What Does The Scripture Say About The Use of Alcohol?

And in Matt 11:19 Jesus Christ Himself stated that He did NOT abstain. That unravels the "special dedication" tapestry. John The Baptist was holier than Jesus?

The underlined portions constitute bearing false witness, in my opinion. The accusation of evil motives is clear: anyone who disagrees with you on this is intentionally searching scripture for a loophole to justify something they know is wrong. I suspect you know that is false.

__________

If drinking is silly, stupid, and unwise, what does that say about a God that specifically authorized the use wine and strong drink in Deuteronomy 14:26? Or a Messiah who publicly admitted that he drank?

I bolded your statement above for emphasis. Is that how theologians reconcile scripture? They throw out what they don't like.

I see that drunkenness is forbidden. I do not see that moderation is acceptable. What is moderation in drinking? Who decides the moderation? I do not see how one gets drunk unless one drinks. My argument is only for faithfulness to the authority of the scriptures. BTW, I do know that Jesus drank wine. What that wine was -- I will ask Him one day. But "until then," I will teach abstinence. I do not need to justify "a glass of wine" after my dinner meal. I might drink coffee. But there are no "Mothers Against Coffee Drinkers" Groups out there.

Aaron, thanks for your comments. They are well put and are well received. I see the conclusion that Randy draws in his book. I still like what Dr. Bob Jones, Sr. said.

Respectfully,

Lydia

Lydia, I am sure someone can explain it better than I, but what Dennis was saying is if you just take the more conservative approach, that is when other parts of scripture get thrown out.
I am not just talking about drinking. There have been many theologies through the centuries that have been wrong and even heretical for this reason. Take for example the Hypostatic Union. There is a 'contradiction' in scripture, some passages say Jesus was Divine, while others say He was human. So in seeking to reconcile scripture, they have either thrown out His divinity or thrown out His humanity, both of which are incorrect. In this case, the correct way to reconcile is to say He is both divine(100%) and human(100%).

And don't take this as arguing for or against consumption, I am just seeking to help explain what Dennis meant.

The Wrath of Grapes (my Hebrew and Greek fonts do not work here)
by
Pastor Mike Harding
Introduction:
Surveys show that a staggering 64 percent of Protestant lay persons socially drink alcoholic beverages. Nationally, about 60 percent of the USA population drinks alcohol recreationally (July 2007 Gallup Poll of 18 year-old and above protestant laity in the USA). Methodists were some of the first proponents of complete abstinence in the mid-1700’s. Southern Baptists have had a record of abstinence dating back to pro-abstinence resolutions as early as 1896 and as recent as 2006 (Richard Land and Barrett Duke, “The Christian and Alcohol,” Criswell Theological Review [Spring 2008, 19-38], p. 20). Why the sudden change? Broader social acceptance of drinking, a lack of preaching and teaching on the subject, the secularization of the church, and an increase independence among adult church members have all contributed to the toleration of the social use of alcohol consumption among Protestant church members. The societal cost of drinking has risen to $184 billion per year and is a factor in as many as 105,000 deaths annually in the USA (Land, p. 21). In a recent USA Today/HBO poll, 20 percent of Americans said that they “had an immediate relative who at some point had been addicted to alcohol or drugs” (Rita Rubin, “In Tim Ryan’s Family, He is the Addict,” USA Today, July 20, 2006). According to the same source, each addict negatively affects at least four to five people on a regular basis. Alcohol is commonly referred in the drug trafficking community as the “gateway drug.”
Understanding the Key Words
Key Hebrew Words
!yIy” (y¹yin) wine.
The word is used 140 times, 12 of these in combination with sh¢k¹r (KJV “wine and strong drink”; NIV sometimes “wine and beer”). Its intoxicating properties are mentioned at least twenty times. It is mentioned as a common drink, an element in banquets and as the material used in libation offerings. These are called “drink offerings” in KJV, NASB, NIV, etc., but they were not drunk. The related Hebrew verb (n¹sak) means “to pour out.” These offerings were poured out on the sacrifices upon the brazen altar (Exo 29:40 and Exo 30:9), but in sarcasm the heathen gods are spoken of as eating the food and drinking the drink offerings given them (Deut 32:38).
Abundance of wine, however, is taken as a symbol of affluence (Gen 49:11-12; 1Chr 12:40; Ezek 27:18). There are places that speak of the lift to the feelings that wine brings (Zech 10:7; 2Sam 13:28; Est 1:10; Ps 104:15; Eccl 9:7-10; Eccl 10:19; Isa 55:1). It may be questioned whether in these verses that wine is commended because of this lift or if the verses use the freedom from inhibition as a symbol of plenty and blessing–cf. Nathan’s reference to David’s polygamy as a symbol of God’s giving him great riches (2 Sam 12:8). Wine is also used in symbolic ways of the Lord’s wrath (Jer 25:15; etc.) of Babylon’s judgment (Jer 51:7) of violence (Prov 4:17) and of desire (Song 1:2; Song 4:10).
All the wine was light wine, i.e. not fortified with extra alcohol. Concentrated alcohol was only known in the Middle Ages when the Arabs invented distillation (“alcohol” is an Arabic word) so what is now called liquor or strong drink (i.e. whiskey, gin, etc.) and the twenty percent fortified wines were unknown in biblical times. The strength of natural wines is limited by two factors. The percentage of alcohol will be half of the percentage of the sugar in the juice. And if the alcoholic content is much above 10 percent, the yeast cells are killed and fermentation ceases. Probably ancient wines were 7-10 percent alcohol. Drunkenness, therefore, was of course an ancient curse, but alcoholism was not as common or as severe as it is today. And in an agricultural age, its effects were less deadly than now. Still, even then it had its dangers and Proverbs 20:1 and Proverbs 23:29-35 are emphatic in their warnings. To avoid the sin of drunkenness, mingling of wine with water was practiced. This dilution was specified by the Rabbis, for the wine then was customary at Passover. The original Passover did not include wine (Deut 20:6) (W. Dommershausen, “Yayin,” TDOT, vol. 6, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990], pp. 64-65).

rk;v’ (sh¹kar) to become drunk
The term means to become drunk, drunken, or be full (BDB, p. 1016). The verb is used nineteen times in the OT, twelve of which are in the prophetic books. In the Qal stem (ten times) the verb is intransitive, “be drunk.” In the Piel and Hiphil stems (four times each) it is transitive, “make drunk.”
With very few exceptions sh¹kar and its derivatives are used in a highly unfavorable and negative context. But the few passages where the root is used in an acceptable sense should be observed. First, “strong drink” was to be used in the drink offering (Num 28:7) which of course was not drunk, but poured out as a libation. Second, the annual tithe to be paid to the Lord, the owner of the soil, might involve strong drink (Deut 14:26). Third, sh¢k¹r could be used as a medicinal stimulant–Prov 31:6, “Give strong drink unto him that is about to perish” (and cf. Mt 27:34; Mk 15:23 at the cross). Thus, of the nearly sixty uses of the root sh¹kar, only a few refer to something good and acceptable.
Several instances of intoxication, caused by sh¢k¹r, are noted in Scripture: (1) Gen 9:20-27, Noah; (2) 1Sam 25:36, Nabal; (3) 2Sam :28-29, Amnon; (4) 1Kings 16:9, Elah; (5) 1Kings 20:16, Ben-hadad 1. Of special interest are those passages which indicate that God sends drunkenness upon people. Jeremiah 13:13 says, “I am going to fill with drunkenness (kings, prophets, and priests), ” or Isaiah 63:6, “I will make them drunk in my fury.” The idea is that drunkenness indicates helplessness. Thus, God says to his people (Isa 49:26), “I will make your oppressors eat their flesh and they shall be drunk with their own blood.” Here, “to be drunk” means “to be helpless, ” “I will reduce your oppressors to a state of total helplessness” (cf. Jer 25:27; Jer 51:39, 57) (TWOT, vol 2, pp. 926-27).

rk’ve (sh¢k¹r) strong drink.
This term means intoxicating drink, strong drink, or beer and is usually condemned (Isa 5:22; 28:7; 28:7; 28:7 56:12; Mi 2:11, Pr 20:1; BDB, p. 1016). Most likely it does not mean “liquor” for there is no evidence of distilled liquor in ancient times. It denotes not just barley beer but any alcoholic beverage prepared from either grain or fruit. In all but two of its twenty-three uses in the OT (Num 28:7; Psa 69:12) it appears in connection with yayin “wine,” usually following it, once preceding it (Prov 31:6) (TWOT, vol 2, pp. 926-27).
Other Hebrew terms for wine are tirosh (new wine), ‘asis (sweet wine), mimsak/mezeg (mixed wine with herbs), and shemer (aged wine) (A. R. S. Kennedy, “Wine and Strong Drink,” Dictionary of the Bible, rev. ed. [New York: Scribner’s, 1963] pp. 1038-39).

Key Greek Words
The key NT words for wine and strong drink are oinos, gleukos, and sikera. Sikera (strong drink) is used only once in the NT (Luke 1:15) for a grain-based alcohol or intoxicating beverage made from other sources of fruit. Oinos is used more than thirty times in the NT and usually refers to fermented drink. Gleukos (new wine or sweet wine) represented wine that was not fully aged or wine that had a higher sugar content (Wayne House, “Wine” in Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. 1 [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988]). Professor A. C. Schultz points out that “Usually the new wine was left in the vat to undergo the first fermentation which took four to seven days. It was then drawn off… . The whole period of fermentation would last from two to four months when the wine would be ready for use (“Wine and Strong Drink,” in Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, 5:938).
In general, the OT and NT terms for wine referred to the fruit of the vine usually in some stage of fermentation. Exceptions could be “sweet new wine,” fresh wine from the harvest (Isa 16:10; John 2), and diluted wine. This conclusion is based on the following arguments:

1. Lexical Consensus. The leading Old and New Testament lexicons and etymological dictionaries affirm that the major terms used of wine represent beverage at various stages of fermentation. The most important terms for the debate that are employed in Scripture are yayin and shekar (Hebrew), oinos and gleukos (Greek) [Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), pp. 406, 1016. Benjamin Davidson, The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), pp. 303, 716. BDAG, pp. 201, 701. Joseph H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 564. See “wine” in The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), 2.3788. See also usage in etymological dictionaries by John M’Clintock and James Srong, Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, (Grand Rapids: Baker, rep. 1969 [1887]). Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, (New York: Elsevier, 1966). Robert K. Barnhart, The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology, (Bronx, NY: H. W. Wilson, 1988)].
2. Translation Consensus. The major English translations of Scripture translate these words by the English equivalent of “wine.” However, it is important to note that Jesus refers to the beverage in the Lord’s Supper as the “fruit of the vine” (Matt 26:26-29; Mark 14:22ff; Luke 22:17ff) and Paul references it as the “cup” (1 Cor 10:16-21; 11:23-28). In time, Biblical principles gradually undermined the consumption of alcohol in much the same way they undermined the practice of slavery. We must remember that the concept of pasteurized grape juice produced centuries later by Thomas Welch was a foreign concept in biblical times. [Authorized Version (King James); New American Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version; New English Bible; New International Version, English Standard Version]

3. Lexical Relationship. One of the major words in our discussion is shekar (“strong drink,” NASB). It is the noun form of the verb shakar which usually means to “become drunk.” This is evidence of the inebriating capacity of shekar indicating a commonly undiluted form of alcoholic drink made from dates, apples, pomegranates, honey, barley, rice, and sometimes grapes. “Strong” has reference not only to the alcoholic content, but also to the taste. Prior to and during NT times the Jews differentiated between wine and strong drink as diluted and undiluted.

4. Contextual Usage. Many of the verses that condemn drunkenness make reference to such beverages as yayin, shekar, and oinos (Judges 9:13; 2 Sam. 13:28; Est. 1:10; Ps. 104:14-15; Eccl. 9:7; 10:19; Zech. 9:15; 10:7).
6. Circumspection Requirement. “Strong” Christians are instructed to forgo the use of wine (Rom. 14:21), when there is a likelihood of “destroying” (Rom 14:15) a “weaker brother” (Rom. 14:1; 15:1). The issue here according to Douglas Moo in his commentary on Romans has more to do with the fact that the wine may have been offered in the precinct temples to idols.

7. Ecclesiastical Requirement. Church officers are required to not linger beside wine, positively to mix it with water for digestive purposes, and not use too much wine when doing so (I Tim. 3:8; Tit. 1:7; cf. 2:3). [Kenneth Gentry, pastor of Reedy Presbyterian Church, Mauldin, South Carolina, and author of numerous published essays and books, including The Christian and Alcoholic Beverages (Baker, 1986) currently under the title, God Gave Wine, makes a convincing case that wine in the OT and NT is usually fermented. The possible exceptions are dilution or freshness.]

Why Believers Today Should Abstain From Alcohol as a Beverage
1. Wine in the NT era and wine today are not identical.

Yayin and Oinos usually refer to wine in some state of fermentation beginning with fresh, sweet juice available immediately after grape harvest (Isa 16:10; Jer 48:33) that quickly starts the fermentation process in the absence of refrigeration or pressurized bottling. Fermentation is a natural process that takes place when the grape juice comes into contact with the yeast released from broken grape skins during the treading of grapes.

“New wine” in Hebrew and Greek respectively (tirosh / gleukos) may refer to the juice of the grape that was fresh or in the first year of fermentation. Mixed Wine in the OT was wine flavored with herbs and quite intoxicating (Prov 23:30). Undiluted wine in the NT era was approximately 7%-10% alcohol and usually not taken as a beverage without proper dilution. On account of extra yeast and controlled heating conditions, some standard table wines today by comparison are as much as 14% alcohol.
Fermented wine in the Greek and NT eras was regularly diluted with water (“Wine Drinking in New Testament Times” by Robert H. Stein, Christianity Today, June 20, 1975, pp. 9-11). The Talmud (200 B.C—200 A.D.) records the Jewish practice of regularly reducing the effects of wine by a 3/1 or 2/1 ratio of water to wine. In the rabbinic period “Yayin is to be distinguished from Shekar [strong drink]: the former is diluted with water; the latter is undiluted” (Jewish Encyclopedia, 1901, vol. 12, p. 533). The Jewish Mishnah said, “They do not say the Benediction over the wine until water has been added to it” (The Mishnah, Berakhot 7.5 ed, by Herbert Danby [Oxford Press, 1893]). The normal mixture for the Jews was three parts water to one part wine (Shabbath 77a). In the Passover ritual during NT times the four cups every Jew was to drink during the ceremony had to be mixed three parts water to one part wine (Pesahim 108b). This practice is reflected as common during the inter-testament period in 2 Maccabees 15:39: “It is harmful to drink wine alone, or again to drink water alone [bacteria issues], while wine mixed with water is sweet and delicious and enhances one’s enjoyment” (See “Wine” in The New Encyclopedia of Judaism, ed. Geoffrey Wigoder [New York: New York University Press, 2002], pp. 798ff).
This dilution process reduced the alcoholic content of the wine down to approximately 2.25–2.75%. In contrast to the ancient world, the modern world does not dilute the effects of alcohol. Beer is 3.5% to 4.5% and typically served in 12-16 ounce containers; table wines are as much as 14%; fortified wines are 18-24%; hard liquor is 40% (80 proof).
A diluted wine would reduce the risks of drunkenness from that of an undiluted wine. Peter argued that the Christians at Pentecost were not drunk since it was only the third hour (9:00 AM). Normally, one had to linger with the wine or be “beside wine” (1 Timothy 3:3) in order to be intoxicated.
“In NT times the practice of dilution seems to have been usual” (A. R. S. Kennedy, “Wine and Strong Drink,” Dictionary of the Bible, rev. ed. [New York: Scribner’s, 1963] pp. 1038-39).

“The wine of classical antiquity was very different from modern wine. They … always diluted it with water before consumption … . Only barbarians drank undiluted wine” (Maynard A. Amerine, Collier’s Encyclopedia, 1994, vol. 23, p. 518).

“In all these countries [Syria, Palestine, Egypt], wine was always diluted with water, a long-standing custom in Mediterranean regions, where pure potable water is not very common” (R. J .Forbes, Professor of the History of Pure and Applied Sciences in Antiquity, University of Amsterdam, in Encyclopedia American, 1989, 29:44-45).
“At a latter period, however, the Greek use of diluted wines had attained such sway that the writer of 2 Maccabees speaks (15:39) of undiluted wine as ‘distasteful.’ This dilution is so normal in the following centuries that the Mishcan take it for granted and, indeed, Rabbi Eliezer even forbade saying the table-blessing over undiluted wine. The proportion of water was large, only one-third or one-fourth of the total mixture being wine. Note— The wine of the Last Supper, accordingly, may be described in modern terms as a sweet, red, fermented wine, rather highly diluted [emphasis mine]” (Burton S. Easton, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1984, vol. 5, p. 3087). The reference in Isaiah 1:22 to diluted wine as bad should not be taken as a proof that Jews did not dilute wine, but as a metaphor of spiritual adulteration (cf. Isa 1:21).

“The use of wine at the paschal feast … had become an established custom at all events in the post-Babylonian period. The wine was mixed with warm water on these occasions … . Hence in the early Christian Church it was usual to mix the sacramental wine with water” (Merrill Unger, “Wine,” Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed., [Chicago: Moody Press, 1981], p. 1169).

“He, too, will drink of the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength [“akratou” from “akratos” meaning “undiluted”] into the cup of his wrath” (Rev 14:10a)

The Greeks practiced dilution and it eventually spread throughout the Roman world including Palestine. Pliney’s work entitled “Natural History” mentions an 8 to 1 ratio of water to wine. Other Classical Greek writers mention similar ratios: Hesiod—3 to 1, Alexis—4 to 1, Diocles — 2 to 1. Mnesitheus of Athens said: “The gods have revealed wine to mortals, to be the greatest blessing for those who use it aright, but for those who use it without measure, the reverse. For it gives food to them that take it and strength in mind and body. In medicine it is most beneficial … . In daily intercourse, to those who mix and drink it moderately, it gives good cheer; but if you overstep the bounds, it brings violence. Mix it half and half and you get madness; unmixed, bodily collapse” (Stein, “Wine Drinking,” p. 9).
According to Stein, dilution was practiced in the early centuries of the church. Justin Martyr (150 A.D.) described the Lord’s Supper as “Bread is brought, wine and water, and the elder sends up prayers and thanksgiving” (Apology, I, 67, 5). Cyprian (250 A.D.) said, “Thus, therefore, in considering the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered. For if anyone offers wine only, the blood of Christ is dissociated from us; but if the water be alone, the people are dissociated from Christ… . Thus the cup of the Lord is not indeed water alone nor wine alone, unless each be mingled with the other” (Epistle, LXII, 2, 11 and 13). Clement of Alexandria (late 2nd century) said, “It is best for the wine to be mixed with as much water as possible… . For both are works of God and the mixing of the two, both of water and wine produce health… . To the necessary element, the water, which is in the greatest quantity, there is to be mixed in some of the useful element” (Instructor, in James Donaldson, ed., Ante-Nicence Fathers [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans] vol. 2, 2.2).It appears that Paul sets the standard for the early church in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3 of “not beside wine,” not “much wine,” and not drinking water exclusively but using a little wine for one’s stomach. “Strong drink” (sikera) seems to be completely off limits in the NT; it is only mentioned once in the NT in reference to the abstention of John the Baptist. John was a Nazirite, a term which comes from a Hebrew verb which means to “separate” or “abstain.” Amos chastised Israel for their treatment of the Nazirites in forcing them to drink wine (Amos 2:12). On the other hand, God commended the Rechabites for their abstinence and held this tribe in high regard for their faithfulness (Jer 35:1-19) (See John MacArthur’s excellent treatment of wine and strong drink in his NT Ephesians commentary [5:18a], pp. 229-244).

2. The use of diluted wine is no longer necessary today in modern society.

In the NT era there was little else to drink. It would have been quite difficult not to drink wine in those times and under those conditions. The alcohol content made wine one of the safest liquids to drink, because the water supplies were often contaminated. Alcohol had a medicinal effect in that case. With modern purification of water and a host of alternatives that are completely safe, it is not necessary today to drink diluted wine for one’s health. The American Heart Association does not normally recommend alcoholic beverages as a treatment for heart conditions. Whatever minimal health benefits are offered by a moderate drinking of wine can be obtained by the use of pasteurized grape juice.

3. Drunkenness is clearly forbidden as it has the potential to replace the influence of the Spirit in a believer’s life (Eph 5:18-20).

Christians are not to associate with so-called Christians who get drunk (1 Cor 5:11). Drunkards will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9ff; Gal 5:19ff). Many NT passages call Christians to sobriety (napho; 1 Thess 5:1-11; 2 Tim 4:5; 1 Pet 1:13, 4:7, 5:8) and temperance (naphalios; 1 Tim 3:2, 11; Titus 2:2; Otto Bauernfeind, TDNT, [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964] 5:165], argues that both these terms include a literal as well as a figurative sobriety).

4. In the NT era Christians used diluted wine.

1 Timothy 5:22-23 says, “Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses” (NIV; cf. Luke 10:33ff). Timothy was avoiding the use of diluted wine perhaps out of motivation to be pure (1 Tim 5:22a). It is clear here that diluted wine had a necessary medicinal value to Timothy for his digestive system. God’s people could use it as such. In vs. 22 hudropoteo means “to drink water without wine mixed in” (Gordon Fee, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, p. 92). Paul commands Timothy to drink diluted wine as a medical necessity and to stop drinking plain water. For this reason pastors and deacons were not to be “beside wine” or partakers of “much wine.” These men could drink diluted wine as long as it did not impair their judgment.

Excursus on 1 Timothy 3:3
KJV “not given to wine”; NIV “not given to drunkenness”; NASB “not addicted to wine”;
NKJV “not given to wine”; ESV “not a drunkard”; HCSB “not addicted to wine”

Definitions of Paroinos
BDAG – “drunken, addicted to wines”
Thayers– “given to wine, drunken”;
Strongs– “From G3844 and G3631; staying near wine, that is, tippling (a toper): given to wine.”

However, Greek word study scholars give references to ancient documents on this word that may indicate a metaphorical meaning.

Vincent’s Word Studies: “Only here and Titus1:7. The verb means to behave ill at wine, to treat with drunken violence, is found in Xenophon, Aeschines, Aristophanes, and Aristotle. Once in LXX, Isaiah 41:12. Rev. renders brawler, which is not definite enough. Better, quarrelsome over wine.”

Wuest in his Word Studies in the Greek New Testament has some interesting comments. For our purposes here, he references Expositors as saying, “The word means ‘violent temper,’ not specially excited by over-indulgence in strong drink.”

Jamieson Fawcett Brown: “1Timothy 3:3 - Not given to wine—The Greek includes besides this, not indulging in the brawling, violent conduct towards others, which proceeds from being given to wine.”

Exegetical thoughts
The definitions of paroinos offer a few exegetical possibilities:
This word may tell us that a man is not qualified for the office of a overseer if he is beside wine (This of course is the simplest rendering of the word.).
This word may also tell us that a man is not qualified for the office of a overseer if he spends time beside wine (regularly drinking alcohol as a beverage).
This word may also tell us that a man is not qualified for the office of a overseer if he exhibits the behavior of those that spend time beside wine (violence and brawling). The leadership of the OT (kings – Proverbs 31:4, and priests– Leviticus 10:9) were supposed to abstain while performing the duties of their office

Application thoughts It is clear that leadership of God’s people ought to be extremely careful as to what they consume so that they are not impaired from doing their office.

It is strongly encouraged that any man who is to be qualified for ministry be able to demonstrate that he is not one that is “given to wine.” One very good way to do this is to have a commitment to abstain from all alcoholic beverages which is easily accomplished in our modern world.

5. Christians should act responsibly concerning their personal testimony and influence.

a. Alcoholic beverages today are much stronger than those of the biblical era and thereby much more likely to produce impairment of judgment and drunkenness. Today, 5 ounces of wine equals 12 ounces of beer which equals 1.5 ounces of whiskey, approximately three times the alcohol contained in an 8-ounce cup of diluted wine in NT times.

b. Alcoholic beverages today provide no spiritual benefit but have the realistic potential for harm. Paul cites the Corinthian motto, “Everything is permissible,” and then counters, “but all things are not beneficial” (1 Cor 10:23-24). Paul is condemning libertarianism and advocating that we do that which is spiritually beneficial, constructive, and good. As a matter of Christian witness we should not do anything that could seriously jeopardize our witness to others. Many lost people expect that Christians should not drink. Others who have been victimized by alcohol-related crimes are extremely sensitive to this issue. They might conclude that social drinking Christians are callous and out of touch with the real world. Our concept of freedom should not allow us to participate in activity that has been so injurious to millions of people in the world. Also, our own lifestyles will influence others both outside our home and particularly inside our home. Children will likely follow the example of their parents in alcohol related matters. People have to eat, but they do not have to drink in modern society. Social-drinking is purely a choice and not a compulsion. It is a choice that is offensive to some and deadly to many.

c. Alcoholic beverages today could lead to sinful slavery. 1 Corinthians 6:12 says, “but I will not be mastered by anything.” Modern alcoholic beverages are extremely addictive. The easiest way for believers to obey this verse is to abstain unless medical necessity compels it.

d. Alcoholic beverages today will more than likely cause others to spiritually stumble (Phil 2:4; Rom 14:19-21). “It is better not to … drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.”

e. Alcoholic beverages today have greater potential of drunkenness and thus are more closely associated with the unsaved life (1 Cor 6:9ff; Gal 5:19ff). The mind is to be controlled by the Holy Spirit, not alcohol (Eph 5:18).

f. We should appropriately treat the human body as the temple of God (1 Cor 6:19-20). Our bodies our God’s workmanship. Alcohol consumption subjects God’s temple to unnecessary risks which far outweigh the benefits (Centers for Disease Control, http://www.ede.gov/alcohol/faqs.htm). One can receive the benefits of grapes by grape juice today or special vitamins which capture in concentrated form the benefits of large amounts of wine (20/20 ABC News, April 2008, Barbara Walters, “Long Life”).

g. Alcoholic beverages today are easily and regularly abused and lead to other forms of wickedness. “And these also reel with wine and stagger from strong drink … They are confused by wine … They totter when rendering judgment” (Isa 28:7). Alcohol abuse is a causal factor in 70% of drownings/chokings, 50% of “freak accidents,” 27,000 deaths per year via liver disease, 30% of suicides, 20% of airplane crashes, 50% of fire deaths, and alcohol contributes to 500,000 injuries per year. Alcoholics outnumber all other addicts. Approximately 77% of all high schoolers use alcohol and nearly 30% drink heavily. Amazingly, over 40% of 8th graders drink. About one in ten of all drinkers will become alcoholics. In addition, 45% of all homeless people in America are alcoholics (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism).
According to national surveys, alcohol is a contributing factor in 65% of all murders in the USA, 40% of assaults, 35% of rapes, 55% of domestic violence, 60% of child abuse, 60% of traffic fatalities (Scott Williquette, “The Christian and Alcohol,” Sola). Interestingly, during Prohibition (1920-1933) many social ills in America decreased such as cirrhosis (66% drop), disorderly conduct (50% drop), and the rate of increase in homicide was actually higher before Prohibition than during it (US Government “Wickersham Commision Report” at www.druglibrary.org.). In addition to all of this, regular consumption of alcohol increases one’s chance of heart attacks, cancer, birth defects, insanity, impotence and sterility. In light of the above I don’t believe drinking modern alcoholic beverages as a beverage is an option for Christians except when in circumstances similar to those encountered by NT Christians in the early church era. Even then the same precautions should be taken now as were taken then.

6. Abstention from using alcohol as a beverage is not legalism.

The Apostle Paul refuted legalism when he said, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1; cf. 15:5, 24). He also said, “Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law … ?” (Gal 3:2). Legalism is the belief that one can gain God’s favor by keeping divine or human laws, whether for justification or sanctification–the belief that grace can be merited by good works (see Rom 4:5; Titus 3:5-7). In general God forbids “strong drink,” and modern alcoholic beverages today qualify as strong drink. Applying Scriptural principles to our culture which is significantly different than ancient cultures is not legalistic either. We do so out of our love for God and our fellow man.

Conclusion

Philippians 2:4 tells us, “Do not merely look out for your own interests but also for the interests of others.” 1 Corinthians 10:31 also reminds us, “Whether, therefore, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” There is no glory to God in the willful pursuit of pleasure that has no regard for one’s influence or effect upon others. “Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor” (1 Cor 10:34). How many of you would fly is you knew that there was a 1 in 10 chance the plane would crash? The chances that the moderate drinker will become an alcoholic is 1 in 10; the chance that the moderate drinker will become a problem drinker is 1 in 3 (“A Plea for Total Abstinence,” The Evangelical Beacon, Nov. 13, 1979. p. 2).

Furthermore, if you abstain from alcohol as a social beverage, you can encourage others to forsake illegal stimulants such as marijuana, heroin, or cocaine without fear of inconsistency. Our joy need not come from a alcoholic stimulant. On the contrary, “in Thy presence is fulness of joy; in Thy right hand there are pleasures forever” (Ps 16:11). God wants His children to have peace without unnecessarily risking that we go to pieces. The liberated mind-set of the Corinthians did not help their church, nor will it help ours. Mark Twain once commented regarding gambling that the best toss of the dice was to toss the dice away. Practically speaking, in order to avoid temptation, tossing liquor, strong drink, and modern alcoholic beverages down the drain would only have positive results in the world we live in today.

“Certain neighbors of mine laugh at me for being a teetotaler, and I might well laugh at them for being drunk, only I feel more inclined to cry that they should be such fools” (Charles H. Spurgeon, John Ploughman’s Pictures, p. 42, [Pasadena, Texas: Pilgrim Publications, rep. 1974]; also see C. H. Spurgeon by Arnold Dallimore (Moody Press, 1984), pp. 181-83, which details the turning of young Spurgeon from alcohol to total abstinence).

Scriptural Warnings & Prohibitions for Wine and Strong Drink

1. The first drunkenness and the attendant improper behavior. —Gen. 9:20-26
2. Drinking results in Lot’s debauchery of his own daughters. —Gen. 19:30-38
3. Isaac was drinking when he mistakenly blessed Jacob. —Gen. 27:25
4. An express command for the Levitical priesthood not to drink while performing their service. —Lev. 10:9
5. The vow of the Nazarite. —Num. 6:3
6. Drinking leads to stubbornness, rebellion, and brings dishonor to parents.—Deut. 21:20
7. Abstinence was essential for Israel in the wilderness wanderings. —Deut. 29:2-6
8. Samson’s mother was commanded not to drink.—Judg. 13:4, 7, 14
9. Hannah, an example of motherhood, was a total abstainer. —I Sam. 1:14-15
10. Nabal, died after a drunken spree, after he already lost his wife’s respect.—I Sam. 25:33; 36:38
11. Only by strong drink could David lead Uriah into a fatal trap. —II Sam. 11:13
12. Amon, in a drunken brawl, was murdered by his brother Absalom. —II Sam. 13:28-29
13. While a king was “drinking himself drunk,” one of his captains slew him. 1Kings 16:8-10
14. While Ben Hadad and 32 other Kings were drinking in their pavilions, a small band of Israel’s men fell upon them and put them to flight. —I Kings 20:13-21
15. King Ahasuerus drunkenly tried to subject his queen to the gaze of inebriated
nobles, causing the wreck of home and separation of the husband and wife. Esther 1:5-22
16. Violence results from drinking. —Pr. 4:17
17. No wise men will indulge. —Pr. 20:1
18. Drink leads to poverty. —Pr. 21:17, 23:21
19. The body rebels after drinking. —Pr. 23:7-8
20. Strong drink produces sorrow, contentions, wounds without cause, babblings, redness of eyes. —Pr. 23:29-30
21. Do not be tempted by intoxicants. —Pr. 23:31
22. God’s Word warns that alcohol eventually harms those who drink. —Pr. 23:32
23. It produces a willfulness and prevents reformation. —Pr. 22:23
24. It fills men’s minds with adulterous and impure thoughts. —Pr. 23:33
25. It brings on insecurity. —Pr. 23:34
26. Insensibility follows drinking —Pr. 23:35
27. Habit forming. One drink tends to call for another. —Pr. 23:35
28. Kings and all other rulers or officials with the weight of human lives in their control should not imbibe while in the capacity of service. —Pr. 31:4-5
29. The sanctions for the use of strong drink were as a medicine or anesthetic for the dying. —Pr. 31:6-7
30. Blessings are promised to the temperate nations. —Eccl. 10:17
31. More woes to them who drink. —Isa. 5:22
32. Drinking and carnality go together. Leaves men hopeless. —Isa. 22:13 33. Drink is bitter to them that drink it. —Isa. 24:9
34. Woe to the drunkards of Ephraim. —Isa. 28:1
35. The pride of drunkards will be trodden down. —Isa. 28:3
36. Prophets and priests erred through drink. —Isa. 28:7
37. Those who drink are set aside as useless. —Isa. 28:7
38. Prophets and priests finally swallowed up by drink. —Isa. 28:7
39. Drinking brings on spiritual blindness. —Isa. 28:7
40. Rebuke to drinking watchmen. —Isa. 56:9-12
41. Total abstinence of the Rechabites cited as example of obedience on the part of God’s people. —Jer. 35:5, 6, 8, 14
42. Priests are not to drink wine in their service to God. —Ezek. 44:21
43. God honored Daniel because he abstained from the King’s wine which had been offered to idols. —Dan. 1:5, 8, 16; 10:3
44. Belshazar was an example of a foolish leader who drank and taught his people to drink. —Dan. 5:1-28
45. Hosea’s wife was induced by drink. —Hos. 3:1
46. Strong drink and immorality are closely associated. —Hos. 4:11
47. Kings and people reproved because of drinking. —Hos. 7:5
48. Young virtue sold for the price of drink. —Joel 3:3
49. Sinful men use drink to pollute the innocent. —Amos 2:12
50. Dissolute women, oppressors of the poor, demand their intoxicants. —Amos 4:1
51. Self-indulgent drinkers not concerned about God nor the welfare of others. – Amos 6:6
52. Drunkards to be destroyed. —Nah. 1:10
52. Arrogance inflamed by drink. —Hab. 2:5
53. Wrong to give one’s neighbor drink so they are drunk. —Hab. 2:15
54. Drink leads to shame and humiliation. —Hab. 2:16
55. Drunkards warned about the return of Christ and judgment. —Matt. 24:48-51
56. Greatness of John the Baptist in part is linked with his total abstinence. —Luke 1:15
57. Christ warns against being enmeshed in drink. —Luke 12:45
58. Warning against drunkenness and the cares of this life, keeping one occupied to the exclusion of the Spirit. —Luke 21:34
59. All are admonished to walk honestly, not in rioting and drunkenness. —Rom. 13:13
60. Drinking wine may cause a brother to stumble. Importance of example. —Rom. 14:21
61. No drunkard shall inherit the kingdom of God. —I Cor. 6:10
62. The Lord’s Supper does not demand intoxicating wine. The word “wine” is not used. Instead all accounts say “the cup or “fruit of the vine.” God severely chastised those who abused wine at the Lord’s Table. —I Cor. 11:25
63. Revelers in drunkenness shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. —Gal. 5:21
64. Direct command that sanctification shall be of the Spirit and not by wine. —Eph. 5:18
65. Church officers must not be “beside wine” (paroinos). —I Tim. 3:3, 8, 11, 12

Scriptural Affirmations
1. Wine is a part of the blessing Isaac gave to Jacob. —Gen. 27:25

2. Wine (and strong drink) commanded to be used in sacrifices as a drink offering poured out and in the sacrificial meal. — Ex. 29:40; Lev. 23:13; Num. 15:5,10; 28:7,14;Deut. 14:22-26. Though the OT usually condemns strong drink, it could be used for medicinal purposes or possibly be diluted for consumption purposes. Here, it is more likely part of one’s offering unto God and subsequently used as a libation offering.

3. Wine “makes glad the heart of man.” —Ps. 104:14-15. Wine as opposed to plain water or warm milk caused one to rejoice. It was viewed as God’s blessing. However, this is not a reference to the inebriating effects of alcohol. It may be questioned whether in these verses wine is commended because of this lift or if the verses use the freedom from inhibition as a symbol of plenty and blessing-cf. Nathan’s reference to David’s polygamy as a symbol of God’s giving him great riches (2Sam 12:8). Technically, God gave grapes. Man makes wine from the grapes and strong drink from other fruits and grains.

4. Wine & strong drink are medically useful for healing wounds, digestive disorders, exhaustion in the desert, the heavy hearted & those “ready to perish.” – Luke 10:34; 1 Tim 5:23; 2 Sam 16:2, Prov. 31:6-7
5. Wine is a part of the future feasting in Christ’s Kingdom. —Isa. 25:6-9; Jer. 31:12-14; Matt. 26:29 (During the millennium the earth will be in a semi-Edenic state which may affect the process of fermentation.)

6. The Lord Jesus Christ miraculously created wine for a marriage feast. This wine was deemed “good” by the headmaster of the feast (John 2:10). Christ commanded the containers to first be filled with water thus eliminating any possibility of the concept of an undiluted wine. Second, the wine was fresh. (cf. John. MacArthur’s rather thorough treatment in his Ephesians commentary [5:18a])

Stephen Reynolds, Ph.D. (Princeton University), who served on the translation team for the New International Version of the Bible and is the author of The Biblical Approach to Alcohol (Intern. Society of Good Templars, 1989) and Alcohol and the Bible (Challenge Press, 1983), argues the prohibitionist position as follows:

Reynolds: Scripture Prohibits the Drinking of Alcoholic Beverages
“A careful study of Proverbs 23 in the original freed me forever from my bondage to the moderationist theory. This chapter contains a number of prohibitions addressed to all humanity in the second person singular as are some of the Ten Commandments. They forbid us, each and every human being addressed as an individual, to do certain things such as removing old landmarks (stealing land), withholding correction from a child, envying sinners, being among winebibbers, despising our own mother when she is old and looking at a drink which in Hebrew transliterated is yayin ki yith’addam. The word yayin is generally translated wine in English Bibles. In this passage it is correctly translated wine. It is a beverage we must not look at lustfully. It is alcoholic wine. Yith’addam cannot (being hithpa’el) mean simply “when it is red.” The following words are no doubt put in Holy Writ to distinguish the forbidden yayin from other yayin which is not forbidden.
This prohibition of looking at this sort of yayin establishes a principle, one to which all the rest of the Bible must conform if the Bible is in harmony with itself, which it certainly is. We can no more look to other passages in the Bible, put our own interpretation on them, and say they negate Proverbs 23:31 than we can find some passage which we can twist to mean that we can despise our mothers when they are old and say that this negates verse 22 of the same chapter.
Someone who objects to taking Proverbs 23:31 in its plain sense has suggested that the entire book of Proverbs is given to us to make us think and contains no firm commands to be obeyed, but this is against II Timothy 3:16. If Proverbs gives a command, that command must be obeyed.
Another who objects to taking Prov. 23:31 as a command to all persons as individuals says it applies only to drunkards. His reason for doing that is that drunkards are mentioned, but drunkards and the ill effects of drinking are there to make clear what sort of yayin is prohibited, as there was nonalcoholic yayin as well as alcoholic. The idea of this objector is a very improper reason for seeking to avoid a clear command of God, which by reason of its place in the Bible is to be obeyed by all, not merely by drunkards.
That yayin in the Bible need not refer to an alcoholic drink is proved by Isaiah 16:10 and Jeremiah 48:33. Here the immediate product of treading grapes is called yayin, and yet everyone knows that the immediate product of treading grapes is called in modern (but not 17th century) English: grape juice. This is all the evidence needed to affirm that wherever yayin is praised in the Bible it should be translated “grape juice,” as for example when it is said that little children not fully weaned cry for it (Lam. 2:12) or when, in what may be the description of a harvest festival, fresh grape juice is being enjoyed by the happy harvesters and their friends and is called a gift of God from the earth to make glad the heart of man (Ps. 104:15).
It is therefore certain that yayin in the Old Testament may be nonalcoholic, as incidentally it can be in modern Hebrew. God used a special phrase, yayin ki yith’addam to name the alcoholic kind. Furthermore, to make sure no one misses the point, He described what it does to the user. It bites like a serpent, stings like an adder, affects the vision and the heart badly, causes a condition like seasickness, insensitivity to pain and is habit forming.
The fact which most scholars choose to ignore is that oinos in Koine Greek could be understood as grape juice. The Septuagint translates the word yayin as oinos in Isaiah 16:10 where a substance that could not possibly be alcoholic is mentioned. The Greek of the Septuagint is practically the same as that of the New Testament. This establishes beyond doubt that oinos may be unfermented grape juice in the New Testament. Jesus would not tempt people to commit the sin of drunkenness. Therefore, since oinos may be grape juice fresh from the press, what Jesus made must have been such a drink.
Of course oinos may be alcoholic. The fact that the same word may denote either an alcoholic or a nonalcoholic drink should not be considered incredible. Our English word cider may be either. The English word “wine” in the seventeenth century had both meanings. When the evil nature of the drink (a mocker, poison) is clear, we should understand it as alcoholic. Where it is approved we should understand it to be nonalcoholic. Where the context does not make the distinction apparent, a Bible translator and teacher must use care.”

Additional Sources

R. V. Pierard, “Alcohol,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984, pp. 28-32.

F. S. Fitzsimmons, “Wine and Strong Drink,” New Bible Dictionary (2nd ed.), ed. J. D. Douglas (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity) 1982, pp. 1255-57.

I. W. Raymond, The Teaching of the Early Church on the Use of Wine and Strong Drink (AMS Press), [1927, 1970].

R. Albert Mohler and Russell Moore, “Alcohol and Ministry” [MP3 audio], Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

John Piper, “Total Abstinence and Church Membership,” October 4, 1981 (desiringgod.org., topic index/34/313).

Norman Geisler, “A Christian Perspective on Wine-Drinking,” Bibliotheca Sacra (January-March, 1982) 139 (553), pp. 41-55.

The outline for this lecture was taken in part from Pastor Scott Williquette’s excellent article on the Christian and Alcohol in his church newsletter entitled, Sola.

Thank you, Pastor Harding.

My husband pointed out to me a verse -- Matthew 27:34 They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink. Why didn't He drink it? It was not the same vinegar talked about in the other verses. As one commentary says, "The drink, therefore, was vinegar or sour wine, rendered “bitter” by the infusion of wormwood or some other very bitter substance. The effect of this, it is said, was to stupefy the senses. It was often given to those who were crucified, to render them insensible to the pains of death. Our Lord, knowing this, when he bad tasted it refused to drink. He was unwilling to blunt the pains of dying. The “cup” which his “Father” gave him he rather chose to drink. He came to suffer. His sorrows were necessary for the work of the atonement, and he gave himself up to the unmitigated sufferings of the cross." For this reason and many others, it is hard to believe that Jesus would have consumed alcoholic wine that would have impaired and altered his judgment just like he would not take the "vinegar mingled with gall." He was unwilling to dull his senses.

As I asked earlier, "who decides moderation?" I think "moderation" is defined by many as "one drinks until one gets pulled over by the police." At least I know that was the definition in the 1970's at that Presbyterian Christian College. Enough said.

Respectfully,
Lydia

is there any other translation besides kjv that uses the word moderation in that verse?

I thank Lydia for presenting the common sense, traditional, Biblical view of Fundamentalism on alcohol. I also thank Mike Harding for his lenghty and helpful post.

However, this thread was posted to conisder Shelton Smith's claim that Randy Jaggeli's book allows for Christians to partake of alcohol in moderation. Has anyone actually read the book? Are there any reviews of the book other than Smith's? What exactly is Jaggeli's position in the book?

(Perhaps BJU Press should advertise the book on Sharper Iron! There would probably be quite a few takers at this point.)

*** Forum Director Comment ****

Thanks Jay C for reminding posters to keep on tract.

I strongly suggest that before you post to this thread; you buy the book, read it, and report back on this thread.

It's available on Amazon for $ 10.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591669197/ref=s9_simz_gw_s0_p14_t1?pf_...

*****************

Any other uninformed (having not read the book) comments on this thread probably will be deleted!

Some months ago after Jaeggli's book first came out, I purchased a copy for a dear older couple who desire to join my church but can not due to their drinking wine. When I read the book prior to giving it to them, I discovered that the argumentation of the book supports moderation and NOT abstinence. The first four chapters promote moderate drinking by claiming that moderation is the Biblical standard. The final chapter argues weakly for abstinence based on the notion that "Satan has established the consumption of alcoholic beverages in our culture as an essential aspect of unsaved culture." Of course, one could drive a semi truck through the holes in Jaeggli's strange defense of abstinence.

Has BJU's POLICIES regarding alcohol changed? According to personal correspondence from Dr. Bob III, they still expell any student who has anything to do with alcohol consumption. (I don't know what to think about the case of the reformed girl who was supposedly retained as a student after drinking alcohol at her "church." Maybe she's an exception to what Dr. Bob III told me.)

While their rule book policies appear to be the same, their new POSITION differs dramatically from what Bob Jones Sr. said (quoted in posts above). BJU's position is that Jesus produced and distributed FULL STRENGTH ALCOHOLIC WINE at Cana. Jaeggli further claims that Jesus drank the alcoholic wine of the people. I have addressed this issuse in my review of Jaeggli's book. To read my review, go to pastormonte.blogspot.com

In addition, Dr. Bob III favorably quoted Dr. Jaeggli in personal correspondence to Evangelist Dwight Smith. Here is what BJU professor Dr. Randy Jaeggli told Dr. Bob Jones III, referring to a phone conversation he (Jaeggli) had with Smith:

"Dwight asked me if it was a sin to drink. I told him that I could not say such a thing, because Christ Himself drank of the alcoholic wine of His day....Do I believe that drinking is a sin in our modern context? Drinking is a sin if the drinker is worldly in his heart attitude."

As any objective reader can discern, Jaeggli's words are in stark contrast to those of Bob Jones Sr: "There never was a baser lie hatched in hell than that a man has a right to a drink of whisky if it pleases him to do so."

While BJU's policies have remained essentially the same, their new position on beverage alcohol is in oppsition to the stated position of Bob Jones, Sr.

For the record, I attempted to discuss Jaeggli's book with him, but he refused. I have also had some personal correspondence with Bob Jones III, but he has refused my request to discuss this matter with him in person. I have met with some of BJU's most ardent supporting pastors, including at least one board member, and all of them have agreed that Jaeggli's book is a serious departure from BJU's former position, namely that consumption of beverage alcohol is a sin.

Please read my full review of Jaeggli's book at pastormonte.blogspot.com

I would encourage pastors to contact BJU about this matter. Politely ask the University to remove this dangerous book from production.

I'm aware of these reviews of Randy Jaeggli, The Christian and Drinking: A Biblical perspective on moderation and abstinence:

• Don Johnson: http://oxgoad.ca/2008/10/28/the-christian-and-drinking/
• Marc Monte: http://pastormonte.blogspot.com/2009/07/review-of-jaegglis-christian-and...
• Jonathan Taylor: http://www.jonathantaylor.eu/jat/2009/05/review-the-christian-drinkig-by...

I fail to see how this book is dangerous. Is it dangerous simply because you disagree with the author? If we start removing books from production there are a few books I would like to see removed. Can we start a post to list all of these books.

Why are you afraid of folks reading this book? Why not write a book refuting the arguments in the book (or maybe that is what you did in your review, which I have not read).

Assuming this is true, doesn't Jaeggli's book specifically say that a believer should not drink alcohol? I don't have the book, but I remember thumbing through it a while back, and I believe the conclusion was that a believe should not drink alcoholic beverages. You seem to indicate that was the conclusion as well, Marc. And so far as I know, that has always been the position of BJU.

So, Marc, are you claiming that BJU agrees with Jaeggli, and therefore says a believer should not drink, just as BJSr said, and as has been the position of BJU for decades>?

Or are you claiming that BJU disagrees with Jaeggli and now says a believer is permitted to drink?

Sorry...missed the time limit to edit...it is technically "The Wisdom of Abstaining from Alcohol" and was preached in chapel at BJU.

I do not have our pastor's wife here to confirm this (she was employed in the BJU bookstore), but I think I am correct in saying that those little "disclaimer statement" slips (if you spent any time as a student, you are well-acquainted with them) are placed in every book that is sold on campus...including those published by BJUP.

I don't think it is fair to assume that anything proclaims the official University position except something written for that purpose--the student handbook for instance. That, or someone from the BJU Admin Bldg. Executive Wing making an official public statement.

FWIW, Dr. Jaegglli aligns himself with Dr. Bob Sr. in the above-mentioned sermon.

Pastor Monte, did you know that BJU already has a stated position on Alcohol? Here it is:

Maybe we'd all be wiser to actually look up issues on BJU's website or actually contact the school prior to declaring that they've departed from some position that they've always held.

As for Jaeggli's work - it's his book, not the school's. They published his book because he's on staff there and they usually publish any book written by their own staff [especially if it's a theological work]. Contrary to what seems to be popular opinion, the school actually does allow staff members to hold their own opinions on some issues.

--edit---

Yes, that is correct. They are also added to every item held by either the J.S. Mack or Music Library.

Well, almost correct. When I worked at the bookstore, there was a minor kerfuffle about placing those slips in Bibles. I believe the decision was to place them in study Bibles only.

Pastor Marc,

I'm sorry, but I really think that you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. I've never heard anyone at BJU argue for a non-abstinent position; I know of at least two Seminary Profs who do hold to it, one of whom has lost people in his church over it. It seems to me like your biggest problem is with Jaeggli himself, and while it's unfortunate that he won't speak with you, that hardly means that the school has departed from a stated position.

As for BJU, frankly, I think you're over-parsing their statement. To "not condone" means that they disapprove of the used of alcohol. BJU doesn't have the authority, because it is an educational institution, to "condemn" anything for people who are not either staff, faculty, or students. They can advise and suggest, much like they have with the KJV issue, but can't "bless" or "condemn" anything for people outside of their immediate circle of influence. If you want BJU to start deciding what's right and wrong for all Christendom, then you're really asking for them to become a Fundamentalist Pope; I think that's what they're trying to AVOID, because it's distracting and ancillary to their task of educating people. I also think that too many people, for too long, have looked to Bob Jones to tell them how to think and they're trying to break them of that habit. FWIW, I graduated from BJU in 2004, so I can also speak as an Alumnus.

Finally, I've read Dr. Smith and your articles, but I remain convinced that this is nothing more than "the sound and fury, signifying nothing".

--edit--

Well, I stand corrected. I'm glad to know that BJU approves of Bibles

Bro Jay, I appreciate your reasonable response. Thanks for getting the facts on the official position...I googled a bit (don't know why it never occurred to me to go to the bju.edu site--duh), and you'll be interested to know that, in the opinion of one blustering alumnus, the very fact that BJU omits the "disclaimer" insert from KJV Bibles (in particular) is proof positive that they are KJVO (I came across this while searching for the aforementioned "official position"). If he would get the facts from, say, Steve Hankins, he'd see his opinion is in error.

Here is a link for the entire preface by Dr. Hankins: http://www.bjupress.com/product/261412?path=115013&samplePage=5#lookInside

And here is a link for the Introduction, which lays the groundwork for the direction of the book, of which the concluding sentence reads, "As we shall see, a cavalier attitude toward even moderate consumption of alcohol is not warranted by Scripture."

http://www.bjupress.com/product/261412?path=115013&samplePage=7#lookInside

There is also a link provided to read the first chapter.

Our church covenant is standard among many IFB churches. It reads, "We further engage, to flee the very appearance of evil, to endeavor to renounce all worldliness, to abstain from the manufacture, sale or use of intoxicating drinks as a beverage, and all things that are not conducive to the spiritual life of the church." I am certain that BJU would be in agreement with this statement. I have not read Randy Jaeggli's new book; therefore, I cannot comment on it. However, I can say that alcohol consumption as an intoxicant has been a very negative influence in society. I think we as spiritual leaders should do everything we can within the confines of Scripture to discourage its use as such. I don't know if Randy has ever been a pastor or not, but in my many years of youth ministry and now 25 years of being a senior pastor, I can give testimony to the harm of alcohol upon Christian families. Its influence is nothing short of devastating. BJU has had to dismiss students, faculty, and board members on account of this issue. I have had to deal with it many times as a pastor and as recently as this morning. I have had to drop missionaries from support who have ruined their lives, ministries, and families on account of alcohol consumption. It is playing with danger.

Thanks, Charlie, for explicitly raising the issue of "the difference in alcoholic content between 'today's wine' and 'biblical wine' " - that factor has gone nearly unnoticed through most of these recent SI alcohol threads.

If Biblical wine was fermented naturally and diluted for daily use but modern wine is usually fortified, then that presents a plain reason for treating modern alcoholic beverages differently from the way the Bible talks about treating "wine." (Thus, one could say that the biblical data read plainly and contextually teaching a very careful moderation position, but today abstinence is the best choice.) I fail to see how this is "inconsistent."

Charlie thinks it's inconsistent and goes for moderation.
Pastor Marc thinks it's inconsistent and goes for a teetotaler position.

If there's valid support for the difference between Bible-wine and modern wine, why is it "inconsistent" for that difference to play a role our positions?

I think this is fallacious. Some activities associated with and effects of wine are ill-spoken of in Scripture. Certain Scripture passages will not support your dichotomy, such as 1 Timothy 3:8, where deacons should not indulge in "much wine." Now, why would it be problematic to drink much grape juice? And if it is fermented, then your neat dichotomy breaks down.

I have great doubts that the word οινος was ever regularly used to indicate "unfermented" wine (grape juice). Every lexicon (BDAG, Louw-Nida, Friberg, UBS, Thayer, LSJ, Middle Liddell, Slater, Autenreith) says "wine," with BDAG, Louw-Nida, LSJ, and Friberg calling special attention to its fermented status. Louw-Nida explains that οινος means fermented wine unless combined with a modifier stating otherwise, such as νεος (new) or απυρος (unfermented). LSJ and BDAG note that sometimes οινος was used as a generic term for other alcoholic drinks, such as barley beer. From that, it seems that the word may have become even more associated with alcohol than with grapes.

Furthermore, there was a word that specifically means "must," the unfermented juice of grapes - τρυξ. I notice, though, that even though there are a variety of linguistic options available to distinguish between unfermented and fermented grape beverages, the NT writers consistently use the one term that consistently points to a fermented drink.

After reading nearly all the posts on this and the related threads, then having read Jaeggli's book, my conclusions are that, 1) BJU's position hasn't changed at all, and 2) I agree wholeheartedly with Jaeggli's excellent treatment of the subject.

I did read the quote from BJ, Sr. (incidentally, there's a radical difference between whiskey & wine, but that's another matter), but I also sat under BJ, Jr from 1976-82. On more than one occasion, I heard Jr. address this issue in chapel, and I vividly recall him saying that there were numerous times he'd been in a European country and was offered a glass wine or champagne, but he always declined. He did so, he said, NOT because it would've been inherently sinful for him to drink 4 oz. of the beverage, but because 1) he didn't want to open the door to where that one drink might take him and 2) he didn't want the possibility of leading anyone else into sin, alcoholism, etc. Jaeggli's book employs the exact same arguments (and more) for abstinence.

On p. 5 Dr. Jaeggli states his thesis: "As we shall see, a cavalier attitude toward even moderate consumption of alcohol is not warranted by Scripture." 67 pages later, he concludes with the following:

"The beverage use of alcohol is incompatible with growth in personal holiness; it hinders progress in being conformed to the image of Christ. A believer who drinks moderately risks setting a disastrous example for fellow Christians and the children who grow up in his own home. What he does in moderation could influence another person to become a drunkard. It is true that the Bible does not condemn the moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages within an ancient cultural setting that mandated their use for safe hydration as a necessary part of life. But drinking today is not comparable to biblical times. Modern drinks are far more intoxicating. We have plenty of non-alcoholic options for safe hydration. We ought to be growing in holiness and not cozying up to the world system. Let's be careful to set the biblical standard correctly for the generations to follow us....(1 Cor. 10:31)."

So while Jaeggli may not match the rhetoric of Sr.'s sermonizing against alcohol, he unquestionably argues for the same thing: a Christian in today's world ought to avoid the consumption of alcohol as a beverage. I concur with his analysis of alcoholic beverages/wine/strong drink in the Bible, his arguments for an abstinence position, and his conclusions. Furthermore, I see no positional change within BJU regarding alcoholic beverage; instead, I see a scholarly argument for the position the university has always held.

Obviously that last statement is true, but the question should be, can you drink and not get drunk? Does drinking require that one become intoxicated? I don't think so. So then, none of those passages about drunkenness apply unless I am drunk. At the same time, there are many passages that talk about the positives of alcohol, from making the heart merry to medicinal purposes.

Thw Sword of the Lord issues a statement of concern about a book coming out of BJU. At the same time, they still continue to promote Peter Ruckman's bookstore from their website.

From what I understand, the book from BJU does not teach anything that is heretical. In contrast, Peter Ruckman's bookstore is full of heretical teeachings.

Can you understand why many believers out there just cannot take the warnings from the Sword too seriously?

In answer to Marc's question, I believe Jaeggli's position is that the Bible does teach abstinence, but not in the way Marc seems to think it does. The Bible doesn't command, "Thou shalt not drink wine," just as it doesn't command, "Thou shalt not smoke or chew tobacco" and "Thou shalt not buy a lottery ticket." But Jaeggli demonstrates that the Bible does teach an abstinence position for alcoholic beverages in the same way it teaches abstinence from tobacco products or buying lottery tickets--through clear biblical principles that apply to the issues.

In Marc's conclusion that "If one cannot show that beverage alcohol consumption is wrong according to the Bible, then every believer should feel free to drink in moderation," he seems to assume that showing alcohol consumption is wrong demands a biblical injunction or command. In other words, his conclusion could be paraphrased, "If one cannot show that the Bible commands believers to abstain from drinking alcohol as a beverage, then...." If that paraphrase is an accurate interpretation of Mark's statement, then the conclusion is faulty. Since I cannot produce a biblical command that says, "Believers must abstain from smoking," does it follow that "every believer should feel free to smoke cigarettes or chew tobacco"? Or Since I cannot produce a biblical command that says, "Believers must abstain from gambling," does it follow that "every believer should feel free to buy lottery tickets, play the slots, and gamble the night away in Las Vegas"?

Bottom line: The Bible teaches an abstinence position (I've read Jeaggli's book and that's his conclusion, too), but it does so without issuing a command.

My problem with Jaeggli's book is his argumentation. He uses the arguments of the moderate beverage crowd throughout his book and then raises the flag of abstinence at the very end. (His declarations for abstinence are weak and are not based upon the Bible, but rather upon cultural concerns.)

Anyone wanting to justify moderate beverage alcohol use could read Jaeggli and find justification for moderate drinking from the arguments presented in the book. I challenged Dr. Hankins to read the book from the standpoint of a sophomore college student who wants to drink an occasional beer. Once he understands from Jaeggli that Jesus produced and distributed full strength alcoholic wine, he has no reason not to partake of the same. To demand abstinence from something Jesus condoned is a new phariseeism of the most extreme level.

If Jaeggli's book had been a clarion call to abstinence based upon the precepts of the Bible, I would have used the book in my own ministry and recommended it to others. At best, Jaeggli is confusing and at worse his arguments will be used to justify moderate consumption of alcohol.

Those who have not read Jaeggli's book need to do so. Also, I invite comments on my lengthy review of his book. You can read it at pastormonte.blogspot.com. If I have been inaccurate to Dr. Jaeggli in my review, I invite correction. If I have misrepresented him, I invite correction. (Thousands of copies of this review have gone out both in printed and electronic form. No one has yet demonstrated--or even attempted to demonstrate--that I was unfair in my treatment of Dr. Jaeggli's book.)

Mr. Bice claims (above) that Jaeggli teaches abstinence is the Bible's position. Here's a quote from Jaeggli's book--judge for yourself: does Jaeggli believe the Bible teaches abstinence or not:

"It is true that the Bible does not condemn the moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages within an ancient cultural setting that mndated their use for safe hydration as a necessary part of life."

Jaeggli CAN NOT teach that abstintence is the Bible's position because he believes that Jesus produced and distributed full strength alcoholic wine (Jaeggi, pp. 38-39).

Several things from Marc's post deserve attention. In the first place, it would be better to characterize Jeaggli's first four chapters as "explanation" rather than "argumentation," because therein he's not actually arguing for a position. In ch. 1, he explains the "Old Testament Teaching on Alcoholic Beverages." In ch. 2, he explains the "New Testament Teaching..." Ch. 3 explains "Historical Views of Alcohol Consumption," and ch. 4 explains the "Medical Views on Alcohol Consumption." In those chapters, he explains the way things are. To be sure, there are places where he argues for an interpretation (e.g. the nature of the wine at Cana), but that doesn't change the basic character of his writing: he's explaining the facts involved in the issue or question of the moderate consumption of alcoholic beverage. In those chapters, he's not arguing for or against the issue. Now, just because the "moderate use" crowd looks at those same facts and then argues in favor of their position doesn't mean it's dangerous or "stepping on the slippery slope" to acknowledge the facts in the case. The real questions are 1) what do you do with those facts and 2) where do you go from there? Jaeggli 1) doesn't distort them in order to promote an abstinence position, but 2) argues that a) the facts do not justify the moderate-use position, and b) there are legitimate biblical principles that demand an abstinence position, the earlier facts notwithstanding.

Second, regarding the question: "Here's a quote from Jaeggli's book--judge for yourself: does Jaeggli believe the Bible teaches abstinence or not: 'It is true that the Bible does not condemn the moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages within an ancient cultural setting that mndated (sic) their use for safe hydration as a necessary part of life'." The answer is "Yes." If the question were, "Does Jaeggli believe the Bible commands believers to abstain?" the answer would be "No." The fact is, there is no biblical command that says, "Thou shalt not drink alcoholic beverages, even in moderation." But neither I nor Jaeggli need a command to conclude that the Bible teaches abstinence. In a similar vein, I believe the Bible teaches abstinence from tobacco and gambling, but I haven't a command for either. Frankly, it would've been a more accurate representation of Jaeggli's position if Marc had continued quoting. After writing (in the concluding paragraph of the book), "It is true that the Bible does not condemn..." he continued, "But drinking today is not comparable to biblical times.... We have plenty of non-alcoholic options for safe hydration. We ought to be growing in holiness and not cozying up to the world system. Let's be careful to follow the biblical standard [abstinence!] correctly for the generations that follow us."

Finally, Marc's conclusion, "Jaeggli CAN NOT teach that abstintence is the Bible's position because he believes that Jesus produced and distributed full strength alcoholic wine" is simply untrue. Yes, indeed, he can, and he does.

I suppose if you've read the book (which I know you have) and Jaeggli's arguments in the final chapter make no sense to you and you cannot follow the logic, there's certainly nothing I can say that will change that. I would say, though, that it's a stretch to deduce that Jaeggli's view makes Jesus a bartender at a wedding.

By the way, would you allow a woman, other than your wife, massage and kiss your feet? [see Luke 7:44-46]

My point is simply that the practice the woman engaged in would not be tolerated by any Christian in our culture today. Even foot-washers don't kiss the feet they wash. To draw a parallel, if I had an assistant pastor who was primarily instrumental in leading a woman to Christ, she would naturally be extremely grateful for my assistant's role. But I wouldn't tolerate it if the lady desired to show her appreciation for him by taking off his shoes, rubbing his feet with oil, wiping them with her hair and kissing them. And I'm pretty confident he wife wouldn't tolerate it, either. I was simply illustrating, Alex, that I would insist that my assistant abstain from something that Jesus did, and I would do so based on biblical principles that mitigate against something that was once acceptable in another place and time--that's all & nothing more. Let's not get sidetracked, please.

And again your point is an attempt to equivocate one context with another and it, as I succinctly pointed out, is a platform of the weakest sort. They are not equivocations and unfortunately instead of rebutting my points you ignored them and just repeated the assertion. This not only does not make for a convincing argument but it demonstrates a certain unwillingness to return volleys that force you to move from a stationary position. Nevertheless I too have made my point and best wishes with the rest of the topic.

As to the main topic and the general trend I have observed in the ongoing discussion (not meaning I have your posts in view now, just the overall trend), I myself, find the lack of theological perspicacity and the moral posturing in place of healthy exegesis to be a bold enough front to keep me from wrestling with ten-armed bandits such as these (but trust me I am happy to fight these theological larcenists from time time and have with zest). But not every engagement is characterized by people shooting at imagined targets, some very strong presentations have distinguished themselves and I will say the read is good at times.

And that is just what an equivocation is dear Brian. You have equivocated the two contexts by default by attempting to use certain events in one to buttress the other or support it in principle. Sorry but the contexts do matter and they are not compatible, hence their elements, some or all are not evidence for your argument.

*Don't forget while I was straining at an alleged gnat it appears you are quite as eager to pursue its livelihood so before you thumb your nose in contempt at my pursuit, it might be wise to look in the mirror and understand there are two people engaged here, not one. But alas, we are going off topic so with respect to the thread and protocol if it is necessary for you to finish this side bar have the last word my brother.

Some are apt to use phrases like:

Drinking causes....
Drinking leads to...

When it would be more accurate to say:

Drunkenness causes...
Drunkenness leads to...

Many who believe in abstaining from alcohol will use the words "drinking" and "drunkenness" interchangeably. I do not believe that they mean the same thing. If someone believes that they are interchangeable, then I genuinely cannot discuss the "issue of alcohol" with them. We do not speak the same language.

Susan - this is understandably a sensitive subject for you and I would not presume to tell you that you're wrong to abstain in your situation. Going further, for another Christian to exercise their liberty around you and your family would be to risk offending weaker siblings. That too would be a sin as grievous as drunkenness.

To your initial question, I would respond that self control is a fruit of the Spirit and those who do not yield to Him can find themselves where you and your family found yourselves. Nevertheless, it is clear from Church history and Christian circles where moderation is practiced today that this isn't as mysterious as we sometimes pretend it is. Those who imbibe in moderation don't drink wine as though it were Gatorade after a long run. They have it in small quantities with dinner or a beer after work. I've often wondered at the large wine glasses and small quantities that they pour. This is apparently not just to enhance the wine's bouquet but the practice of moderation.

In the end, to pretend that people are incapable of drinking moderately is to ignore what is plainly observable in both Christian and non-Christian circles because of equally observable excesses. This usually proves to be more Pharisaical than godly. (I am not referring to your post in that regard.)

This is clear reasonning, Gabe! Jaeggli's position is untenable. The problem with the notion that Jesus created alcoholic wine at Cana is that God breathes "Woe" against it. As He warns us in Habakkuk 2:15 that it is a condemnable act to give "his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also...", it would be a serious indictment against Christ, if he gave those who had "well drunk" additional intoxicating drink. The word methusthowsin means to become drunk, so Jesus would have committed sin. Yet, the One, who came from glory and who created all things, could certainly have created the very best tasting unfermented wine for the host. He must have done so, or would be subject to the "woe" of Scripture against Him. Why would it seem so incredulous, that the Creator could make unfermented, good tasting, wine out of water?

Silverghost,

Using ellipses (...) in your quote helps give the impression that Hab. 2:15 says it is wrong to give someone a drink. The passage teaches it is wrong to give them a drink, 1) in order to get them drunk, 2) and then in order to see their nakedness.

Here's Hab. 2:15-16 in a few good Bible versions to see my point clearly.

KJV:
Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink,
that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also,
that thou mayest look on their nakedness!
Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also,
and let thy foreskin be uncovered: the cup of the LORD's right hand
shall be turned unto thee, and shameful spewing shall be on thy glory.

NASB:
Woe to you who make your neighbors drink,
Who mix in your venom even to make them drunk
So as to look on their nakedness!
"You will be filled with disgrace rather than honor.
Now you yourself drink and expose your own nakedness
The cup in the LORD'S right hand will come around to you,
And utter disgrace will come upon your glory.

ESV:
Woe to him who makes his neighbors drink—
you pour out your wrath and make them drunk,
in order to gaze at their nakedness!
You will have your fill of shame instead of glory.
Drink, yourself, and show your uncircumcision!
The cup in the LORD’s right hand
will come around to you,
and utter shame will come upon your glory!

Now about John 2, I contend that the feast lasted perhaps a few days. At the latter part of the feast, the best wine would not have been served typically. But Jesus' wine was amazingly good. In light of Scripture's teaching that 1) wine (the cultivated finished product) is a good gift from God to men, to cheer their hearts (see my last post above), and 2) the coming eschatological feast of celebration would include only the richest wine (Is. 25:6ff.) -- in light of this, Jesus' creation of great wine makes sense. He is not condoning drunkenness by making much wine, he is providing thoroughly for the remainder of the feast in a symbolic way to emphasize the glory of His coming. (Incidentally, it is ceremonial washing pots that would have made something unclean, that are overpowered by Jesus' miraculous power to become fit vessels for serving festive wine.)

Finally, the very word "feast" is literally a "drinking". Drinking wine is something you do at a joyous festal occasion. Scripture is replete with examples of festivals and wine. Think, Deut. 14:26 for a quick example.

Silverghost,

I had also replied on the other thread about John 2 specifically. My post there helps address some of your concerns here. i won't repeat it, so as not to have multiple conversations going on in multiple threads which isn't what SI's commenting policy encourages.

Here's that other reply link:

http://sharperiron.org/forum/poll-jesus-turned-water-john-2?page=1#comme...

It depends on what stain or color the desk is painted, and also upon who manufactured your Laptop...

We'll be sending you a 75 page questionnaire to fill out so that we can come to an appropriate decision.

Having previously been a Chaplain for a number of years at a rescue mission, we are currently developing a mission at our church. I certainly can attest to many who have been caught up in the evils of alcohol, some of them claiming to be ministers of God. I sympathize with anyone going though the dregs of this problem. Thank the Lord many can be rescued.

It does not appear to be available at the campus bookstore, but it would be speculation to claim any particular reasons for that at this point. I think it would be sad for the book to be pulled because of the criticisms out there. Would be better to simply publish another book with a different POV if they feel that particular volume is lacking. But we don't really know yet that anything has been "pulled," much less why.

http://www.bjucampusstore.com/ePOS?store=468&listtype=begin&keytype=sku&...

http://www.bjucampusstore.com/ePOS/form=robots/item.html&item_number=2801591669199&store=468&design=468

Well, that pretty much settles that, I think.
I'm pretty sure that the revised edition will be met with the same sort of reactions, though. I doubt lack of clarity is really the problem. But my copy is (hopefully) in the mail so I can stop guessing about that.

I don't want to be hard on BJU here. They have many unenviable tightropes to walk and this is apparently one of them (though I wouldn't have thought so until now, really).
But there's no question that in fundamentalism we have a strong bias toward "not changing." That's not all bad. But it's sure not all good either. The trick is to maintain a proper regard for the lessons of the past and simultaneously re-examine all things and approve what is excellent.

Well, apparently it's the latter, Bob. Foolish me.

This is the unfortunate situation that was led to by misleading and probably dishonest statements about the book. It would have been far better for those comments to have never been made. The book should have been dealt with on what it actually said in its entirety.

The reality is that the position of the university has never changed, so far as I can tell. In 1927, their position was that a believer should not drink. In 2009, their position is that a believer should not drink.

What may have changed is the reasoning for that position. Perhaps in earlier days the reason for the position was that it was sin; now perhaps the reasoning is that it is unwise.

But some here are confusing the idea of a position with the reason for a position. This, IMO, is a little bit sloppy in thinking.

As was already said, I don't think there is any amount of rewriting that will lead to this book being acceptable to some.

It sounds ridiculous because it is logically ridiculous. To compare food to alcohol is like comparing bananas to a 45 Magnum weapon.

Food is something we all need to survive. Certainly, as with many other things of life, it can be abused. But, the clear warnings of Scripture are against the intoxicating beverage which can easily addict one. The Bible speaks of feasting and fasting. It is not in the same category as drunkenness and sobriety.

The word, BTW, for "lusteth" in Duet. 14:26 is avah, which means "to desire, long, covet, lust," the root meaning, being: "to wish for." Because we mix up the connotations of words with today's meanings, that doesn't excuse poor Bible study, which amounts to eisegesis.

well, Leviticus 10:9 ESV fails to make any distinction about any particular kind of wine. also, there is the underlying assumption that the priests could drink wine or strong drink on any other day and that everyone else could drink on any day.

I imagine it would probably be similar to what Rob was saying here: Some thoughts on beverage alcohol I have never studied, but that sounds plausible.

I had read your earlier post, Bob. It seems that you sidestep the meaning and connotation of the Hebrew .avah. Why should we be so anxious to have this O.T. pleasure, which too often was abused?

Yet, the New Testament characterizes itself as a better covenant. While the O.T. is written for our admonition and our learning, it should be obvious that we don't follow all of it's instructions in N.T. times. Where in the N.T. do we have the instruction, of which the O.T. instruction seems to have some so desirous to adhere? It seems more of a lackadaisical submission to "lust" in our current sense of the word, to desire the strong drink of today. Even the O.T. warns not to "Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.." The whole warning of Prov. 23:29-35 is what many who started on today's strong drinks have found themselves deeply addicted.

I have counseled many of them.

We are kings and priests. I remind you of the admonition of Prov. 31:4,5: "It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink: Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted." With spiritual discernment, the N.T. application should be apparent.

Silverghost, I am not advocating one position or the other, but I am very confused by your post. Initially you tell Bob that he should not be anxious to have the OT pleasure, because the NT is a better covenant. However, your entire arguments have all been centered around OT admonishment. So, which is it. You get to use the OT in your argumentation, but Bob cannot? (No disrespect intended, it just appears to be a double standard.

Silverghost, I'm also going to object to something you have said several times here. You seem to argue that those of us who do not hold to an abstinence only position do so because we love drinking or want to get drunk. That is completely not the case at all, and I am disappointed that you believe that.

I hold to an abstinence is the wisest course of action position and belief that it is entirely possible for someone to consume alcohol within the proper parameters and guidelines [although I don't like it]. To therefore characterize my position as being someone who is "anxious to have this pleasure" is wrong.

Thank you, Jay. You've answered according to the same position, to which I adhere. It was not an accusation which I had given, but a warning. Today's alcoholic beverages, even beer, are stronger then the wine of the early days. Yet I hear nothing of dilution of today's wines.

do you have some proof of this? wine with less than 9% abv requires refrigeration (see entry for alcohol in this winemaker's glossary).

the idea of dilution was a greek one. i haven't seen any evidence for old testament dilution, and Isaiah 1:22 provides some evidence that dilution was frowned on.

also, there is a question of what exactly was being diluted and why. maclean shows that a sort of "wine concentrate" was diluted to produce a reconstituted wine of a normal strength and flavor instead of diluting normal wine into pink water (see pages 286-306 in McLean, John (April 1841) "Bacchus and Anti-Bacchus (part 1)", Princeton Review, 13 (2), 267-306)

glad the archives are back up. there's a pretty good post by dan campbell from 2005.

----
i see Bob Hayton's reply got in first. i'm not trying to double-team you or anything. i was still writing my reply when he finished.

One other quick thought. Yes a merry heart can cross over to drunkenness. But why did God then not carefully qualify his statements about drinking wine with a merry heart? It seems as if we rush in to put a gigantic fence (no drinking) up lest those we know fall over the cliff. But God in his infinite wisdom, never erected such a fence. Rather, he says that the joy-producing effects of wine, are intended for our prudent enjoyment. They are a good gift. We must not abuse this gift, and lose our minds in drunkenness. But we should joyfully partake of God's gift. Judg. 9:13, Eccl. 10:19, Zech. 10:7, Is. 24:7-11, Jer. 48:33, Eccl. 9:7, Ps. 104:14-15.

I don't know about Charles, but it sounds like your quoting my statement. I made the case for "avah, being "desire," literally "to wish for."

It was not leading to "sinful lust," just as you maintain. There is nothing I've said to indicate this. They were purchasing victuals, instead of going to the Temple with their tithe, "if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it."

Then they were to worship in a more convenient appointed place, "And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household." The second word, "desireth," (Hebrew: sha'al, to ask, inquire, request, desire) clarifies the first, avah. There were other items to desire besides the drink. I would remind you also that Moses allowed divorce, "because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you," whereas Christ had clearly indicated that it is not God's will, to which we should adhere today.. The N. T. is a better covenant.

There is no pitting of "the OT and NT against each other." Yet, the new covenant is certainly better, in that we have the promised Messiah. But, as Moses "was faithful in all his house, as a servant," yet it says: "Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we..." Heb. 3:5,6.

The instructions for the deacons and elders are to keep purity in service, with the danger of the relatively weak wine to corrupt. What are we doing with the strong drink of today? If you have counseled, as I, the number who have been caught in this dangerous vortex, then it should give extreme pause to the way you present this supposed "freedom."

BTW, you have no evidence as to the nature of the "fruit of the vine" to which Christ refers in Matt. 26:29.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make that is different from the point I was making...

I also have no idea why you think it would help your argument against alcohol to argue that it was good and glorious for Jews to take their tithe money and bring it to Jerusalem and buy strong drink with it to drink it before the Almighty God of Heaven as an offering of praise to Him. This is the God who killed Aaron's sons for offering fire that He didn't tell them to offer. The same God who doesn't allow bastards to enter into the temple, even to the tenth generation. The God who doesn't let one little piece of sin enter into the practice of worshiping Him. Amidst all His warnings to His people about alcohol, it was good and it brought Him glory (just like sex and money - you should read all the warnings about money - and food and friendship and every other good thing He made)

Your arguments against alcohol are all over the place. First drinking is wrong in the Old Testament, then when that is clearly shown to be false, it was allowed in the Old Testament, but the New Testament is a better covenant and because of it we have to give up some things (like divorce). Except Jesus took the law and applied it to our hearts and by doing so, he pretty much knocked out divorce (which of you has never lusted in his heart? Let that one accuse his wife of failure).But he didn't do that with alcohol. What other unwritten laws are there that we have to keep? You say that we are priests, but you know that we are not priests after the order of Levi, but of Melchizedek, who when he met Abraham gave him bread and, wait for it, wine, and after Christ, who the scripture records came eating and drinking (and Christ's eating and drinking are contrasted specifically with John the Baptist who was not allowed to drink wine or strong drink Matt 11:18-19).

It is a serious thing to teach that which Scripture does not teach. I am 34 years old and I have never drunk wine or beer or any other alcoholic beverage (save Nyquil or some such). I am trying to determine what is best for me to do to honor my father and my mother and the way that they have taught me and the way to raise my children in this world. I am cautious, and I pray that I will remain so, but I can not condemn my brother for drinking, nor teach him that God condemns anything except abuse.

I hope you continue to wrestle with these things,
Charles

John,

I'm so sorry. I kind of lost interest in the thread and didn't even notice your request until today. I will assemble some material and post a reply in the next day or two.

Mike D

Thanks Mike. That's great information. The paragraph I quoted above is especially insightful. The driving assumption of prohibition is obviously flawed. The gospel changes hearts, not a mandated moralism.

For anyone interested on a collection of some links on Charles Welch and prohibition history, I did a post on it a while back entitled:

Welch's Grape Juice, Worldly Wisdom, and Wine

Thanks again, Mike.

Done. Thanks for the pointer to the other thread.

Mike D

Paul, the reason for the changes is that places like SI have created a more important underlying change in Fundamentalism. Some of us actually believe that discussion has value. Instead of a few key individuals declaring what the movement believes, everyone's statements are open to study and criticism.

The lowliest pew-folk with a correct analysis expressed well can start a change that will alter the course of the whole movement. And no school president, giant-pastor, or Fundamentalist eminence can prevent it indefinitely.