Jesus: a gluttonous man and a drunkard

This was the disparagement, the gossip, that was spread to malign Jesus, the Son of Man. It was said that Jesus was a gluttonous man and a drunkard. This was said of Jesus in contrast to John the baptist whose life mission was in the fringe of society and in the wilderness of the river Jordan. Alas, the comparative morality of the twenty first century is not new. The populist perception of John was as one of being a truly a religious, holy and pious man. The falsehood about Jesus being a gluttonous man and a drunkard neither troubled nor fazed Jesus in the least.

Jesus was happy and confident in himself as he went about the Father’s business in and among and with sinners.

be filled with the Spirit

This is not so with some of his disciples today. They feel obligated to defend Jesus. They contrive rationalizations built on original language single word definitions in isolation and notions of piety that not only did Jesus not drink wine, but he did not turn the water into wine at the wedding in Cana. Jesus, they maintain, produced grape juice because surely Jesus would not contribute to drunkenness at a wedding. Conversely, some of his disciples who contrive these needless, mistaken notions in defense of Jesus, as though he needed it, would have readily condemned the wedding guest as well as the saints in Christ who drink wine today. Jesus, too, by virtue of being present where there was drinking would certainly not escape their condemnation. Then, there is nothing worse than to render the power of the word of Ephesians 5:18 into a powerless pet verse in a bit of flash about being filled with the Spirit.

Here is another grossly mistaken notion about being filled with the Spirit. However the truth is that one is no more filled with the Spirit or is being filled with the Spirit merely because the Spirit dwells in the believer anymore than one is drunk because he drinks. In the minds of some saints a drink equals being drunk and this is how they also equate the indwelling of the Spirit with being filled with the Spirit. They themselves can not hardly explain for the edification of their brethren much less a nonbeliever how the Holy Spirit indwells the believer and how the Holy Spirit fills the believer. They prefer to believe that since the Holy Spirit dwells in them then they must be filled with the Holy Spirit. (You read my blog article on that topic here. book)

There are some needless and unnecessary, but extremely poor efforts to rationalize drinking. There is the weak effort to contrive permissible drinking from the instruction of Paul to Timothy to no longer drink water, but to drink wine. Clearly, as Paul indicates, this was a medical bit of advice for Timothy. The contrivance is as much as a worthless, dry wineskin for anyone who thinks this is just the support they need to drink. Of course, then there is the previously mentioned word definition sparing over wine vs grape juice.

at a wedding in Cana

What is the source of this condemnation? If there is condemnation there is fear. What is the source of this fear? If there is anyone who bears responsibility it is those who profess to lead, teach and preach. One oft heard parameter from those who bear responsibility, instead of the authority and confidence of the word of God is for the saints to “don’t drink and play it safe.” Thus, they impose their notions and burden the saints with what Paul calls, self-made religion. These notions have always emerged throughout the history of the church as the saints thought they could improve on what God has declared for his people in the written revelation of his will. If their source for these things is neither the written revelation of the word of God nor an understanding of the word of God then they are as much as the faithless and unfaithful shepherds of the congregation of the Lord God. [1] [2]

I cringe at the sound of preachers and the saints in Christ when they resort to national statistics on deaths caused by alcohol or they that “just feel it’s better to not drink” as though either of these were on par or equal to the written revelation of the will of God and worthy for the edification of the saints. One preacher in a Facebook discussion was staunchly adamant about his constitutional right to bear and use a weapon without flinching. Days later he was equally staunchly adamant against the saints in Christ drinking. He cited the usual barrage of national statistics about deaths caused by alcohol and felt that, like himself, all Christians should abstain from drinking. He went mute when I asked him if there were no deaths caused by guns.

While some saints, as well as some preachers, may not know or confuse and obscure the scriptures here are a couple of questions.

Why would the Word who was with God and was God and became flesh shun or condemn, as is supposed, the drinking of wine in a joyous occasion as no less in the presence of the Lord  _ at a wedding in Cana?

Does a wedding seem to you like this is precisely the type of occasion where God would surely shun and condemn the drinking of wine?

in the presence of the Lord in Jerusalem

Who hasn’t heard the endless original language single word definitions in isolation on which some teachers purport to inform and edify the saints? This is so as to help the saints distinguish between, for example, wine and grape juice and wine and strong drink, right? God did not put Israel in such a predicament for them to scrutinize and distinguish between (Hebrew) words in order for them to drink what was right and acceptable to God. The Lord God identified for Israel specific foods which they were forbidden to eat in Deuteronomy 14. [3] Then, when the Israelites were to travel with the firstborn of their flock and their herd to Jerusalem -to the Feast of the Weeks (Pentecost) on one of the three annual feasts and the distance was too great God instructed them again. Sell, God instructed them, what you have on your journey in exchange for money. He enumerates some specifics on which they could spend the money including wine or strong drink OR whatever your heart desires and they were to eat and drink together and rejoice you and your household, _ during the Feast of the Weeks in the presence of the Lord? Yes.

Invariably, the retort is heard. We are not under the law of the Old Testament. This is true. This is the same retort that is also heard against any prohibition against Christians eating pork because we are not under the law of Moses. This, too, is true. But, do you see the inconsistency? This was not a license for Israel to abandon themselves to drunkenness anymore than for the saints in Christ to abandon themselves to the gluttony of eating pork. The inconsistency is not because of any seeming inconsistency or seeming contradiction in the scriptures. Rather it is due to a lack of understanding which is in no small part perpetuated by those who purport to lead, teach and preach the word of Lord.

opinions and condemnations

The apostle Paul informed the saints in Christ in the church in Rome. There were some who felt compelled to condemn their brother or sister who observed holidays; yet another matter which is froth with misunderstanding. Then there were those who felt compelled to condemn those did not observe certain days. The same condemnation was cast on one another for eating or not eating vegetables only. The apostle Paul began his message with the admonition to accept the weak in faith in what he notes are that individual’s opinions. In other words, it was not the weak brother or sister’s understanding of the word of the Lord. He admonishes all in Romans 14:

21 It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.

22The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God.

Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.

23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

Conclusion

You may not be confident or happy to drink wine or even strong drink. However, this lack of confidence or happiness equates neither with reverence or piety nor a teaching point to inform and enlighten the saints in Christ concerning their liberty in Christ. These are the words of the apostle Paul in Colossians chapter 2:

21 "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!"

22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use) -in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?

23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.

There is admonition which is implied by the apostle Paul in these words. It is that for all the exercise of self-abasement and severe treatment and to not handle, taste or touch this is nothing more than the pursuit of a semblance or appearance of wisdom, and humility. It is a badly mistaken pursuit. Certainly, to impose these notions on others has no value, but there is also the danger from the dangers of fleshly indulgence.

Those who gossiped about Jesus being a gluttonous man and a drunkard may have thought to elevate themselves above a higher moral standard than Jesus. This is the same sort of comparative morality that saturates our present society with ever new and unending torrents of opportunity for those who seek to elevate themselves above others. The disclaimer that “I’m not perfect” is the pop false piety of the day followed by, “but I’m not as bad as him or her.”

Your confidence and your happiness whether you eat or drink is in what you understand with conviction and is from faith. Otherwise, it is your sin. Better still, rejoice in the Lord and in the fellowship of the saints in Christ in the presence of the Lord.