From a Biblical standpoint, when is drunkenness reached?

11/25/2013 | Laissez-Faire Capitalist

[SkyPilot]

I disagree with the attempt to make this thread an attempt to atomize the debate about which translation of the Bible is most correct. We could spend hours on that alone. While that is a fascinating and useful endeavor, and I just listened to a presentation by a noted author, pastor, and professor from Dallas Theological Seminary on the subject, it is rather arrogant of you to respond to other posters and chastise them for quoting chapter and verse, citing the exact text, and acting as self appointed enforcer of which translation is viable for this subject. I have seen these debates before. They inevitably devolve into someone insisting on the original Greek or Hebrew text as the only solution to the impasse, and by then everyone has forgotten what the original topic was.

[Safrguns]

>>> Ah, maybe not. How about the practice of ritual cleansing preparatory to entering into one’s ministry to satisfy the requirement of The Law?

A valid point... AND the reason Jesus gave himself. Put simply, Jesus was baptized out of obedience.

However, this point does not exclude mine... rather, it completes it.

Baptism itself IS representative of death and resurrection.

[imardmd1]

Jesus didn’t think so. He drank wine & made large quantities for already-inebriated partygoers.

We've gone over this several times in FR discussions. Both here and in the general world I see that some pretty big assumptions regarding recreational alcohol are made, as touching the regenerated believer-disciple-priest following Christ. The answer is simple. The answer is "No."

Now, I would like to see anyone prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus ever made, drank, served, or recommended intoxicating wine for his disciples. Personally, I believe Scripture shows that he could not, and did not, as a recognition of His righteousness and holiness. Here's the clincher, demonstrated by the humble prophet Daniel, concerning whom God has never found fault (Ezek. 14:14,20), and whom Jesus cited (Mt. 24:15, Mk. 13:14). Here's Daniel's posture toward wine (yayin):

"But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself" (Dan. 1:8 AV).

Did you get that? Intoxicating wine defiles one who would be holy, one obedient and meek toward The God and His Christ. Heres what several commentaries say about this:

Barnes:

That he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat - Notes, Dan_1:5. The word which is rendered “defile himself” - יתגאל yı̂thegâ'al from גאל gā'al - is commonly used in connection with “redemption,” its first and usual meaning being to redeem, to ransom. In later Hebrew, however, it means, to be defiled; to be polluted, to be unclean. The “connection” between these significations of the word is not apparent, unless, as redemption was accomplished with the shedding of blood, rendering the place where it was shed defiled, the idea came to be permanently attached to the word. The defilement here referred to in the case of Daniel probably was, that by partaking of this food he might, in some way, be regarded as countenancing idolatry, or as lending his sanction to a mode of living which was inconsistent with his principles, and which was perilous to his health and morals. The Syriac renders this simply, “that he would not eat,” without implying that there would be defilement.

Nor with the wine which he drank - As being contrary to his principles, and perilous to his morals and happiness.

Clarke:

A daily provision - Athenaeus, lib. iv., c. 10, says: The kings of Persia, (who succeeded the kings of Babylon, on whose empire they had seized), were accustomed to order the food left at their own tables to be delivered to their courtiers.

But Daniel - would not defile himself - I have spoken of this resolution in the introduction. The chief reasons why Daniel would not eat meat from the royal table were probably these three: -

1. Because they ate unclean beasts, which were forbidden by the Jewish law.

2. Because they ate, as did the heathens in general, beasts which had been strangled, or not properly blooded.

3. Because the animals that were eaten were first offered as victims to their gods. It is on this account that Athenaeus calls the beasts which here served up at the tables of the Persian kings, ἱερια, victims, lib. 4 c. 10, p. 145.

Jamieson, Faussett, Brown:

Daniel ... would not defile himself with ... king’s meat — Daniel is specified as being the leader in the “purpose” (the word implies a decided resolution) to abstain from defilement, thus manifesting a character already formed for prophetical functions. The other three youths, no doubt, shared in his purpose. It was the custom to throw a small part of the viands and wine upon the earth, as an initiatory offering to the gods, so as to consecrate to them the whole entertainment (compare Deu_32:38). To have partaken of such a feast would have been to sanction idolatry, and was forbidden even after the legal distinction of clean and unclean meats was done away (1Co_8:7, 1Co_8:10; 1Co_10:27, 1Co_10:28). Thus the faith of these youths was made instrumental in overruling the evil foretold against the Jews (Eze_4:13; Hos_9:3), to the glory of God. Daniel and his three friends, says Auberlen, stand out like an oasis in the desert. Like Moses, Daniel “chose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season” (Heb_11:25; see Dan_9:3-19). He who is to interpret divine revelations must not feed on the dainties, nor drink from the intoxicating cup, of this world. This made him as dear a name to his countrymen as Noah and Job, who also stood alone in their piety among a perverse generation (Eze_14:14; Eze_28:3).

=============

The contention about the Cana miracle always comes up, because those who simply will not give up on clinging to their wine use it to illegitimately manufacture an excuse as propping up their belief structure.

In fact, though Jesus could have miraculously not only caused the water to become fresh new wine (Heb. tirosh, awsiys; Gk. gleukos), but to also have the appearance of age. But why would he supply more enabling alcohol if they were already drunken? The Scripture does not say so or even hint so. Whatever wine he created, it would be new. The stone vessels used were stone, not clay, for storing "living" water for ritual purification, and storing fresh, new, unleavened wine in them would not do violence to the owner's sensibilities. But putting leavened (fermented) wine in them would be offensive and unholy.

In any case, oinos is generic, and could refer to intoxicating wine or unfermented wine. The state is always context sensiive. However, the overall thrust of the Bible is that tha context does not approve of the use of intoxicating beverage; and indeed usually discourages it, sometimes rather strongly.

============

About "strong drink": People like to misuse the term shekar, translated "strong drink," as referring to something like brandy or Jim Beam, or such. Let's cut that idea dead. Distillation of spirits for human consumption was not discovered until long after Jesus' time. Shekar could be beer (Egyptians' favorite), mead from honey, apple ider, etc., as well as undiluted yayin.

============

Here is a link to a site discussing this topic from a fundamental Biblicist:

Should Bible Believing Churchs Require Abstinence From Alcoholic Beverages?

Go to it.

Maybe, if you insist on setting a poor exam;e, they'll deliver your son's or daughter's or grandchild's body in a long wooden box, as they did mine. But his 0.28% BCA had been replaced with a more effective preservative: formaldehyde. Hope that won't be the result of your experiment with "Christian" doctrine.

[metmom]

Typical of Catholicism making something far more difficult than it needs to be while all coming down on both sides of the issue.

[metmom]

The reason I think the term needs to be chucked is because it’s become a catch phrase and nobody seems to know exactly what it means. It usually depends on who’s doing the talking.

[imardmd1]

However, this point does not exclude mine... rather, it completes it.

With respect, I don't think so. You are talking about the Baptism unto Discipleship, which this baptism is not.

Baptism itself IS representative of death and resurrection.

Not necessarily. Jesus' second baptism is the Baptism into Viiolent Death, which unbelievers will experience in the Lake of Fire for Eternity. (Mt. 20:22+)(And from which Jesus has delivered me by bearing my sins in His Body on the tree, experiencing the fiery wrath of The God in my place.)

IMHO

You might want to check this summary of the baptisms:

SEVEN BAPTISMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

[cuban leaf]

Hey, about that article you linked. It was one of the funnier ones I’ve read on the subject (and I’ve read quite a few).

I love this straw man:

“”High-Quality Alcoholic Wine.” The fourth assumption is that the wine Jesus provided was pronounced “the good wine” (John 2:10) by the master of the banquet, because it was high in alcoholic content. Such an assumption is based on twentieth-century tastes.

Albert Barnes, a well-known New Testament scholar and commentator, warns in his comment on John 2:10 not to “be deceived by the phrase ‘good wine.’” The reason, he explains, is that “We use the phrase to denote that it is good in proportion to its strength, and its power to intoxicate. But no such sense is to be attached to the word here.”11”

I don’t know anyone who thinks the quality of wine is in its alcohol content. Well, not anyone since I graduated from high school, anyway. ;-)

It’s an interesting read, but the author is too smart by half. He tries to reform the “real world” of the day while ignoring the “real world” of the day. People were not backward as the author would have you believe.

[Elsie]

Do NOT ask David Bisard, Indianapolis police officer...

[Elsie]

Well; if your wife was just killed, and you are drowning your sorrows - drunk is when your two daughters, whose husbands have also just been killed; both jump your bones and you do not realize it.

[Elsie]

When have you defiled the Temple?

Well... it's like this...

1 Timothy 5:23

[Elsie]

The bible says “obey every law and ordinance of man.”

That defense didn't work to well at Nuremburg...

[Elsie]

I’m late again!

[Elsie]

better as time wore on an dricxsh flewed an stufflikethast ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc2ekrgM7Do

[xzins]

it’s not a defense. it’s a definition of drunkenness. Drunkenness is what the government defines as drunkenness.

[xzins]

How exactly did you get from define a biblical standard for drunkenness to Nazis versus Jews?

[Elsie]

Drunkenness is what the government defines as drunkenness.

True; but that isn't what this thread asked:

From a Biblical standpoint, when is drunkenness reached?

[xzins]

And from a biblical standpoint, we are to defer to the government on such matters as these. Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's, but more to the point, "obey every law and ordinance..."

Romans 13:3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

So, if the state says you're drunk when you get behind the wheel with .06 BAC, then you are also biblically drunk.

It's a good and positive law and rule, and has nothing whatsoever to do with Nazis....only with drunks.

[Lurker]

Go back and read what I was responding to.

[xzins]

Were the Nazis big on drunk driving blood/alcohol laws?

[headsonpikes]

“It’s a good and positive law and rule”

Views such as yours are what lead me to thorough-going scepticism.

Thank you for helping me renew my vows.