Drinking and Jesus

Status
Not open for further replies.
tellville

tellville

Puritan Board Junior
I've been wondering this for a while:

I've been of the opinion that drinking was ok (though I never do it for many reasons) but drunkenness was bad (countless passages of Scipture seem to teach this). However, in John 2 Jesus turns the water into wine at the end of the party when everyone is probably already plastered. Add this to the fact that Jesus was always "fellowshiping" with people all the time and I am beginning to wonder what the deal is with drinking and Jesus. Can someone shed some light on this for me please?
 
They did accuse him because he associated with drunkards.

I'm not helping, just adding to what you've pointed out.
 
No where in this verse does it say that people were plastered. I'm quite sure that they had many people there and were in need of much wine. Remember that people had a hard time getting enough bread to eat during these times. I doubt they had enough wine for everyone to get totally plastered. From what I've read these parties lasted days. Remember what one man said to the groom?...why have you left the best wine for last and given the worst for first?. If he were plastered with the rest of everyone, he wouldn't know the difference between good wine and bad wine.
 
sjonee said:
No where in this verse does it say that people were plastered.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. Drinking alcohol (even at large parties) does not have to lead to drunkenness. In fact, a party that lasts many hours (or days even) allows you to drink in much greater quantities without getting drunk.
Like today, if I have 5 or 6 drinks over the course of an hour, that's going to hit me pretty hard and most likely put me in a state of drunkenness. But if I have 5 or 6 drinks over the course of a long evening with friends, we're all good!
 
sjonee said:
No where in this verse does it say that people were plastered. I'm quite sure that they had many people there and were in need of much wine. Remember that people had a hard time getting enough bread to eat during these times. I doubt they had enough wine for everyone to get totally plastered. From what I've read these parties lasted days. Remember what one man said to the groom?...why have you left the best wine for last and given the worst for first?. If he were plastered with the rest of everyone, he wouldn't know the difference between good wine and bad wine.
Click to expand...

The implication is, I think, that at this point people were likely to be in varying states of drunkenness. Why? It wasn't just "one man" saying to the groom, "why have you left the best wine for last", but the master of the feast (who would likely it seems to me have had to keep his head on straight to be a good host). The reason you'd not serve good wine late into a party is specifically because, as you say, when the party-goers have been drinking a long time, they'll quite possibly not know the difference between good and bad - so why waste it on them then?
 
Nope, I'm not buying. Scripture doesn't say people were engaging in vomiting-drinking-vomiting partying and I seriously don't believe that people would have done that at a wedding party. I can't prove it but since Scripture doesn't say they were then I'm not going to accuse them of such things. Why don't we just take the story as it is given instead of filling in details of our own possible wild parties into this story.

-----Added 2/7/2009 at 10:02:28 EST-----

Also, if you drink wine throughout the course of a day, your tongue becomes saturated and is not as capable of distinguishing between good and bad wine...kind of like smells...your olfactory gets saturated and it's hard to distinguish between one scent and another. So that is most likely why they served the best wine first. If I sipped on wine all day, I wouldn't get drunk but my tongue would get saturated.
 
sjonee said:
Nope, I'm not buying. Scripture doesn't say people were engaging in vomiting-drinking-vomiting partying and I seriously don't believe that people would have done that at a wedding party. I can't prove it but since Scripture doesn't say they were then I'm not going to accuse them of such things. Why don't we just take the story as it is given instead of filling in details of our own possible wild parties into this story.

-----Added 2/7/2009 at 10:02:28 EST-----

Also, if you drink wine throughout the course of a day, your tongue becomes saturated and is not as capable of distinguishing between good and bad wine...kind of like smells...your olfactory gets saturated and it's hard to distinguish between one scent and another. So that is most likely why they served the best wine first. If I sipped on wine all day, I wouldn't get drunk but my tongue would get saturated.
Click to expand...

Sarah, to be drunk does not mean a vomiting, drinking, vomiting cycle. It does not mean "wild parties". I think you're taking a particular view of drunkenness that is informed by American high school and college scene partying. You can be very much guilty of the sin of drunkenness without ever vomiting one bit, or being on the verge of doing so.
 
As you say Todd,

The point was that in the usual scenario the good wine would be served first then the wine that was of lesser quality because after drinking enough of the good wine the guests wouldn't really know the difference. That's why the man was so amazed because the best wine was served last.
 
The passage has too much to offer to let ourselves get caught up in what it doesn't, or what it "might" say.

It is interesting to note that it wasn't Noah who was reprimanded for getting drunk. I'm not in any way advocating drunkenness. Scripture is clear. But the narrative is interesting.
sjonee said:
No where in this verse does it say that people were plastered...If he were plastered with the rest of everyone, he wouldn't know the difference between good wine and bad wine.
Click to expand...
A voice of experience??? :p
 
No where in this verse does it say that people were plastered.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you meant that the Bible nowhere says it is OK to be plastered. There are more than a few who are three sheets to the wind in the Bible. Noah jumps readily to mind.

Interestingly, the Hebrew word for feast, mishteh, implies drinking...lots of drinking, admittedly, usually in a negative sense (as it is repeatedly used in Esther 1), but not always.

I kind of like Psalm 104:15, "[You cause] wine to gladden the heart of man." In other words, a bit of a buzz is a gift from God. :cheers2:
 
Last edited:
"Well, like I explained to y'all before I ain't no drinkin' man. I tried it once, and it got me highly irregular and I swore I'd never do it again. But I promised my brother-in-law that I'd go up and watch his still while he went into town to vote.

It was up there on the mountain where the map said it would be. Friends let me tell you one thing though, it wadn't no ordinary still. It stood up that mountainside like... like a huge golden opal.

God's yellar moon was a' shinin' on the cool clear evenin', God's little lanterns just a' twinklin' on and off in the heavens and, like I explained to you once before, I ain't no drinkin' man, But, temptation got the best of me, and I took a slag... That yellar whiskey runnin' down my throat like honeydew vine water, and I took another slag. Took another and another and another. 'fore you knew it I'd downed one whole jug o' that stuff and commenced to get hot flashes.

Goosepimples was runnin' up and down my body and a feelin' came over me like, somethin' I'd never experienced before, It's like, like I was in love, --- Jimmy Buffett
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
As they say in the South, true story: Some of the hardest/most-drinking folks I have ever met were Mississippi Baptists. That's kind of funny to me because behind every prohibition law in the country, you will find a Baptist church lurking. I went to a party one time that one of our deacons was throwing. I walked in to find a table full of Baptists drinking. And smoking. And playing poker. They took one look at me and fled like vampires from garlic.

Pity. I would I have joined them. :D

BTW, the deacon had his own still.

True story.
 
toddpedlar said:
The implication is, I think, that at this point people were likely to be in varying states of drunkenness. Why? It wasn't just "one man" saying to the groom, "why have you left the best wine for last", but the master of the feast (who would likely it seems to me have had to keep his head on straight to be a good host). The reason you'd not serve good wine late into a party is specifically because, as you say, when the party-goers have been drinking a long time, they'll quite possibly not know the difference between good and bad - so why waste it on them then?
Click to expand...

toddpedlar said:
Sarah, to be drunk does not mean a vomiting, drinking, vomiting cycle. It does not mean "wild parties". I think you're taking a particular view of drunkenness that is informed by American high school and college scene partying. You can be very much guilty of the sin of drunkenness without ever vomiting one bit, or being on the verge of doing so.
Click to expand...

Todd here gets to the heart of my issue. Did Jesus encourage some people to get drunk or continue in their drunkenness by creating more wine near the end of the party?

kevin.carroll said:
I'm pretty sure you meant that the Bible nowhere says it is OK to be plastered. There are more than a few who are three sheets to the wind in the Bible. Noah jumps readily to mind.

Interestingly, the Hebrew word for feast, mishteh, implies drinking...lots of drinking, admittedly, usually in a negative sense (as it is repeatedly used in Esther 1), but not always.

I kind of like Psalm 104:15, "[You cause] wine to gladden the heart of man." In other words, a bit of a buzz is a gift from God. :cheers2:
Click to expand...
So, are you saying that Biblically drinking to the point of minor drunkenness (getting a buzz) is ok?
 
Mark, I'm saying that David described wine gladdening the heart of man as a gift from the Lord. Read into that what you will.

I agree with you that drukeness is a sin. The Bible plainly says so. Of course, drunkeness is a continuum. It's hard to say where the line is, though it is evident when it is crossed. There, I think, is where NT priniciples of freedom and being led by the Spirit comes into play.

Let me explain by way of example. I grew up in a fairly legalistic church. I believe its legalism grew, at least initially, out of a sincere desire to be obedient to the Lord. But it went downhill from there. So, for instance, when they read in 1 Corinthians that it was a shame for men to have long hair, they immediately became legalistic over the question of how long long was. They missed one of Paul's bigger points, that men should look like men and women, like women and actually went on to define what long meant (hair had to be 1/4 inch off of the ears). Silliness.

Coming back to the issue of alcohol, I believe each believer who, convinced in his conscience that drinking is OK for him, should know his limits and drink responsibly. There is nothing wrong with enjoying the experience, anymore than there is something wrong with enjoying the taste of food. God created those things to be enjoyed. See?
 
Ephesians 5:18 is applicable. We are to be controlled by the Spirit, not be drunk with wine, which is dissipation.
Any idea that Jesus encouraged drunkenness (or further drunkenness) is an imposition on what the text says. It says that they were out of wine, He made wine from water, and that the quality was superior. Playing loose and fast with God's Word is a slippery slope, irresponsible and leads to an incredible host of error.
 
In Matthew 11:19 gluttons and drunkards are mentioned in the same sentence. Today's teetotalers seem to de-emphasize the "glutton" part... I wonder why? :think:

EDIT: Now that I think about it, not just teetotalers. Americans in general.
 
I too think the guiding principle is the Ephesians 5 passage -- not drunk with wine but filled with the spirit. Like so many other things, this requires wisdom. A drink or so socially is one thing -- drinking to cover pain (as is mentioned in scripture) is something else. I have used wine medicinally when nothing else would touch my headaches. In that case, I drank for the (slight!) effect and made sure my husband was home to take care of the kids. Being irresponsible for whatever reason simply cannot be justified.
 
Sarah, to be drunk does not mean a vomiting, drinking, vomiting cycle. It does not mean "wild parties".
Click to expand...

Todd, the OP said plastered not drunkenness. There is a difference.


Todd here gets to the heart of my issue. Did Jesus encourage some people to get drunk or continue in their drunkenness by creating more wine near the end of the party?
Click to expand...

This is EXACTLY why I stated that they were not plastered as you said in your OP...even drunkenness (having a merry heart with wine isn't drunkenness). You seem intent on attributing to Christ the sin of drunkenness by providing more wine. That's the most absurd thing I've heard all year and some here are not helping to dispute such a notion.

Concerning Noah, God didn't discipline him? God allowed his son to make a fool out of him because of the unguarded behavior Noah fell into (laying around naked). That would have never happened if Noah had not gotten drunk, and yet, we have a story which tells of the consequences of such behavior. Where's the story in the water being turned into wine which tells of the consequences of people getting plastered? You have none, and as such have no right to suggest that they were plastered and attribute any wrong doing to Christ! Really, I'm quite surprised by what I'm reading on this thread. It's most disturbing in my opinion. There, I'm done with it.
 
sjonee said:
toddpedlar said:
Sarah, to be drunk does not mean a vomiting, drinking, vomiting cycle. It does not mean "wild parties".
Click to expand...
Todd, the OP said plastered not drunkenness. There is a difference.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I think we are working with different definitions of words here. For me drunkenness and being plastered are the same thing. Maybe being plastered is a bit worse than being drunk, but I consider being drunk bad as well, at least at this point. And yes, you wouldn't need to be vomiting to be drunk.


sjonee said:
tellville said:
Todd here gets to the heart of my issue. Did Jesus encourage some people to get drunk or continue in their drunkenness by creating more wine near the end of the party?
Click to expand...
This is EXACTLY why I stated that they were not plastered as you said in your OP...even drunkenness (having a merry heart with wine isn't drunkenness). You seem intent on attributing to Christ the sin of drunkenness by providing more wine. That's the most absurd thing I've heard all year and some here are not helping to dispute such a notion.
Click to expand...

Well, this is the very reason why I am asking the question! Because, from the point of the view of the question I was confused because it seemed like Jesus was encouraging drunkenness. That's why I am asking my question. I was under the understanding that one of the purposes of the Puritianboard was to be able to ask questions concerning issues that didn't seem as obvious to one but were more than likely obvious to others so as that everyone can help build up the body of Christ.

sjonee said:
Where's the story in the water being turned into wine which tells of the consequences of people getting plastered? You have none, and as such have no right to suggest that they were plastered and attribute any wrong doing to Christ! Really, I'm quite surprised by what I'm reading on this thread. It's most disturbing in my opinion. There, I'm done with it.
Click to expand...
Well, I notice you're Presbyterian. Did you know that NO WHERE in the Bible do we have examples of infants being baptised? Well, then I guess you have no right to such a doctrine! No, this is ridiculous. Presbyterians make what they believe are adequate inferences from the text which in their minds constitute sufficient grounds to establish the doctrine of infant baptism (new circumcision, household baptisms, etc.). I did the same thing with this text. From my best understanding of long parties that involve alcohol there are usually some people who are quite "plastered" near the end. This is usually the case. Thus, when I see in the text Jesus making more wine at the end of a party involving alcohol some possible flags go up because up to this point I've been under the impression that all forms of drunkenness are wrong. So either I'm reading the text wrong or I had a faulty understanding of drunkenness and thus I asked the question.

And I am still confused!
 
tellville said:
Well, this is the very reason why I am asking the question! Because, from the point of the view of the question I was confused because it seemed like Jesus was encouraging drunkenness. That's why I am asking my question.
Click to expand...

Mark, I understand that there has been some debate over possibilities, which can be beating around the bush at times.

But a line we need to draw is concerning the Lord, His motivations are pure and perfect.

A lot of God’s good creation can be abused or misused by some of us, totally depraved men, yet sin is never God’s responsibility.

Several drugs are plants, also with a good pharmaceutical and clinical use.

Wine could be used in a good and reasonable way or in an intoxicating sinful way, that was each guest’s responsibility.

But the hosts of the wedding were spared from the shame of not having enough wine for their guests.

my :2cents:
 
Dear Mark,

Your question is fair. And, yes, your questions are encouraged here. I've asked some doozies.

Just handle it simply. Jesus is God. God tempts no man. Therefore Jesus did not provide booze for drunks. Look at the main point of the text and run with it. The main point is not in any way substantiated by any idea of drunkenness. It's a distraction that the text neither implies nor states so, in a sense, is off grounds. It's like saying a pastor has to be married because he is to be a one woman man. It takes the text and makes it say something it doesn't. Let it go and praise God for what it clearly DOES say, rather than speculating on what it MIGHT or COULD POSSIBLY imply. Enjoy your study to the glory of God.

Blessings,
 
tellville said:
sjonee said:
toddpedlar said:
Sarah, to be drunk does not mean a vomiting, drinking, vomiting cycle. It does not mean "wild parties".
Click to expand...
Todd, the OP said plastered not drunkenness. There is a difference.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I think we are working with different definitions of words here. For me drunkenness and being plastered are the same thing. Maybe being plastered is a bit worse than being drunk, but I consider being drunk bad as well, at least at this point. And yes, you wouldn't need to be vomiting to be drunk.


sjonee said:
This is EXACTLY why I stated that they were not plastered as you said in your OP...even drunkenness (having a merry heart with wine isn't drunkenness). You seem intent on attributing to Christ the sin of drunkenness by providing more wine. That's the most absurd thing I've heard all year and some here are not helping to dispute such a notion.
Click to expand...

Well, this is the very reason why I am asking the question! Because, from the point of the view of the question I was confused because it seemed like Jesus was encouraging drunkenness. That's why I am asking my question. I was under the understanding that one of the purposes of the Puritianboard was to be able to ask questions concerning issues that didn't seem as obvious to one but were more than likely obvious to others so as that everyone can help build up the body of Christ.

sjonee said:
Where's the story in the water being turned into wine which tells of the consequences of people getting plastered? You have none, and as such have no right to suggest that they were plastered and attribute any wrong doing to Christ! Really, I'm quite surprised by what I'm reading on this thread. It's most disturbing in my opinion. There, I'm done with it.
Click to expand...
Well, I notice you're Presbyterian. Did you know that NO WHERE in the Bible do we have examples of infants being baptised? Well, then I guess you have no right to such a doctrine! No, this is ridiculous. Presbyterians make what they believe are adequate inferences from the text which in their minds constitute sufficient grounds to establish the doctrine of infant baptism (new circumcision, household baptisms, etc.). I did the same thing with this text. From my best understanding of long parties that involve alcohol there are usually some people who are quite "plastered" near the end. This is usually the case. Thus, when I see in the text Jesus making more wine at the end of a party involving alcohol some possible flags go up because up to this point I've been under the impression that all forms of drunkenness are wrong. So either I'm reading the text wrong or I had a faulty understanding of drunkenness and thus I asked the question.

And I am still confused!
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to make you feel bad and I'm sorry that I did. Please forgive me.
 
sjonee said:
tellville said:
sjonee said:
Todd, the OP said plastered not drunkenness. There is a difference.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I think we are working with different definitions of words here. For me drunkenness and being plastered are the same thing. Maybe being plastered is a bit worse than being drunk, but I consider being drunk bad as well, at least at this point. And yes, you wouldn't need to be vomiting to be drunk.




Well, this is the very reason why I am asking the question! Because, from the point of the view of the question I was confused because it seemed like Jesus was encouraging drunkenness. That's why I am asking my question. I was under the understanding that one of the purposes of the Puritianboard was to be able to ask questions concerning issues that didn't seem as obvious to one but were more than likely obvious to others so as that everyone can help build up the body of Christ.

sjonee said:
Where's the story in the water being turned into wine which tells of the consequences of people getting plastered? You have none, and as such have no right to suggest that they were plastered and attribute any wrong doing to Christ! Really, I'm quite surprised by what I'm reading on this thread. It's most disturbing in my opinion. There, I'm done with it.
Click to expand...
Well, I notice you're Presbyterian. Did you know that NO WHERE in the Bible do we have examples of infants being baptised? Well, then I guess you have no right to such a doctrine! No, this is ridiculous. Presbyterians make what they believe are adequate inferences from the text which in their minds constitute sufficient grounds to establish the doctrine of infant baptism (new circumcision, household baptisms, etc.). I did the same thing with this text. From my best understanding of long parties that involve alcohol there are usually some people who are quite "plastered" near the end. This is usually the case. Thus, when I see in the text Jesus making more wine at the end of a party involving alcohol some possible flags go up because up to this point I've been under the impression that all forms of drunkenness are wrong. So either I'm reading the text wrong or I had a faulty understanding of drunkenness and thus I asked the question.

And I am still confused!
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to make you feel bad and I'm sorry that I did. Please forgive me.
Click to expand...

No worries! I also apologize if my reaction was a little to harsh!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

chbrooking
  • Locked
Jesus and Temptation
Replies
24
Views
3K
Confessor
Confessor
T
  • Locked
Elijah and Elisha and Jesus
Replies
5
Views
7K
Contra_Mundum
Contra_Mundum
shackleton
  • Locked
Jesus and lustful thoughts?
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
Herald
Herald
F
  • Locked
Jesus' suffering and Hell
Replies
1
Views
2K
Wannabee
Wannabee
Semper Fidelis
Jesus Calling and the PCA
Replies
21
Views
804
mpinckard
M
Back
Top