DRINKING AND THE SCRIPTURES

[SeaBass]

What ever dude...I stand with the OP and all the scriptures given in context as opposed to self-righteous hyper religious regurgitated mistruths. It is not those things that enter into a man that defiles a man but rather the wicked things that come forth of a man. Like Jesus said...Go learn what that means and then come argue the simple truths of that was said in the OP

I do not stand with the OP.

There is also the issue of the Christian being told to be "sober" In some places, the Greek word nepho is translated sober.

ne=not pho=drink, it literally means 'not drink' and has to do with abstaining from drinking. IIRC our English words nephalism - nephalist come from this Greek word.

I made reference to 1 Pet 4:3 earlier:

KJV "For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:"

excess of wine
revellings
banquetings

These are three varying degrees of drunkenness. Excess, one drinks so much as to not be able to stand, be in a stupor, passed out. Revellings, a wild party where one drinks enough to lose his inhibitions but not so much as to pass out. Banquetings simply means to drink, with no amount fixed to it. In Matt 10:42 Jesus used the verb form of this word and associated it with a cup. So we having varying degrees of drunkenness from excess to a cup, and in the context, ALL varying degrees are condemned.

 

[Stephen63]

Matthew 11:19 (KJV) [SUP]19 [/SUP]The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

winebibber- drunk, wino, alcoholic.

What I hear is it's ok for anyone to drink alcohol socially or for entertainment purposes.

Did you know that one of the reasons that an alcoholic's kids becomes alcoholics is because the condition is passed to their children the same way drugs are? The first time a heroin addict's kid shoots up, he's hooked, because he was born an addict.
And they wonder why alcoholism is growing by leaps & bounds.

An adopted child from an alcoholic can drink wine for the first time & start craving it not knowing why.

 

[SeaBass]

Matthew 11:19 (KJV) [SUP]19 [/SUP]The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

winebibber- drunk, wino, alcoholic.

What I hear is it's ok for anyone to drink alcohol socially or for entertainment purposes.

Did you know that one of the reasons that an alcoholic's kids becomes alcoholics is because the condition is passed to their children the same way drugs are? The first time a heroin addict's kid shoots up, he's hooked, because he was born an addict.
And they wonder why alcoholism is growing by leaps & bounds.

An adopted child from an alcoholic can drink wine for the first time & start craving it not knowing why.

In the context of Matt 11:18,19 Jesus being called a winebibber in no way proves he drank alcoholic wine.

If Jesus falsely being called a drunkard/winebibber "proves" that He must have drank fermented drinks,


then


Jesus being called a sinner, Jn 9:24, must "prove" that He must have committed sin

Jesus being called a deciever, Mt 27:63, must "prove" He must have deceived people

Jesus said to have a demon, Jn 7:20, must "prove" He had demonic powers, "proves" He was Beelzebul as they called Him, Mt 10:25

Jesus was said to do that which is not lawful, Mt 12:2, must "prove" he broke the law on occasion

Jesus was said to blaspheme, Jn 10:33, so that must "prove" He must have done some blaspheming


The truth is, Jesus was no more a winebibber than He was a glutton or that John had a devil. Jesus came to save sinners and He went among sinners, those that were winebibbers and gluttons, and His enemies accused Jesus in participating in those sins since He was seen among those that were gluttons and winebibbers.

Lastly, in the context of Matt 11, the phrase eating and drinking is used figuratively to describe the lifestyles. When it says John came not eating or drinking that is figurative for his reclusive, anti-social lifestyle away from people. When it says Jesus came eating and drinking that is figurative for His social lifestyle among people and not literally about what He ate or drank.

Does the phrase "John came neither eating nor drinking" literally mean John did not eat or drink anything? No. So that must mean the phrases "eating and drinking" is used in a figurative sense.

 

[watcher2013]

In the context of Matt 11:18,19 Jesus being called a winebibber in no way proves he drank alcoholic wine.

If Jesus falsely being called a drunkard/winebibber "proves" that He must have drank fermented drinks,


then


Jesus being called a sinner, Jn 9:24, must "prove" that He must have committed sin

Jesus being called a deciever, Mt 27:63, must "prove" He must have deceived people

Jesus said to have a demon, Jn 7:20, must "prove" He had demonic powers, "proves" He was Beelzebul as they called Him, Mt 10:25

Jesus was said to do that which is not lawful, Mt 12:2, must "prove" he broke the law on occasion

Jesus was said to blaspheme, Jn 10:33, so that must "prove" He must have done some blaspheming


The truth is, Jesus was no more a winebibber than He was a glutton or that John had a devil. Jesus came to save sinners and He went among sinners, those that were winebibbers and gluttons, and His enemies accused Jesus in participating in those sins since He was seen among those that were gluttons and winebibbers.

Lastly, in the context of Matt 11, the phrase eating and drinking is used figuratively to describe the lifestyles. When it says John came not eating or drinking that is figurative for his reclusive, anti-social lifestyle away from people. When it says Jesus came eating and drinking that is figurative for His social lifestyle among people and not literally about what He ate or drank.

Does the phrase "John came neither eating nor drinking" literally mean John did not eat or drink anything? No. So that must mean the phrases "eating and drinking" is used in a figurative sense.

A Bishop must be sober and not given to wine
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
While the Deacons are not given to much wine
1Ti 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
Are the deacons sinner?

 

[phil112]

A Bishop must be sober and not given to wine
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
While the Deacons are not given to much wine
1Ti 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
Are the deacons sinner?

That is in reference to excess. Had it meant abstinence Paul would never have told Timothy to drink some for his health. "Not given to wine" is not a tippler or bibber. A tippler is one who drinks habitually and/or in excess.

 

[Stephen63]

It's not fair or proper to judge/interpret a NT/OT scripture by todays standards or 1611's english standards either, for they aren't even vaugely similar. Real research should be done, & by that I mean throw away the denominational commentaries & study the Jewish history of that time period. Do the REAL MATH, & be satisfied that you know that you know.

 

[homwardbound]

I do not stand with the OP.

There is also the issue of the Christian being told to be "sober" In some places, the Greek word nepho is translated sober.

ne=not pho=drink, it literally means 'not drink' and has to do with abstaining from drinking. IIRC our English words nephalism - nephalist come from this Greek word.

I made reference to 1 Pet 4:3 earlier:

KJV "For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:"

excess of wine
revellings
banquetings

These are three varying degrees of drunkenness. Excess, one drinks so much as to not be able to stand, be in a stupor, passed out. Revellings, a wild party where one drinks enough to lose his inhibitions but not so much as to pass out. Banquetings simply means to drink, with no amount fixed to it. In Matt 10:42 Jesus used the verb form of this word and associated it with a cup. So we having varying degrees of drunkenness from excess to a cup, and in the context, ALL varying degrees are condemned.

Look, if one can not control their drinking, then drinking is not beneficial, and need to find from God in belief of God how to not drink in excess again or not at all.
For all things are permissible for me, but not all things are beneficial. So guess what I, you and each person gets to decide what is beneficial and what is not. Dry now for a long time, thanks be to God for I could not control my drinking.

To each their own, praying we all see the depth of this and if we personally see we are not controlling to a matter then we need God's intervention to show us truth that sets us free from whatever it id that besets us, so simple, and personally am thank you to shown mt need for God that I personally can not be perfect and control all things, only God can and does if we are willing for God to take the reins, asking and trusting for this to be in order to enter his rest

 

[john832]

It's not fair or proper to judge/interpret a NT/OT scripture by todays standards or 1611's english standards either, for they aren't even vaugely similar. Real research should be done, & by that I mean throw away the denominational commentaries & study the Jewish history of that time period. Do the REAL MATH, & be satisfied that you know that you know.

Uh, OK. I know that I know it is OK to imbibe in alcoholic beverages and I know that I know that drinking to excess (drunkenness) is sin.

 

[SeaBass]

A Bishop must be sober and not given to wine
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
While the Deacons are not given to much wine
1Ti 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
Are the deacons sinner?

No.


If we look at some NT verses that involve drinking "wine" we find the following:


1 Tim 3:3: Tts 1:7 bishop "Not given to wine" underlying Greek means to abstain
1 Tim 3:8 deacons "not given to much wine"
1 Tim 3:11 wives "sober" means to abstain
Titus 2:2 aged men "sober" means to abstain
Titus 2:3 aged women "not given to much wine"

From the above we get that bishops, wives and aged men are to abstain.
We also get that deacons and aged women should "not be given to much, excess"

Now if we "assume" for a moment that "not given to excess" means deacons and aged women are allowed to drink in moderation. then:

What if a deacon who supposedly can drink was also an aged man that is to abstain (sober)?
What if an aged women who supposedly can drink is a wife who is to abstain (sober)?

1) How do we clear up these "supposed" contradictions?

2) what would be the "reasoning" behind why some people are to abstain (bishops, wives, aged men) yet others are supposedly allow to drink (deacons, aged women)? If drinking wine is bad/sinful for some so they should abstain (bishops, wives, aged men) then why isn't it bad/sinful for all, including deacons and aged women?


Solutions: (at least 2)

(1) Language allows you to condemn some thing in excessive amounts while at the same time not allowing for it in moderate amounts. I could know someone who lies all the time, a compulsive liar. I can condemn him and tell him he needs to stop his "much", excessive lying. Yet at the same time I am condemning the 'excess" I am not condoning his lying in moderate amounts.

1 Pet 4:4 "Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you:"

In this verse, Peter condemns "excess" rioting. Does that mean Peter is condoning moderate rioting for Christians? Of course not. Likewise, Paul was condemning "excess" wine for deacons and aged women, but at the same time he was not condoning wine at moderate levels either. So "not given to much wine" is another way of saying to abstain from wine.

(2) Some argue that Paul was using a loose form of speech.

Another seemingly contradiction is Paul told Timothy to use a "little" wine for his stomachs sake. If we "assume" this was fermented wine, then Paul is sanctioning only a little and only for medicinal purposes. So why would Paul then go back on this sanction allowing much larger amounts, [but not in excess], for deacons and aged women? That must mean "excess" is a loose form of speech condemning wine not only in excess but includes moderation and smaller amounts also.

 

[SeaBass]

Look, if one can not control their drinking, then drinking is not beneficial, and need to find from God in belief of God how to not drink in excess again or not at all.
For all things are permissible for me, but not all things are beneficial. So guess what I, you and each person gets to decide what is beneficial and what is not. Dry now for a long time, thanks be to God for I could not control my drinking.

To each their own, praying we all see the depth of this and if we personally see we are not controlling to a matter then we need God's intervention to show us truth that sets us free from whatever it id that besets us, so simple, and personally am thank you to shown mt need for God that I personally can not be perfect and control all things, only God can and does if we are willing for God to take the reins, asking and trusting for this to be in order to enter his rest

Hi,

I assume you a referencing 1 Cor 6:12. Paul is talking about things that are expedient, but not those things that are against the law, sinful, immoral. What is lawful is lawful but not all lawful things are expedient. Drunkenness, stealing, adultery etc are not lawful so it not expedient for one to be drunk, a thief or an adulterer. No one can use this verse to try and get around law.

 

[gb9]

you are right, but just because someone has a drink that does not mean that they are going to have a alcohol problem and do the sins listed above. look, if any brother or sister in Christ wants to totally abstain, or have had problems in the past, then I support and respect that 100%. but do not say that I or anyone else does have a drink from time to time, do not make us hell-bound sinners. as I have said before, there is not 1 verse that says having a drink is a sin. not there. end of story. the Bible is the word of God or is not. we do not get to play fill in the blank.

 

[Stephen63]

A Bishop must be sober and not given to wine
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
While the Deacons are not given to much wine
1Ti 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
Are the deacons sinner?

That is in reference to excess. Had it meant abstinence Paul would never have told Timothy to drink some for his health. "Not given to wine" is not a tippler or bibber. A tippler is one who drinks habitually and/or in excess.

I agree with what's said here. Do we agree that "a bishop must be blameless" is the most important requirement?

If I cause my brother to stumble or offend him, I'm not blameless, & the rest of the modern church knows that.

You guys, what would a christian think of me if they saw me coming out of the liquor store or Walmart with beer & wine?

What about the sinner? There are multitudes of sinners that don't believe in drinking alcohol. Should they matter to me?
1 Corinthians 10:29-33 (KJV) [SUP]29 [/SUP]Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? [SUP]30 [/SUP]For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? [SUP]31 [/SUP]Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. [SUP]32 [/SUP]Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: [SUP]33 [/SUP]Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

Paul is stately that what others think of me in his standing with Christ is more important than his own christian liberty.

1 Corinthians 8:9 (KJV) [SUP]9 [/SUP]But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
[HR][/HR]Galatians 5:13 (KJV) [SUP]13 [/SUP]For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. Is casual drinking for the flesh or the spirit?
[HR][/HR]1 Peter 2:16 (KJV) [SUP]16 [/SUP]As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

Philippians 2:15 (KJV) [SUP]15 [/SUP]That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

Our purpose is to shine in contrast to the world...... not be 'user friendly' & blend.

If casual drinking is considered wrong by many sinners in our society, it is sin for the church to offend them with it.

 

[chubbena]

All alcoholics start with the first drop of wine.
All injuries starts with the moving of the body.
All car accidents start with the first moving car.
All unwholesome talks start with talking.
All sins start with thinking.

The best approach in life is do not handle, do not taste, do not touch.

 

[gb9]

you are correct in saying that we are supposed to contrast the world and not blend. but that does not mean that we can say things that the Bible does not say. if you or your Church or your denomination wants to have rules, and if people choose to abide by them, then go ahead. but please do not say " the Bible says' when it does not.

 

[watcher2013]

No.


If we look at some NT verses that involve drinking "wine" we find the following:


1 Tim 3:3: Tts 1:7 bishop "Not given to wine" underlying Greek means to abstain
1 Tim 3:8 deacons "not given to much wine"
1 Tim 3:11 wives "sober" means to abstain
Titus 2:2 aged men "sober" means to abstain
Titus 2:3 aged women "not given to much wine"

From the above we get that bishops, wives and aged men are to abstain.
We also get that deacons and aged women should "not be given to much, excess"

Now if we "assume" for a moment that "not given to excess" means deacons and aged women are allowed to drink in moderation. then:

What if a deacon who supposedly can drink was also an aged man that is to abstain (sober)?
What if an aged women who supposedly can drink is a wife who is to abstain (sober)?

1) How do we clear up these "supposed" contradictions?

2) what would be the "reasoning" behind why some people are to abstain (bishops, wives, aged men) yet others are supposedly allow to drink (deacons, aged women)? If drinking wine is bad/sinful for some so they should abstain (bishops, wives, aged men) then why isn't it bad/sinful for all, including deacons and aged women?


Solutions: (at least 2)

(1) Language allows you to condemn some thing in excessive amounts while at the same time not allowing for it in moderate amounts. I could know someone who lies all the time, a compulsive liar. I can condemn him and tell him he needs to stop his "much", excessive lying. Yet at the same time I am condemning the 'excess" I am not condoning his lying in moderate amounts.

1 Pet 4:4 "Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you:"

In this verse, Peter condemns "excess" rioting. Does that mean Peter is condoning moderate rioting for Christians? Of course not. Likewise, Paul was condemning "excess" wine for deacons and aged women, but at the same time he was not condoning wine at moderate levels either. So "not given to much wine" is another way of saying to abstain from wine.

(2) Some argue that Paul was using a loose form of speech.

Another seemingly contradiction is Paul told Timothy to use a "little" wine for his stomachs sake. If we "assume" this was fermented wine, then Paul is sanctioning only a little and only for medicinal purposes. So why would Paul then go back on this sanction allowing much larger amounts, [but not in excess], for deacons and aged women? That must mean "excess" is a loose form of speech condemning wine not only in excess but includes moderation and smaller amounts also.

Based from your arguments above...the question of whether if the "wine" here is fermented or not is not in question...

although going through your arguments it seems to suggest that the "wine" in this topic is fermented (intoxicating)

The "wine" used by the Corinthian during the Lord Supper was intoxicating, evidently some drink in excess and got drunk...(1cor 11)

applying your Logic:
a bishop are not to participate in the Lord supper (fermented or not)
everyone are not to participate in the Lord supper. (fermented or not)

 

[SeaBass]

Based from your arguments above...the question of whether if the "wine" here is fermented or not is not in question...

although going through your arguments it seems to suggest that the "wine" in this topic is fermented (intoxicating)

The "wine" used by the Corinthian during the Lord Supper was intoxicating, evidently some drink in excess and got drunk...(1cor 11)

applying your Logic:
a bishop are not to participate in the Lord supper (fermented or not)
everyone are not to participate in the Lord supper. (fermented or not)

It could be that when Paul instructed deacons and aged women not drink "wine" to excess, that the wine was unfermented grape juice and Paul was condemning gluttony of grape juice.


But when Christ insituted the Lord's Supper He used "fruit of the vine" and "oinos" which could mean fermented wine, is not used in regards to the Lord's Supper. THeunderlying Greek of fruit of the vine simply means that which is naturally born of the vine, ie, grape juice.

1 Cor 11 "for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken"

Note that hunger is set in contrast to drunken. Drunken, not meaning intoxicated, but carrying the idea of being filled, satiated while another is empty (hungry)...as in be not FILLED with wine but FILLED with the Holy SPirit

 

[watcher2013]

It could be that when Paul instructed deacons and aged women not drink "wine" to excess, that the wine was unfermented grape juice and Paul was condemning gluttony of grape juice.


But when Christ insituted the Lord's Supper He used "fruit of the vine" and "oinos" which could mean fermented wine, is not used in regards to the Lord's Supper. THeunderlying Greek of fruit of the vine simply means that which is naturally born of the vine, ie, grape juice.

1 Cor 11 "for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken"

Note that hunger is set in contrast to drunken. Drunken, not meaning intoxicated, but carrying the idea of being filled, satiated while another is empty (hungry)...as in be not FILLED with wine but FILLED with the Holy SPirit

"it could be" ... you are not sure....LOL

hungry...because others eat too much that nothing was left to others
Drunk ... others drink in excess that they got drunk and nothing was left to others...

later paul advised to wait for each other...(so everybody got a fair share)..

 

[Stephen63]

you are correct in saying that we are supposed to contrast the world and not blend. but that does not mean that we can say things that the Bible does not say. if you or your Church or your denomination wants to have rules, and if people choose to abide by them, then go ahead. but please do not say " the Bible says' when it does not.

Where did I say that? It sounds lik you're saying that I said something wrong. Details, please.......

 

[john832]

"it could be" ... you are not sure....LOL

hungry...because others eat too much that nothing was left to others
Drunk ... others drink in excess that they got drunk and nothing was left to others...

later paul advised to wait for each other...(so everybody got a fair share)..

C'mon, spit it out: GLUTTONY.

 

[dcontroversal]

I do not stand with the OP.

There is also the issue of the Christian being told to be "sober" In some places, the Greek word nepho is translated sober.

ne=not pho=drink, it literally means 'not drink' and has to do with abstaining from drinking. IIRC our English words nephalism - nephalist come from this Greek word.

I made reference to 1 Pet 4:3 earlier:

KJV "For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:"

excess of wine
revellings
banquetings

These are three varying degrees of drunkenness. Excess, one drinks so much as to not be able to stand, be in a stupor, passed out. Revellings, a wild party where one drinks enough to lose his inhibitions but not so much as to pass out. Banquetings simply means to drink, with no amount fixed to it. In Matt 10:42 Jesus used the verb form of this word and associated it with a cup. So we having varying degrees of drunkenness from excess to a cup, and in the context, ALL varying degrees are condemned.

All deal with excess<-----BE NOT DRUNK WITH WINE IN EXCESS again your theology is flawed as you ignore words in context!