Jesus turned water into (John 2) ...

[Huw] I’m well aware of Noah and his drunkenness, but your statement that wine was not alcoholic before the flood has not been answered. The sin that called down the wrath of the Almighty would have been complete in all it’s manifestations and alcohol plays a large part in all manner of sins. Messiah said that it would be as it was in the days of Noah, ”people giving each other in marriage”. Are we not to conclude that there were marriage celebrations just as there was at Cana? What you are saying has no foundation in scripture.

MH is implying that Noah was surprised by his sin. If his sin had been any other than drunkenness he would have still been surprised. It doesn’t imply that Noah didn’t know the effects of wine.

I’m sorry, Huw, you asked, if I didn’t mind to answer your question, and I don’t mind to do so. Yet, you seem to not receive my original statements well: “The grapes in the Garden of Eden were undoubtedly better than now, and there was no fermentation there. It wasn’t even until after the Flood that we hear of intoxication.” Again: “It was only after the Flood that wine apparently became alcoholic.” Please see the nature of the way I’ve expressed my contributions, as they are not meant to be belligerent or intolerant of others. The main point was that there was no fermentation in Eden.

Matthew Henry’s Commentary: The drunkenness of Noah is recorded in the Bible, with that fairness which is found only in the Scripture, as a case and proof of human weakness and imperfection, even though he may have been surprised into the sin; and to show that the best of men cannot stand upright, unless they depend upon Divine grace, and are upheld thereby.

MH doesn’t say: “Noah was surprised by his sin,” but “he may have been surprised into the sin.” Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown state that Noah’s problem was “perhaps at the festivities of the vintage season. This solitary stain on the character of so eminently pious a man must, it is believed, have been the result of age or inadvertency.” Adam Clarke indicates: “It is very probable that this was the first time the vine was cultivated; and it is as probable that the strength or intoxicating power of the expressed juice was never before known.” Keil & Delitzsch believe: “In ignorance of the fiery nature of wine, Noah drank and was drunken, and uncovered himself in his tent (ver, 21).”

The fact is that neither you, nor I, nor the theologues of commentaries, know for sure when the fruit of the vine gained the propensity to ferment. In Noah’s day, there was great wickedness before the Flood, yet there was also longevity, which soon diminished, but no mention of drunkenness. It is sure, nonetheless that there was no harm in Eden upon creation. It is my understanding, and for a number of my colleagues, that from the evidence which we have available, there was no fermentation of the grape until after the Flood. Yet, I am open to discussion regarding this, and hopefully open to reason and logic on all matters.

The point of my dialogue is that drunkenness readily expresses itself in losing inhibitions, in which nakedness often occurs. Hab. 2:15,16 KJV demonstrate this.

This topic is going off topic quite fast…

SG, the Bible is not a science text book. And simply because there was no record of intoxicating wine before Noah does not mean it did not exist, that is an argument from silence. The simpler explanation, and one upon which we should first believe until shown otherwise is that it did exist. It is simpler to believe that wine has always been intoxicating to the degree to which it has fermented.

[Daniel] This topic is going off topic quite fast…

SG, the Bible is not a science text book. And simply because there was no record of intoxicating wine before Noah does not mean it did not exist, that is an argument from silence. The simpler explanation, and one upon which we should first believe until shown otherwise is that it did exist. It is simpler to believe that wine has always been intoxicating to the degree to which it has fermented.

Daniel, I appreciate your concern, but if you follow back, the question was being answered from different viewpoints. Clarification was being asked me, regarding factors being used to answer it. It is therefore on topic. While I see that you have some training in Biblical Languages, may I request you to please respect other contributors, who may have considerable training and dedication to study of God’s Holy Word.

With my background in technical matters and having over 42 years in ministry, it is strange to hear a younger fellow tell me: “SG, the Bible is not a science text book.” As a matter of fact, God created all things, and speaks of science in His Holy Word.

The Lord has chosen to reveal certain matters to us, and has chosen to hide certain matters. “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.” Prov. 25:2 KJV. While the Bible isn’t a science book per se, as the Creator God wrote it, it always is true to real science.

Evidently there are a significant number of theologians who would disagree with your position on the pre-flood conditions, as seen in my post and on this thread. There are also those who would agree with you. You should, however, read my post carefully, realizing that the topic is open, but that considerable logic and reasoning accompanies the given information. Do not quickly judge, which neither is appropriate on this forum.

Sorry that I said it was going off topic and you thought I was somehow attacking you. That wasn’t the point. My point was that it seemed like we were starting to debate whether or not the wine was intoxicating for Noah when we are talking about whether or not it was intoxicating in John 2. Not that they aren’t related, but that if we are going to start debating whether it was intoxicating for Noah or that wine was not intoxicating pre-Noah, that should probably be a whole new thread, and by virtue of that this topic is going off topic. But that is really neither here nor there, and if we are going to debate pre-noah stuff, that is fine. I am just saying, that is a rather large topic deserving of a whole new thread. Sorry that I was not as specific when I said it.

While I see that you have some training in Biblical Languages, may I request you to please respect other contributors, who may have considerable training and dedication to study of God’s Holy Word.

With my background in technical matters and having over 42 years in ministry, it is strange to hear a younger fellow tell me: “SG, the Bible is not a science text book.” As a matter of fact, God created all things, and speaks of science in His Holy Word.

The Lord has chosen to reveal certain matters to us, and has chosen to hide certain matters. “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.” Prov. 25:2 KJV. While the Bible isn’t a science book per se, as the Creator God wrote it, it always is true to real science.

Perhaps someone else can way in on this, I am not sure I could be objective about this. The only thing that comes to mind is I Timothy 4:12.

Let’s simply discuss the topic at hand, with a courteous respect for others in their contributions. So far, out of 64 votes, almost 3/4ths had voted that the wine at the wedding feast at Cana in John 2 was “Something with alcoholic content..” About 1/5 had voted that it was “Grape Juice” or I would presume some non-alcoholic grape beverage. A little over 1/16 (5/64 people) has voted that they were unclear. I wonder if this should be more like a jury deliberation, however. The original vote may change in some people’s minds, if true consideration is given to that which our fellows have put forth to consider. Yet, in this case, it seems that no final decision will be certain to some.

It might be good, however, to move in a deliberation direction, rather than stagnate in opinions. I had voted for grape juice. To me, this represented a non-alcoholic beverage, which was obviously well received by the governor or overseer of the feast. After much discussion, it has helped me, through further study, through consideration of my fellow Christian colleagues and friends, through heart searching and desire of the Holy Spirit’s guidance, to be more assured that the “wine” was non-alcoholic.

My conclusions stem from this:

• Jesus and His followers did normally drink and He gave to drink the “wine” of that era, which had alcohol content.*
  
  
• The people there had “well-drunk at the wedding: The Greek verb is: μεθύω: drink to intoxication.
  
  
• By principle of holiness, Jesus would not contribute to making anyone, who had sufficient alcoholic wine, more intoxicated.
  
  
• Jesus was at creation’s miracle, creating “all things.” There was nothing to hard for Him. Jer. 32:17, 27 KJV
  
  
• As there was the miracle of changing water into wine, Jesus easily could make exquisite tasting non-alcoholic wine.
  
  
• There is no report further in God’s word to the attendant result, presumably without incident. Scripture often reports failures and anomalies.
  
  
• The Scripture says repeatedly that Jesus was without sin, and had to be to be able to pay for our sins. No sin occurred here.
  
  

*While Jesus and the early church did drink some alcoholic beverage, the choices and preservation of healthy beverages of that era were very limited, The wine was not artificially enhanced with ethanol, as it is today, and we have much more choice and ability to preserve healthy non-alcoholic drinks. Our society today basically drinks alcoholic beverages for pleasure and socializing, not for survival. The Christian was always exhorted not to get drunk, but today’s drinking practices make it more dangerous.

”As there was the miracle of changing water into wine, Jesus easily could make exquisite tasting non-alcoholic wine”.

Based on this statement where do you think the words, ”non-alcoholic” should be.

”…but thou hast guarded the non-alcoholic good wine until now”

or ….”but thou hast guarded the good non-alcoholic wine until now”

or ….”but thou has guarded the good wine until now and made it non-alcoholic ”.

I’ve often heard of drinks being ‘laced’, but never unlaced.

[Huw] I’ve often heard of drinks being ‘laced’, but never unlaced.

That’s certainly a new one :bigsmile:

[Huw] ”As there was the miracle of changing water into wine, Jesus easily could make exquisite tasting non-alcoholic wine”.

Based on this statement where do you think the words, ”non-alcoholic” should be.

”…but thou hast guarded the non-alcoholic good wine until now”

or ….”but thou hast guarded the good non-alcoholic wine until now”

or ….”but thou has guarded the good wine until now and made it non-alcoholic ”.

I’ve often heard of drinks being ‘laced’, but never unlaced.

An interesting interpolation pf the discussion, yet it doesn’t seem to have much weight on the situation at hand. There would need to be some compelling reason that Jesus would need, or desire, to reveal the nature of the wine’s content to the governor.

Curiously, the word τηρέω, is never translated “to guard” in the KJV. It is also consistently translated “to keep” in virtually all translations, having only been found two loose translations that have “to save.” So, I’m not sure what purpose you have in taking the word to be: “to guard,” except that it can mean that in Greek. Perhaps you are relating it with the root word, τηρός, a watch, but even τηρέω is never translated as “to guard,” in the KJV. Especially here, it appears demonstrably to violate context in good translation procedure.

As far as a drink being “unlaced,” that is begging the question. It seems that it is insisted that the natural, rather than the supernatural, decipher the miracle. The Creator reigns supreme in doing wonders. Make some mud for the blind man’s eyes!

The choice is either to translate as, to keep or guard.

The subject in question should always direct the translator as to the most suitable word to use. I don’t know of any man who has a cellar of fine or good wine that doesn’t keep it under lock and key. The subject being good wine, that the governor was served, ‘not knowing whence it was’ should have presumed the host had it in a safe place. Hence guarded.

If you prefer the word kept then feel free to use it, but as a man who has in past times guarded his wine I shall stick with the obvious translation.

The question remains that if you believe the Holy Spirit to be remiss in the construction of this verse. Where would you have the term ‘non-alcoholic’ placed?

[Huw] The choice is either to translate as, to keep or guard.

The subject in question should always direct the translator as to the most suitable word to use. I don’t know of any man who has a cellar of fine or good wine that doesn’t keep it under lock and key. The subject being good wine, that the governor was served, ‘not knowing whence it was’ should have presumed the host had it in a safe place. Hence guarded.

If you prefer the word kept then feel free to use it, but as a man who has in past times guarded his wine I shall stick with the obvious translation.

The question remains that if you believe the Holy Spirit to be remiss in the construction of this verse. Where would you have the term ‘non-alcoholic’ placed?

My goodness, Huw, the situation in John 2 was not the same as today’s wine production and aging. There wasn’t the great expense of vintage wines in 30 AD. It simply is not good translation work to choose out of 21st Century values for the ancient Middle East.

Upon examinination, you will find that you are contrary in this to all modern versions. Translation isn’t a whimsical matter. There are no translations that have chosen “to guard,” since it simply does not fit the historical, anthropological data. If you wish to go against the NASB, NRSV, NKJV, Darby, Youngs, Weymouth, Douay-Reiims, ESV, etc. you will be alone in this evaluation, as they all use “to keep.” It is not at all an “obvious” choice. Only the loose translations of the NIV and the Message use “to save” in this place, which nonetheless is akin to keeping.

As far as considering the Holy Spirit charged with being remiss, I would count that blasphemous. In sovereignty, He does not have to put words in the text at man’s demand. John 20:30 KJV says: “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:.” John again reveals in john 21:25 KJV: “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” There is enough information in John 2 to discern, along with other Scriptures, what our responsibility is in drinking.

As far as us discerning the truth, Paul instructed a young pastor in 2 Tim. 2:15: “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” The word for study is σπουδάζω, which means do diligence, labor earnestly to know what the Scriptures say in correct order, rightly dividing, or literally cutting straight the Word of God. It is not just opinion. In the overall picture, we are responsible to know the dangers of alcoholic beverages, which has largely been ignored to the detriment of the recent generations. We cannot indict the Holy Spirit for neglect in warning us.

You have introduced a word that I haven’t used and neither did I imply. ”Good wine” is not necessarily vintage wine. Wine is vintage wine after one season. (info only) The point in question are words that you did use and yet are not found in the text ”non-alcoholic”. Contrary to your opinion you have not proved from the scriptures and by reason that this was a necessity or an actuality.

Since posting and using the word guard I have done some further reading and stand by the use of the word. I am in no way suggesting you must change your opinion in this, but I do suggest you do some further study in regard to #5083.

”As far as us discerning the truth” you have made plain elsewhere your 42yrs background in technical matters . I remember a man who told me this: ”I have 43yrs experiance in this business Huw so you pay attention and listen to me”. What I came to realise is that he had one years experiance and had repeated it 42 times.

Mr ghost,

My desire is that you prove to me, from the scriptures and by reason that there was a necessity for Messiah to provide non-alcoholic wine and that He did provide non-alcoholic wine. The production of wine by miraculous means in no way affected nor could affect His sinless character and righteousness, because wine production is not a sin. If it were then the wine libations were causing men to sin…which is preposterous.

Just saw this thread and would like to go back a few posts and make a comment. Someone had mentioned the reference to wine and new wine in Hosea 4:11. I was just talking about this passage with someone the other day. Regardless of whether the “wine” was alcoholic or not, it appears to be something that was a gift from God and was perverted by Israel…in the context, probably used in false worship. If you look at Hosea 2:8-9, wine was a gift from God (in my opinion). Some would say that it was simply Hosea talking about his wife, but it is representative of the relationship between God and Israel. Some would want to take Hosea 4 and state that all wine is condemned because it takes away the heart, but based on the context I believe it to be something that was a gift from God that was misused. I don’t think this is a game breaker for anyone, but I think it is important to note concerning the Hosea passage.

Ricky

[Huw] You have introduced a word that I haven’t used and neither did I imply. ”Good wine” is not necessarily vintage wine. Wine is vintage wine after one season. (info only) The point in question are words that you did use and yet are not found in the text ”non-alcoholic”. Contrary to your opinion you have not proved from the scriptures and by reason that this was a necessity or an actuality.

Since posting and using the word guard I have done some further reading and stand by the use of the word. I am in no way suggesting you must change your opinion in this, but I do suggest you do some further study in regard to #5083.

”As far as us discerning the truth” you have made plain elsewhere your 42yrs background in technical matters . I remember a man who told me this: ”I have 43yrs experiance in this business Huw so you pay attention and listen to me”. What I came to realise is that he had one years experiance and had repeated it 42 times.

Mr ghost,

My desire is that you prove to me, from the scriptures and by reason that there was a necessity for Messiah to provide non-alcoholic wine and that He did provide non-alcoholic wine. The production of wine by miraculous means in no way affected nor could affect His sinless character and righteousness, because wine production is not a sin. If it were then the wine libations were causing men to sin…which is preposterous.

By all means, Thomas, if you wish to translate something in your own words, contrary seemingly to all versions that are available, it’s your right to do so. I see no documentation from you, however. ( My name, BTW, is Silverghost, one word, not “Mr. ghost.;” Silver is OK, my last name.)

I do not wish to argue with you, especially here, but I did answer your “question” that “remains,” regarding the inclusion of the words “non-alcoholic,” but It seems that it doesn’t satisfy you. There isn’t the word “rapture,” nor that of “Trinity” in the Bible, but the concepts and realities exist. So, please put aside the insults, and take on face value what I’ve said. My statement, “As far as us discerning the truth,” is coupled with Paul’s instructions to Timothy, there being no boast on my part. It would be wise not to take anyone’s words out of context. The reply that I gave to a young man in explanation of my ministry, has nothing to do with this.

For an answer, which I have already given, it should be considered a sin, upon the counsel of all the Scriptures, to make available intoxicating drink, when the people at the feast had already “well-drunk.” (μεθύω methuo, drinking to intoxication). If that is not your consideration, we will not be able to go further with any sense. Jesus never sinned. Therefore, He could not contribute to the intoxication of others, at any time, else He would be sinning. If He had sinned once, He could not pay for the sins of others. But, the Scripture is clear: “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” 2 Cor. 5:21 KJV.

The Scripture does not say that one cannot drink wine, but the instruction is clear that it is a sin to get drunk, and much warning is there regarding this. Production of wine was a normal thing throughout the history of Bible days, yet, there were no glass bottles in someone’s cellar. Producing intoxicating wine for the express purpose of giving it to those who had enough to be at or near intoxication, is tantamount to being an accomplice in a bank robbery, where someone is killed. Even if you are not the shooter, you are guilty of the crime.

Sure glad you guys settled this issue . Now lets get together and have a drink. of … 0:)

[RickyHorton] Just saw this thread and would like to go back a few posts and make a comment. Someone had mentioned the reference to wine and new wine in Hosea 4:11. I was just talking about this passage with someone the other day. Regardless of whether the “wine” was alcoholic or not, it appears to be something that was a gift from God and was perverted by Israel…in the context, probably used in false worship. If you look at Hosea 2:8-9, wine was a gift from God (in my opinion). Some would say that it was simply Hosea talking about his wife, but it is representative of the relationship between God and Israel. Some would want to take Hosea 4 and state that all wine is condemned because it takes away the heart, but based on the context I believe it to be something that was a gift from God that was misused. I don’t think this is a game breaker for anyone, but I think it is important to note concerning the Hosea passage. Ricky

Ricky, the word for “new wine” in Hosea 4:11 KJV is tı̂yrôsh in Hebrew, which normally means freshly pressed grape juice, but occasionally it could mean recently pressed juice, but in the initial stages of fermentation, which was highly intoxicating. Taking the whole statement in Hosea, this latter is undoubtedly meant: “Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart.” These people were intent upon sinning: “They set their heart on their iniquity.” v.8.

In the Hosea 2:8-9 KJV passage, God is chiding wayward Israel, reminding them of His provision in the past. The word for “wine,” in both instances, is tı̂yrôsh again, but the context indicates freshly pressed juice, with the joy of the harvest season also of corn (wheat) and olive oil, which were staples of that society. Then, as you had indicated, the wine would have to supply future needs in the homes. Properly processed, the wine was safe as a beverage taken in moderation, not like the wines produced today.

An excellent article, which I had mentioned earlier, is found in the current Baptist Bulletin, July/August edition: http://baptistbulletin.org/?p=9514 It makes a clear distinction between the need and provision in Bible days for wine, compared with the practices and needs of today’s world.

PS: Because of default setting in this forum, the Scripture, when highlighted, reads out the NKJV, If one prefers to use another version, the initials have to be included with the reference. That is why I place KJV after my references. There is sometimes a significant difference.

[Bob T.] Sure glad you guys settled this issue . Now lets get together and have a drink. of … 0:)

LOL, Bob. I just had a fellow tonight in Prayer Meeting ask for prayer for overdoing Pepsi. I have counseled for addictions, but I’m not sure how to deal with that! I have heard of people being, what seems to be, heavily addicted to a soft drink. I don’t say that I understand it. Overdoing this can bring harm physically. But I like Coke! Pour me up a tall glass! 0:)

Based on these statements it is obvious your whole argument is based on the inability of Deity in the form of Father, Son and Holy Spirit to jointly or individually make someone drunk by supplying alcoholic wine. Because it is contrary to their nature.

1 Producing intoxicating wine for the express purpose of giving it to those who had enough to be at or near intoxication, is tantamount to being an accomplice in a bank robbery, where someone is killed. Even if you are not the shooter, you are guilty of the crime.

2 By principle of holiness, Jesus would not contribute to making anyone, who had sufficient alcoholic wine, more intoxicated.

3 And finally: It is a sin to make your neighbour drunk by your actions.

These words lead me to the conclusion that you think that it is a sin to get anyone drunk. And that if the Eternal Almighty in the person of the Father, Son or Holy Spirit did that it would be contrary to their nature?

‘’In their heat I will make their feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they may rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the LORD’’.

‘’I will make them drunken’’.

The wedding feast at Cana was the first sign and this last week has been a blessing in reading and meditating on a number of things I’d never seen before and for that I thank the Eternal Almighty for you Mr Silver.

Blessings, H.

[Silverghost]

[RickyHorton] Just saw this thread and would like to go back a few posts and make a comment. Someone had mentioned the reference to wine and new wine in Hosea 4:11. I was just talking about this passage with someone the other day. Regardless of whether the “wine” was alcoholic or not, it appears to be something that was a gift from God and was perverted by Israel…in the context, probably used in false worship. If you look at Hosea 2:8-9, wine was a gift from God (in my opinion). Some would say that it was simply Hosea talking about his wife, but it is representative of the relationship between God and Israel. Some would want to take Hosea 4 and state that all wine is condemned because it takes away the heart, but based on the context I believe it to be something that was a gift from God that was misused. I don’t think this is a game breaker for anyone, but I think it is important to note concerning the Hosea passage. Ricky

Ricky, the word for “new wine” in Hosea 4:11 KJV is tı̂yrôsh in Hebrew, which normally means freshly pressed grape juice, but occasionally it could mean recently pressed juice, but in the initial stages of fermentation, which was highly intoxicating. Taking the whole statement in Hosea, this latter is undoubtedly meant: “Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart.” These people were intent upon sinning: “They set their heart on their iniquity.” v.8.

In the Hosea 2:8-9 KJV passage, God is chiding wayward Israel, reminding them of His provision in the past. The word for “wine,” in both instances, is tı̂yrôsh again, but the context indicates freshly pressed juice, with the joy of the harvest season also of corn (wheat) and olive oil, which were staples of that society. Then, as you had indicated, the wine would have to supply future needs in the homes. Properly processed, the wine was safe as a beverage taken in moderation, not like the wines produced today.

An excellent article, which I had mentioned earlier, is found in the current Baptist Bulletin, July/August edition: http://baptistbulletin.org/?p=9514 It makes a clear distinction between the need and provision in Bible days for wine, compared with the practices and needs of today’s world.

PS: Because of default setting in this forum, the Scripture, when highlighted, reads out the NKJV, If one prefers to use another version, the initials have to be included with the reference. That is why I place KJV after my references. There is sometimes a significant difference.

Don’t misunderstand….I was not making a case for drinking. I do not think it is wise even if permissible. However, I wanted to caution others not to use Hosea 4 as a proof text against alcoholic beverages since Hosea 2 shows that wine was a gift that was given to them by God.

[RickyHorton] Don’t misunderstand….I was not making a case for drinking. I do not think it is wise even if permissible. However, I wanted to caution others not to use Hosea 4 as a proof text against alcoholic beverages since Hosea 2 shows that wine was a gift that was given to them by God.

I understand, but please read what I said, which may explain that God was chiding with Israel, and had reminded them that He blessed them with good harvests in the past.

[Huw] Based on these statements it is obvious your whole argument is based on the inability of Deity in the form of Father, Son and Holy Spirit to jointly or individually make someone drunk by supplying alcoholic wine. Because it is contrary to their nature.

1 Producing intoxicating wine for the express purpose of giving it to those who had enough to be at or near intoxication, is tantamount to being an accomplice in a bank robbery, where someone is killed. Even if you are not the shooter, you are guilty of the crime.

2 By principle of holiness, Jesus would not contribute to making anyone, who had sufficient alcoholic wine, more intoxicated.

3 And finally: It is a sin to make your neighbour drunk by your actions.

These words lead me to the conclusion that you think that it is a sin to get anyone drunk. And that if the Eternal Almighty in the person of the Father, Son or Holy Spirit did that it would be contrary to their nature?

‘’In their heat I will make their feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they may rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the LORD’’.

‘’I will make them drunken’’.

The wedding feast at Cana was the first sign and this last week has been a blessing in reading and meditating on a number of things I’d never seen before and for that I thank the Eternal Almighty for you Mr Silver.

Blessings, H.

Ronald Reagan: “Wellll, there he goes again!” LOL! ;) The Lord Hardened Pharaoh’s heart, too, Thomas…but there was no medical operation. In your quotation, God is dealing with Babylon, as in v.37: “Babylon shall become heaps, a dwellingplace for dragons, an astonishment, and an hissing, without an inhabitant.” Jeremiah 51:37 KJV.

What happened in v.39 is God was confirming what they would do, as you may well know, they got drunk, and the “writing on the wall” told them of their demise; the Medes and Persians defeated them that night, and the Babylonians would “sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake.” God was not standing there, making them drunk, but the omniscient God, who can turn the hearts of kings, could seal their destiny because of their wickedness. “I will bring them down like lambs to the slaughter, like rams with he goats.” v.38.

It is a sin to give drink to someone to make him drunk. I’m thankful for your challenges, Thomas, for they have helped confirm the truth about the omnipotence and holiness of God, who is in control of the matters happening among sinful man upon this earth, yet without sin.

May the Lord bless you,

~Rev. Silver

Drunkenness is a curse, but the enjoyment of wine a blessing. In curse or blessing the Eternal is the giver of both. As a man who was under the curse of drunkenness for thirty years I am well aware of the effects of alcohol and the life of living under wrath. Once my sin was forgiven my drunkenness stopped. At exactly 10:30am on July 17th 1999 I was sobered and remain sober to this day. I was subject to the curse of drunkenness and yet I know people who are blessed by drinking. These are people who can have a drink and stop. I couldn’t stop and the end of my having a drink was always to get drunk. I was either thinking about drinking, recovering from drinking or drinking.

You say that you counsel addicts? have you ever been an addict? alcohol, drugs, porn or fornication? has the curse and wrath of the Eternal ever been your daily bread? If not you have no idea of the difference between blessing and curse and that has become patently obvious to me during this discussion.

In great sympathy, Brother Thomas, I’m touched by those who are and have been in addiction. I believe that I was headed that way, when I was in the Navy, but Christ found me, and I received Him as my Savior. Soon after I saw a man lose his pension after 19 1/2 years, for being drunk on duty. He was an alcoholic. Now in ministry, I have been able to deal with with substance abuse cases, having counseled many and doing rescue mission work.

As far as myself, I was a rascal…God has had to clean me up. But the principles in His Word and the blessed Holy Spirit are the things that have kept me going in the right direction, when I have submitted. I have nothing whereof to boast! His grace, however, is sufficient.

While I haven’t gone to the depths that some have experienced, there has been more than enough damage in this sin-cursed world to influence me. Yes, I do not know the extent that some have experienced. Yet, I’ve often maintained charitably, that you don’t have to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, to know that it hurts. Neither would I want to see any to do that, though I understand deep despair.

I have experienced despair in my life, and significant harm, even as a Christian, but I have learned though those tough times, especially when I’ve given my distress over to the Lord. There is a friend in ministry, whom I have counseled over the years, who has a physical disorder and also mental distress, which is attached to his personal malady. Often the matter which you have mentioned came up, that I could not know that with which he has had to face. True, but by listening over many years, empathizing as was possible, and discussing the values of applying God’s precepts, it gradually gave him victory to a much more manageable status. And I learned in the process. Love and forgiveness had much been involved in making headway.

So, I’m sorry for your personal difficulty you have had, and have not wished to offend anyone. This forum has inherently to do with truth, which doesn’t always appear friendly to specific needs and hurts. Yet, I would desire to be friends, and be in proper Christian care and support, while we mutually benefit from the wisdom God has afforded his people.

Thank you for your patience with me, and your challenging replies. That, I believe, is the main principle behind SI. “Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.” Prov. 27:17 KJV. ~Bro. Silver :)