On the "requirement" to be a teetotaler

If we are concluding that the use of oinos is ambigous as to the fermented/fresh nature of the grape, than the only exegetical evidence we have about the nature of the wine in John 2 comes from the ruler of the feast.

9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

He is the only one recorded to have tasted it and commented on it. We can actually glean several things about the nature of the wine from his comment.

1. There is a better and worse quality wine that is expected to be served at a Galilean wedding. The expected order is that the better quality wine is to be served first.
2. This particular wedding that Jesus attended had served the wine in the opposite order.
3. The ruler/governor of the feast thought that the switch in the order of the quality of wine is noteworthy enough to bring this to the attention of the bridegroom.
4. The ruler of the feast notes that it is not the scarcity or lack of the better wine that causes the switch, but the fact that the celebrants have become “well drunk”.

The ruler of the feast realized that the switch in quality of wine was made, but assumed that the reason for the switch was not that the first wine had all been consumed, but that the celebrants had become “well drunk.” In his mind, the state of the celebrants beings “well drunk” is the cause of the switch.

The Greek verb that the ruler of the feast uses for “well drunk” is a conjugate for the infinitive methuo. I believe this is an instructive use of the word, because it clearly gives a connotation of inebriation or drunkenness. All other NT uses of this infinitive and its conjugates are in the sense of inebriation or intoxication.

Note:

1. Matthew 24:49 (And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;),
2. Acts 2:15 (For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.)
3. I Cor 11:21 (For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.)
4. Eph 5:18 (And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;)
5. I Thess 5:7 (For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.)
6. Rev 17:6 (And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.)

The internal evidence of the text thus strongly suggests that the ruler of the feast tasted the wine and acknowledged that the wine did have inebriating power.

In any case, John 2 is a passage that speaks to Jesus’ power being revealed to his disciples, and not to the suitability of alcoholic beverages in a believer’s life.

It’s worth noting that the wine Jesus made was not just wine, but rather an excellent wine that corresponded in taste with what people in Israel preferred, and it’s worth noting that John 2 (as well as the related passages in the synoptic Gospels) are written in Greek, so we would further need to assume that these passages would be immediately comprehensible to the Greek-speaking world as well. So it would correspond well to what Greeks preferred, which, if you ask someone looking at the main body of the classics, appears to be well-fermented wines. It was not for no reason that Eurytus set out real wine for Heracles in the myth, for example.

So to persuade Israelites or Greeks that it would have been anything but an ordinary, and excellent, wine with alcohol, you’re going to have to torture the historical data for a while. Again, if we really believe that Scripture is inerrant, we need to abandon this line of thinking.

Regarding Jim’s link, verse 10 is problematic for a very simple reason; John is talking about the phenomenon of people’s tastes becoming less precise when they drink a certain amount of wine. Now does that happen with grape juice? You might get sick of it, or sick from the sugar, but your taste buds will not be affected. No, the master of the feast is talking about the reason people in wine tasting competitions don’t actually drink the wine—it would impair their ability to taste the subtle hints that differentiate a Bourdeaux from a Burgundy or a Napa.

(yes, people sipping a great vintage of Mouton Rothschild actually spit it out….no kidding)

Bob Jones, Sr. on John 2:

“Well you know He always had good wine and He’s talking about the fruit of the vine, not the intoxicating stuff that makes folks get drunk.
I know enough about Jesus to know what He made that day was not that kind.
They weren’t drunk either. They weren’t drunk.
They’d been drinking that wine then and this occasion I don’t think there’d been a drunken party that would have invited Jesus. They knew something about the Son of God and His mother was there, they were good people.”
-Bob Jones, Sr., Thou Hast Kept the Good Wine, John 2:1-11 (audio).

http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2015/03/bob-jones-sr-on-wine-alcoho…

An interesting view among some here, that Jesus went to a drunken party and made over 100 gallons more of intoxicating wine. Jesus was not a drug pusher and Scripture does not support such a view.

David R. Brumbelow

Yes, the normal lexicons (e.g. BDAG, Danker, Gingrich, Friberg, Louw-Nida) do indeed confirm that μεθυσθῶσιν in Jn 2:10 means intoxication. For comparison, see Eph 5:18, 1 Thess 5:7, Lk 12:45, Rev 17:2 and see if non-intoxication could possibly work for any of these contexts.

I’m convinced the “wine” in Jn 2 was definitely intoxicating alcohol. This is why I cannot tell somebody explicitly, “the Bible says drinking is a sin!”

Tyler:
I did bring up many of the same verses that you suggested in my original post to argue that there is no textual support that the methuo infinitive could mean non-intoxicating consumption. Ephesians 5:18 loses any meaning should the wine and drunkenness alluded to be grape juice and satiation. I would use the same argument for 1 Thess 5:7, Lk 12:45, Rev 17:2.

The larger issue for me for those using John 2 as a proof text for abstention is that they have to disregard sound grammatical-historical hermeneutics to support the position.

That being said, I don’t believe we can use John 2 as a proof text for the suitability of alcoholic beverage consumption for a believer. It does not record that Jesus or the disciples drank, it does not even suggest that there was drunkenness at the wedding.

You wrote:

The larger issue for me for those using John 2 as a proof text for abstention is that they have to disregard sound grammatical-historical hermeneutics to support the position.

I completely agree with you here.

[David R. Brumbelow]

Bob Jones, Sr. on John 2:

“…
I know enough about Jesus to know what He made that day was not that kind.
…

Regarding this comment by John Lee:

That being said, I don’t believe we can use John 2 as a proof text for the suitability of alcoholic beverage consumption for a believer. It does not record that Jesus or the disciples drank, it does not even suggest that there was drunkenness at the wedding.

How can we grant that the sinless Son of God created wine that almost certainly had alcohol in it, but not grant that it would be acceptable for a believer to partake of it? Really, in what other type of ancient middle eastern hospitality would someone provide food or drink with the expectation that it would be refused?

Perhaps this is “my native culture” speaking, but when I’m at a party and someone says “this stuff is amazing”, it almost seems like an obligation for each person to get a tiny little bit of it so everyone who wants to try can have some before it’s gone. Along the same lines, when John retold this in the churches he served, I’d have expected someone to ask whether he’d tried it.

And in those situations, I can think of few better responses than “yes, and it was amazing wine like I never had before and have never had since. Jesus does all things well, even in cases where people think it doesn’t matter”.

Bert,

I remember getting into a conversation with believer who attends a church that many on this forum would consider to be very loose and having no standards.

I told this individual that she was legalistic. That is, she looked to a set of rules to decide what is right and wrong. It really took her a while to appreciate my point.

Christians of all stripes have the temptation to distill Christian practice into black and white. We may have different rules that we follow, but there are still lines that each local congregation draws to regulate and promote good Christian practice among its believers.

The use of alcohol is among those lines that have been drawn and redrawn, and it’s completely unnecessary.

Regarding alcoholic use,

1. I have the conviction that ethanol produced from the fermentation of fruit is not against God.
2. I also have the conviction that why we have the desire to consume ethanol produced from the fermentation of fruit can be both sinful and godly.

It is the second conviction that I am referring to when I say that John 2 speaks nothing about the suitability of alcoholic beverage consumption for a believer.

Each believer has to weigh how each action and each decision he/she makes lines up with I Corinthians 6:12.

Another example of this can be found in Luke 22:36 where Christ commissions his disciples to go out and carry a sword.

1. I have the conviction that carrying swords (or arms) is not against God.
2. I also have the conviction that why we have the desire to carry arms can be both sinful and godly.

There are therefore situations where a Christian cannot, in good conscience, arm himself, because it is not God’s will or not expedient for his service to Christ at that time.

One of the mysteries of the Christian faith is that what may be permissible in a general sense may not be suitable to an individual believer ina particular circumstance. I believe an enormous part of spiritual maturity is building the discernment to not confuse general liberty with situational liberty.

Hope this clarifies where I’m coming from!