Luther on drinking

[Luke 24:27]

Drunkenness is a lifestyle not a singular event.

Drunkenness is condemned, getting tipsy on rare occasions is not; in fact it may indeed be commended in Scripture.
Deuteronomy 14:26 seems to indicate that the Lord desired for them to buy strong drink and enjoy it before him.

Deuteronomy 14:26 (New American Standard Bible)

26"You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and (A)there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.

 

[Julio Martinez Jr]

Being reluctant to violate the ninth commandment by determining something of Noah that is not necessarily required by the text, could we charitably assume it means he was tipsy, and incidentally forgot to pull his blanket over himself? Or is there other scriptural warrant to ascribe a higher level of inebriation to our spiritual and biological ancestor?

The text seems to imply that Noah was unaware of the effects of alcohol, assuaging him of guilt. This is the first recorded instance of drunkenness in the Bible.

That's just an assumption. Hardly qualifies as proof.

---------- Post added at 04:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:42 AM ----------

I think that most of the comments here broach, if not predicate, a view merely based on conjecture and inferential guessing. Isn't there a more clear passage? This instance of Noah does not persuade me from all the posts I've read so far. I agree that the passage only addresses Ham's sin. So I agree with Luther.

---------- Post added at 04:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:45 AM ----------

I would say that 'tipsy' is not rising to the level of perfection required in the 7th Commandment which is "chastity in . . . body . . . and behavior," as well as "temperance." Falling asleep naked in a place where other folks are likely to be going is not a measure of sobriety. Noah's nudity was also a provocation to Ham's sin. It is, however, Ham's wrongdoing that is the focus of the passage.

But Josh, where is the implication that Noah's location was one that other folks would likely to be going? He was in his tent. Might that not be the equivalent of our modern bedrooms, a place normally not to be entered but by invitation? Would it not be proper to assume that Ham was the one who was doing wrong in a prohibited place?

Regardless, Dear Friend, others' wrongs do not absolve us of our own wrongs. The Scripture says that he drank then was drunken, and there's no commendation of drunkenness (the state of being drunken) anywhere in Scripture.

Eh now it sounds like your rationalizing. You need something more robust if you're going to argue against drinking. Don't get me wrong, I think there should be a line that shouldn't be crossed, but it isn't found in this passage. And if I can anticipate a rebuttal, I know that what I believe and what is actually the case (naturalistic fallacy) does not always correlate with reality. However, this case doesn't work in your favor. You need a passage that outright prohibits drunkenness or narratively restricts or condemns it. I am just not convinced.

 

[jwithnell]

Yes, that is the thrust of the passage and, I believe, have affirmed as much as elsewhere, it just wasn't the thrust of our current conversation.

OK, what was I thinking!

Actually, I wonder if Luther's quotes have more to do with a bit of a cultural norm and a bit of being wry? In cultures without our Victorian influences, folks allow themselves to enjoy the effects of alcohol more. I don't mean getting you-know-what-faced but loosening up more with not that much alcohol; being convivial. You get the flavor from some of Luther's students. Also, my husband and I might joke about toga parties and smashing beer cans into the forehead -- not in either memory or advocacy but because it conveys something of the time we came of age? Our culture?

 

[lynnie]

The flood was a time of enormous change, not only on earth but possibly celestially. Lifespans were markedly decreased- decay of humans speeded up. Some creationists think fermentation also speeded up. Perhaps a water vapor canopy was removed allowing more solar radiation. We do not know. I for one am convinced that Noah drank what used to be a normal amount before the flood, but after the flood it was far more alcoholic. You don't watch God destroy all life, then just go out and sinfully get drunk. No, he worshipped God. Fermentation had changed.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Ham also had just seen God destroy all life, but he sinned.

 

[TimV]

Lynnie that doesn't cut it. Fermentation can be fast or slow, but the end result doesn't change. Ask any beer or wine or mead maker here! Light not only has nothing to do with it, you do your brewing in the dark

I'll stick my neck out and suggest no published creationist with a degree from an accredited college would couple light intensity with fermentation. Christians get drunk. Christians commit adultery. Christians steal, Christians hit themselves with a hammer and use God's name in vain.

Last night I had three glasses of home brew that started out in a pitch black beehive, was taken to a shed and put into a dark closet in a carboy for 2 months

 

[lynnie]

Tim, I didn't say light, I said solar radiation. Maybe he let it sit a certain length of time that should make it very slightly alcoholic, and instead it was high proof. I forget where I read it but at the time it made sense. Maybe it was the speed of metabolism, I forget. Why did they go from living 900 years to 120 or 70? Things changed.

******

just looked at one book...speculation is that higher atmospheric pressure before the flood slowed fermentation; CO2 escapes slower. Air pressure affects the rate of fermentation.

Also, under lower pressure you get drunk quicker- like in an airplane where pressures are lower than at sea level. ( google it, it is true) So if the air pressure was much lower after the flood, it would be like on a jet- you drink what you used to safely drink but this time you get drunk.

I see no reason to believe Noah intentionally sinned, given the obvious change in atmospheric conditions.

 

[TimV]

just looked at one book...speculation is that higher atmospheric pressure before the flood slowed fermentation; CO2 escapes slower. Air pressure affects the rate of fermentation.

But it doesn't matter!! It could slow to half speed. It would slow to one tenth speed. Why would it make a bit of difference (except to a baptist who knows nothing about fermentation? May I guess the author's a baptist?) how long it took?

So, if it took ten times as long for yeast to react, and bread took 4 days to rise (same yeast is used in making bread, sister!) then after 4 months the wine would STILL have the same amount of alcohol!!!!

No, I'll lay money on the author being a fundy of the CS Lewis wasn't a Christian cuz he used tobacco variety

 

[lynnie]

Tim, the author is Reformed. Maybe Noah let his grapes ferment the normal previous length of time, but this time the proof was higher.

Secondly-

Fact- people get drunk quicker at lower air pressure. Google it.

Fact- the atmosphere changed enormously after the flood. It never even rained before.

There is no proof at all that Noah knowingly sinned into drunkenness. 9th commandment violation to slander him.

 

[TimV]

Tim, the author is Reformed. Maybe Noah let his grapes ferment the normal previous length of time, but this time the proof was higher.

I'd be interested in the source for that. You don't drink until the fermentation is pretty much complete. The yeasty stuff tastes funny, and there are several other reasons. A brewer knows when fermentation is complete in the same way a housewife knows her bread is done rising. And no one said he intentionally set out to get drunk. Sometimes after a few you lose track and drink too much.

 

[Luke 24:27]

Tim, the author is Reformed. Maybe Noah let his grapes ferment the normal previous length of time, but this time the proof was higher.

Secondly-

Fact- people get drunk quicker at lower air pressure. Google it.

Fact- the atmosphere changed enormously after the flood. It never even rained before.

There is no proof at all that Noah knowingly sinned into drunkenness. 9th commandment violation to slander him.

The problem is that you assume that Noah getting drunk was a sin. All that Scripture tells us is that drunkenness is sin. It is a sin to be a drunkard. To lead a drunkard lifestyle. That God made the wine that maketh merry the heart is clear in Scripture. Wine does not make merry the heart unless one is inebriated. The inebriation lightens the mood, relaxes the nervous system and tends to merriment. This is good in the sight of God so long as one does not overindulge in this blessing.

Deuteronomy 14:26 shows that God approves of people on occasion drinking inebriating beverages before him as they rejoice and revel in his goodness.

But to become a drunkard, to lead a life of drunkenness is sin.

 

[interalia]

-It's actually atmospheric pressure. (Those of us who live in Colorado are keen to this)

-Is it not mere speculation, not Biblical witness, to there actually being an atmospheric layer prior to the flood that is no longer present? We should not presume fact based on speculation, though I understand your point that something "changed enormously," but the discussion is starting to sound like it is taking the atmospheric theory as fact.

 

[lynnie]

Forget fermentation, I don't know much about it, except that they say the end product had less alcohol before the flood. Maybe- maybe not.

Look at air pressure.

People today in their customary place to have a beer know when they are drinking too much. You don't get drunk by accident. People on this thread are implying that Noah knew what he was doing when he drank unto drunkeness.

If you suddenly go to a low pressure, like an airline cabin that equals about
8000-10,000 feet above sea level, they say that one drink equals two at sea level. (Might not just be the drink, might also be less O2 getting to the brain.)

So you have an earth with relatively flat terraine such that flood water covers the entire thing. At the end, God makes the mountains push up. (does anybody really think Mt Everest at 29,000 feet got covered? I don't. It wasn't there yet.)

So here is godly Noah who loves the Lord up on Mt Ararat, thousands of feet up, in an atmosphere that perhaps is very diffferent than before the flood. Why did people live 10 times longer before the flood? Some folks postulate it was higher air pressure like a hyperbaric chamber...more oxygen to the body. We don't know.

The point is, Noah had his usual glass of whatever it was, and didn't realize that in this new lower pressuer atmosphere up on a mountain, he couldn't handle it.

And by the way my reference to the 9th command refers to slander. It is terrible to even imply that Noah knew he was drinking too much.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

*MODERATION*

It is terrible to even imply that Noah knew he was drinking too much.

That is not the implication.

This is:

I do not mean to imply that it was Noah's intention to get drunk, but ignorance or "not meaning to" never clears us from guilt when it comes to God's Law.

Your implication is of the same type you accuse Josh of.

I suggest everyone stay away from this particular point of discussion going forward.

*END MODERATION*

 

[Luke 24:27]

The problem is that you assume that Noah getting drunk was a sin. All that Scripture tells us is that drunkenness is sin. It is a sin to be a drunkard. To lead a drunkard lifestyle. That God made the wine that maketh merry the heart is clear in Scripture. Wine does not make merry the heart unless one is inebriated. The inebriation lightens the mood, relaxes the nervous system and tends to merriment. This is good in the sight of God so long as one does not overindulge in this blessing.

Deuteronomy 14:26 shows that God approves of people on occasion drinking inebriating beverages before him as they rejoice and revel in his goodness.

But to become a drunkard, to lead a life of drunkenness is sin.

The problem is that you assume a heart being made merry = drunkenness. There's a difference between relaxed/merry and drunk. At the point one loses control of faculties or propriety it's no longer a mere merriment or rightly enjoying God's gift.

This passage is not teaching us about the line between the two. It is clear, however, that Noah drank to the point of being "drunken," which led to his being sprawled out naked in his tent, giving opportunity for Ham to sin in the manner he did.

It doesn't follow. It is non sequitur to purport that Noah's getting drunk is wrong because it led to the incident with Ham.

What you need in order to condemn the act of occasionally getting drunk is Bible that condemns it. Being a drunkard is most certainly a sin but occasional drinking to the point of inebriation is certainly not.

 

[TimV]

If there's an order not to be drunk with wine, the burden of proof would be on the person who claimed that command was talking about a lifestyle of continual drunkenness rather than what the church has universally taught for the last 2000 years