What does drunkenness mean?

[Fedusenko]

I am not encouraging drunkenness. Scripture states that it is no good. Don't mistake this thread for validating it for personal vindication.

What I am bringing to the table is the word drunkenness does not mean what we have ascribed it to mean. John 2 tells the story of Jesus turning water to wine. Verse 10 states, "And saith unto him, 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." They have been drinking for a while (undetermined, but the context alludes to drunk), yet Christ has provided more to drink.

My point is that if drunkenness is simply being drunk, then Jesus committed a sin by causing someone else to sin. That is impossible otherwise Jesus isn't the Messiah. Jesus IS the Messiah, so he didn't sin by causing others to sin, so being simply being drunk CAN'T be drunkenness. Drunkenness is something different than the occasional hoo-haa.

So drunk isn't drunkenness? Time for speculation as to what drunkenness is... My conclusion is based on a conversation with an Israeli Orthodox Jew. While I don't consider him a connoisseur of Christian belief, I do think that his understanding of contemporary Hebrew is a reasonable starting point for theory of ancient Hebrew, better than my understanding at least. We talked about many things, but specifically he mentioned how Hebrew has phrases similar in construction as "You are a troll." It doesn't mean that you are an ugly, smelly deginerate monster that lives under a bridge waiting for unsuspecting princesses to stroll on by to gobble them up, but that you wait and cause trouble on boards over the Internet causing ruckus and mayhem for selfish pleasure. It doesn't describe what you are physically, but describes your nature. To call someone a troll is to comment on WHO the person is, not WHAT the person is. My conclusion is that drunkenness is not an occurrence here or there, but something that is habitual, something that controls your life, something that is placed above God. Again, this paragraph is speculation, nothing more.

This isn't something cooked up to condone drinking excessively, but serves as a lesson that we are reading text from a culture on the other side of the world two millinia ago. If we are to claim Yeshua as our Lord, then we should be clear on His words. I am not trying to weasel alcohol acceptance into the community, but point out discrepancies in bible language and our understanding. I have done this with the word "love" in the forums. Alcohol is the least of my concerns, but it is an easy platform to make the case that our understanding of Scripture is tainted by our ignorance of meaning of words used. Jasoncran, started a thread titled "looking at the bible from a hebrew mindset" where he attempts to understand the culture to understand the message.

Again, I want to emphasize that my intention is not to condone substance abuse, but address a fundamental flaw in our spiritual lives, the inaccurate understandings of words.

Thoughts?

 

[WIP]

My point is that if drunkenness is simply being drunk, then Jesus committed a sin by causing someone else to sin.

If I have alcohol available at my home and someone else drinks it to the point of intoxication, are you saying that I am guilty of the sin of the one who drank?

 

[BornAgain]

If I have alcohol available at my home and someone else drinks it to the point of intoxication, are you saying that I am guilty of the sin of the one who drank?

Romans 14:13-14 KJV

13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

A man who by his example leads another into sin, sins against his weak brother and against Christ, who died for him.

A man could possibly take a drink control his own appetite as not to be led into excess; but if his drinking it would lead a weak brother, who could not govern his appetite, to partake and fall, then he would put a stumbling block, or an occasion to fall, in his brother's way.

"And thus, sinning against the brethren, and wounding their conscience when it is weak, ye sin against Christ." 1 Cor 8:12. To wound here does not mean to hurt their feelings, but to weaken their conscience as to right and make them tolerate the wrong. On this point we must judge ourselves, and cannot be too careful.—Gospel Advocate Commentaries

 

[jasoncran]

I am not encouraging drunkenness. Scripture states that it is no good. Don't mistake this thread for validating it for personal vindication.

What I am bringing to the table is the word drunkenness does not mean what we have ascribed it to mean. John 2 tells the story of Jesus turning water to wine. Verse 10 states, "And saith unto him, 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." They have been drinking for a while (undetermined, but the context alludes to drunk), yet Christ has provided more to drink.

My point is that if drunkenness is simply being drunk, then Jesus committed a sin by causing someone else to sin. That is impossible otherwise Jesus isn't the Messiah. Jesus IS the Messiah, so he didn't sin by causing others to sin, so being simply being drunk CAN'T be drunkenness. Drunkenness is something different than the occasional hoo-haa.

So drunk isn't drunkenness? Time for speculation as to what drunkenness is... My conclusion is based on a conversation with an Israeli Orthodox Jew. While I don't consider him a connoisseur of Christian belief, I do think that his understanding of contemporary Hebrew is a reasonable starting point for theory of ancient Hebrew, better than my understanding at least. We talked about many things, but specifically he mentioned how Hebrew has phrases similar in construction as "You are a troll." It doesn't mean that you are an ugly, smelly deginerate monster that lives under a bridge waiting for unsuspecting princesses to stroll on by to gobble them up, but that you wait and cause trouble on boards over the Internet causing ruckus and mayhem for selfish pleasure. It doesn't describe what you are physically, but describes your nature. To call someone a troll is to comment on WHO the person is, not WHAT the person is. My conclusion is that drunkenness is not an occurrence here or there, but something that is habitual, something that controls your life, something that is placed above God. Again, this paragraph is speculation, nothing more.

This isn't something cooked up to condone drinking excessively, but serves as a lesson that we are reading text from a culture on the other side of the world two millinia ago. If we are to claim Yeshua as our Lord, then we should be clear on His words. I am not trying to weasel alcohol acceptance into the community, but point out discrepancies in bible language and our understanding. I have done this with the word "love" in the forums. Alcohol is the least of my concerns, but it is an easy platform to make the case that our understanding of Scripture is tainted by our ignorance of meaning of words used. Jasoncran, started a thread titled "looking at the bible from a hebrew mindset" where he attempts to understand the culture to understand the message.

Again, I want to emphasize that my intention is not to condone substance abuse, but address a fundamental flaw in our spiritual lives, the inaccurate understandings of words.

Thoughts?

post the verses in the torah on the drinking. and i while look it up in shemoth(exodus) and post the jewish commentary on it. it may shed the light.

 

[for_his_glory]

No where in those verses does it say they were drunk, but the drunk of the wine. It's a word different, but same meaning as we drank the wine or we drunk the wine, but neither stating they were drunk from the wine. The whole purpose of the wedding story was to teach us of the old wine (self) and the new wine (Gods Spiritual renewal) as this is why Jesus answered his mother in the way he did, vs. 4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

The sin is not in the drinking or getting drunk, but the sin is what it causes our mouth to speak after we become drunk as there is nothing we can put in our body that can defile us, but what comes out of the mouth is what defiles us, Mark 7:15-23.

 

[Fedusenko]

If I have alcohol available at my home and someone else drinks it to the point of intoxication, are you saying that I am guilty of the sin of the one who drank?

It seems that the wedding guests were drunk by the time Yeshua brought the tasty wine out, so it seems that intoxication isn't the sin. Of course, you would be held legally accountable if the person was a minor or they left your house and had accident. It seems that feeding someone's addiction to drinking is the sin.

 

[jasoncran]

jews dont get drunk at their weddings in orthodoxy. that is a sin.

 

[Fedusenko]

Some Passages from different versions.


Orthodox Jewish Bible

Yochanan 2:1-11

Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)

2 On Yom HaShelishi, there was a Chasunoh (Wedding Feast) in Kanah in the Galil; and the Em (Mother) of Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach was there.

2 He and his talmidim were also invited to the Chasunoh (Wedding Feast).

3 And when yayin (wine) was lacking, the Em of Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach says to him, They do not have yayin.

4 And Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach says to her, Mah lanu valach, Isha? [BERESHIS 3:15] My sha’ah (hour, time) has not yet come. [Mt 26:18, 27-28]

5 The Em of Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach says to the mesharetim, Asher yomar lakhem ta’asu (Do whatever he tells you). [BERESHIS 41:55]

6 Now there were shesh (six) stone water jars lying there. These were for the Jewish tohorot, each holding twenty to thirty gallons.

7 Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach says to them, Fill with mayim. And they filled them up to the top.

8 And he says to them, Draw now and bring to the Rosh HaMesibba (Head of the Reception, Feast). And they brought it.

9 And when the Rosh HaMesibba tasted the mayim having become yayin, and when he did not have da’as of where it came from‖but the mesharetim had da’as, the ones having drawn the water‖the Rosh HaMesibba summoned the Choson (Bridegroom).

10 And the Rosh HaMesibba says to him, Everyone sets out the yayin hatov first, and when they have become drunk, he sets out the inferior; you have kept the yayin hatov until now.

11 This was the re++++ (beginning) of the otot (miraculous signs) Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach accomplished in Kana of the Galil, and he manifested the kavod (glory) of him, v’ya’aminu bo (and they put their faith in him) [SHEMOT 14:31].

John 2:10 NIV

10 and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.â€

John 2:10 New King James

10 And he said to him, “Every man at the beginning sets out the good wine, and when the guests have well drunk, then the inferior. You have kept the good wine until now!â€

John 2:10 The Easy to Read Version

10 and said to him, “People always serve the best wine first. Later, when the guests are drunk, they serve the cheaper wine. But you have saved the best wine until now.â€

Complete Jewish Bible

10 and said to him, “Everyone else serves the good wine first and the poorer wine after people have drunk freely. But you have kept the good wine util now!â€

 

[Fedusenko]

Some Commentary....

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Every man - It is customary, or it is generally done.

When men have well drunk - This word does not of necessity mean that they were intoxicated, though it is usually employed in that sense. It may mean when they have drunk sufficient, or to satiety; or have drunk so much as to produce hilarity, and to destroy the keenness of their taste, so that they could not readily distinguish the good from that which was worse. But this cannot be adduced in favor of drunkenness, even if it means to be intoxicated; for,

1. It is not said of those who were present "at that feast," but of what generally occurred. For anything that appears, at that feast all were perfectly temperate and sober.
...
5. Still less is there any evidence that he approved such a state of things, or that he designed that it should take place here. Further, the word translated "well drunk" cannot be shown to mean intoxication; but it may mean when they had drunk as much as they judged proper or as they desired. then the other was presented. It is clear that neither our Saviour, nor the sacred writer, nor the speaker here expresses any approval of intemperance, nor is there the least evidence that anything of the kind occurred here. It is not proof that we approve of intemperance when we mention, as this man did, what occurs usually among men at feasts.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

and when men have well drank; not to excess, but freely, so as that they are exhilarated; and their spirits cheerful, but their brains not intoxicated: so the word, as answering to the Hebrew word is used by the Septuagint in Genesis 43:34,

Vincent's Word Studies

Have well drunk (μεθυσθῶσι)

Wyc., be filled. Tynd., be drunk. The A.V. and Tynd. are better than the Rev. when men have drunk freely. The ruler of the feast means that when the palates of the guests have become less sensitive through indulgence, an inferior quality of wine is offered. In every instance of its use in the New Testament the word means intoxication. The attempt of the advocates of the unfermented-wine theory to deny or weaken this sense by citing the well-watered garden (Isaiah 58:11; Jeremiah 31:12) scarcely requires comment. One might answer by quoting Plato, who uses βαπτίζεσθαι, to be baptized, for being drunk ("Symposium," 176). In the Septuagint the verb repeatedly occurs for watering (Psalm 65:9, Psalm 65:10), but always with the sense of drenching or soaking; of being drunken or surfeited with water. In Jeremiah 48:26 (Sept. 31:26), it is found in the literal sense, to be drunken. The metaphorical use of the word has passed into common slang, as when a drunken man is said to be wetted or soaked (so Plato, above). The figurative use of the word in the Septuagint has a parallel in the use of ποτίζω, to give to drink, to express the watering of ground. So Genesis 2:6, a mist watered the face of the earth, or gave it drink. Compare Genesis 13:10; Deuteronomy 11:10. A curious use of the word occurs in Homer, where he is describing the stretching of a bull's hide, which, in order to make it more elastic, is soaked (μεθύουσαν) with fat

Geneva Study Bible

And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have {e} well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

(e) Literally, are drunken. Now this saying, to be drunken, does not always refer to being drunk in the evil sense in the Hebrew language, but sometimes signifies an abundant and plentiful use of wine, which is nonetheless a measured amount, as in Ge 43:34.

 

[Fedusenko]

In this study, I have come across an amazing commentary about the custom of giving the good wine first, then when folks are less apt to noticing, the cheaper wine, much like how Satan deceives us. This is what the passages is TRULY about, not alcohol acceptance, though it still serves as a good vantage point for the OP. While discussing the points made, please don't forget what this passage is really trying to say. I encourage someone to start a topic about it.

Gill's Exposition

But thou hast kept the good wine until now; which shows he knew nothing of the miracle wrought. And as the bridegroom here did, in the apprehension of the ruler of the feast, at this his marriage, so does the Lord, the husband of the church, in the marriage feast of the Gospel; and so he will do at the marriage supper of the lamb. The Gospel, which may be compared to wine for its purity, pleasant taste, and generous effects in reviving drooping spirits, refreshing weary persons, and comforting distressed minds, as also for its antiquity, was published before the coming of Christ, in the times of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and the prophets, but in a lower and weaker way; at sundry times, here a little, and there a little, by piecemeals, as it were; and in divers manners, by promises, prophecies, types, shadows, and sacrifices; and was attended with much darkness and bondage: but under the Gospel dispensation, which is compared to a marriage feast, it is more fully dispensed, more clearly published, and more freely ministered. The whole of it is delivered, and with open face beheld; and saints are made free by it; it is set in the strongest and clearest light; the best wine is reserved till now; God has provided some better thing for us, Hebrews 11:40. And so with respect to the future state of the saints, their best things are kept for them till last. They have many good things now; as the Gospel, Gospel ordinances, the blessings, and promises of grace, the love of God shed abroad in their hearts, presence of God, and communion with Christ, at least at times; all which are better than wine: but then there is an alloy to these; they are lowered by other things, as the corruptions of the heart, the temptations of Satan, the hidings of God's face, and a variety of afflictions; but they shall have their good and best things hereafter, and drink new wine in Christ's Father's kingdom, without any thing to lower and weaken it: they will have full joys, and never fading pleasures, and shall be without sin and sorrow; no more deserted, nor afflicted, and shall be out of the reach of Satan's temptations, and with Christ for evermore. Happy are they that are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb.

 

[jasoncran]

i will ask some others that know more on jewry on that. i dont see jews teaching being drunk is ok. not that they dont have that idea at all. in the talmud during purim they added a part where one can drink to forget.

 

[WIP]

From BornAgain

A man could possibly take a drink control his own appetite as not to be led into excess; but if his drinking it would lead a weak brother, who could not govern his appetite, to partake and fall, then he would put a stumbling block, or an occasion to fall, in his brother's way.

By this analogy then, having food in my house would make me responsible for another person's over-indulgence, wouldn't it?
I have many friends that are recovering alcholics and through them I know the problem all too well. I will occasionally have a beer in their presence and I don't make special effort to avoid exposing them to the fact that I have it in my home, however in respect for their condition I will not offer them a beer and I don't make any attempt to entice them with drinking. For me, having a beer is no different than having a cup of coffee or glass of water.

@ Fedusenko

It seems that the wedding guests were drunk by the time Yeshua brought the tasty wine out,

What brings you to this conclusion? Because there was wine served and because they had run out does not necessarily mean they were intoxicated. We don't know how much wine they had to begin with and we don't know how many guests participated.

 

[Tammuz14]

Someone who brings wine to a wedding that has run out of wine is not reponsible for the people who get drunk.

 

[BornAgain]

From BornAgain

By this analogy then, having food in my house would make me responsible for another person's over-indulgence, wouldn't it?
I have many friends that are recovering alcholics and through them I know the problem all too well. I will occasionally have a beer in their presence and I don't make special effort to avoid exposing them to the fact that I have it in my home, however in respect for their condition I will not offer them a beer and I don't make any attempt to entice them with drinking. For me, having a beer is no different than having a cup of coffee or glass of water.


I guess you could say that but the thread is about drunkenness, not overeating.

1 Cor 8:12

 

[WIP]

From BornAgain

By this analogy then, having food in my house would make me responsible for another person's over-indulgence, wouldn't it?
I have many friends that are recovering alcholics and through them I know the problem all too well. I will occasionally have a beer in their presence and I don't make special effort to avoid exposing them to the fact that I have it in my home, however in respect for their condition I will not offer them a beer and I don't make any attempt to entice them with drinking. For me, having a beer is no different than having a cup of coffee or glass of water.


I guess you could say that but the thread is about drunkenness, not overeating.

1 Cor 8:12

I think it is relevant to this from the OP.

They have been drinking for a while (undetermined, but the context alludes to drunk), yet Christ has provided more to drink.

My point is that if drunkenness is simply being drunk, then Jesus committed a sin by causing someone else to sin.

The fact that Jesus made more wine available to the guests would seem to make him guilty of "causing another to stumble" (which I do not believe). In the same way, having alcohol available in my home does not cause another to stumble unless I have knowledge that its very presence is a stumbling block for my guest. Now we're talking a different story.

The real question in this thread seems to be whether or not the word dunkenness means intoxicated or not. I think it does and I think Fedusenko might be reading more into the text than what is really there. I don't think the text suggests that the wedding party had drunk enough to be intoxicated. I see no scriptural evidence to support this assumption. Therefore, Christ was not committing a sinful act by providing more wine.

 

[BornAgain]

I think it is relevant to this from the OP.

The fact that Jesus made more wine available to the guests would seem to make him guilty of "causing another to stumble" (which I do not believe). In the same way, having alcohol available in my home does not cause another to stumble unless I have knowledge that its very presence is a stumbling block for my guest. Now we're talking a different story.

The real question in this thread seems to be whether or not the word dunkenness means intoxicated or not. I think it does and I think Fedusenko might be reading more into the text than what is really there. I don't think the text suggests that the wedding party had drunk enough to be intoxicated. I see no scriptural evidence to support this assumption. Therefore, Christ was not committing a sinful act by providing more wine.

I agree that Jesus was not responsible for another to commit a sin...that would make Jesus a sinner and we know He was not.

But, we can be a stumbling block to an individual who does have an issue with alcohol and if we have it around them would cause them to stumble into drinking again. That is why the church I attend serves grape juice instead of wine...not to cause a brother to stumble.

Romans 14:21 (KJV)
²¹It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

He emphasizes the principle that it is good for a Christian neither to flesh nor to drink wine, which leads the weak to ruin, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is led to sin, or is made weak.

This is a principle the Holy Spirit lays down to guide the children of God. It teaches that Christ denied himself to save us; that he gave up heaven, with all its joys and glories, to help us.

We must be willing to forego our privileges of a temporal and fleshly character to help our weak brother. Much is said in the Bible on the subject of the use of wine and intoxicants. The Holy Spirit, knowing fully all that was taught on the subject, gives this as the final deliverance of God to guide men for all time.

It is in our safety to ourselves and to our fellow man and honor to God. Even if a man thinks he could drink in moderation of intoxicants without injury to himself, he is under obligation to refrain from it, lest by his example a weak brother be led to drink.

In leading him to do what leads to his ruin he sins against Christ. He destroys the work of God.

I knew a young Christian who became an alcoholic. He was very fond of the preacher, went with him from place to place. He was offered whiskey. He refused several times. He refused to touch it. One night he and the preacher roomed with an elder of the church.

On the following morning the elder offered him liquor. He refused to drink. The preacher drank. It was again offered the young man. This time he drank. Within a few days he was drinking excessively and had a "relapse." The preacher and the elder sinned against him, destroyed the work of God, and led him for whom Christ died down to ruin. So in all the paths that lead to sin.

 

[for_his_glory]

I agree that Jesus was not responsible for another to commit a sin...that would make Jesus a sinner and we know He was not.

But, we can be a stumbling block to an individual who does have an issue with alcohol and if we have it around them would cause them to stumble into drinking again. That is why the church I attend serves grape juice instead of wine...not to cause a brother to stumble.

Romans 14:21 (KJV)
²¹It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

He emphasizes the principle that it is good for a Christian neither to flesh nor to drink wine, which leads the weak to ruin, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is led to sin, or is made weak.

This is a principle the Holy Spirit lays down to guide the children of God. It teaches that Christ denied himself to save us; that he gave up heaven, with all its joys and glories, to help us.

We must be willing to forego our privileges of a temporal and fleshly character to help our weak brother. Much is said in the Bible on the subject of the use of wine and intoxicants. The Holy Spirit, knowing fully all that was taught on the subject, gives this as the final deliverance of God to guide men for all time.

It is in our safety to ourselves and to our fellow man and honor to God. Even if a man thinks he could drink in moderation of intoxicants without injury to himself, he is under obligation to refrain from it, lest by his example a weak brother be led to drink.

In leading him to do what leads to his ruin he sins against Christ. He destroys the work of God.

I knew a young Christian who became an alcoholic. He was very fond of the preacher, went with him from place to place. He was offered whiskey. He refused several times. He refused to touch it. One night he and the preacher roomed with an elder of the church.

On the following morning the elder offered him liquor. He refused to drink. The preacher drank. It was again offered the young man. This time he drank. Within a few days he was drinking excessively and had a "relapse." The preacher and the elder sinned against him, destroyed the work of God, and led him for whom Christ died down to ruin. So in all the paths that lead to sin.

So you are saying Jesus was a stumbling block as he made wine for the guest and that would have caused them to get drunk? Please show me in scripture where the guest were drunk as all I see is that they drunk the wine, but never says they were drunk.

 

[BornAgain]

So you are saying Jesus was a stumbling block as he made wine for the guest and that would have caused them to get drunk? Please show me in scripture where the guest were drunk as all I see is that they drunk the wine, but never says they were drunk.

Not to be argumentative, but now you want scripture to back up what WIP is saying when you said in previous posts you are led by the Holy Spirit?

 

[WIP]

I think we need to let this thread get back on the topic which is basically the definition of drunkeness and not whether or not having or consuming alcohol is a sin.

 

[Free]

The Bible is pretty clear that being intoxicated is a sin:

Rom 13:12 The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light.
Rom 13:13 Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy.
Rom 13:14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires. (ESV)

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality,
Gal 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions,
Gal 5:21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (ESV)

1Pe 4:1 Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same way of thinking, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,
1Pe 4:2 so as to live for the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for human passions but for the will of God.
1Pe 4:3 For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry.
1Pe 4:4 With respect to this they are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you;
1Pe 4:5 but they will give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. (ESV)

But there is nothing to suggest that drinking itself is a sin, although overall the Bible doesn't look favorably at drinking.