The passage in question has to do with wine being offered to Jesus while he hung on the cross. Pro-euthanasia campaigners argue that Jesus may have been "helped to die" when he was offered wine to drink. So how does one respond to such charges?
The first thing to say about this is that in the Gospel accounts there are in fact two occasions in which Jesus was offered a drink. Matthew 27 and Mark 15 record both incidents, while Luke 23 and John 19 record just the second. The first instance involves wine mixed with gall (or myrrh as in Mark), while the second involves wine vinegar.
So to begin with we must distinguish between these two different occurrences. Let's first examine the mention of the wine mixed with gall. This is found in Matt 27:34. The immediate context of this verse is vv. 32-37. It has a clear parallel in Mark 15:23 (and its wider context in vv. 21-26).
We first should note that the Matthew passage says this: "There they offered Jesus wine to drink, mixed with gall; but after tasting it, he refused to drink it." And the Markan parallel passage says this: "Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it."
So whatever this drink actually was, Jesus refused it, at least as soon as he discovered what it was. So what exactly is wine mixed with gall, and what was it used for? Gall, or bile, is a bitter tasting product of the gall bladder, with a narcotic effect. We are not told specifically in these two passages why it was offered to Jesus, or why he refused it.
The most plausible understanding is that Jesus insisted on going through his work on the cross on our behalf, and he would drink of the metaphorical cup of suffering to its bitter end (see Matt. 26:39-42). So if this laced wine was intended as a pain killer, Jesus refused it. He would suffer on our behalf to the full.
So there is absolutely nothing here about euthanasia or assisted suicide. There is no indication here about shortening one's life as a way to deal with suffering. If anything, we might have something about palliative care. But even if this is the case, Jesus refuses the analgesic, and chooses instead to suffer to the full extent.
Indeed, in refusing to accept this mild narcotic, he was making it clear that he intended to be fully in control, fully aware, and fully conscious throughout this whole ugly and horrific ordeal. That had been his intention all along, and he was not now about to take the easy way out.
The second offered drink
So what about the second drink offered to Jesus while hanging on the cross? This is some sort of wine vinegar, which is quite different from the first drink. The passages plus their broader context are Matt. 27:45-50, again closely paralleled by Mark 15:33-37. The other two gospel accounts are a bit more different, both from Matthew and Mark, and from each other. Luke 23:36 (and more widely, 35-38) and John (19:28-30) are the relevant texts.
Only the version in John tells us that Jesus cried out saying that he was thirsty. The messianic Psalms 22 and 69 both speak to this. Psalm 22:15 speaks of his parched tongue and mouth, while Psalm 69:21 mentions both gall and vinegar for the sufferer's thirst.
The Matthew passage simply says that this drink was offered to Jesus, without telling us if he in fact drank it. The text in Mark provides the same information. The Lukan passage also just says that it was offered to him. Only John tells us that he actually received the drink.
Thus only one of the four Gospel accounts informs us that he in fact drank it. So what was it that he was being offered here? What is this wine vinegar? It seems to have been a cheap, sour wine which the soldiers drank, and one which actually was good at relieving thirst.
Thus if he did drink (and John says he did), then it would have in fact prolonged his life and therefore prolonged his agony and pain. Such a drink would have strengthened him and extended his life somewhat. His suffering, in other words, would have simply been extended, not shortened.
One can also ask why this was offered to him. Was it an act of kindness to simply offer some light relief to his thirst, as John seems to suggest, or was it an act of mockery and cruelty, designed to lengthen his torture and keep him from dying too quickly (as Luke seems to indicate)? Either way, it has nothing to do with hastening death.
So again, there is absolutely no hint of euthanasia here, or of Jesus in any way indicating that shortening one's life is the way to go. If anything, his example proves the very opposite. In the first drink, as soon as he detected its bitterness and what it therefore was (probably some form of narcotic to diminish the pain and consciousness), he immediately refused it.
The second drink which was offered to him seems to have been just a drink to relieve some of his severe thirst, and as a result, prolong his life. While only John tells us that he in fact drank it, there is nothing whatsoever in such an action to intimate in any way some desire to end his life sooner.
Thus all six passages provide nothing to promote the agenda of the pro-euthanasia crowd. Not only is it wildly anachronistic to seek to read such an agenda into the Gospel accounts, but the whole attempt fails miserably. Jesus does not seek to end his life prematurely, but chooses instead to suffer fully and completely to the very end for the sake of achieving our salvation.
So the pro-death lobby has to look elsewhere to try to dig up some pro-euthanasia propaganda from the biblical text. They certainly will not find it here.
Adapted from Bill Muehlenberg's weblog at www.billmuehlenberg.com.
Bill Muehlenberg lectures in apologetics, ethics and theology at several Melbourne theological colleges. Bill used to work with the Australian Family Association, Focus on the Family, and other pro-family and pro-faith organisations.