drunkeness

[Ernest T. Bass]

I'm sure that I read somewhere before that all of the wine in biblical times was fermented. That it had to be to preserve it. So I just googled it again and everything I'm seeing now says that their wine was fermented. We can't know what the alcohol percentage of it was but they say yes it was fermented. So Albert seems to be the lone soul who believes it was only grape juice. I found no other source that says it was not fermented.

They had ways to keep fermentation from occurring. I have read, for example, they could put grape juice in a sealed container and lower that container to a bottom of a well or body of water with a rope to keep it cool and prevent fermentation. I have also read they could boil grape juice, boiling out the water leaving a thick, syrupy mixture that could be stored and not ferment. Then later they could reconstitute that mixture with water to get liquid grape juice again.

I have found no one that could prove beyond any doubt the wine Jesus made was fermented, only give their assumptions about it. Again, would Jesus hypocritically violate His own NT?

Albert Barnes is not alone in what he says about Jn 2:10.

Well reasoned argument:
The immediate context of John 2:1-11 is quite clear. The guests at the marriage feast of Cana were able to discern between the quality of the drink that the Lord had made and that which had already been served. If intoxicating wine had been served, and people "well drunk" or "drunk freely" (American Standard Version, 1901) of it (verse 10), then they would not have had such keen discernment. Though the amount is not specified as to what they had previously drunk, if they consumed the six waterpots that Jesus had the servants fill with water and which contained "two or three firkins apiece" (verse 6), then they would have consumed somewhere between 106 to 162 gallons of booze! This is far more than enough to make the most casual drinker drunk. Those who twist this account to condone social drinking say the term "well drunk" refers to the idea that the crowd was so drunk that they could not distinguish. However, the point of "the governor of the feast" to the bridegroom is that the guest were able to discern between the "worse" and the "good wine." If it is the case that these wedding guests were so drunk that they could not distinguish, then the Lord made the six pots of alcoholic beverage for those who were already strongly under the influence, and caused them to be even more drunk! Thus, the "good wine" of the wedding feast of Canaan must have been the fresh juice of the grape.

Also, consider the logical consequence of those who want to use this passage to justify the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Their argument goes something like this: "Since Jesus produced alcoholic wine, then it is morally right for a person to drink it." However, notice that their logic takes them further than most of them want to go. Since Jesus produced alcoholic wine (as they claim), then not only would it be morally right to drink it, it would be morally right to produce it, sell it, distribute it, and make a living from it. But since that would most certainly cause someone to stumble, then it must be morally right to cause someone to stumble. However, the logical consequence of their argument would oppose the Lord's teaching (Luke 17:1-2). No, the reasoning is a foolish argument that has no foundation in scripture.

Did JESUS Turn Water into Wine? - Mooresville church of Christ

If you are weary with the disunity, confusion, and dogma of modern religion, we believe that you will welcome the plea made by church of Christ - that all may lay aside all human creeds and systems and live according to the Bible.

www.mooresvillechurchofchrist.org

 

[WIP]

The word "wine" as used in the KJC does NOT always mean fermented wine, Isa 65:8; Joel 2:24. "Wine" in these verses refers to fresh grape juice. You incorrectly assuming the word 'wine' only refers to fermented wine. One does not even have to go back hundreds of years to King James but a few decades. I have found those online who have English dictionaries from 1950's and back that define 'wine' as a generic word for grape juice, it may or MAY NOT be fermented. Even the underlying Greek word translated wine (oinos) refers to a sweet drink that may or MAY NOT be fermented. You must be assuming Jesus made fermented wine.

Yes, I've heard this argument too but I believe it is an attempt to define Scripture to fit our own desires. Scripture speaks of getting drunk on strong drink and strong wine so there is an element of intoxicating quality to the beverages.

Examples.
Ephesians 5:18 ESV And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,
Proverbs 31:6 ESV Give strong drink to the one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress;
Romans 14:21 ESV It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.
Isaiah 5:11 ESV Woe to those who rise early in the morning, that they may run after strong drink, who tarry late into the evening as wine inflames them!
Genesis 9:21 ESV He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent.
Matthew 11:19 ESV (would drinking wine be sinful if it was just fruit juice?) The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.
There are many more.

 

[WIP]

1 Tim 5:23 "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities."

Paul is not LITERALLY telling Timothy to not drink water anymore but a 'not-but' elliptical statement telling Timothy to put more emphasis on mixing water with wine over drinking water alone.

Paul is telling Timothy to add this wine to water whereby the alcoholic content would kill bacteria (alcohol in wine acts as an antiseptic) in the water at the same time dilutes the alcohol preventing intoxicating effect.** Instructing Timothy to drink wine implies Timothy had been abstaining from drinking wine even for medicinal uses.

This passage in giving medicinal uses of wine no more consents to social drinking than advising one to take an aspirin consents to recreational drug use.


**
"Fermented wine of ancient, biblical times was often used as a remedy for such illnesses as the alcohol would prevent dysentery by destroying the bacteria and harmful pathogens of the water. This remedy was widely recognized by the Talmudists, Plutarch, Pliny, and as far back as the writings of Hippocrates himself (Fee, New International Biblical Commentary, p. 135). Therefore, Paul’s instruction to Timothy was in no way an endorsement of the recreational and social conception of alcoholic beverages, but advised purely for medicinal purposes."

Why Did Paul Tell Timothy to Drink Wine? - Articles ‹ University church of Christ, Auburn, AL

www.auchurch.com

.

You just added to the contradiction by confirming my point that wine was a fermented alcoholic beverage and Paul, who you say spoke against drinking even a small amount is actually telling Timothy to drink some and confirming my point too that small amounts of alcoholic beverage is not sinful.

 

[Corn Pop]

Noah got a bit drunkard but he passed out with no covering. His situation is a bit different from the modern drunkard Noah who runs across a football field and gets tackled by security while the crowd is cheering.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

You just added to the contradiction by confirming my point that wine was a fermented alcoholic beverage and Paul, who you say spoke against drinking even a small amount is actually telling Timothy to drink some and confirming my point too that small amounts of alcoholic beverage is not sinful.

Timothy was to add water to wine thereby water down, dilute the alcoholic content so it would not have an intoxicating effect.
Paul is giving medicinal uses not providing acceptance to social drinking. Again, in Eph 5:18 the verb 'drunk' is an inceptive verb showing drunkenness is a process that begins with the first drink. Paul is condemning the starting of this process, condemning taking the first drink that starts the process of drunkenness. Paul was inspired and does not contradict himself. Peter also condemned social drinking 1 Pet 4:3. You are grasping for straws in taking what Paul said to Timothy to justify social drinking.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Yes, I've heard this argument too but I believe it is an attempt to define Scripture to fit our own desires. Scripture speaks of getting drunk on strong drink and strong wine so there is an element of intoxicating quality to the beverages.

Examples.
Ephesians 5:18 ESV And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,
Proverbs 31:6 ESV Give strong drink to the one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress;
Romans 14:21 ESV It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.
Isaiah 5:11 ESV Woe to those who rise early in the morning, that they may run after strong drink, who tarry late into the evening as wine inflames them!
Genesis 9:21 ESV He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent.
Matthew 11:19 ESV (would drinking wine be sinful if it was just fruit juice?) The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.
There are many more.

Not all uses of the word "wine" in the Bible refers to fermented, intoxicating wine. Context must determine that. Yet many still assume "wine" always refers to fermented wine when it clearly does not. No one can prove the 'wine' Jesus made was the intoxicating kind, even if their life depended on it.

 

[WIP]

Not all uses of the word "wine" in the Bible refers to fermented, intoxicating wine. Context must determine that. Yet many still assume "wine" always refers to fermented wine when it clearly does not. No one can prove the 'wine' Jesus made was the intoxicating kind, even if their life depended on it.

Nobody can prove otherwise either, however, had it been a fruit juice it would seem that the correct terminology would have indicated fruit juice and not wine.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Nobody can prove otherwise either, however, had it been a fruit juice it would seem that the correct terminology would have indicated fruit juice and not wine.

At the time of King James 'wine' would have been the appropriate word since wine was used as a generic word for grape juice all the way up till at least the 1950's in English dictionaries.

The Bible does condemn social drinking (from post #189):
Eph 5:18 "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;" The verb drunk is an inceptive verb, the action of the verb is showing a progression, in other words, drunkenness is a process that begins with the first drink, not the 5th or 6th drink. Taking the first drink is starting the process of drunkenness which is the very thing Paul is saying not to do.

A — 2: μεθύσκω

(Strong's #3182 — Verb — methusko — meth-oos'-ko )
signifies "to make drunk, or to grow drunk" (an inceptive verb, marking the process or the state expressed in No. 1), "to become intoxicated," Luke 12:45 ; Ephesians 5:18 ; 1 Thessalonians 5:7 .
Drunk,, Drunkard, Drunkenness - Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words - Bible Dictionary
Entry for 'Drunk,, Drunkard, Drunkenness' - Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words - One of 28 Bible dictionaries freely available, this timeless classic, with over 3,400 entries, is THE reference guide to New Testament Greek words

www.studylight.org

-----

1 Pet 4:3 "For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:"

Peter is condemning drinking in 3 varying amounts; excessive amounts, moderate amounts (revellings) and small amounts (banquetings). Banquetings refers to social drinking.

----

1 Pet 1:13 "Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;" The Greek word for sober nepho literally means not drink, to abstain. Our English word nephalism comes from this Greek root word:

Definition of NEPHALISM
total abstinence from alcoholic beverages… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com
: total abstinence from alcoholic beverages.
Middle Greek nēphalismos soberness, from Greek nēphalios sober (from nēphein to be sober, drink no wine) + -ismos -ism; akin to Armenian nautʽi sober.

Nephalism – teetotalism in Bible and Greek usage – No Drinking

 

[WIP]

For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!
Matthew 11:18-19 NKJV

For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’
Luke 7:33-34 NKJV

Sure looks like Jesus partook of a drink of wine now and then. A winebibber means habitual drinker of alcohol. Why could they accuse him of this if he only drank unfermented drink? Jesus, however, does warn against abusing alcohol and that makes good sense.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!
Matthew 11:18-19 NKJV

For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’
Luke 7:33-34 NKJV

Sure looks like Jesus partook of a drink of wine now and then. A winebibber means habitual drinker of alcohol. Why would they accuse him of this if he only unfermented drink? Jesus, however, does warn against abusing alcohol and that makes good sense.

These were false accusations made against Christ.
On another occasion they accused Jesus of being a sinner Jn 9:16. Was Jesus called a sinner because He was seen sinning? No. Was He called a winebibber because Hew as seen drinking fermented wine? No. Was He called a glutton because he was seen committing gluttony? No.

Jesus was no more a winebibber than He was a sinner or glutton.

The language used in Mt 11:17-19 is figurative.
For example John brought a message for them to repent but they would not "mourn" Jesus brought the gospel's good news but they would not 'dance'. The 'eating and drinking" refers metaphorically to how they lived. John came neither eating or drinking does NOT literally mean he ate or drank nothing but figuratively refers to his reclusive lifestyle and oppositely Christ 'eating and drinking' figuratively refers to Christ being among people.

Jesus went among sinners to take His message but He did not participate in their sins. But Jesus' enemies used those occasions to falsely accuse Christ of participating in those sins. They wrongly reasoned that if He went among sinners then He must be sinning as they do

 

[dimmesdale1]

These were false accusations made against Christ.
On another occasion they accused Jesus of being a sinner Jn 9:16. Was Jesus called a sinner because He was seen sinning? No. Was He called a winebibber because Hew as seen drinking fermented wine? No. Was He called a glutton because he was seen committing gluttony? No.

Jesus was no more a winebibber than He was a sinner or glutton.

The language used in Mt 11:17-19 is figurative.
For example John brought a message for them to repent but they would not "mourn" Jesus brought the gospel's good news but they would not 'dance'. The 'eating and drinking" refers metaphorically to how they lived. John came neither eating or drinking does NOT literally mean he ate or drank nothing but figuratively refers to his reclusive lifestyle and oppositely Christ 'eating and drinking' figuratively refers to Christ being among people.

Jesus went among sinners to take His message but He did not participate in their sins. But Jesus' enemies used those occasions to falsely accuse Christ of participating in those sins. They wrongly reasoned that if He went among sinners then He must be sinning as they do

It does not make sense to accuse Jesus of being a drunkard for drinking grape juice.

 

[WIP]

These were false accusations made against Christ.
On another occasion they accused Jesus of being a sinner Jn 9:16. Was Jesus called a sinner because He was seen sinning? No. Was He called a winebibber because Hew as seen drinking fermented wine? No. Was He called a glutton because he was seen committing gluttony? No.

Jesus was no more a winebibber than He was a sinner or glutton.

The language used in Mt 11:17-19 is figurative.
For example John brought a message for them to repent but they would not "mourn" Jesus brought the gospel's good news but they would not 'dance'. The 'eating and drinking" refers metaphorically to how they lived. John came neither eating or drinking does NOT literally mean he ate or drank nothing but figuratively refers to his reclusive lifestyle and oppositely Christ 'eating and drinking' figuratively refers to Christ being among people.

Jesus went among sinners to take His message but He did not participate in their sins. But Jesus' enemies used those occasions to falsely accuse Christ of participating in those sins. They wrongly reasoned that if He went among sinners then He must be sinning as they do

The false accusation was not that Jesus consumed food or wine, for Jesus Himself says He came eating and drinking, but that He was a winebibber and a glutton. Eating food does not make one a glutton any more than drinking an alcoholic beverage makes one a winebibber or drunkard. Why would they accuse Him of being a winebibber if they never saw Him drinking wine as He testifies about Himself? Their false accusation is that they accused him of eating and drinking habitually to excess not that He was eating and drinking at all.

I believe you are adding your own law but, since my disagreement with you is putting a stumbling block in your path, I will no longer continue in this discussion.

 

[Hospes]

I believe you are adding your own law but, since my disagreement with you is putting a stumbling block in your path, I will no longer continue in this discussion.

On your part, a wise and gracious move in keeping with Romans 14/15.

If Ernest T. believes it's wrong to drink, then he should not and he should not judge those that do not have the same conviction. If another believes they can drink in moderation, then they should be free to do so with a clear conscience and not look down on the Erenest Ts of the Church. A child of God only has One Judge and will one day give an account to Him.

All in all, if we would really put into practice Romans 14 and 15, we'd avoid a bunch of harmful drama in the Body of Christ.

 

[Corn Pop]

I'm drinking lots of beer, but don't call me a drunkard because it's 0% no alcohol.