THE ANCIENT HEBREWS—THE SCRIPTURE CONTROVERSY CONCERNING DRINK—THE
OLD TESTAMENT AND THE TALMUD—THE NEW TESTAMENT—JESUS CHRIST—JOHN THE
BAPTIST—ST. PAUL—THE MODERN HEBREWS.
It is unnecessary that we should enter into particulars concerning the
history of the Semitic race as narrated in the Bible, and we shall
endeavour to avoid anything like the discussion of Jewish or Christian
theological doctrines. There is, however, a controversy concerning the
authority of Scripture upon the question of temperance, or rather total
abstinence from intoxicating drink, which it is impossible to ignore.
Concisely stated, it is this: There are (amongst others) two words used
in Scripture to denote the juice of the grape, namely, _Tirosh_, which is
generally supposed to mean “must,” or the unfermented juice; and _Yayin_,
or wine. There is also a third word, _Schechar_ or _Schecar_, which
means all strong drink excepting wine.[100] Writers on total abstinence
maintain that both the Old and New Testament clearly discountenance the
use of intoxicating drink, and that when wine is spoken of as being
permitted, _Tirosh_ or “must” is meant, whilst there are numerous
denunciations of wine proper (_Yayin_), and of strong drink.[101] One
of our most learned biblical commentators has said: “We question whether
the critics who have adopted these views have not driven their arguments
beyond their fair conclusions;”[102] and we are bound to say that, after
carefully considering the matter, we entirely agree with him. The account
which we shall give of the drinking habits of the ancient Hebrews will
refute these doctrines, but it will serve to clear the way if we devote
a page or two to the preliminary consideration of the subject from the
temperance point of view.
One of the writers named refers to a passage in Micah vi. 15, which says,
“Thou shalt tread the _grape-fruit_, but shalt not drink wine;”[103]
and this he construes to mean that the grape-fruit is a “permitted
enjoyment,” but that wine is not to be drunk. The reader may judge for
himself whether that is the correct interpretation. Micah vi. 13, says
to the children of Israel, “Therefore also will I make thee sick in
smiting thee, in making thee desolate because of thy sins.” Ver. 14 says,
“Thou shalt eat, but not be satisfied,” &c. &c. Ver. 15 (the one under
consideration) says, “_Thou shalt sow, but thou shalt not reap; thou
shalt tread the olives, but thou shalt not anoint thee with oil; and
sweet wine_,” (translated grape-fruit by the temperance writer), “_but
shalt not drink wine_.”
If the construction put upon the words “but shalt not drink wine” were
the proper one, it would be just as correct to say that the Bible forbids
anointing with oil. The fact is, a curse is put upon Israel, and the
_blessings_ referred to are to be withheld. The same expressions occur
elsewhere, and are similarly misconstrued; as, for example, the writer
just referred to quotes Isaiah xxiv. 9, “They shall not drink wine with
a song,”[104] which he calls a “warning example.” And here he has been
either very careless, or something less pardonable, for he quotes half
a sentence. We will give the context as completely as possible, for we
think it will serve to satisfy the reader’s mind on the whole question.
Ver. 3, “The land shall be utterly emptied, and utterly spoiled: for the
Lord hath spoken this word.” Ver. 6, “Therefore hath the curse devoured
the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate,” &c. Ver. 8, “The
mirth of tabrets ceaseth, the noise of them that rejoice endeth, the joy
of the harp ceaseth.” Ver. 9, “_They shall not drink wine with a song;
strong drink shall be bitter to them that drink it._”
The true interpretation of the text seems to us to be that the enjoyments
which the Hebrews believed to be permitted to them, music, wine, and
strong drink, were, owing to their disobedience, withheld by Jehovah, or
deprived of their enjoyable accompaniments. Beyond these two examples of
what appears to us misleading in the arguments of our temperance friends,
we cannot further trespass upon our space. Nor is such reasoning at all
necessary in their cause, for the Old and New Testaments both contain
ample testimony of an incontrovertible character in favour of temperance,
nay, even in encouragement of total abstinence.
* * * * *
The reader who is completely unprejudiced will find, on investigating
the ancient writings, that very similar views were entertained by the
Hebrews in regard to wine and other intoxicating drinks as were held
by other Oriental races. Just as did the Brahmans and Vedic people, so
the Jews burned wine upon the altar, believing it to be gratifying to
Jehovah; and we find in the Old Testament examples of anthropomorphism
almost as gross as that in the Vedas.[105] The drinking of wine, too,
was one of the most important features in their celebration of their
festivals,[106] and the esteem in which it was held by the Rabbins is
proved by the fact that they instituted a special form of grace to be
recited before drinking it, whereas a general formula is presented for
use before partaking of any other liquor;[107] and the songs in the
Temple were, according to the Talmud, sung only over wine.[108] That the
wine employed was strong there can be little doubt, for it was found
necessary to mix it with water for ceremonial purposes, the proportions
used being three of water to one of wine.[109] As in the days of the
reformed Brahmans, and always with the followers of Zoroaster, the
priests were forbidden to take wine or strong drink before performing
their duties in the Tabernacle,[110] and the Nazarite was to abstain
entirely during his probation. “He shall separate himself from wine and
strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong
drink; neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes
or dried.” But when his probation was finished, “after that the Nazarite
may drink wine.”[111] The Rechabites were total abstainers. They had
neither vineyards nor fields, but dwelt in tents;[112] in fact, they led
a nomad life, and some biblical critics consider that alone to have been
the cause of their abstinence—an opinion which quite agrees with that of
Mr. Crawfurd concerning wandering savages, referred to at the conclusion
of our first chapter.[113] Under certain circumstances all Hebrews
were admonished not to take intoxicating drink; as, for example, “When
trouble comes to a congregation,” then “eating of flesh and drinking
of wine” were forbidden; and if they disobeyed this injunction, “such
iniquity shall not be purged from you until ye die, saith the Lord God of
hosts.”[114]
As we have already shown, however, wine not only entered into all
religious ceremonies (indeed it formed part of the tithes of the
priests), but, taken in moderation, it was regarded as one of the chief
blessings which Jehovah had conferred upon the Israelites, and in that
sense it is continually found coupled with corn, oil, or milk.[115]
Sometimes it is even compared with the Word of God itself. “Ho, every one
of ye that thirsteth, come ye to the water; and he, too, that hath no
money: come ye, buy and eat; yea, come, buy without money and without
price, wine and milk.”[116] “Wherefore has the Word of God been likened
to wine and milk?” asked the old Rabbins, and the answer was, “As these
fluids cannot be preserved in golden vessels but only in earthenware, so
those minds will be the best receptacles of learning which are found in
homely bodies.”[117]
Intoxicating drinks were prepared in Judea from various natural products;
from grapes, pomegranates, the palm tree, apples, dates, and other
fruits. Before pressing the grape, a quantity of the “must” or sweet
juice was allowed to flow spontaneously, as we shall find to have been
the practice also in ancient Rome, and that was either drunk in its fresh
condition, or was preserved for the finer kinds of wine. The juice was
allowed to ferment in bottles, and either the wine so produced, or some
other intoxicating beverage, was largely used by the Hebrews. It was
brought out on occasions of hospitality,[118] at festivals, and was given
to criminals before they were led to execution, for “wine banishes fear,”
said the Rabbins.[119]
As we have already stated, it must have been strong, for it was largely
diluted with water; and, as might naturally be expected, it was often
drunk to excess, even at the earliest period, and by some of the leaders
of the people. Noah, who is believed by some commentators to have been
the first to plant vines, was found intoxicated in his tent;[120] and
Lot’s daughters made their father drunk, and caused him to commit an
unnatural crime.[121]
It would tire the reader’s patience to extract from the Old Testament
many proofs of the existence of drunkenness and its evil effects upon the
ancient Hebrews; and although it is but due to them to say that their
purer faith was accompanied by greater morality than we find in some
other ancient races, still drunkenness, with all its attendant vices and
crimes, must have prevailed to a great extent then, as it does in modern
society, and it was denounced with equal vehemence. The same results
accompanied or followed a drinking bout in the days of Solomon as in
every other age. “Who hath woe? Who hath sorrow? Who hath contentions?
Who hath babblings? Who hath wounds without cause? Who hath redness of
eyes? They that tarry long at the wine. They that go to seek mixed wine.
Look not thou upon wine when it is red, when it giveth colour to the
cup, when it moveth itself aright. At last, it biteth like a serpent; it
stingeth like an adder.”[122] “Woe unto them that rise up early in the
morning that they may follow strong drink, that continue until night,
until wine inflame them.”[123] The same heart-burnings existed, and the
same grief to parents when their sons went to the bad, in those days as
now. The same leniency, too, was manifested towards them, and similar
means were used to wean them from their evil courses. “A king had a son
whom he daily discovered carousing with dissolute companions, eating
and drinking. ‘Eat at my table,’ said the king; ‘eat and drink, my son,
even as pleaseth thee, but let it be at my table, and not with dissolute
companions.’”[124] What a text is the following for a temperance
discourse:—“And they have cast lots for my people, and have given a boy
for an harlot, and sold a girl for wine, that they might drink.”[125] In
this short verse, the foulest depravities of ancient and modern days have
been concentrated. The practice of nameless vices, the tears and wailing
of the child torn away from its parent, reminding one of the wretch who,
in our days, will barter his wife for a pot of beer; the deserted home,
the last shred gone to pawn, and all “that they might drink.” Surely
no straining of texts, no misconstruction of words, is needed by the
temperance advocate whilst such lessons as this may be read from the
Sacred Book.
And now let us turn to the New Testament. There, too, we find wine spoken
of without disfavour if not taken in excess, drunkenness denounced, and
in one or two cases total abstinence commended. John the Baptist was
an ascetic and a total abstainer from all the luxuries of life. Jesus
Christ was neither one nor the other of these; He lived and moved freely
in society, participated in its enjoyments, and encouraged that which
He regarded as innocent in its customs. He drank wine Himself and gave
it to others. Of John it was predicted before his birth, “He shall be
great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong
drink;” and he lived upon locusts and honey.[126] On the other hand,
comparing himself with John, Jesus said, “For John the Baptist came
neither eating 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 wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.”[127] The evidence
that Christ favoured the use of wine is found in the first and the last
public acts of His life as narrated in Scripture. According to one of His
historians, His first miracle was the conversion, at a wedding feast, of
six large pots of water into wine.[128] The account of this miracle has
been criticised by temperance advocates with a view to show that the wine
was not intoxicating, but we confess that we are unconvinced by their
reasoning.[129] The governor of the feast said to the bridegroom, “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.” From this it is clear that one of the customs of Rome (as we shall
find when we come to consider the scarcity of wine in the earlier days
of that empire) was also followed in Judea, and that as men became less
able to distinguish between good and bad wine, the latter was introduced.
As we have heard, by the way, this is still done by dishonest landlords
even in our day. To reconcile this act of Christ with the views of
temperance advocates is not our duty. We have only to state the fact,
and to explain, so far as we are able, its plain meaning. Almost the
last recorded injunction of Jesus to His disciples was to drink wine in
remembrance of Him—an act which has grown into a religious observance
practised by nearly all professing Christians of the present day,
whatever may be their theological views concerning His true nature. It is
obvious, therefore, that Jesus cannot have had any conscientious scruples
about drinking wine Himself, or recommending its use to His companions.
The last Hebrew authority whose teachings concerning drink it will be
necessary to consider is St. Paul. Whilst deprecating coercion and
tolerating the temperate use of drink, he undoubtedly commended total
abstinence as an example to those who were unable to control themselves.
To Timothy he said, “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for
thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.”[130] “A bishop,” he
remarked, “must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober,
of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine,
not greedy of filthy lucre. Likewise must the deacons be grave, not
double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre.”[131]
It is obvious that avarice, gluttony, and drunkenness were then prevalent
vices, and, as we shall find when the customs of Rome are under
consideration, they had assumed their most glaring and repulsive form in
that city. To his co-religionists in Rome, therefore, Paul addressed the
most earnest exhortations, enjoining total abstinence as an example. To
them he said distinctly, “It is good neither to eat flesh nor to drink
wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or
is made weak.”[132] At the same time, as we have said, he deprecated
the wholesale condemnation of persons who thought fit to enjoy these
luxuries in moderation. “For one,” he said, “believeth that he may eat
all things; another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him who eateth
despise him that eateth not, and let not him which eateth not judge him
that eateth; for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another
man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth.”[133] But of
drunkenness he spoke in very different terms. “Let us walk honestly,” he
said to the Roman Christians, “not in rioting and drunkenness;”[134] and
elsewhere he ranks drunkards with thieves and extortioners, and even goes
so far as to deny them salvation.[135]
Before concluding this imperfect commentary upon the teachings of the
Scriptures concerning drink, as they will naturally possess great
interest for English readers, it will be useful to consider briefly their
bearing upon the condition of modern society. The expression “gin and
gospel” has become a byword in relation to this subject. It originates in
the fact that in all ancient faiths the drinking of alcoholic beverages
was associated with religious observances and festivals, a custom which
is still upheld by a mistaken conservatism. Because the ancient Hebrews,
Persians, Brahmans and Chinese believed strong drink to be acceptable
offerings to their respective deities, and made such offerings part of
their religious ceremonies, it does not follow that in our somewhat more
enlightened day the modern Jews, Parsees, and Christians should continue
to follow the same practices in a modified form. As a ceremony, the use
of drink in connection with religious observances can have but little
influence or significance, whilst it is becoming daily more injurious as
an example.[136]
As regards the common use in moderation of certain fermented liquors, it
is clear that it never has been, and cannot be to-day, placed in the
same category with the excessive consumption of any alcoholic beverage,
or the free use of such strong drinks as spirituous liquors; and those
temperance reformers who class them together defeat their own aims,
which are worthy of the highest commendation. For it will be found, on
reviewing the whole question carefully, that it is not the liquors which
are consumed with solid food that are the operating causes of national
or individual drunkenness. The Frenchman does not get drunk on red wine,
nor the German on lager-bier. Absinthe and schnapps are the destructive
agents there, just as gin, and not Barclay’s stout or Bass’s ale, do the
business in England. The matter needs careful consideration, not under
the influence of passion or fanaticism (the latter often the result of
a reaction from over-indulgence), but after a calm investigation of the
predisposing causes of intemperance in every age. It is not, however,
intended in these remarks to prejudge the whole debated question of
“temperance or total abstinence;” that question will be dealt with in
the proper place. All we desire to do here is to show the fallacy of
attempting to extinguish intemperance by reducing all men to one level,
and seeking authority for such a proceeding in Scripture.
Little need be said of the drinking habits of the modern Jews. They
are notoriously a sober race both in England and elsewhere, and their
temperance is due mainly to two causes. First, they are a small
community, and their partial isolation from the other religious
denominations has a tendency to make them careful of their morals.
The most important reason, however, is that they do not follow any
avocations which necessitate great physical exertions. Thus we seldom
find them working as artisans or day-labourers; so that there is no great
bodily waste to be repaired; and they are, moreover, removed from the
temptations to excessive drinking to which the great mass of our working
population is exposed. Amongst Jews of the middle classes there is more
intemperance. They mix more freely with Christians, and their long fasts
are not unfrequently followed by a degree of self-indulgence which, many
will think, deprives some of their old religious observances of any merit
that they may possess. As already remarked, however, as a whole the Jews
are a sober and exemplary race, whose habits in that respect are well
worthy of universal imitation.