Is it wrong to drink?

[Christ_Sheep]

Ok, what I think we need to remember is that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ on this thread. There is a fine line between dicussing matters, that I will admit, are very important for all Christians to know ... and trying to prove whom knows more about the scriptures. I say that just because of Axxman's response, I simply started this thread because I wanted to know personally was it morally wrong to drink, and, specifically, in a social atmosphere. Because that is where most drinking goes on, most people don't drink by themselves or alone.

But I will say this, being nonpartisan, I looked at John 2, and this is what I see. The lord was at the wedding, wine ran out (a wedding is a celebration, what do many do at celebrations? They drink), and he had 6 jars filled to the brim with water and the good lord turned the water into wine, (his very first miracle after being endowed with the Holy Spirit).

Verse 10 says this in my book, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guest have had too much to drink".

There is no getting around that "choice" wine means wine with alcohol ... at a celebration whether it was back then or even now, hardly anyone drinks non-fermented wine. There is alcohol inside of the wine. For instance, when a person goes to a liquor store and they buy a pack of beer or a bottle of Rum, what is inferred when a person says they bought the cheap stuff ? They're talking of the price, yes, but they also are referencing the content of the alcohol inside of the beer or liquor. Usually, it is of lower quality price and alcohol content wise. Jesus would not have garnered so much praise on the wine, had not the wine been filled with some form of alcohol. The guest, I don't think would've been too impressed with a stocking of mere grape juice.

And when he says "had too much to drink", I am sure he was not referring to the fact that their tiny stomach's, or intestines couldn't contain anymore liquid. The bridegroom was referring to the fact they were probably tipsy. Tipsy and drunk are different things, though tipsyness is a prelude to drunkeness. Now, I am not advocating that the lord got people drunk, but from reading the text myself, I can draw upon the conclusions that yes the wine had alcohol in it, and yes I am saying that the lord in the bible never told anyone not to drink.

I think what he is saying is this, (and I am following my own advice now), to be very careful in what you consume as in the quality of the drink, and also the drink itself. If you are concerned with not getting drunk, probably not a good idea to sip on dad's famous moonshine or anything of the like. And I believe the lord is saying use sound judgment, don't drink past your limit. Most people know how much they can handle. I will also say this, if alcoholism has been a stronghold in your family, it is probably not wise to drink regularly or at all since drinking could open the door to a stronger attack on you.

That's my side on things, the lord prohibits drunkeness, anywhere, and for any particular reason he feels it is not a good idea because of what can sprout because of it. When you are drunk, that little person inside of you is encouraged and fired up to do any and everything, normally, in most respects, you wouldn't do. Because now you can "blame" it on, I got drunk and that "wasn't really me".

Not taking sides. I greatly respect everyone whom has responded to my topic so far. And I see where everyone is coming from, but I think just keeping this thread civil, because I did feel it meandering a little is key.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Christ_Sheep

[Axxman]

Actually the evidence is pretty strong. The term good wine implies alcoholic content. You have only quoted part of Hab 2:15. It states that the woe is on people who get others drunk in order to "look on their nakedness". It is the use of alcohol to make peopl helpless so they can be taken advantage of

Woe to him who gives his neighbors drink, pouring out your wrath and even making them drunk, in order to look at their nakedness!

Habakkuk 2:15 HCSB

We know the Bible prophibits drunkeness. It also prohibits uncovering nakedness. Niether of those things were going on in John 2. Your characterization of what happened at the wedding is just that. A characterization. The text does not say how much each person consumed. Only that the wine ran out. The bible prohibits getting drunk, not drinking.

The word wine, even in the english language, did not imply alcoholic content until the 1960's. So it is impossible to say that the word wine could have implied alcoholic content in the case of the wedding feast simply because the beverage was "good."

In regards to Hab 2:15...there is a reason I only cited the first half of the verse. The second half of the verse is an addendum to the first. The first half..."Woe to him who gives his neighbor to drink, pressing him to your bottle." That is a complete thought. The second half is added..." Even to make him drunk, That you may look on his nakedness!" Thats an example of what giving your neighbor drink does. It is the drink that entices the nakedness, or talk foolishly, or behave in embarrassing fashion. Woe to him that is responsible for ANY wayward action that is a result of giving his neighbor to drink. Habbakkuk could have literally added ANY example to the first half of the verse. He chose to use the example of the lowered inhibitions that drinking alcoholic beverages causes.

Lastly...my 'characterization' was based on the flawed characterization that I was citing. I characterized the wedding as a 'kegger' because that was the example given. Either way, the text tells us they drank alot.

[Axxman]

Ok, what I think we need to remember is that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ on this thread. There is a fine line between dicussing matters, that I will admit, are very important for all Christians to know ... and trying to prove whom knows more about the scriptures. I say that just because of Axxman's response, I simply started this thread because I wanted to know personally was it morally wrong to drink, and, specifically, in a social atmosphere. Because that is where most drinking goes on, most people don't drink by themselves or alone.

But I will say this, being nonpartisan, I looked at John 2, and this is what I see. The lord was at the wedding, wine ran out (a wedding is a celebration, what do many do at celebrations? They drink), and he had 6 jars filled to the brim with water and the good lord turned the water into wine, (his very first miracle after being endowed with the Holy Spirit).

Verse 10 says this in my book, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guest have had too much to drink".

There is no getting around that "choice" wine means wine with alcohol ... at a celebration whether it was back then or even now, hardly anyone drinks non-fermented wine. There is alcohol inside of the wine. For instance, when a person goes to a liquor store and they buy a pack of beer or a bottle of Rum, what is inferred when a person says they bought the cheap stuff ? They're talking of the price, yes, but they also are referencing the content of the alcohol inside of the beer or liquor. Usually, it is of lower quality price and alcohol content wise.

And when he says "had too much to drink", I am sure he was not referring to the fact that their tiny stomach's, or intestines couldn't contain anymore liquid. The bridegroom was referring to the fact they were probably tipsy. Tipsy and drunk are different things, though tipsyness is a prelude to drunkeness. Now, I am not advocating that the lord got people drunk, but from reading the text myself, I can draw upon the conclusions that yes the wine had alcohol in it, and yes I am saying that the lord in the bible never told anyone not to drink.

I think what he is saying is this, (and I am following my own advice now), to be very careful in what you consume as in the quality of the drink, and also the drink itself. If you are concerned with not getting drunk, probably not a good idea to sip on dad's famous moonshine or anything of the like. And I believe the lord is saying use sound judgment, don't drink past your limit. Most people know how much they can handle. I will also say this, if alcoholism has been a stronghold in your family, it is probably not wise to drink regularly or at all since drinking could open the door to a stronger attack on you.

The word "good" or "choice" wine is almost the opposite meaning of fermented. It is the greek word 'kalos' and it literally means "morally good, excellent in its nature and characteristics, beautiful by reason of purity of heart and life." Not hardly the description one would use to describe a bunch of grapes that had rotted to the point of fermentation.

If you can assure that your body has ZERO adverse reaction to the introduction of alcohol into your system...then you should be able to drink. Fact is, that even the smallest amounts of alcohol work against the body.

[Christ_Sheep]

And thay may be true on it's name ... but take into consideration this, Jesus passed around wine to His disciples. Since this was six to seven months after the grape harvest and since there was no way to preserve grape juice, so it had to be fermented wine, otherwise, what are you sipping on? There was no fridge to keep grape juice in ... meaning it could not be preserved or contained. On the other hand, wine is not usually served cold. It is fermented grape juice. These are two totally different instances, one with Jesus at the wedding and the other with Jesus at the Last Supper, but they both have a trend here. They both occurred during the New Testament. The New Testament ALWAYS referred to fermented wine. Lot drank fermented wine. Abraham drank fermented wine, which is Old Testament, but the same rules applied. Jesus and the disciples did. The key is that they didn't get drunk on the wine, least not the disciples after they turned to the lord, or, the lord himself.

I really respect what you have to say, but really it isn't about whether or not the intake of alcohol harms me in any way before I am drunk. Because too much water can harm, and have a negative effect on me, too. That comparison may be simplistic, but it is safe to say that many people, bordering on most of the people spoken of the bible, did in fact, drink wine ... fermented wine that is. Grape juice just, in my view, doesn't seem like the delicacy of the day back then. And neither is it now to most drinkers. I hate to use this reference, but as everyone knows at a party or at any social gathering, if it is alcohol being served, the most appreciated drink (for the sake of argument) is brought out first ... and not saved until last. That's a rule because, once people have their fill, it is wise to have them gradually detoxify with smaller doses or amounts or cut a person off all the way, if they've become too far gone. Guest at a wedding, any wedding, the bulk of them are not sitting there drinking grape juice or any substance that can pose as grape juice. Since wine can only be in two forms, either it was grape juice or it had a little kick to it. And judging by the text, it seems more on the latter end.

Keep in mind I am not advocating drinking tons of wine or liquor, but what I am saying is, soda is acidic and, of course, if I have too much of it ... it can be harmful to me. Wine or other alcohol is the same way. Soda can trigger headaches, raise blood pressure, which are both adverse effects, but most people would not say, "don't drink even one drop of that". Why? Because they understand that though it isn't the best of drinks to have, in moderation it isn't a sin.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Christ_Sheep

[Oh Hamburgers!]

Boy, it seems like there is always a thread like this.

Bottom line for me is:

There is no definitive proof one way or another if the Bible says its wrong to consume alcohol of any sort. It is probably wrong to get drunk, especially considering you set yourself up for making poor decisions, but when it comes to a glass or two every now and then, I would say use common sense and moderation.

But really I think it's a preference thing.

[tsth]

I find it hard to view alcohol as anywhere near an acceptable thing for Christians, in this day and time. The connotations with it are just too negative, i.e., DWI, alchoholism, drunk-driving fatalities, underage drinking, etc. I can't think of anything about alcohol today that would be on the "positive" side.

In His Love,

Suzanne

[forrestkc]

Actually the evidence is pretty strong. The term good wine implies alcoholic content. You have only quoted part of Hab 2:15. It states that the woe is on people who get others drunk in order to "look on their nakedness". It is the use of alcohol to make peopl helpless so they can be taken advantage of

Woe to him who gives his neighbors drink, pouring out your wrath and even making them drunk, in order to look at their nakedness!

Habakkuk 2:15 HCSB

We know the Bible prophibits drunkeness. It also prohibits uncovering nakedness. Niether of those things were going on in John 2. Your characterization of what happened at the wedding is just that. A characterization. The text does not say how much each person consumed. Only that the wine ran out. The bible prohibits getting drunk, not drinking.

The word wine, even in the english language, did not imply alcoholic content until the 1960's. So it is impossible to say that the word wine could have implied alcoholic content in the case of the wedding feast simply because the beverage was "good."

In regards to Hab 2:15...there is a reason I only cited the first half of the verse. The second half of the verse is an addendum to the first. The first half..."Woe to him who gives his neighbor to drink, pressing him to your bottle." That is a complete thought. The second half is added..." Even to make him drunk, That you may look on his nakedness!" Thats an example of what giving your neighbor drink does. It is the drink that entices the nakedness, or talk foolishly, or behave in embarrassing fashion. Woe to him that is responsible for ANY wayward action that is a result of giving his neighbor to drink. Habbakkuk could have literally added ANY example to the first half of the verse. He chose to use the example of the lowered inhibitions that drinking alcoholic beverages causes.

Lastly...my 'characterization' was based on the flawed characterization that I was citing. I characterized the wedding as a 'kegger' because that was the example given. Either way, the text tells us they drank alot.

Well, wine has always meant wine to Jews and since these are Jews we are dealing with, I think that pretty much says it.

As to my use of the term kegger, it was an attempt at humor. I do not believe that the wedding was a literal kegger. These parties went on for days, thus while they all had the wine there to drink a lot, that does not mean that at any point they were all stumbling drunk.

[hr.jr.]

Is it wrong to drink? I know the bible says it is wrong to become intoxicated, and even in the bible Jesus and his disciples drank wine (probably plenty of times), but it was probably of a different potency back in those times. However, I was wondering is it wrong to drink champagne? Smirnoff? Wine, mixed drinks, things of that nature?

I doubt there was much of a difference in the potency of wine then as there is today. They also had beer back then, and forms of hard liquor.

Look at when Jesus turned water into wine.

John 2:1-10

"Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding. When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." (And) Jesus said to her, "Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the servers, "Do whatever he tells you." Now there were six stone water jars there for Jewish ceremonial washings, each holding twenty to thirty gallons. Jesus told them, "Fill the jars with water." So they filled them to the brim. Then he told them, "Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter." 6 So they took it. And when the headwaiter tasted the water that had become wine, without knowing where it came from (although the servers who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom and said to him, "Everyone serves good wine first, and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one; but you have kept the good wine until now."

Ok, so lets look at this passage.

1. Jesus and his disciples are invited to a wedding.

2. The wedding ran out of wine.

3. Jesus turned approximately 150 gallons of water into wine.

4. The wine he made was good wine (strong).

That is pretty much the biblical times equivalent of a kegger right there. 150 gallons of wine is a lot of wine. Say you have 300 guests, thats about a magnum of wine each. More than enough to get everyone at the party flat out lit. More importantly though, even before Jesus turned the water into wine, everyone at the party obviously had already drank a lot of wine because they were running out.

So what is the logical conclusion here.

1. There is nothing wrong with drinking.

2. There is nothing wrong with drinking a good amount of alcohol at a social event and having a good time.

There is are a lot of scriptural references in the Bible on drinking, but there is a general trend with all of them. They all admonish drunkenness, especially drunkenness that results immorality. Now what does the Bible mean by drunkenness? The same thing we mean today when we refer to it. It means laying up drunk all the time, acting stupid because of it, losing your morals and good judgement because of it. If your just laying up drunk all the time, thats sinful. If you get so drunk your losing all sense of morality, thats sinful.

However, obviously drinking and having a good time at a social event because of it is not sinful.

This is EXACTLY why you'd have to be out of your mind to believe that the wine Jesus made was alcoholic. Yeah, the Saviour of the world threw a 'kegger" with enough booze to get everyone "lit." That makes almost no sense. There is ZERO scriptural evidence that anyone at the wedding had drunk ANY intoxicating beverages...let alone that Jesus was of such poor judgement that he got drunk people more drunk in violation of what is written in Habbakkuk 2:15 "Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbor, Pressing him to your bottle..."

I realize this could take the discussion off course, and that is not my intent, but I don't think its right to sit by while people make justifications for drinking alcohol based on the idea that Jesus threw a keg party.

I will simply post the Following by Jim Fox.

Question: Was the wine at Canna Alcoholic or Grape Juice?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Jim Fox

Was the wine at Canna Alcoholic or Grape Juice?

The Wedding Feast in Canna in John 2:1-11 is the first of seven miracles performed by Jesus that are recorded in the Gospel of John. When I began this study, I had not made up my mind whether the wine Jesus made from water at this Wedding Feast was Alcoholic or grape juice. I was willing to believe whatever my study of the Scriptures would show me.

The Greek word used for the word "wine" used in this section is the word "oinos" and it can mean either a type of grape juice, or a fermented wine. The determining factor on this is the context for which the word was used in.

Looking over this section of Scripture the key to this discussion is in verse10. The servants have already brought the wine that Jesus made to the headwaiter for him to taste test before they serve it to the people at the wedding feast. "and he said to him,'Every man serves the good wine first, and when men have drunk freely, then that which is poorer; you have kept the good wine until now."

I would like to focus in on the middle of the verse where the headwaiter describes the condition of the men who have been drinking the wine. The section that I will be looking at is "have drunk freely".

Now I am looking all of this up in the original greek text so as to try and get the true meaning here. Those words come from a greek word "methusthosin". The greek root word here is "methuo". In Vines Expository Dictionary the first translation is-"to be drunk, is used in John 2:10 in the Passive Voice, and is translated in the P.V.,"have drunk freely"; A.V. "have well drunk". Vines then goes on to clarify the matter by again translating the greek root word "mathuo" and defining it-"signifies to be drunk with wine". It is used to indicate becoming intoxicated in Matt 24:49; Acts 2:15; 1 Cor 11:21; 1 Thess 5:7. The Passive Voice used above indicates that the men who were intoxicated (drunk) were becoming more so.

Looking up the greek root word in an Analytical Greek Lexicon, it means strong drink, to be intoxicated, be drunk. And in another Greek Lexicon it is defined as- to inebriate, make drunk, to be intoxicated.

I will conclude then that the men at the wedding feast who had been drinking the wine prior to the wine that Jesus made, were drunk.. I will then ask what kind of wine were they drinking that made them drunk? To quote from the headwaiter in verse 10 "good wine". Now what kind of wine did the same headwaiter declare that Jesus had made? "Good Wine". In both places the same 2 greek words are used.

Now notice that the headwaiter had expected for the servants to bring out the "poorer" wine, why? Because after the men had become drunk, they would not know the difference between "good" wine and wine that was "poor" in quality. But he was surprised that the groom would waste good wine on men who no longer would know the difference.

So what can we conclude from this?

1. The wine they were drinking was fermented (it made them drunk).

2. It was the same kind of wine that Jesus made, which was fermented.

Now remember I came to this conclusion from a very open minded standpoint. It is interesting and fulfilling to search the Scriptures. I would urge you to continue to do so. I would also ask you to do as Paul says in 1 Thess 5:21 "But examine everyting carefully; hold fast to that which is good". Don't base you opinions solely on what you read from me or anyone else, Examine everything yourself.

Sources:

The Open Bible (NASB) The Zondervan Parallel N.T. in Greek and English Vines Expository Dictionary of N.T. words Richards Expository Dictionary of Bible words The Analytical Greek Lexicon Greek and English Lexicon to the N.T.

[Smalcald]

But we know that those who live in drunkenness will not inherit the Kingdom of God, we also know that Jesus was sinless and never got drunk. Was He around drunks? Yes at this wedding feat for one, but also at other times. Did He drink wine? Yes as it was part of a Passover meal, and part of Jewish culture.

But the thing we must remember and I think someone alluded to it above in talking about Israel is the different way wine and alcohol are viewed. It was viewed as part of a diet and a culture, not something that you sought out alone to get hammered. In fact if you look at the admonitions in scripture against drunkenness and revelries it was usually directed toward those living in Asia Minor who had grown up in a more pagan culture. Today people in much of Europe drink every day with their meals, yet Europe has no more of a problem with alcoholism than we do, possibly less. But wine is part of their food culture, as it was in ancient Israel and Israel today. You took wine with food; it went with certain kinds of food.

In the US in general we don't have a food culture which includes wine, we have a booze culture. Thus in general it is better not to drink in that circumstance. The wine itself is not the problem.

[EricH]

The word wine, even in the english language, did not imply alcoholic content until the 1960's. So it is impossible to say that the word wine could have implied alcoholic content in the case of the wedding feast simply because the beverage was "good."

What convinces you that wine (prior to the 1960's) did not mean it had alcohol in it? The wine they drank was known to be alcoholic. The practice in Jesus' day was to serve the good wine first. they would hold the not so good wine till later. that si because they know that once people had filled up on good wine, their senses would be dulled, and they would not notice the dip in quality. That is why the Chie servant was so shocked that the wine Jesus produced was better than that served first.

In regards to Hab 2:15...there is a reason I only cited the first half of the verse. The second half of the verse is an addendum to the first. The first half..."Woe to him who gives his neighbor to drink, pressing him to your bottle." That is a complete thought. The second half is added..." Even to make him drunk, That you may look on his nakedness!" Thats an example of what giving your neighbor drink does. It is the drink that entices the nakedness, or talk foolishly, or behave in embarrassing fashion. Woe to him that is responsible for ANY wayward action that is a result of giving his neighbor to drink. Habbakkuk could have literally added ANY example to the first half of the verse. He chose to use the example of the lowered inhibitions that drinking alcoholic beverages causes.

The grammar of Hebrews 2:15 does not allow for your interpretation. There is a conjunction governing the 2 phrases indicating in the mind of the authro that they should be taken together. In this case the conjucntion is causative. In addition, this is an example of Hebrew Parallelism. thie Hebrew literary device uses 2 phrases to express one thought. The second phrase in someway unpacks, or clarifies the first. In this case the conjunctive particle explains the exact nature of the relationship. So, the woe implies to people who use wine to victimaze people. 2:16 provides another abomination:

You will be filled with disgrace instead of glory. You also-- drink, and expose your uncircumcision! The cup in the LORD's right hand will come around to you, and utter disgrace will cover your glory.

Hab 2:16 HCSB

In this case the abuse of alcohol has cased a person to expose their circumcision to others. it seems to me that you are reading into the text here (because you are trying to prover all drinking is forbidden) rather than letting the text speak for itself

Lastly...my 'characterization' was based on the flawed characterization that I was citing. I characterized the wedding as a 'kegger' because that was the example given. Either way, the text tells us they drank alot.

Actually is does not. There are several possible explanations (including the idea that the hosts did not have enough wine to cover the number of guests invited.