Why do the soldiers offer Jesus wine?

Explanation:

We know from Matthew 27:27–31 that the soldiers of Pilate brutally mocked Jesus. Matthew explains that they stripped him, put a crown of thorns on his head, spat on him, struck him on the head, and then led him away to crucify him. It is hard to imagine the ridicule endured by the Son of God at the hands of Pilate’s soldiers. Next, we read that the soldiers compel Simon of Cyrene to carry Jesus’ cross to Golgotha, after which they offered him wine mixed with gall. Gall would have made the wine taste bitter, and may have even made Jesus more thirsty.⁴ Given that the same soldiers who brutally mock Jesus now offer him bitter wine that may have made him more thirsty, we can conclude that the soldiers are likely mocking Jesus.^5,6 That is, they offer Jesus the wine as though they are sympathetic, but when Jesus tastes the bitter mixture, he realizes that the gesture is only another taunt.

Counterargument:

While it is possible that the soldiers give the wine to Jesus to mock him, this is not necessarily the case. When Matthew describes how the soldiers treated Jesus before the crucifixion, he specifically points out that they mocked him. On the other hand, when Matthew explains that they gave Jesus the wine mixed with gall, he says nothing about them mocking Jesus.

Response to counterargument:

While it is true that Matthew does not say that they mock Jesus when they give him the wine, we can deduce from the surrounding context that this is likely the case. In the next verses Matthew explains that they cast lots for Jesus’ garments (Matthew 27:35), and that they hung a sign over his head that was meant to mock him (Matthew 27:35). Further, we learn that those who passed by, including the chief priests, scribes, and elders, mock Jesus (Matthew 27:39–43), so that even the criminals who were crucified alongside Jesus join in (Matthew 27:44). Thus, Matthew 27:27–44 describes how Jesus is mocked by everyone, including Roman soldiers, Jewish leaders, and criminals. Since the soldiers’ offer of wine mixed with gall is found in this section, and gall was bitter, it is likely that the offer is one of mockery.

Explanation:

When Matthew explains that Jesus was offered wine mixed with gall, he likely has in mind Psalm 69:21.^7,8,9 Psalm 69:21 is a psalm of David where David explains that he desires to be a righteous man, but his enemies try to destroy him (Psalm 69:4–5). For the sake of God, David bears reproach and is dishonoured (Psalm 69:7), so he calls out to God in his distress (Psalm 69:16–18). Finally, we reach Psalm 69:20–21 where David writes that his heart is broken so he is in despair, and he looks for pity and comfort but finds none. Instead, They gave me poison for food, and for my thirst they gave me sour wine to drink. In other words, when David looked for relief from his thirst, his enemies gave him something to make him thirstier. Likewise, Matthew wants us to see that as Jesus is ridiculed, and when he needed comfort, his enemies offer him wine mixed with gall to intensify his suffering.

Counterargument:

If Matthew has Psalm 69:20–21 in mind, then we expect him to point this out. Matthew often explains that Jesus fulfils an aspect of the Old Testament. For example, in Matthew 1:22 we learn that the virgin birth fulfils Isaiah 7:14. Also, in Isaiah 7:14 when Jesus casts out evil spirits, Matthew explains that this fulfils Isaiah 53:4. (Other examples include Matthew 2:15; Matthew 2:17; Matthew 2:23; Matthew 4:14; Matthew 4:14; Matthew 13:14; Matthew 13:35; Matthew 21:4; Matthew 26:54, Matthew 26:56; and Matthew 27:9.) Given that Matthew is keen to show that Jesus fulfils the Old Testament, then if Matthew has Psalm 69:21–22 in mind when Jesus is offered wine mixed with gall, we expect him to note that the event fulfils the psalm.

Response to counterargument:

While it is true that Matthew will point out when Jesus fulfils an aspect of the Old Testament, this is not always the case. For example, when we reach Matthew 27:46, Jesus quotes directly from Psalm 22:1. Still, Matthew does not say that Jesus fulfils what was written centuries before but leaves it to his reader to make the connection. In the same way, it is not unlikely that when the soldiers mock Jesus with the wine mixed with gall, Matthew remembers Psalm 69:20–21. This is what motivates Matthew to point out that the wine was mixed with gall, including that the wine was bitter, and that Jesus rejected it after he tasted it.

Possible weaknesses:

It is hard to see what the weakness of this view might be. An argument could be made for the idea that Matthew is simply including the details of the crucifixion and it so happens that after being mocked, Jesus is offered wine to dull his pain, before being mocked again. Thus, it is a coincidence that the offer for wine is bookended by Jesus being mocked and should be understood differently. Still, it might be a difficult case to make, and does not expose any meaningful weakness of the above view.

Explanation:

Matthew says that the soldiers offered Jesus wine mixed with gall. Why would the soldiers do this? It’s important to note that the Talmud (an extrabiblical Jewish source) describes a custom where a person who is being executed is offered a drink of wine mixed with frankincense in order to confuse the mind and minimize the suffering.¹⁰ To support this case, the Talmud quotes from Proverbs 31:6, which reads, Give strong drink to the one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress. So we can see that according to Jewish tradition, one who was executed was offered a wine mixture to reduce the suffering and dull the experience.¹¹

Counterargument:

While there might be textual evidence to support the notion that the Jews would offer those who were executed a wine mixture to dull the pain, there are two reasons to deny that this is the case in Matthew 27:34. First, Matthew says not that they gave Jesus wine mixed with frankincense, but they gave wine mixed with gall. Second, and more to the point, Matthew specifically points out that when Jesus tasted the drink, he refused it. If it was a tradition to offer one who was being executed a drink, then it is likely that Jesus knew of this tradition, so if he was going to refuse the drink, it seems odd for him to first taste it.¹² Why not immediately turn the drink down? More likely, Jesus was thirsty, so when they offered him the wine, he took some. Once he had a taste, he realized that the wine was made purposely bitter to torment him.

Response to counterargument:

Unfortunately, this counterargument will not go through. First, it could be that the wine would be mixed with any number of substances including frankincense, or gall, to dull the pain. In fact, in Mark 15:23 it says that they offered Jesus wine mixed with myrrh. Thus, the exact recipe that was offered Jesus is not as important as the notion that a wine mixture was offered, and there was a Jewish tradition of one who was about to be executed being offered a drink to dull the pain. Second, the fact that Jesus refused the drink does not entail that the drink was meant to torment Jesus. It would be that the custom of offering one a strong drink to dull the pain was not commonplace, and so Jesus was not familiar with it. Or it could be that in the moment, Jesus was very thirsty, so he unconsciously tasted the mixture. Once he noticed that it was a sedative meant to dull the pain, he refused to drink so as to endure the full experience of his suffering.¹³ In any case, that Jesus tasted the wine is not enough to show that the mixture was not a sedative.

Response to response to counterargument:

Contrary to this view, it does matter which substance is mixed with the wine. One study showed that wine mixed with myrrh made the wine very bitter but offered no sedative effects.¹⁴ We also know that gall was a bitter substance that was made from wormwood or myrrh.¹⁵ This could explain why Mark and Matthew describe the scene with differing terms. By using the term gall Matthew helps his audience see that the wine was very bitter.¹⁶

Possible weaknesses:

The weakness of this view is that it is hard to see why the Roman soldiers would offer Jesus a sedative. In other words, even if it was a Jewish tradition to offer one who was executed a bitter drink to dull the pain, it’s the Roman soldiers, and not the Jews, who offer Jesus the drink. Of course, this weakness is not impossible to override. For we know it was commonplace for crucified people to be left on the cross for days, while Pilate allows an exception in Jesus’ case so that he is buried before the Sabbath. It’s possible that the soldiers also allow an exception when Jesus’ followers insist he be offered a drink.