Did Jesus Really Fellowship With Drunks?

It’s taken for granted by many that Jesus would walk into a bar and hang out with drunks right as they were getting drunk and doing other ungodly things. Though some think that’s extreme to say, they still might have a concept of Jesus which violates the Bible’s counsel regarding choosing companions.

Proverbs 13:20 says: “He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed.”

As the Word made flesh, Jesus would not ever be a companion of sinners in their sins.

It’s also important to understand that the Bible contrasts sinners with the righteous. A sinner is someone who is presently at enmity with God’s authority.

Psalm 1:1-2: “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.”

But what about Jesus being called a friend of sinners in the Gospel accounts?

Matthew 11:16-19: “But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented. For John (John the Baptist) came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.”

The concept that Jesus is a friend of sinners in their debauchery was actually a false accusation made by His enemies.

Jesus’ true disciples do not remain gluttons, drunkards, swindlers, or persistent sinners in any form. Any who turn back to sin practically turn away from Him. Yet many in Israel, especially many among its religious leaders, did not appreciate that notorious sinners were brought to repentance through the preaching of John the Baptist and of Jesus. In their malice and envy, they were looking for ways to accuse both of them. They said that John the Baptist had a devil in relation to his especially austere lifestyle. They called Jesus “a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners” for eating with repentant people who had been notorious sinners.

Note that Jesus lived in a time and a place where being a harlot and/or a drunk was esteemed as shameful. That estimation in itself is right and good. America and many other countries now are wicked for allowing these things to be widely regarded as socially acceptable. America today is so corrupt that multitudes, even many in high places, don’t even try too hard to hide that they are sexually immoral and/or drunkards. They are often not even removed from power due to their degeneracy.

A little earlier, we read in Matthew 9:10-13: “And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

The Pharisees were not rebuked because they had a problem with Jesus having fellowship with unrepentant sinners. That is not even what Jesus was doing here. They were rather rebuked by Jesus over their lack of mercy in relation to their taking issue with Him accepting the demonstrated repentance of these people. Look at a parallel account of Matthew 9:10-13.

Mark 2:15-17: “And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

There is obviously an element of rebuke to the delusion of the Scribes and Pharisees in Jesus telling them “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Some in Israel were truly right with the Lord already when Jesus began preaching publicly. These obviously would have come to Him and followed Him- as long as they didn’t go back on their repentance. John the Baptist’s preaching before Jesus started preaching publicly was carried out to bring people to repentance so they would receive Jesus quickly and follow Him without hindrance.

The Scribes and Pharisees which murmured against Jesus eating with repentant people that had previously been notorious sinners were obviously out of line with God’s law themselves. They needed to repent themselves. If they had indeed been righteous people who were not at enmity with God’s law, they would have rejoiced to see others repenting and following Jesus.

The Jewish leaders overall had been called out by John the Baptist and Jesus as wicked people who needed to repent like the corrupt tax collectors and harlots did. They had a major obstacle to repentance though which the tax collectors and the harlots (at least some of them) did not have. The Scribes and Pharisees claimed to already be serving the Lord faithfully- even though they weren’t.

Luke 3:12-13: “Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him (that is, to John the Baptist), Master, what shall we do? And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.”

The tax collectors had to forsake their dishonesty and cheating. The harlots obviously had to forsake their harlotry. In order to really repent, the Jewish leaders would have had to lose face before the people and acknowledge themselves as wicked sinners in need of repentance. It is seen in the Gospel accounts how even though they whitewashed their sins, they were (at least most of them) actually covetous fiends who loved the praises of men and sought to appear holy before people rather than actually doing what is pleasing to God consistently. This hypocrisy is especially ugly when it is brought among the true God’s appointed worship. In relation, we read in 1 Peter 4:17 “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God…”

These things are related to the story of the Prodigal Son in Luke chapter 15. Reading Luke chapter 15 from the beginning proves that the stories Jesus told there are actually intended as rebukes to the Scribes and Pharisees. These rebukes are for their finding fault with Jesus accepting the repentance of people who had been notorious sinners and had become social outcasts as a result of the life that they had lived.

The Prodigal Son’s older brother was in sin for not rejoicing at his younger brother’s repentance and returning to his father’s house. The older brother was not in sin for not joining the younger brother in degenerate behavior nor for expecting that his brother would need to forsake all of his sinful ways in order to be allowed to return to his father’s house. The older brother was rather in sin for his controversy with his father in relation to him receiving the younger brother again and rejoicing that he had returned.

The younger brother had obviously repented and forsaken the evil deeds which he had set his heart on. The elder brother should have rejoiced with the father that the younger son had come to his senses and chosen to return home and submit to the right ways which prevailed in his father’s house.

The older brother refusing to rejoice over the younger brother’s repentance was actually an expression of controversy with his father that was not any different in principle than what the younger brother had expressed through his degenerate, reckless living in the distant country which he had left home to pursue.

The story of the Prodigal Son ends with the older brother outside of the father’s house. This obviously relates to the actual reason that the Pharisees were in sin for finding fault with Jesus over eating with repentant people who had previously been notorious sinners like tax collectors, harlots, and drunks.

It was never right to think that Jesus would have fellowship with unrepentant sinners- whether their sins had made them social outcasts or not. There is nothing in Luke chapter 15 or anywhere else in the Gospel accounts which shows Jesus fellowshipping with unrepentant sinners.

What about the woman who broke the alabaster box in Luke chapter 7?

She was repentant and had turned from her sinful life. If she had indeed been a harlot, she wasn’t one anymore when Jesus told her she was forgiven. Jesus doesn’t forgive those who remain committed to the practice of sin.

What about the woman caught in adultery?

John 8:1-11 (the place in the Bible where the woman caught in adultery is brought to Jesus) is actually dealing with a wicked and clever attempt to frame Him. It is not about an honest and accurate attempt to carry out the death penalty on terms consistent with the Law of Moses. No one can ever rightfully say that Jesus ever spoke or acted contrary to the Law of Moses. The entire Bible was inspired by His Spirit. Jesus is left alone with the woman after her accusers have left. He inquires where they are and asks whether any man had condemned her. She tells Him that no man has done so. He then tells her “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more” (in John 8:11). In its context, this meant that no man had stoned her and that He was not going to stone her now either. He knew that this was a set-up. He did not witness the adulterous act either. He yet made sure to tell her “go, and sin no more.”

What about Jesus turning the water into wine at the wedding in John chapter 2?

It is interesting how people who really don’t care about what the Bible says are so quick to point to the place in it which they think they can use to defend their regard for sin. If they really lived by the authority of the Bible, they would regard the Bible passages commanding sobriety and forbidding drunkenness. The Bible teaches that a living faith in Jesus requires living soberly as well as shunning having companions that are not sober (see Matthew 24:45-51). The wine Jesus served at that wedding could not have had the alcoholic content to make anyone drunk- at least considering the overall moderation of the environment. His own Word already testified of the sin of being drunk and the sin of making others drunk (see Isaiah 28:7-8 and Habakkuk 2:15). Just because the Bible doesn’t condemn all drinking of wine, the Bible does indeed testify that wine which is strong should be abstained from (see Proverbs 20:1).

Consider how it is seen in John chapter 4 that Jesus conversed with a Samaritan woman who was living with a man who was not her husband. He treated her with respect. This alone would have offended and upset many of Israel’s religious leaders who would have never talked with this woman at all nor considered her a candidate for redemption. Yet this conversation did not happen at a bar nor in a brothel. And Jesus did indeed address her fornication by telling her to call her husband- even though He knew that the man she was with was not her husband. That would have offended many both then and now as well- especially those He think Jesus would hang out in bars if He walked the earth now.

Jesus certainly did not esteem Himself as too good to converse with other people- even if they were or may have been sinners. Nevertheless, there are lines He would never cross nor enable others to cross.

He was certainly not going to social gatherings where drunkenness and/or harlotry were known to be permitted and practiced.

Many politicians, media personalities, and church leaders are actually whores in an even more shameful and degraded way than the whores who walk the street. When politicians betray the people they are supposed to be representing, and instead serve the interests of those who are rich and influential, they are whores. When people in the media don’t honestly report on things or work for people who evidently won’t let them be impartial, they are whores. When preachers tell people what they want to hear instead of what is true, they are whores. Many are hypocritical by acting repulsed at one form of harlotry while praising those who practice another form of harlotry. We ought to view any and all forms of harlotry as repulsive. We ought to abstain from partaking in harlotry altogether.