CHAPTER V.

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.