GLUTTONY

The book for elders “Shepherd The Flock Of God” chapter 12,  point 20, says regarding gluttony:

Gluttony: (Prov. 23:20, 21, w04 11/1 pp. 30-31) A glutton routinely shows lack of restraint, even gorging himself on food to the point of feeling very uncomfortable or becoming sick. Gluttony is determined, not by someone’s size, but by his attitude towards food.

HOW CAN GLUTTONY BE IDENTIFIED?

There are no scholarly words that can truly convey how I feel about this one. This is the stupidest disfellowshipping offense of the 34 that has been invented and introduced by the GB. This is because the word that can actually be translated as “glutton” occurs only one time in the Bible, at Matthew 11:19, and because “gluttony” is nearly impossible to pin down or identify, and lastly because we cannot know whether or not there is a hereditary factor that causes a particular person to eat too much.

In order to understand how the GB views gluttony, I quote the whole Question From Readers in The Watchtower of 1 November 2004, page 31. This article is referred to in the Shepherd book as the rationale behind the punitive action it directs the elders to take on this issue, as seen above.

How does the Christian congregation view gluttony?

God’s Word condemns both drunkenness and gluttony as behavior that is incompatible with serving God. Therefore, the Christian congregation regards a confirmed glutton in the same manner as it views a habitual drunkard. Neither a drunkard nor a glutton can be part of the Christian congregation.

Proverbs 23:20, 21 states: “Do not come to be among heavy drinkers of wine, among those who are gluttonous eaters of flesh. For a drunkard and a glutton will come to poverty, and drowsiness will clothe one with mere rags.” At Deuteronomy 21:20, we read about a “stubborn and rebellious” individual, who deserved to be put to death under the Mosaic Law. According to this verse, two characteristics of that rebellious and unrepentant individual were that he was “a glutton and a drunkard.” Clearly, in ancient Israel, gluttony was viewed as an unacceptable practice for those who desired to serve God.

What, though, constitutes a glutton, and what do the Christian Greek Scriptures say about this topic? A glutton is defined as “one given habitually to greedy and voracious eating and drinking.” Thus, for one thing, gluttony is a form of greed, and God’s Word tells us that “greedy persons” are the sort of people who will not inherit God’s Kingdom. (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; Philippians 3:18, 19; 1 Peter 4:3) In addition, when the apostle Paul warned Christians against practicing “the works of the flesh,” he mentioned “drunken bouts, revelries, and things like these.” (Galatians 5:19-21) Overeating often accompanies drunken bouts and revelries. Moreover, gluttony certainly is included in Paul’s expression “and things like these.” As with the other “works of the flesh,” a Christian who is widely known for his gluttony and who stubbornly refuses to change his greedy behavior ought to be removed from the congregation.​—1 Corinthians 5:11, 13.

Although God’s Word places a drunkard on the same level as a glutton, the former is much easier to identify than the latter. The signs of drunkenness are usually quite visible. However, determining the point at which an individual becomes a confirmed glutton is much harder because it cannot be determined simply by outward appearance. Therefore, handling situations in this area of concern requires great care and discernment on the part of the elders in the congregation.

For example, obesity may be a sign of gluttony, but that is not always the case. One’s being overweight may be the result of an ailment. Hereditary factors may also contribute to obesity. We should also keep in mind that obesity is a physical condition, while gluttony is a mental attitude. Obesity is defined as “a condition characterized by excessive bodily fat,” whereas gluttony is “greedy or excessive indulgence.” Thus, gluttony is not determined by someone’s size but by his attitude toward food. A person may be of normal size or may even be thin and yet be a glutton. Furthermore, what is viewed as the ideal weight or shape varies considerably from place to place.

What are signs of gluttony? A glutton routinely shows a lack of restraint, even gorging himself on food to the point of feeling very uncomfortable or becoming sick. His lack of self-control indicates that he has no real concern about the reproach he brings upon Jehovah and the good reputation of His people. (1 Corinthians 10:31) On the other hand, a person who overeats on a few occasions would not automatically be viewed as a “greedy person.” (Ephesians 5:5) Nevertheless, in the spirit of Galatians 6:1, such a Christian might need help. Paul states: “Brothers, even though a man takes some false step before he is aware of it, you who have spiritual qualifications try to readjust such a man in a spirit of mildness.”

Why is the Bible’s counsel to avoid excessive eating especially important today? Because, particularly regarding our day, Jesus warned: “Pay attention to yourselves that your hearts never become weighed down with overeating and heavy drinking and anxieties of life, and suddenly that day be instantly upon you as a snare.” (Luke 21:34, 35) Avoiding overindulgence in food is one important way to shun a spiritually damaging life-style.

Moderation is a Christian virtue. (1 Timothy 3:2, 11) Therefore, Jehovah will surely help all those who earnestly seek to apply the Bible’s counsel on moderate eating and drinking habits.​—Hebrews 4:16.

In what follows I show that the translation of “glutton” in Deuteronomy 21:20 has no lexical or linguistic basis (the brown text above). I also show that it is not definitively clear that overeating is an example of greed — it could be a medical condition. Besides, I also show that greed itself is not a disfellowshipping offense (the green text above), and so it cannot serve as a foundation on which to build yet another invented disfellowshipping offense—gluttony.

WHAT IS THE REAL MEANING OF THE WORD TRANSLATED  “GLUTTON” IN THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES?

The Hebrew word that is translated as “glutton” in NWT13 is the participle of the verb zālal. Koehler and Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament gives the following definitions of the qal form of the verb: “to be thoughtless, rash; to be despised.” The hifil form is defined as, “to despise, to treat lightly.” The finite form of the verb occurs only two times in the Hebrew Scriptures, in Lamentations 1:8 and Jeremiah 2:36. The NWT13 has the following translations:

Lamentations 1:8

⁸ Jerusalem has sinned greatly and so has become unclean. All who honored her despise (zālal; hifil) her, for they have seen her nakedness; she herself groans and turns away.

Jeremiah 2:36

³⁶ Why do you treat so lightly (zālal; qal) your unstable course? You will become ashamed of Egypt too, Just as you became ashamed of Assyria.

The verb zālal in both clauses is translated in accordance with the meanings given by Koehler and Baumgartner, and there is no trace of the idea of gluttony in these meanings.  The qal participle of the verb occurs six times.

A participle of a verb normally has the same meaning as the finite verb, but this meaning is expressed as a verbal noun (a nomen agentis, an agent noun) because the participle functions as a substantive. On this basis, we can expect that the participle of zālal would have the meaning “a thoughtless person; a despised person; a good-for-nothing person (a light person).

In keeping with this, we find a meaning that accords with the meaning of the finite verb zālal in two passages, where the meaning is “a thing or person that is worthless”

Lamentation 1:11

Look, O Jehovah and see that I have become a worthless woman (zōlēlā, participle singular feminine).

Jeremiah 15:19

If you separate what is precious from what is worthless (zōlēl, participle singular masculine), You will become like my own mouth.

In the four verses quoted below, the masculine participle of zālal is translated as “glutton” or “gorge [themselves on meat]”

Deuteronomy 21:20

²⁰ And say to the elders in the city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, and he refuses to obey us. He is a glutton (zōlēl, participle singular masculine) and a drunkard.

Proverbs 23:20, 21

²⁰ Do not be among those who drink too much wine, Among those who gorge (zōlēl, participle plural masculine) themselves on meat, ²¹  For a drunkard and a glutton (zōlēl, participle singular masculine) will come to poverty, And drowsiness will clothe one with rags.

Proverbs 28:7

An understanding son observes the law, But a companion of gluttons (zōlel, participle plural masculine) disgrace his father.

The participle zōlēl does not have the meaning “glutton”

The rendering “glutton” is light-years away from the meanings “be thoughtless; be despised; to treat lightly,” which are the meanings of the verb. Therefore, we may rightly ask the reason why the Brown, Driver, and Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon includes “gluttony” in the definitions of the verb:  “worthless, insignificant; transitive: be lavish with, squander, especially of gluttony.” The verb “squander” has the meaning “to use extravagantly and wastefully and lose something.”

The reason “gluttony” is connected with “squander” in BDB evidently is that the participle of zālal in two instances in the Bible is paralleled with the Hebrew participle of sāba’ (“heavy drinker”). The word that collocates with “heavy drinker” in the English language is “heavy eater; glutton,” and that evidently is the sole reason for the use of this meaning in this and other lexicons.

However, there is a problem here that persons lacking knowledge of Hebrew do not see. The Hebrew language consists of roots, usually with three consonants. When different vowels are added to the three consonants, different forms of this root are created—verbs, participles, infinitives, substantives, and adjectives—and each of them expresses another side or aspect of the same root idea.

For example, the root ’kl (alef-kaf-lamed) includes the idea of taking in food. Its verb form ’ākal has the meaning “to eat,” it’s substantive ‘ōkæl, written as a participle means “food,” and its infinitive ’^åklā means “food, nourishment.” Another example is the root sb’ (sameq-bet-alef) which has the meaning of “taking in liquid.” Its verb form sāba’ has the meaning “imbibe, drink heavily,” its substantive sōbæ’ or sōbē’ (written as a participle) has the meaning “wine, drink, heavy drinker,” and the substantive sābā’ has the meaning “heavy drinker.” All these meanings are different sides or aspects of the original root meaning “taking in liquid.”

How can the principle of the varied sides of the meaning of Hebrew roots on the basis of different vowels throw light on the real meaning of the participle of zālal which I argue has been mistranslated as “glutton”? The Hebrew words zōlēl and sōbē are parallels in the two verses in question, and they are translated as “a glutton” and “a drunkard.” The participle translated as “a drunkard” (sōbē) derives from the root sb’ with the meaning “taking in liquid” and is a form of the verb sābā’ (“drink heavily”). But the participle translated “a glutton” (zōlēl) does not come from a root meaning “to eat” or “to eat much.” But it comes from a root with the meaning of “despise” or “be of low value”.”[1] No doubt, you can see the disparity in the two renderings—the participle translated “a drunkard” accords with its original root meaning, whereas the participle rendered “a glutton” does not reflect, whatsoever, any side of its original root meaning.

What does this fact tell us? It tells us that lexical semantics and linguistics were utterly disregarded when deriving a translation for zōlēl in these two instances. It seems clear that instead of sound translation principles, subjective logic was used in arriving at the conclusion that zōlēl should be translated as “a glutton” in these verses. In modern Hebrew, the word “glutton” is derived from the root zll, but the biblical Hebrew word zōlēl that is translated with the modern word “glutton” does not include the ideas of being given “habitually to greedy and voracious eating and drinking,” as has been shown above.

A participle has the same meaning as its verb — the participle substantivizes the meaning of the verb The verb sābā’ has the meaning “drink heavily” and the participle has the meaning “heavy drinker.” The verb zālal has the meaning “being despised” and the participle would have the meaning “despised person.” When the participle of zālal is given the meaning “glutton,” it is done so with no linguistic basis whatsoever.

 

But if my conclusions are correct, why is the word zōlēl used in parallel with the word sōbē (“heavy drinker”) if it does not include the idea of a “heavy eater”? The stress in Deuteronomy 21:20 is that the son is “stubborn and rebellious,” and one characteristic of such a son is that he is a heavy drinker and a feaster.

The feasting in ancient Israel had the same characteristics as in the nations around them and in modern times as well. A group of friends came together to share a delicious meal. They ate the food on the table, and they drunk wine during the meal. When they were filled up with food, they continued to drink wine for a long time. This is described in Isaiah 5:11, 12 (NWT13):

¹¹ Woe to those who get up early in the morning to drink alcohol, Who linger late into the evening darkness until wine inflames them!¹² They have harp and stringed instrument, Tambourine, flute, and wine at their feasts; But they do not consider the activity of Jehovah, And they do not see the work of his hands.

An accurate translation should try to convey all the nuances in the original text to the readers, and it should not add any nuances that are not in the original text. But unfortunately, few Bible translations are accurate. The English word “drunkard” means “one who is habitually drunk,”[3] and this meaning is not found in the Hebrew word sōbē. The meaning of this word is “heavy drinker,” and this can refer both to drunkards and non-drunkards alike.

As shown above, the root zll has nothing to do with eating or heavy eating, so the translation “glutton” is to read something into the Hebrew text that is not there. The connection between the word sōbē (“heavy drinker”) and zōlēl indicate that the setting is a party. Therefore, I see two possible renderings of Deuteronomy 21:20

And say to the elders in the city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, and he refuses to obey us. He is a good-for-nothing man (zōlēl), and a heavy drinker.

And say to the elders in the city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, and he refuses to obey us. He is a feaster (zōlēl),  and a heavy drinker.

Both renderings of zōlēl are neutral and do not add ideas that are not in the text. The rendering “good-for-nothing man” accords well with the meaning of the root zll. However, because zōlēl in Proverbs 23:20 has a genitive connection with “flesh,” and I will as far as possible use one English word for each Hebrew word, I prefer the rendering “feaster.” Supporting this is that the Septuagint uses the Greek participle of symbolokopeō, to translate zōlēl. The Greek verb means “to revel; to feast,” and the participle can mean “a reveler; a feaster.”

The words of Isaiah 5:11, 12 may indirectly support the rendering “feaster.” The meaning of the verb zālal is “to be thoughtless, rash, to be despised.” Isaiah shows that those who are feasting and drinking wine are thoughtless because they do not see what Jehovah has done. They are also despised because their destiny will be captivity or even the grave, as verses 13 and 14 show.

A modern-day illustration may be helpful in illuminating how “feaster” as a rendering for zōlēl links well with the meaning of the verb zālal “to be thoughtless, rash, to be despised,” as well as its hifil form “to despise, to treat lightly.”

Imagine a group of young people who, because they are from extremely wealthy families, have never had to work a day in their lives. The parents now realize that their children have not learned responsibility, and so they try to persuade them to find jobs in order to learn to be responsible adults. However, because they feel entitled and are set in their ways, the young ones refuse to work. All they want to do is go from one party to another. At these parties, there are always lots of food and alcohol. So, the “stubborn and rebellious” young people carry on a life of “feasting” and “heavy drinking”.

If we were to use an English idiom to describe this situation, we might say that such young ones were “partiers” or “party animals”. Even though there is plenty of food at these parties, the connotation of these expressions is not on how much food is eaten. Rather, the idioms “partiers” or “party animals” speak to their carefree and pleasure-centered lifestyle, as well as their “rash,” “thoughtless,” and “despising” attitudes toward God and responsibility. They view such as frivolous and so, take it “lightly,” and tend to be ‘shallow’ themselves. Of course, at such parties, heavy drinking is the norm. So, being a “party-animal” and a heavy drinker often go hand in hand. However, being a glutton is hardly associated with these terms, because gorging on food rarely happens at such parties, and even when it does, it is difficult to pinpoint or detect.

And herein lies the connection between the rendering “feaster” for zōlēl and its root meanings—being a partier (or feaster) indicates that a person is “rash,” “thoughtless,” and “despises” God and takes this responsibility “lightly”. Also, because heavy drinking is a given at such parties, being a “feaster” and a “heavy drinker,” often accompany one another. Therefore, a “feaster” in Bible times may have been the equivalent of a “partier” or “party-animal” today. And like their modern-day counterparts, “feasters” in Bible times would have been known for their ‘rash, thoughtless, and despising’ attitudes toward God, life, and responsibility. In turn, they would also have been despised for their irreverent attitudes and because nothing good awaited them in their future. Such ‘feasters’ would also tend to drink heavily on such occasions. Therefore, being a “feaster” was not so much about how much food he or she ate—whether or not they were gluttons—as it was about their frivolously carefree attitude in despising Jehovah—taking lightly the doing of God’s will, as summarized in Isaiah 5:11, 12 quoted above.

A very inaccurate rendering of zōlēl by NWT13

I will now consider Proverbs 23:20, 21 NWT13:

²⁰ Do not be among those who drink too much wine, Among those who gorge (zōlel, participle plural masculine) themselves on meat, ²¹ For a drunkard and a glutton (zōlel, participle singular masculine) will come to poverty, And drowsiness will clothe one with rags.

The rendering, “gorge themselves on meat,” is very inaccurate. The verb “gorge” has the following meanings in Merriam-Webster: “to stuff to capacity,” “to fill completely or to the point of distention[4],” “to consume greedily.”[5]

The Hebrew participle zōlēl in verse 20 is plural and in the construct, which means that it is in a genitive relationship, and it is “owned” by the following word basar (“meat”) In the passages quoted above, the participle of zālal is rendered by NWT13 as “worthless” in Jeremiah 15:19 and Lamentation 1:11, and it is rendered as “glutton” in Deuteronomy 21:20, Proverbs 23:20, 21, and Proverbs 28:7.

As I have shown above, there is no evidence that the participle zōlēl has anything to do with eating, let alone heavy eating. So why does the NWT13 render the participle as “gorge themselves” in verse 20? We cannot know for certain, but there are two likely reasons.

The first reason is that the translation was meant to coincide with the definition of “a glutton” in the Shepherd book: “A glutton routinely shows lack of restraint, even gorging himself on food to the point of feeling very uncomfortable or becoming sick.” By adding the verb “gorge” at Proverbs 23:20, the reader gets the impression that the disfellowshipping offense “gluttony” has a clear biblical basis.

The second reason is that the GB argues that a glutton is greedy, and greediness can be associated with the verb “gorge,” as Merriam-Webster shows. But both reasons are wrong and misleading because there is absolutely no linguistic reason to translate zōlēl with “gorge oneself” or “a glutton”!

But if what I say is correct, why do we find “gorge” in the Hebrew-English lexicon of Kohlenberger and Mounce? The definition given in this lexicon is “to profligate, be a glutton, to gorge oneself.” We must remember that lexicons do not list the lexical meaning of Hebrew words. They usually list glosses showing the most common ways of rendering a Hebrew word into English. The lexical meaning of a Classical Hebrew word is found in the minds of native Hebrew speakers, and all of these are long dead.

The only way to come close to the lexical meaning of a word is to look at how it is used in different contexts within the Hebrew text itself. Apart from the Hebrew Bible, there are a few old Hebrew inscriptions from BCE, but the root word zll does not occur in any of these. This means that the only contexts where the meaning of zll can be found are the eight occurrences of the word in the Hebrew Bible. In six of these, the meaning is clearly not “glutton” or “gorge oneself,” and in the last two contexts, the meaning of the participle of zll is uncertain. But it is impossible to construe the meanings “glutton” and “gorge oneself” from these two contexts. So, Kohlenberger and Mounce have made a guess in connection with the meaning of the participle of zll based solely on its parallel juxtaposition to the reference “heavy drinker,” and not on any linguistic basis. We should also note that the Koehler and Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament does not include “glutton” or “gorge himself” in its definitions of zālal, which is a reminder that no lexicon is the final authority on the lexical meaning of a Biblical word.

On the basis of the use of the word zōlēl in the Hebrew Bible, I would translate Proverbs 23:20, 21 literally in the following way:

²⁰  Do not be among the heavy drinkers of wine, or the feasters (zōlēl) on meat. ²¹ For a heavy drinker and a feaster (zōlēl) will be coming to poverty, And drowsiness will be clothing one with rags.

[1]. A language changes through time, and word meanings may change through time as well. After a word has been used by many generations it can get a meaning that is very far from its root meaning. In order to argue in favor of such a new meaning, the contexts of the word must be used. But such a new meaning cannot be found in the contexts of zōlel.

[2]. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/glutton.

[3]. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drunkard.

[4]. The substantive  “distention” means “the act of swelling and becoming large from inside; or the result of this.”

[5].  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gorge.

THE WORD “GLUTTON” AND THE CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES

Because the law of Moses is no longer valid, we would expect that all offenses serious enough to warrant disfellowshipping would be described and fully accounted for in the Christian Greek Scriptures. But this is not the case as far as gluttony is concerned.

A word that can be translated by “glutton” occurs only one time

The only place where the word “glutton” actually occurs in the NWT13 is Matthew 11:19:

¹⁹ The Son of man did come eating and drinking,  but people say, ‘Look! A man who is a glutton and is given to drinking wine, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ All the same, wisdom is proved righteous by its works.”

The meaning of the Greek word fagos is “glutton” according to The Greek-English Lexicon of Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich. Nevertheless, in my view, the modern word “glutton” has baggage associated with its meaning that the Greek word does not have. I would therefore use “heavy eater” or the English idiom “big eater” instead of “glutton.” But even if we were to use “glutton,” the situation described in the verse has nothing to do with a disfellowshipping offense.

The NW13 also has a verse with the word “overeating” in Luke 21:34:

³⁴  “But pay attention to yourselves that your hearts never become weighed down with overeating and heavy drinking and anxieties of life, and suddenly that day be instantly upon you.

The Greek word is kraipalē, and according to Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich its meaning is “carousing, intoxication, and its result drunken headache, hangover, since it means dizziness, staggering.” The word has nothing to do with eating, and the translation of it as “overeating” is misleading. Interestingly, the rendering ‘feasting’ or “partying” would also have been a better translation in this verse than “overeating,” as the focus of the verse is not on eating, but on the irreverent, carefree, and cavalier outlook of those who live this way.

In order to make certain that there is only one example in the Christian Greek Scriptures where overeating is mentioned and that this example has nothing to do with disfellowshipping, please read the entry of “Glutton” in Insight on the Scriptures.

The conclusion regarding The Christian Greek Scriptures is that there is only one Greek word that can be translated as “glutton.” And this shows that gluttony as a disfellowshipping offense is nonexistent in the Christian Greek Scriptures.

The fanciful explanation of The Watchtower

With heavy eating being mentioned only one time in the Christian Greek Scriptures, how does the GB justify making “gluttony” a disfellowshipping offense? The Shepherd book has a short explanation and refers to an article in The Watchtower of 1 November 2004, page 31. This explanation is so weird that it is simply unbelievable! The whole article is quoted above but here a quote of a portion of it:

What, though, constitutes a glutton, and what do the Christian Greek Scriptures say about this topic? A glutton is defined as “one given habitually to greedy and voracious eating and drinking.” Thus, for one thing, gluttony is a form of greed, and God’s Word tells us that “greedy persons” are the sort of people who will not inherit God’s Kingdom. (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; Philippians 3:18, 19; 1 Peter 4:3) In addition, when the apostle Paul warned Christians against practicing “the works of the flesh,” he mentioned “drunken bouts, revelries, and things like these.” (Galatians 5:19-21) Overeating often accompanies drunken bouts and revelries. Moreover, gluttony certainly is included in Paul’s expression “and things like these.” As with the other “works of the flesh,” a Christian who is widely known for his gluttony and who stubbornly refuses to change his greedy behavior ought to be removed from the congregation.​—1 Corinthians 5:11, 13.

The first argument is that gluttony is a form of greed, and greed is a disfellowshipping offense. Therefore, gluttony is a disfellowshipping offense as well. This is a stupid argument for three reasons.

First, if a person is overeating, the reason may be an eating disorder based on a disease in the brain, as I show below, and so it is not necessarily “a form of greed.”

Second, The modern definition of greed is as follows: “a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (such as money) than is needed.”[1] This definition is so broad and open-ended that it can be applied to a number of different situations. But neither the GB nor the elders will acknowledge these other possible expressions of greed because that would make all such situations also disfellowshipping offenses. So why should overeating, out of all the other possible expressions of greed, be a disfellowshipping offense?

Below is a list from one source of situations that can be expressions of greed:

Some examples of greed that don’t include money are:

• A person who takes all of the cookies in the house for himself, not sharing even though he knows others will want some.
• A person at work who takes credit for the hard work of others and who takes a larger share of the bonus money or prize for sales, even if he didn’t actually do anything to earn it.
• An employee who takes lavish vacations at the expense of his employer by claiming that the vacations are business trips, even when they really aren’t.
• A person who signs up for government benefits like food stamps that he doesn’t deserve and didn’t earn and who then sells the food stamps on eBay to get cash.
• A person who steals the Christmas decorations that his neighbor put out because he wants them but doesn’t want to buy them for himself.
• A person who takes computers and supplies home from work because he wants to have them for himself, even though he isn’t supposed to and his behavior means that others cannot use the computer or supplies.
• A person who sees a starving person and takes the bread right out of that person’s hands to eat for himself, even if he has enough money to buy his own food.
• A person who refuses to pay his income taxes that he is required by law to pay because he wants to keep more of the money he earned for himself, despite the cost to society as a whole.[2]

Third, Among the disfellowshipping offenses mentioned in 1 Corinthians chapters, 5 and 6 is pleonektēs, which NWT13 translates as “greedy person.” In my article “Greed” in the category “The eleven disfellowshipping offenses” I show that the word pleonektēs does not refer to an emotion or inclination, to a state of mind. But it refers to “exploiting or cheating others for the purpose of unjust gain.” Thus, the word pleonektēs should be translated as “exploiter” and not as “greedy person.”  So it is absolutely clear that “greed” or “being greedy” are not disfellowshipping offenses.  Therefore, to claim that overeating (“gluttony”) is a disfellowshipping offense because it is an expression of another manmade disfellowshipping offense, greed, simply makes no sense.

The second senseless argument in The Watchtower article relates to the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:19-21. After Paul mentioned the works of the flesh, he says “and things like these.” The article’s argument is: “gluttony certainly is included in Paul’s expression ‘and things like these’.” This is a strong assertion, and yet completely devoid of any evidence. Nevertheless, this conjecture is then used, as a foundational argument, to show that gluttony is a disfellowshipping offense.

Neither the Hebrew Scriptures nor the Christian Scriptures say anything about gluttons or gluttony. Therefore, gluttony simply cannot be a disfellowshipping offense.

[1]. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/greed.

[2]. https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-greed.html.

EATING DISORDERS AND GLUTTONY

The article in The Watchtower of 1 November 2004, page 31 says:

As with the other “works of the flesh,” a Christian who is widely known for his gluttony and who stubbornly refuses to change his greedy behavior ought to be removed from the congregation.​—1 Corinthians 5:11, 13.

The GB believes that the works of the flesh are disfellowshipping offenses, as the beginning of the quotation shows. This is clearly wrong because it is obvious that, for example, “hostility, strife, jealousy” are not disfellowshipping offenses.[1] The article from The Watchtower also says:

Although God’s Word places a drunkard on the same level as a glutton, the former is much easier to identify than the latter. The signs of drunkenness are usually quite visible. However, determining the point at which an individual becomes a confirmed glutton is much harder because it cannot be determined simply by outward appearance. Therefore, handling situations in this area of concern requires great care and discernment on the part of the elders in the congregation.

These comments are true because it is very difficult to say that a person is a glutton on the basis of his or her eating habits. However, even if a Witness takes overeating to an extreme, there remains the problem of knowing the true cause for his “overeating”. And there are several eating disorders that must be taken into consideration. But because the elders are not doctors, it is next to impossible for them to distinguish between lack of self-control and an eating disorder. Below I quote an article discussing different eating disorders.

What Are Eating Disorders?

Eating disorders are behavioral conditions characterized by severe and persistent disturbance in eating behaviors and associated distressing thoughts and emotions. They can be very serious conditions affecting physical, psychological and social function. Types of eating disorders include anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorder, avoidant restrictive food intake disorder, other specified feeding and eating disorder, pica and rumination disorder.

Taken together, eating disorders affect up to 5% of the population, most often develop in adolescence and young adulthood. Several, especially anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa are more common in women, but they can all occur at any age and affect any gender. Eating disorders are often associated with preoccupations with food, weight or shape or with anxiety about eating or the consequences of eating certain foods. Behaviors associated with eating disorders including restrictive eating or avoidance of certain foods, binge eating, purging by vomiting or laxative misuse or compulsive exercise. These behaviors can become driven in ways that appear similar to an addiction.

Eating disorders affect several million people at any given time, most often women between the ages of 12 and 35. There are three main types of eating disorders: anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder.

Eating disorders often co-occur with other psychiatric disorders most commonly mood and anxiety disorders, obsessive compulsive disorder and alcohol and drug abuse problems. Evidence suggests that genes and heritability play a part in why some people are at higher risk for an eating disorder, but these disorders can also afflict those with no family history of the condition. Treatment should address psychological, behavioral, nutritional and other medical complications. The latter can include consequences of malnutrition or of purging behaviors including, heart and gastrointestinal problems as well as other potentially fatal conditions. Ambivalence towards treatment, denial of a problem with eating and weight, or anxiety about changing eating patterns is not uncommon. With proper medical care however, those with eating disorders can resume healthy eating habits, and recover their emotional and psychological health.

Types of Eating Disorders

Anorexia Nervosa

Bulimia Nervosa

Binge Eating Disorder

Other Specified Feeding and Eating Disorder

Avoidant Restrictive Food Intake Disorder

Pica

Rumination Disorder[2]

In the discussion above, several important points have been illuminated. We have seen that the disfellowshipping offense “gluttony” is invented and introduced by the members of the GB. Neither the Hebrew Scriptures nor the Christian Greek Scriptures say anything about gluttony. On this fact alone, gluttony cannot possibly be a disfellowshipping offense if we only rely on the Bible.

It is very difficult to know that the eating habits of a member of the congregation is an expression of gluttony. And even if the elders decide that this is the case, because the person is used to overeating, there may be a medical cause for this. Thus, the invention and introduction of gluttony as a disfellowshipping offense by the GB is a grave error, an injustice, and has no support in the text of the Bible.

[1]. For a detailed discussion showing that the works of the flesh are not disfellowshipping offenses, see my book, My Beloved Religion — And the Governing Body pages 180-185.

[2]. https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/eating-disorders/what-are-eating-disorders.

CONCLUSION

Gluttony is the most moronic disfellowshipping offense of the 34 that has been invented and introduced by the GB.

This is because the word “glutton” occurs only one time in the Christian Greek Scriptures, and in an accusation against Jesus himself. On this basis alone, “gluttony” cannot possibly be a disfellowshipping offense. And the Hebrew word that three times are translated as “glutton” and one time as “gorge oneself” in NWT13 does not have these meanings or connotations. So, the word “glutton” does not occur in the Hebrew Scriptures at all. This means that “gluttony” as a sin is nonexistent in the Bible.

The argument that gluttony is greed, and greed is a disfellowshipping offense, and therefore gluttony is a disfellowshipping offense is completely nonsensical. A disfellowshipping offense must directly be said to be that. It is not possible to take shortcuts; saying that one action is similar to a disfellowshipping offense, and therefore this action must also be a disfellowshipping offense. Moreover, greed is not a disfellowshipping offense, and so the entire premise of this convoluted line of reasoning collapses like a house of cards.

Another nonsensical argument is that the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21) are disfellowshipping offenses, and the GB has guessed that “gluttony” is included in the words “and things like these” in verse 21, and therefore, based on this guesswork, “gluttony” is conclusively declared to be a disfellowshipping offense.

Gluttony is mentioned only one time in the Bible, and it is never described as an offense, let alone a disfellowshipping one.