There are weightier matters but just because there is something more important does not mean you ignore the lesser things. Jesus said the same. He told people obsessed with the little things to do the important things and NOT to leave the little things undone.

 

Not denying the Holy Ghost is more important then not committing murder does this mean I don't need to worry about not killing people?

 

The strict legalism Jesus decried was the kind that invented rules on top of actual commandments. In our day this would mean ignoring people who add rules to the Word of Wisdom or multiply Sabbath Day restrictions or whatever. Those things can be safely ignored in the sense that each person makes up their own mind about them. It is not license to ignore the actual commandments even though they may be minor.

I'm going to pick you up on this (again), because it is obvious that you are treating me as an idiot.  Which is fair enough.  

Let's explore this a little deeper. The author of  Mark is writing around the time of the destruction of the Jewish Temple.  We don't know who he is, but he most likely wasn't a first hand witness to Jesus.  Maybe, just maybe he got his information from Peter.  We don't really know.   He's quite influenced by Greek culture and so is probably a Hellenized Jew.  He's certainly less strict than Matthew, who takes pains to change Mark where he feels uncomfortable. (ie in terms of flight on the Sabbath).

Here's what Mark says (and remember Luke and Matthew writing later have Mark at their disposal most likely),

 

 

7 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus 2 and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed.3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.[a])

5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”

6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,

    but their hearts are far from me.

7 They worship me in vain;

    their teachings are merely human rules.’[b]

8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c]your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[d] and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[e] 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this.15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.” [16] [f]

17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable.18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

 

 

 

This is actually pretty radical stuff, and in some ways quite anachronistic.  Mark refers to Pharisees and Jews.  Looking at this more deeply, the warning signs go up.   Jesus is a Jew!  Mark refers to them as if they are quite different to Jesus.  He's one of them.   Is this Mark's bias coming through?   

Here Jesus is not only portrayed as concentrating on the weightier matters rather than 'invented' rules, but he is also getting rid of Kosher.  Kosher was considered a commandment.  It's totally radical.  Look at it from a Jewish perspective.  It would be like someone coming along in Mormonism and stating that the Word of Wisdom is a commandment of men and has nothing to do with God.   That's what Jesus is doing to Kosher here.   

So, is Mark portraying Jesus as he was, or as he wanted him to be.  That's the issue.  We just don't know.

Like I say, I love Mark's portrayal of Jesus, but whether it was based in historical fact is another matter.  It's uncomfortable for me to recognise that, but if I am not to be a hypocrite in terms of criticism of Mormon Theology, then recognise it I must.

[thesometimesaint]

 

It is interesting to me that most discussions about the WoW, fail to acknowledge the Temperance Movement, which preceded the WoW. It is quite likely that Joseph borrowed generously from the movement:

 

 

In 1826 Marcus Morton had founded the American Temperance Society June, 1830, theMillenial Harbinger quoted in full, and with the hearty personal endorsement of Alexander Campbell, an article from the Philadelphia “Journal of Health,” The above in turn was quoting a widely circulated book, “The Simplicity of Health,” which article most strongly condemned the use of alcohol, tobacco, the eating intemperately of meats.

 

On October 6, 1830, the Kirtland Temperance Society was organized with two hundred thirty nine members. Among its members were listed a George Smith, several Morleys, a Wells, a Coe, and a Lyman. names all associated with the history of Mormonism.

 

A few years before the Word of Wisdom, Robert Owen had abolished the use of ardent spirits in his community at New Harmony.

 

Whitney R. Cross points out that “the temperance movement … began much earlier… During the 1830′s it attained national scope. … Further, if alcohol was evil because it frustrated the Lord’s design for the human body, other drugs like tea, coffee, and tobacco must be equally wrong … Josiah Bissell…. had even before the 1831 revival ‘got beyond Temperance to the Cold Water Society—no tea, coffee or any other slops.’ “

 

 

Correlation is not causation. A better clue is John the Baptist in the Bible,

[Abulafia]

Nehor, when Jesus is quoted in Matthew 5 as saying...
 

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.(W) 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.(X) 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands(Y) and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

 
by calculation, there are about 613 commandments that would have constituted the Law according to the Torah (and Matthew is careful to change the emphasis in the passage on dietary law to 'washing hands' rather than the abolishment of Kosher - there's his stricter Jewish bias again).

Here's a link to them... 

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

143 to 169 constitute the Dietary Laws.   In Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, which he appears to have included lock, stock and barrel from a very Jewish tradition which perhaps even he was uncomfortable with, Jesus is recorded as stating that even the 'least' of these commandments still stands.  

For Jesus the Law would have meant the Law of Moses, yes?

So, how many of these 'commandments' do Christian's keep today.  In fact how many of all 613 of them.

Here's the relevant dietary laws from the Torah.
 

Dietary Laws

143. To examine the marks in cattle (so as to distinguish the clean from the unclean) (Lev. 11:2) (affirmative). SeeAnimals that may not be eaten.
144. Not to eat the flesh of unclean beasts (Lev. 11:4) (CCN93). See Animals that may not be eaten.
145. To examine the marks in fishes (so as to distinguish the clean from the unclean (Lev. 11:9) (affirmative). SeeAnimals that may not be eaten.
146. Not to eat unclean fish (Lev. 11:11) (CCN95). SeeAnimals that may not be eaten.
147. To examine the marks in fowl, so as to distinguish the clean from the unclean (Deut. 14:11) (affirmative). SeeAnimals that may not be eaten.
148. Not to eat unclean fowl (Lev. 11:13) (CCN94). SeeAnimals that may not be eaten.
149. To examine the marks in locusts, so as to distinguish the clean from the unclean (Lev. 11:21) (affirmative). SeeAnimals that may not be eaten.
150. Not to eat a worm found in fruit (Lev. 11:41) (CCN98). See Animals that may not be eaten.
151. Not to eat of things that creep upon the earth (Lev. 11:41-42) (CCN97). See Animals that may not be eaten.
152. Not to eat any vermin of the earth (Lev. 11:44) (CCN100). See Animals that may not be eaten.
153. Not to eat things that swarm in the water (Lev. 11:43 and 46) (CCN99). See Animals that may not be eaten.
154. Not to eat of winged insects (Deut. 14:19) (CCN96). SeeAnimals that may not be eaten.
155. Not to eat the flesh of a beast that is terefah (lit torn) (Ex. 22:30) (CCN87). See Kosher slaughtering.
156. Not to eat the flesh of a beast that died of itself (Deut. 14:21) (CCN86). See Kosher slaughtering.
157. To slay cattle, deer and fowl according to the laws of shechitah if their flesh is to be eaten (Deut. 12:21) ("as I have commanded" in this verse refers to the technique) (CCA48). See Kosher slaughtering.
158. Not to eat a limb removed from a living beast (Deut. 12:23) (CCN90). See Kosher slaughtering.
159. Not to slaughter an animal and its young on the same day (Lev. 22:28) (CCN108).
160. Not to take the mother-bird with the young (Deut. 22:6) (CCN189). See Treatment of Animals.
161. To set the mother-bird free when taking the nest (Deut. 22:6-7) (CCA74). See Treatment of Animals.
162. Not to eat the flesh of an ox that was condemned to be stoned (Ex. 21:28) (negative).
163. Not to boil meat with milk (Ex. 23:19) (CCN91). SeeSeparation of Meat and Dairy.
164. Not to eat flesh with milk (Ex. 34:26) (according to theTalmud, this passage is a distinct prohibition from the one in Ex. 23:19) (CCN92). SeeSeparation of Meat and Dairy.
165. Not to eat the of the thigh-vein which shrank (Gen. 32:33) (CCN1). See Forbidden Fats and Nerves.
166. Not to eat chelev (tallow-fat) (Lev. 7:23) (CCN88). SeeForbidden Fats and Nerves.
167. Not to eat blood (Lev. 7:26) (CCN89). SeeDraining of Blood.
168. To cover the blood of undomesticated animals (deer, etc.) and of fowl that have been killed (Lev. 17:13) (CCA49).
169. Not to eat or drink like a glutton or a drunkard (not to rebel against father or mother) (Lev. 19:26; Deut. 21:20) (CCN106).

Each of these commandments had a scriptural basis.  They aren't added in, they are fundamental aspects of Jewish Law which was believed to have come directly from God.   If these commandments still stand then why aren't Christian's living them today, as many Jews still do.  

[thesometimesaint]

Nehor, when Jesus is quoted in Matthew 5 as saying...

 

 

by calculation, there are about 613 commandments that would have constituted the Law according to the Torah (and Matthew is careful to change the emphasis in the passage on dietary law to 'washing hands' rather than the abolishment of Kosher - there's his stricter Jewish bias again).

Here's a link to them... 

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

143 to 169 constitute the Dietary Laws.   In Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, which he appears to have included lock, stock and barrel from a very Jewish tradition which perhaps even he was uncomfortable with, Jesus is recorded as stating that even the 'least' of these commandments still stands.  

For Jesus the Law would have meant the Law of Moses, yes?

So, how many of these 'commandments' do Christian's keep today.  In fact how many of all 613 of them.

Here's the relevant dietary laws from the Torah.

 

Dietary Laws

143. To examine the marks in cattle (so as to distinguish the clean from the unclean) (Lev. 11:2) (affirmative). SeeAnimals that may not be eaten.
144. Not to eat the flesh of unclean beasts (Lev. 11:4) (CCN93). See Animals that may not be eaten.
145. To examine the marks in fishes (so as to distinguish the clean from the unclean (Lev. 11:9) (affirmative). SeeAnimals that may not be eaten.
146. Not to eat unclean fish (Lev. 11:11) (CCN95). SeeAnimals that may not be eaten.
147. To examine the marks in fowl, so as to distinguish the clean from the unclean (Deut. 14:11) (affirmative). SeeAnimals that may not be eaten.
148. Not to eat unclean fowl (Lev. 11:13) (CCN94). SeeAnimals that may not be eaten.
149. To examine the marks in locusts, so as to distinguish the clean from the unclean (Lev. 11:21) (affirmative). SeeAnimals that may not be eaten.
150. Not to eat a worm found in fruit (Lev. 11:41) (CCN98). See Animals that may not be eaten.
151. Not to eat of things that creep upon the earth (Lev. 11:41-42) (CCN97). See Animals that may not be eaten.
152. Not to eat any vermin of the earth (Lev. 11:44) (CCN100). See Animals that may not be eaten.
153. Not to eat things that swarm in the water (Lev. 11:43 and 46) (CCN99). See Animals that may not be eaten.
154. Not to eat of winged insects (Deut. 14:19) (CCN96). SeeAnimals that may not be eaten.
155. Not to eat the flesh of a beast that is terefah (lit torn) (Ex. 22:30) (CCN87). See Kosher slaughtering.
156. Not to eat the flesh of a beast that died of itself (Deut. 14:21) (CCN86). See Kosher slaughtering.
157. To slay cattle, deer and fowl according to the laws of shechitah if their flesh is to be eaten (Deut. 12:21) ("as I have commanded" in this verse refers to the technique) (CCA48). See Kosher slaughtering.
158. Not to eat a limb removed from a living beast (Deut. 12:23) (CCN90). See Kosher slaughtering.
159. Not to slaughter an animal and its young on the same day (Lev. 22:28) (CCN108).
160. Not to take the mother-bird with the young (Deut. 22:6) (CCN189). See Treatment of Animals.
161. To set the mother-bird free when taking the nest (Deut. 22:6-7) (CCA74). See Treatment of Animals.
162. Not to eat the flesh of an ox that was condemned to be stoned (Ex. 21:28) (negative).
163. Not to boil meat with milk (Ex. 23:19) (CCN91). SeeSeparation of Meat and Dairy.
164. Not to eat flesh with milk (Ex. 34:26) (according to theTalmud, this passage is a distinct prohibition from the one in Ex. 23:19) (CCN92). SeeSeparation of Meat and Dairy.
165. Not to eat the of the thigh-vein which shrank (Gen. 32:33) (CCN1). See Forbidden Fats and Nerves.
166. Not to eat chelev (tallow-fat) (Lev. 7:23) (CCN88). SeeForbidden Fats and Nerves.
167. Not to eat blood (Lev. 7:26) (CCN89). SeeDraining of Blood.
168. To cover the blood of undomesticated animals (deer, etc.) and of fowl that have been killed (Lev. 17:13) (CCA49).
169. Not to eat or drink like a glutton or a drunkard (not to rebel against father or mother) (Lev. 19:26; Deut. 21:20) (CCN106).

Each of these commandments had a scriptural basis.  They aren't added in, they are fundamental aspects of Jewish Law which was believed to have come directly from God.   If these commandments still stand then why aren't Christian's living them today, as many Jews still do.  

 

They still stand for the Kashrut, and not all Jews follow Kosher. Orthodox being the most observant followed by the Conservative and Reformed followed by the Jews that don't at all.

 

Christians of course are not under commandment to follow Jewish law.

[The Nehor]

I'm going to pick you up on this (again), because it is obvious that you are treating me as an idiot.  Which is fair enough.  

Let's explore this a little deeper. The author of  Mark is writing around the time of the destruction of the Jewish Temple.  We don't know who he is, but he most likely wasn't a first hand witness to Jesus.  Maybe, just maybe he got his information from Peter.  We don't really know.   He's quite influenced by Greek culture and so is probably a Hellenized Jew.  He's certainly less strict than Matthew, who takes pains to change Mark where he feels uncomfortable. (ie in terms of flight on the Sabbath).

Here's what Mark says (and remember Luke and Matthew writing later have Mark at their disposal most likely),

 

 

 

 

 

This is actually pretty radical stuff, and in some ways quite anachronistic.  Mark refers to Pharisees and Jews.  Looking at this more deeply, the warning signs go up.   Jesus is a Jew!  Mark refers to them as if they are quite different to Jesus.  He's one of them.   Is this Mark's bias coming through?   

Here Jesus is not only portrayed as concentrating on the weightier matters rather than 'invented' rules, but he is also getting rid of Kosher.  Kosher was considered a commandment.  It's totally radical.  Look at it from a Jewish perspective.  It would be like someone coming along in Mormonism and stating that the Word of Wisdom is a commandment of men and has nothing to do with God.   That's what Jesus is doing to Kosher here.   

So, is Mark portraying Jesus as he was, or as he wanted him to be.  That's the issue.  We just don't know.

Like I say, I love Mark's portrayal of Jesus, but whether it was based in historical fact is another matter.  It's uncomfortable for me to recognise that, but if I am not to be a hypocrite in terms of criticism of Mormon Theology, then recognise it I must.

 

Yet there is no record of Jesus actually violating the kosher laws from the Torah. He instead violated the added rules. This is not analogous to breaking the Word of Wisdom. It is analogous to drinking a Pepsi in front of a group of hard-core Word of Wisdom expanders and shocking them.

 

 

Nehor, when Jesus is quoted in Matthew 5 as saying...

 

 

by calculation, there are about 613 commandments that would have constituted the Law according to the Torah (and Matthew is careful to change the emphasis in the passage on dietary law to 'washing hands' rather than the abolishment of Kosher - there's his stricter Jewish bias again).

Here's a link to them... 

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

143 to 169 constitute the Dietary Laws.   In Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, which he appears to have included lock, stock and barrel from a very Jewish tradition which perhaps even he was uncomfortable with, Jesus is recorded as stating that even the 'least' of these commandments still stands.  

For Jesus the Law would have meant the Law of Moses, yes?

So, how many of these 'commandments' do Christian's keep today.  In fact how many of all 613 of them.  

 

Jesus was teaching this to the people then. Yes, violating the Law of Moses THEN would keep you out of heaven. Then Jesus changed the rules both in the Old World and the New.

 

I am not sure why rules changing is such a big deal to so many people. The gospel is eternal; its application varies due to circumstance.

[Abulafia]

Jesus was teaching this to the people then. Yes, violating the Law of Moses THEN would keep you out of heaven. Then Jesus changed the rules both in the Old World and the New.

 

I am not sure why rules changing is such a big deal to so many people. The gospel is eternal; its application varies due to circumstance.

 

Okay, but take James for example (in the NT).  Most likely the brother of Jesus, or someone influenced by him.  He is writing to fellow diaspora Jews.  The whole text is just 'so' Jewish.  There is nothing in there that suggests that at least for Jews, the rules had changed.    

Look at James 2:10  

10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles(N) at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

 

It might suit 'us' to think that the 'whole law' represented only the 10 commandments or even the 'royal law', but that may not be what the author meant at all.  Fellow Jews would understand 'law' to be what is contained in the Torah surely?   That would include those 613 rules.   James even mentions hand washing!

 

His whole letter appears to have strong correlations with the Essene way of life.  Honouring the poor, eschewing the rich (Paul is admonished by James to remember the poor in Galatians).  Essenes were Jews, strict, observant, Jews.  

It may be that it was Jame's death and the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem that silenced those Jewish Christians, but when LDS talk of original gospel I think maybe they ought to dig below Pauline beliefs and into the beliefs of the earliest Jewish Christians, and even that might not have represented Jesus beliefs accurately, but more likely than Paul.

[maxrep12]

Correlation is not causation. A better clue is John the Baptist in the Bible,

Would this also be your response to the temple ceremony borrowing from the Masons?

 

At what point do we surrender the "coincidence card"?

Edited June 10, 2014 by maxrep12

[The Nehor]

Nehor, are we talking Commandments as in the Mosaic Law or something else? There were a lot of 'commandments' given historically. If you were a certain type of Jewish Christian you would probably consider it a commandment to keep Kosher and have your boys circumcised. You might also consider it a commandment to be the husband of one wife in the intertestamental period if you were a Christian, an Essene or part of the Qumran community.

I would eat kosher, circumcise and all of that. I do not think I would wash my hands twice before eating which was considered by many to be the Law of Moses but is not.

[EllenMaksoud]

I frequently hear people say it is a slam dunk that Jesus used alcoholic wine in the New Testament.  The arguments are usually that wine could not be preserved as grape juice and thus during Passover they had to be using an alcoholic wine at the Last Supper and that Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding at Cana.  

 

Both of these things are in fact incorrect. The ancients did have a way of preserving grapes so they could have been squeezed as non-alcoholic grape juice at the Last Supper.  It is also possible that when the New Testament speaks of Jesus creating new wine for the wedding that it could have been non-alcoholic since the Greek word for wine could have been used for both.  The argument I have encountered against this is that the apostles were accused of being drunk with new wine at Pentecost so new wine had to be alcoholic.  I have read an article stating the word used in the Acts of the Apostles is a word generally used for grape juice.  The Apostles were being mocked sarcastically for being drunk on new wine just as if someone was saying in our modern terms they were drunk on soda.

 

I have been in arguments with some of my fellow Catholics who are defending the use of alcohol "in moderation".  The trouble with defending the use of alcohol in moderation is that it is too easy to go from moderation to alcoholism.  What some people see as moderate drinking is enough to cause real trouble with an automobile.  I have been increasingly disturbed by the use of alcohol I see among Catholics even to promoting church festivals by advertising that beer and wine would be available for purchase.

 

Anyway a couple of links from an interesting book by a Seventh Day Adventist writer:

 

On the preservation of grape juice in ancient times: http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/3.html

 

Wine in the apostolic church:  http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/5.html

People often mold reality to blend with their own. If you think about the situation a bit, probably one of the reasons that Pigs were unclean is the stuff their digestive systems get going by eating their own and other animal droppings. I have heard the term mulled wine many times and if you look at the wiki on the subject, to me it is clear that there was wine used. However mixing it with water and other spices was likely to kill the Giardia or other bugs in the water they mixed with it. After all that, the alcoholic content would be debatable.

 

Those who say it was water or grape juice, sigh ... At my age, I don't listen to that any more, I have enough idiots in my life.

[Abulafia]

I think it was Philo who suggested (in defence of Judaism) that pork was prohibited because it tasted so good. I wonder if it was prohibited simply because other nations used it for sacrifice and Jews would want to be different, and also not risk eating anything that was widely sacrificed to idols in neighbouring cultures?

[thesometimesaint]

I think it was Philo who suggested (in defence of Judaism) that pork was prohibited because it tasted so good. I wonder if it was prohibited simply because other nations used it for sacrifice and Jews would want to be different, and also not risk eating anything that was widely sacrificed to idols in neighbouring cultures?

 

There are good reasons for a desert nomadic people not to keep an animal that is in competition with them for the same food stuffs.