"Not for kings to drink wine"? (Proverbs 31:4)

  • Thread starter Thread starter MysticMissMisty
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MysticMissMisty said:
But, why, then, does this particular verse only say “drink” instead of “get drunk”? “It is not for kings…to drink wine…”

The consensus here appears, indeed, to be that of most Protestant commentators I’ve seen as well, but, I’m still not sure how they get that from what is presented in this verse alone. (Not that that’s generally a good idea anyway. I guess, again, I’m not sure how they interpret “drink” as “get drunk”.)

Is there any official Church teaching on the subject of alcohol (even that which could be considered “infallible”)?
Click to expand...
I would point to you that the passage is talking about getting drunk, now what can the “kings” drink if drinking water back then was most often than not a death sentence.

Always we must read passages with in the context and not pull 1 verse and build a whole philosophy on shaky ground.
31:4 Not to kings, O Lamuel, not to kings give wine. For there are no secrets where** drunkenness** reigns. 31:5 And perhaps they may drink and forget judgments, and alter the case of the sons of the poor. 31:6 Give strong drink to the grieving, and wine to those who are bitter in soul. 31:7 Let them drink, and forget their needs, and remember their sorrow no more.
Click to expand...
If you “forget” because you drank I would suggest you had too much to drink! :rolleyes:
From the passage it intimates that it has more right the grieving to drown his sorrow and pain in “strong drink” than the King who has moral obligations towards his subjects.
 
JerryZ,

Thanks for your reply.

The translation you cite – is “give” in this passage the only accepted Catholic rendering of the verse? In many Protestant translations I’ve read, it says something like, “It is not for kings, O Lemuel, not for kings to drink wine” etc. etc. Because of this, and because of my background in languages, at least Greek and Latin, and some linguistics, I’m presuming that perhaps the Verb in the original was omitted and assumed by the author, though, unfortunately, I don’t (yet…) know Biblical Hebrew. Perhaps it was something like, “Not to/for kings, Lemuel, not to/for kings wine”. Hebrew scholars? Am I at all on the mark, here? If, indeed, the term “drink” is not in the original text, then my earlier theory about “drink” having some idiomatic Hebrew meaning of “get drunk” in some cases would fly right out that window over there. points dramatically

OK, going to propose another theory: Maybe this passage is more descriptive than prescriptive. What I mean is that, maybe Lemuel’s mother is more making the observation that many kings are addicted to wine, get drunk and, thus, forsake good judgment. Perhaps there’s even a little sarcasm here? Perhaps she’s not saying that no king should have wine, but, rather, she may be saying (with particular reference to Gentile rulers?) with a bit of a smirk, “Don’t be givin’ kings wine! Ha! You know why! You know what they’ll do! All they’ll do is get drunk and screw things up for themselves and/or their people!” This would actually fit nicely with what our previous poster said–that, if you’re going to give someone wine, it’s better to give it to the poor than to kings. Again, am I totally off here? I mean, honestly, it might seem to work in isolation, but, even to me, this kind of tone doesn’t seem to fit well with the that of the rest of the chapter to be honest(?).

Always still looking for other thoughts on this!
 
Also I just remembered that back in Italy and probably all over Europe, kids were given watered down wine, enough wine in the water that would kill bacteria and yet not strong enough to get drunk with a glass consumed with the meal.
40 to 50 years ago water was still not safe to be drunk out of the fountain. Oh and also I remember that water was NOT plumbed directly to the house, one had to walk to the local fountain to fill up bottles for “drinking water”. It still had to be boiled though.

My my am I showing my age? 😃
 
JerryZ said:
Also I just remembered that back in Italy and probably all over Europe, kids were given watered down wine, enough wine in the water that would kill bacteria and yet not strong enough to get drunk with a glass consumed with the meal.
40 to 50 years ago water was still not safe to be drunk out of the fountain. Oh and also I remember that water was NOT plumbed directly to the house, one had to walk to the local fountain to fill up bottles for “drinking water”. It still had to be boiled though.

My my am I showing my age? 😃
Click to expand...
Well and good, but I’m curious as to your (and others) response to my previous post.
 
MysticMissMisty said:
Well and good, but I’m curious as to your (and others) response to my previous post.
Click to expand...
Ah yes well In the Latin Vulgata, the verb used is “to drink”, however there is a modifier in the sentence, ebrietas or drunkenness
4 noli regibus o Lamuhel noli regibus dare vinum quia nullum secretum est ubi regnat ebrietas
Click to expand...
so a proper rendition would be:

It is not for Kings to inebriate with wine or beer, for there are no secrets where drunkenness reigns.

Wine is a fairly strong drink, normally it has 12% Vol of alcohol, now back then they also produced beer, beer however has a lower alcoholic content I have never seen any beer higher than about 7% in Vol.
Mind you given anough beer you can also get drunk on it.

So I would gather that the admonition on the passage is mainly about that aspect.
Getting drunk. 👍
 
MysticMissMisty said:
… though, unfortunately, I don’t (yet…) know Biblical Hebrew.
Click to expand...
Misty, now you’ve put your finger on the key point. Your question has to do with the shades of meaning of a Hebrew expression that might possibly mean drinking in the sense of “boozing” or might merely just mean having a glass of wine with your meal. But you’re asking the wrong people. This isn’t a forum for Hebrew specialists.
 
JerryZ said:
Ah yes well In the Latin Vulgata, the verb used is “to drink”, however there is a modifier in the sentence, ebrietas or drunkenness

so a proper rendition would be:

It is not for Kings to inebriate with wine or beer, for there are no secrets where drunkenness reigns.

Wine is a fairly strong drink, normally it has 12% Vol of alcohol, now back then they also produced beer, beer however has a lower alcoholic content I have never seen any beer higher than about 7% in Vol.
Mind you given anough beer you can also get drunk on it.

So I would gather that the admonition on the passage is mainly about that aspect.
Getting drunk. 👍
Click to expand...
This is an interesting rendering and seems quite different from what the English translations I’ve seen seems to indicate. Do you (or does anyone else) know whether Jerome was using some other manuscript(s) (LOL, started to write “MSS” is if in scholarly discussion!)? Wondering where he got this rendering. I mean, it almost seems like it could be an interpolation rather than a direct translation. So, perhaps Jerome here renders this in this way, elaborating on the phrase about perverting justice (in the sense that a man might be too loose with his lips).
 
BartholomewB said:
Misty, now you’ve put your finger on the key point. Your question has to do with the shades of meaning of a Hebrew expression that might possibly mean drinking in the sense of “boozing” or might merely just mean having a glass of wine with your meal. But you’re asking the wrong people. This isn’t a forum for Hebrew specialists.
Click to expand...
Well, I mean, you never know. I was posting what I did about the original text just in case there was someone here who had sufficient background as to respond.

It’s actually kind of sad that fewer people seem to study Hebrew/Aramaic than they do Greek/Latin (myself included!).
 
MysticMissMisty said:
Well, I mean, you never know. I was posting what I did about the original text just in case there was someone here who had sufficient background as to respond.

It’s actually kind of sad that fewer people seem to study Hebrew/Aramaic than they do Greek/Latin (myself included!).
Click to expand...
Hi Misty. I once did an introductory Hebrew course. I found it a fascinating and very likable language in its own right, quite apart from its importance as a way into studying the Bible in greater depth. But learning it is very hard work, largely because the whole structure of the language is so different from anything we’re used to seeing in European languages.

You wrote in your OP that “The passage raises so many questions!” You’re right, it certainly does. However, I think it will be useful to deal first with just two of those questions, which I see as the main ones, and leave all the rest for later. The two main questions, as I see it, are these:
  1. Does “drinking” in this passage mean boozing, or does it mean that a king ought never to drink even so much as a single drop of wine?
  2. What is Catholic teaching on alcohol consumption and drunkenness?
The first question is clearly one for either a Hebrew specialist or a rabbi. Why dissipate your energies by attempting to puzzle out the differences between the Vulgate and the Septuagint or between one English translation and another? The final answer has to be found right there in the Hebrew, because that’s the question that all the translators, from the LXX onward, have been trying to give the best possible answer to, each in his own language.

As for the second question, yes, that one is much more suitable for discussion here at CAF, because it’s a question about the Catholic Church and its teaching. I attempted to point the way to an answer in my post #20 on this thread, but I don’t know myself what the true answer is. I look forward to reading what other commenters have to say on the subject.

Regards
Bart
 
With all due respect, I must say that the previous poster’s answer was essentially a non-answer.

As for the first question that went unanswered here, does anyone know where I can locate a Hebrew scholar who would be able to answer it for me? Or, is there anyone on here who is qualified to answer it?

I guess I could argue, not from Hebrew but from context, that simply “drinking” as in a glass of wine is not meant because simply drinking a glass of wine does not automatically caue someone to “pervert justice”. In fact, I doubt it ever does. If the sense, though, here is that someone who drinks wine “might” pervert justice, then perhaps kings are here advised never to drink wine. But, then, we have the problem of when “might” is enough to prohibit someone from doing something, even though the person may fel that he/she is strong enough to avoid the “might”.

So, then, if kings are advised never to drink wine, does this apply to all rulers, past present and future, or does it only apply to certain rulers, say, absolute monarchs because law essentially exists in them? So, would this apply to Hebrew kings, to Babylonian kings, even to Greek or Roman (Republican or Imperial) rulers? Indeed, was not David and even Solomon said to have vineyards? If so, did they drink from them? If they did, was this something that would’ve been sanctioned by God? Was it not indeed one of these that stated that wine makes the heart merry in Scripture? If so, ws he simply speaking of those other than himself, since he would’ve been prevented from drinking wine? Are any rulers today permitted at all to drink wine? Modern monarchs? Modern rulers of any kind? In each of these cases, I would appreciate some elaboration as to your answers as to why or why not.

Indeed, are there any examples of Catholic kings or other rulers drinking at all? (I had assumed that there were, as I know of no indication that there weren’t.) If any of these rulers did drink even in moderation, I wonder how they justified doing so in light of our passage in question.

Later in the passage, we are encouraged to give the wine to “those who are perishing”. Does this mean sinners? Or, does this mean those who are suffering in this life, e.g., the less well-off? One might argue that the latter part of this passage makes no sense if we interpret the first part as referring to something more than drinking, period. We could say that it means that the well-off should not drink at all, but, rather, drink should be given to those who are less well off. Still, then, what are we to say of kings like David and Solomon who (apparently?) favored wine?

Indeed, if there is more than just “drink” here meant, why have virtually no translations rendered it as more, as in, something like “have a preoccupation with” or “be addicted to drinking” or something like that?
 
Indeed, the translation “drink” seems here utterly contradictory of other passages, as I think I have pointed out above.

Indeed, are there other instances of kings or even well-off individuals drinking wine with more explicit divine approval of it? If so, this would surely contradict the common translation of this passage. So, then, why would so many translators persist in it?

Another question is, if the well-off generally are told not to drink wine, then should not many of us abstain completely?

I guess, bottom line question is, is anyone absolutely prohibited from drinking any wine or any other alcoholic beverage by the Scriptures and, in particular, by this passage?

Are there any firm arguments against this passage prohibiting absolutely someone/anyone from drinking wine? Any otehr common sense arguments? Any arguments from Scripture either via reason or Revelation? Any arguments from Church teaching?

Indeed, is there any way that we can make this NOT mean that kings should not at all drink wine?
 
"All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be enslaved by anything. (1 Corinthians 6:12)

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
"All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be enslaved by anything. (1 Corinthians 6:12)

-Tim-
Click to expand...
Well, now we have the text. What about the context?

Could you please elaborate on why you cite this text here?

Do you mean that no ruler should drink wine at all because he may become drunk and pervert justice? Do you mean that no-one, unless utterly destitute, should drink because they might get into trouble with it? Do you mean that, even though we technically can drink, we shouldn’t, at least thsoe of us who are well-off, because of what might happen? Do you mean some other thing similar to this? What, exactly, do you mean by citing this verse? Context, please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top