Drinking

And I admitted your point, but you have not proven regardless that it is okay to give your drunk neighbor more alcohol to drink. That quote was a very small part of my argument.

I actually have a passage for when it is okay to give someone alcoholic beverage:
6 Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. 7 Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more" (Prov. 31:6-7).

But normally, no.

Ah, yes, the old "alcohol vs. gluttony" argument. Note the fallacies:

1. The words "glutton" only occurs twice in the KJV, and "gluttony" not at all. The Hebrew word zalal is translated in a similar way only two other times. Total: 4. "Drunk" or "drunken" occurs many, many times, always as a sin.
2. Gluttony is a lifestyle, not a single incident. And Jesus fed the 5000 because they were hungry--none of them were overeating. So Jesus did not contribute to gluttony by giving folks food to eat one time. That would be impossible, given that gluttony is a lifestyle.
3. Drunkenness, however, can happen in one single incident. If Jesus had contributed to the drunkenness of others, He would have been contributing to their sin. Proper Christology forbids that.

I've answered you. Now please answer with a yes or no. Would Jesus provide alcohol to a person already drunk?

 

NEWS FLASH!! Child killed by gluttonous driver.

Oh, wait. That never happens. It's always a drunk driver.

 

So 5000 people and no gluttons? The single act versus lifestyle argument could only make my argument fallacious if we were certain that the 5000 contained no gluttons. And we weren't there.

But my intention wasn't to conflate gluttony with alcohol. (Though gluttony and drunkeness do pop up together in scripture a few times.) I merely reckoned that anyone eating to excess out of the baskets would be responsible for their own sin, just the same as someone drinking to excess from the wine.

Jesus turned water into wine. Full stop.

A vitner down the road makes a few million gallons of wine. If it is misused, that sin doesn’t automatically fall back on him.

 

So how often does the court find the brewer, distiller, or vitner at fault over a drunk crashing and killing?

 

Huge differences here:

1. It is quite easy to tell when someone is drunk. It is virtually impossible to tell simply by looking who is a glutton.
2. The people at Cana were not thirsty, but the 5,000 were definitely hungry. Feeding hungry people vs. giving alcohol to drunks who are not thirsty: no comparison.
3. Drunkenness is condemned as worthy of hell. Gluttony is not. At the Cana wedding, Jesus could have discerned that some were drunk. At the feeding of the 5,000, there was no way to tell who was a glutton.
4. At the feeding of the 4,000, "Then Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way" (Matt. 15:32).
5. Drunkenness is far more likely to kill people than gluttony.

Here's the upshot then. You believe that the perfect Jesus would provide alcoholic wine to those who were clearly drunk. I disagree. Full stop.

 

That's not the question to ask. You should be asking:

How often does the court find a bartender at fault for giving a drunk to drink? That is what is clearly the moral issue. Jesus was not running a brewery, Jesus was providing liquid refreshment for a wedding, directly from Him to the guests.

A further note. Modern wine is much more potent than that of Bible times. The "strong drink" of Scripture was beer (translated that way in the CSB). Modern wine is 11.5-13.5% alcohol, according to Google. That is over twice what beer probably was in the Bible. So even if one were to admit that Jesus made alcohol (I don't), it certainly gives no one the go ahead to drink modern "strong drink" wine, which is clearly condemned in the Bible (unless you are about to die).

 

I don't see much more edifying conversation coming from us discussing this. I have little to no interest in changing your mind, even though I was interested in your view.

 

Technology today can outfit each car with a “breath o lisar test that prohibits starting the car if a certain blood alcohol level is realized.... take an Uber.

 

This in itself is worth stopping and just thinking about. The plain reading of the text in John 2 shows only one kind of wine -- the wine Jesus created not being different in kind, but different in quality.

The Greek word methuo, translated "well drunk" in the KJV in John 2:10, does mean drunk in the sense of from the effects of alcohol. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 11:21, where it means drunk, but advocates of grape juice for the Lord's supper will deny that meaning when it is used there.) But I don't think we have to understand that the governor of the feast meant these folks were currently or already very drunk. He is describing a scenario of how things are usually done. Obviously in this case at the wedding of Cana they weren't done as usual!

 

All right. God bless.

I hope I've at least given you something to think about. I haven't participated in one of these alcohol threads here in years, but I heard this argument recently, thought it was powerful, and decided to try it out on my BB friends and see how it flew. Thanks for interacting.

 

I disagree, obviously.

I don't deny that inebriation is meant in 1 Cor. 11:21. In fact, I insist that to be the meaning there. Why? Paul was rebuking their Lord's Supper and telling them what was wrong with it. That's a no brainer.

No wine left of any kind. The word for "drunk" is used. How could the governor mean anything but, "Some people are already drunk, so they can't taste that this is the good stuff"?

 

John, what within the context itself do you feel suggests the wine Jesus made is of a different kind, not just quality?

I have known very few independent Baptists who would admit wine containing alcohol was used in the Lord’s Supper (this speaks only to my own experience, obviously). My pastor at the time I surrendered to preach was an advocate of the “two-wine” theory, and I’d say most of our folks accepted it as “gospel.” Approaching the Bible this way, we come out in effect with much the same as Stephen Mills Reynolds in his A Purified Translation: “And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, ‘They have no wine.’…When the master of the feast tasted the water that had become grape juice,…And he said to him, “Every man at the beginning sets out the good beverage,…” Using the two-wine preconception Reynolds translates oinos “negatively” as alcoholic wine, “positively” as grape juice, and “neutrally” as a beverage.

It is not so uncommon to find those who see the broader meaning of methuo as “filled,” “sated,” and therefore unnecessary to understand those as drunken in 1 Corinthians 11:21. Here is an example from that perspective (don’t know the guy, this was just the top “Google hit” that I got): Reconsider the Biblical Concept of Drunkenness.

There are a number of assumptions to be made, and I suppose we make them in accord with our overall view of the text (and our broader view of wine in the Bible). No wine left of any kind, perhaps because a bunch of drunks guzzled it down? No wine left of any kind, perhaps because the family was poor and couldn’t provide much in the way of refreshments? No wine left of any kind, perhaps because the event wasn’t well planned? Any of these three suggestions might explain why “They have no more wine.”

The governor’s words can be interpreted as saying the folks at this particular wedding feast are already drunk, but that is not what he actually says. He explains what folks normally do, then commends the bridegroom on doing what is not normal. The prime take away is that the last wine brought out was better than the first. Either way, the governor indicates the “good wine” – which he equates with what Jesus made – is intoxicating.

 

the basic problem with the toxicity of alcohol is the quickness of the effects of the intoxication - minutes.

Other substances of which we over consume are just as dangerous at a greater life cycle (weeks, months, years).

e.g. sugar, salt, fat, white flour. How many untimely deaths are a result of over indulgence of these "foods" leaving behind orphans, widows...?

Unintended consequences - Diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure, heart failure, thrombosis, stroke.

Oh me too.

 

The context does not tell us the nature of the wine except for the word methuo, and that does not necessarily mean what Jesus made from water. I am a linguist and Bible translator, and therefore I go with the meaning of the word oinos, which after much research I take to mean simply a liquid made from grapes. We have translated it that way in our Japanese NT. Context must then determine what kind of "wine" it is. I know this is a minority view, but it is what it is, as my son likes to say.

Friberg's lexicon agrees with me, saying, "literally, of the juice of grapes, usually fermented." That leaves room for the oinos to be unfermented (ho oinos ho neos, "new wine") or barely started in the fermentation process.

For me as a linguist and translator, the "two wine theory" does not fit, nor does the "always alcohol" theory. Again, I believe oinos is simply liquid from the grape. It may or may not have alcohol.

Furthermore, if modern wine has several times the level of alcohol that ancient wine did, then it is misleading to simply translate with "wine" as is usually done. 3-4% alcohol vs. 11.5%–13.5% (modern wine) is a huge difference.

I haven't looked at all the data, but in the 6 usages in the NT the meaning of "drunken" is clear to me in all of them. I looked at about 20 usages in the LXX (there are many more), and without exception all were clearly "drunken." I'd have to know what the data is for this article, but unfortunately the software screen here won't let me access it.

No, sorry, I certainly do not see that the governor was saying that the good wine was intoxicating. Don't know where you get that. He is stating the norm, which presumably he means had occurred there.

 

Will try to get back to the rest when I have more time, but based on methuo meaning drunken, then, "Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk (methuo)..." [KJV]
"Every man setteth on first the good wine; and when men have drunk freely (methuo)..." [ASV]

Which wine made them "well drunk"?

 

It's simplistic to say that only the "good wine" served first made them drunk. It was obviously a process, with different "wines" served during the long reception.

Here's another thought. Jesus made a huge amount of "wine." The passage says in v. 6, "And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece." According to TDNT (Vol. 5, p. 163), this was "a vast amount of water into wine (6 pots of 39 litres each)."

If the drink was alcoholic, then Jesus probably made enough for not just the drunks, but everyone at the wedding to get drunk. I just can't see Jesus doing that (based on Christology, not emotion).

 

Modern reaction to an alcohol making Jesus: "This is a cool dude. Let's invite him to our next party!"

Reaction to a non-alcohol making Jesus: "What a huge miracle. Is this the Messiah?"

 

That’s not much different from the “two wine theory” as I was taught it. Basically it is wine with alcohol content in a “bad” context, and grape juice in a “good” context. As far as I remember, with the exception of figurative uses in Revelation, all the wine in the New Testament appears to be “wine” and not “grape juice.”

But if it had 3-4% alcohol content, wouldn’t it be more misleading to translate it grape juice?

If you mean the article I linked, here are some of the uses of methuo from the Septuagint from the linked author, that he thinks shows that the word does not exclusively imply intoxication. I’m not saying I agree with him, because I have not looked over these, other than to copy them where you have access to see some of what he had.

Psalm 23(22):5, “ἡτοίμασας ἐνώπιόν μου τράπεζαν, ἐξεναντίας τῶν θλιβόντων με· ἐλίπανας ἐν ἐλαίῳ τὴν κεφαλήν μου, καὶ τὸ ποτήριόν σου μεθύσκον με ὡσεὶ κράτιστον.”
Psalm 65(64):10, “ἐπεσκέψω τὴν γῆν καὶ ἐμέθυσας αὐτήν, ἐπλήθυνας τοῦ πλουτίσαι αὐτήν· ὁ ποταμὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπληρώθη ὑδάτων· ἡτοίμασας τὴν τροφὴν αὐτῶν, ὅτι οὕτως ἡ ἑτοιμασία..”
Isaiah 34:5, “ἐμεθύσθη ἡ μάχαιρά μου ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ· ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τὴν ᾿Ιδουμαίαν καταβήσεται καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν λαὸν τῆς ἀπωλείας μετὰ κρίσεως.”
Isaiah 34:7, “καὶ συμπεσοῦνται οἱ ἁδροὶ μετ᾿ αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ κριοὶ καὶ οἱ ταῦροι, καὶ μεθυσθήσεται ἡ γῆ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ στέατος αὐτῶν ἐμπλησθήσεται.”
Isaiah 55:10, “ὡς γὰρ ἂν καταβῇ ὁ ὑετὸς ἢ χιὼν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀποστραφῇ, ἕως ἂν μεθύσῃ τὴν γῆν, καὶ ἐκτέκῃ καὶ ἐκβλαστήσῃ καὶ δῷ σπέρμα τῷ σπείραντι καὶ ἄρτον εἰς βρῶσιν,”
Isaiah 58:11, “καὶ ἔσται ὁ Θεός σου μετὰ σοῦ διαπαντός· καὶ ἐμπλησθήσῃ καθάπερ ἐπιθυμεῖ ἡ ψυχή σου, καὶ τὰ ὀστᾶ σου πιανθήσεται, καὶ ἔσῃ ὡς κῆπος μεθύων καὶ ὡς πηγὴ ἣν μὴ ἐξέλιπεν ὕδωρ καὶ τὰ ὀστᾶ σου ὡς βοτάνη ἀνατελεῖ καὶ πιανθήσεται καὶ κληρονομήσουσι γενεὰς γενεῶν.”
Lamentations 3:15, “ἐχόρτασέ με πικρίας, ἐμέθυσέ με χολῆς”
Haggai 1:6, “ἐσπείρατε πολλὰ καὶ εἰσηνέγκατε ὀλίγα, ἐφάγετε καὶ οὐκ εἰς πλησμονήν, ἐπίετε καὶ οὐκ εἰς μέθην, περιεβάλεσθε καὶ οὐκ ἐθερμάνθητε ἐν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ὁ τοὺς μισθοὺς συνάγων συνήγαγεν εἰς δεσμὸν τετρυπημένον.”

I have no objection to be considered simplistic. The governor only associates “well drunk” with the “good wine” and doesn’t mention any process.

I understand the conundrum, and am not unsympathetic to it. Nevertheless, I have to take what I understand the text to say – even if I’d prefer not to. Whatever else might be said about this miracle, there seems to be some intersection in its meaning and the idea that God is involved in all the details of our lives, even the “minor” ones like refreshments at a wedding. Perhaps the Lord made enough to provide for a poor couple long after the guests had departed, as opposed to assuming that they guzzled and guzzled and guzzled until it was all gone.

I have heard some of these “cool dude” type reactions and am not impressed by them. Nevertheless, your statement provides a false dilemma between two options when there is a third (or possibly more?). For example, option 3: Reaction to an alcohol making Jesus: “What a huge miracle. Is this the Messiah?” Regardless of the first half of the equation, the last half of the equation certainly is “This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.” The greater import of this miracle was in what it demonstrated of Jesus as Messiah, not in the wine itself.

 

You are missing the point. I do not translate with "grape juice" (グレープジュース), I translate "liquid from grapes"（葡萄の果樹） That is an ambiguous rendering that gives the reader the authority to interpret, rather than interpreting for him. That's a good deal better than, say, the Motoyaku, which translated sometimes as sake (酒, highly alcoholic rice wine).

As for all the wine in the NT being alcoholic, not true. You have "new wine" (oinos) occurring 4 times in a context that shows it must be unfermented.

Um, these are not methuo but methusko.

Fair enough.

Um, your last sentence is reading into the text. Other than that, good points. But to me the primary motif is that Jesus honored His mother even when she was somewhat out of line. She never again interfered in His ministry, though one time she tried to (Matt. 12:46-50).

Just making a snide point.

 

Another point that I'd like to do more research on is that the oinos was often diluted. In 3 Maccabees 5:2 in the LXX for example, Hannibal fed his elephants "unmixed wine" (oino pleoni akrato) to hype them up to execute Jews. So if you dilute 3% "wine" then it is even less like the modern stuff.

Here is a link with some good references to the ancient practice of mixing water with wine: Wine & Strong Drink in the Bible, Part 3 – Salem Bible Church