FBFI Resolution 09-02

This was a thoughtful and well-worded statement in many ways. Who could argue with so many of the concepts so thoroughly grounded in Scripture?

And yet, there were a few disturbing items.

[FBFI Resolution 09-02] And whereas present-day Fundamentalism has been dismissed as a product of the culture, The FBFI denies that Fundamentalism is simply a product of culture but affirms that it is the result of Biblical truth applied to culture.

In context, the resolution seems to affirm that Fundamentalism’s reactions to the culture have always been by-products of Scripture and not part of a Fundamentalist Christian sub-culture. I believe this is too strongly worded.

As far as I can see, Fundamentalism’s reactions to the culture have been partly a result of cultural considerations and partly a result of applying Scripture to culture. In fact, looking at the history of the development of Fundamentalism’s arguments against certain elements of culture, one walks away with the impression that too often we preach against the item in question first, and only later develop Scriptural arguments to explain our feelings of disdain for them.

The 2nd item that disturbed me is in this statement:

[FBFI Resolution 09-02] And whereas sins previously not named among believers such as the use of alcohol as a beverage, premarital sex, adultery, homosexuality, profanity, vulgarity, immodesty, and much more are now not only viewed unashamedly by believers as entertainment but also practiced without shame among those who name Christ,

I am unhappy with the presence of “using alcohol as a beverage” on this list.

Let me be clear. I do not drink alcohol. Never have. Never will.

I preach against it as strongly as the Scriptures permit. I wish I could find Scriptural authority for calling “using alcohol as a beverage” a sin. I believe, depending on attitude and intent, that a particular believer may be sinning by doing so, but I’m not sure there is enough Scripture to get us to calling it a sin outright.

Despite all the strong warnings in Scripture against alcohol, they generally seem to lean toward warning against abuse.

There are several troubling passages where use of it without abuse seems to be affirmed.

And, clearly, if the Lord had wanted to say “no intoxicating beverage”, He could have found some way to say so.

There are undeniably serious testimony issues that arise when a Christian consumes alcohol — enough that I think they SHOULD keep the modern Christian away from alcohol entirely. But that is a secondary consideration, and should be presented as such.

So I’m uncomfortable with the placement of “alcohol” on a list of other sins as though they are all set equal in God’s eyes.

I also might note that calling “using alcohol as a beverage” something “not named among believers” leaves out some fine Reformed Fundamentalists at the turn of the century, and much of European Fundamentalism. Does that not indicate a rather culturally reactive bent in some strictures of Fundamentalism?

Yes, the inclusion of “use of beverage alcohol” on that list really undermines the credibility of what is an otherwise reasonable and thoughtful post.

The Gerald Priest article rightly claims that fundamentalists are sometimes seen as “out of touch” kooks. But saying that “early Christians were accused of the same by Roman Hedonists” is no defense. You must stick to scripture for your defense. Claiming a blanket biblical prohibition on alcohol beverages is about as honest as claiming that the bible prohibits the use of electrical organs in church, since King David didn’t have electricity. It’s just kooky.

And for the record, I am not a hedonist either. I just think that honestly is important.

Good. I’m glad someone addressed the alcohol issue before me.

When I am in discussions with other conservative Christians, not necessarily inerrantists but people with a “high view” of Scripture, (usually Reformed, old school high church types, and traditionalist Catholics) they often bring up the absolute prohibition against alcohol among evangelicals and fundamentalists as proof that the self-proclaimed inerrantists add their own biases. Now maybe some of them have a dog in the hunt and like their alcohol a little too much, but it does make us look unserious and our inerrantists position suspect.

It is simply not credible that the Bible forbids all use of alcohol as a beverage. Alcohol was ubiquitous in the ancient world. It had to be. They had no refrigeration and didn’t always have ready access to potable water. What were they going to do? Go to their frig and get some Welch’s or go stick a few quarters in the Coke Machine? Carry a goat along to milk whenever the need arose? The new wine into old wineskins parable doesn’t make sense unless you understand fermentation was taking place. How long would fresh juice last in the hot Israel sun anyway?

This sort of obliviousness to historical reality makes us look bad. The Bible does prohibit drunkenness and in the modern age with all our alternatives it may well be wise to avoid alcohol altogether, but claiming the Bible prohibits all use of alcohol as a beverage hurts our credibility. I would not have included it in the list.

Concerning alcohol, the last stronghold state in America is compromising, starting tomorrow. :)

http://heartissuesforlds.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/july-1-cheers-utah/

And Red, some Reformed men do preach totally abstaining from alcohol - Peter Masters.

The including of the alcohol issue (a historically questionable issue between good men) as the same level of violation as unquestionable issues (homosexuality and such) was the only negative of the article in my opinion.

By the way, this is why dear friend Mike Durning says what he says about the FBFI kind of groups and their positions coming from a sub-culture as well as Scripture. The drink issue is a great example. Clearly from the text one can see wine and alcohol being used in the early NT church. You have to change the meaning of the text to say otherwise. Of course the Scriptures also teach the danger of wine. It teaches the sin of drunkenness. I think it even implies warnings on the use of wine. To say that it teaches total abstinence is to bring into the text elements that have been taken from outside the Scriptures - i.e. culture or sub-culture (which are applicable in the discussions of application….but not in the source of the immediate meaning and internal authority of the text for Christian living).

To my friends in the FBFI who want to throw the brick at me…..go ahead, draw a picture of little chubby man and throw the brick. You’ll feel better. But after you get that out of your system please listen to me. For nearly 2000 years in the Church of Jesus Christ (the real one….not the one from Salt Lake City), the overwhelming position has been that a believer can partake in some alcohol without violating his character or the character of His Lord. That has been the major view. It’s fine if you don’t agree with that…..please understand that many men who are as committed to the authority of Scripture do not, have not and will not take the abstinence view…..

A friendly challenge,

jt

PS - I don’t drink by the way…..so I’m not motivated to defend this thing from anything other than a loyalty to the text of the Bible.

Straight Ahead!

jt

And now you have to bring church history into this, Joel? (chuckling)

The alcohol issue reminds me of my infamous SI article of bygonne days on food, wine, and sex.

I had to share the full article back in March with all my friends of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

http://heartissuesforlds.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/big-love-big-sex-and-…

from the nondrinker in Idaho,

et

But I would like to purchase Randy’s latest book on this heart issue:

http://www.bjucampusstore.com/ePOS/form=robots/item.html&item_number=28…

Seems like an instance of believers trying to raise God’s bar of holiness. There were those in Jesus’ day that attempted to be holier than He was too.

[Joel Tetreau] For nearly 2000 years in the Church of Jesus Christ (the real one….not the one from Salt Lake City), the overwhelming position has been that a believer can partake in some alcohol without violating his character or the character of His Lord.

I’ll take it one step further. For most of church history, an obedient believer had to drink wine. What was in the communion cup? Only in the 19th century was “unfermented wine” (aka grape juice) invented by Thomas Welch for use in communion. It’s hard to deny that believers can “drink in moderation” when they are doing just that in corporate worship on Sunday.

Count me in with the “kooky” fundamentalists who believe consuming alcohol as a beverage is a sin. I still believe Proverbs 20:1, just as it appears in the KJV. The issue stems from whether you take a “one wine” or “two wine” position. One wine people see all wine in the Bible as alcoholic. Two wine people see some as alcoholic and some as grape juice—depending on words and context. I take the two wine view.

As for Randy Jaeggli’s book, “The Christian and Drinking,” I believe it is poorly written, confusing, and is a poor argument for abstinence. In fact, his argument for abstinence is so weak that—in my view—it actually supports the arguments of those who use alcohol in moderation. I have approached BJU about withdrawing the book, but they have refused to do so thus far.

As an example of Randy’s audacity, he claims that the wine made by Jesus at Cana was full strength, alcoholic wine. Even John MacArthur denies that! (If Jesus made and distributed full strength alcoholic wine, you have NO argument for abstinence—at least from the Bible.)

Some months ago I wrote a review of Jaeggli’s book. I have my review in both printed and e-mail form. I would be glad to send an e-mail copy to any who desire it. Just contact me at [email protected].

[Pastor Marc Monte] Count me in with the “kooky” fundamentalists who believe consuming alcohol as a beverage is a sin. I still believe Proverbs 20:1, just as it appears in the KJV. The issue stems from whether you take a “one wine” or “two wine” position. One wine people see all wine in the Bible as alcoholic. Two wine people see some as alcoholic and some as grape juice—depending on words and context. I take the two wine view.

Perhaps we should start a new thread about this issue, since nobody at SI has ever debated it (ha!).

I am somewhat sympathetic with the two wine view. The idea of “grape juice” or “intoxicating wine” both being possible meanings for some words standardly rendered with the English “wine” is a certainty. But that certainty has a trap in it.

The ancients were not chemists. While there were ways to prevent fermentation known in the ancient world, juices were likely to ferment in that pre-refrigeration culture. The reason why words like “oinos” refer to both is because fermentation is a process. Pure grape juice with 0% alcohol is the beginning. I’m told that given conditions in the Holy Land, the maximum likely amount of alcohol in grape juice prior to distillation was about 12%. So my juice is sitting in a wineskin or a stone vat somewhere. I call it “oinos”. I call it “oinos” when it is trampled out of my grapes, with 0% alcohol. I call it “oinos” the next day. I call it “oinos” the day after. I call it “oinos” when it has 12% alcohol in it.

So you see the problem. Context may tell me that it is intoxicating, as in “He got drunk on the oinos”. Or it may tell me it it non-intoxicating, as in “He just squeezed the oinos out of the grapes”. But any context that is less informative than these two examples or something like them gives me NO information on whether it is intoxicating. All I know is that it may be potentially intoxicating.

This is the beginning of the interpretive problem surrounding this issue.

[Pastor Marc Monte] Count me in with the “kooky” fundamentalists who believe consuming alcohol as a beverage is a sin. I still believe Proverbs 20:1, just as it appears in the KJV.

I think everyone here would agree that we believe in Proverbs 20:1, but not all of us in the way you seem to be taking it.

Pastor, I have complete respect for an abstinence position based on other biblical principles or conscience. But if moderate consumption were sin, we wouldn’t have to find it in the Proverbs. It would be prominent in the Law and the New Testament. But on the contrary, rather than consumption being the issue there, drunkenness is. What’s more, the benefits of wine are observed and the consumption of strong drink is even advocated in the Pentateuch.

Furthermore, if the 2 wines idea were valid, it would be needless to admonish church leadership not to linger; they couldn’t become drunken no matter how much juice they consumed.

I’ll have to try again to get his material here at SI, but Mike Harding has done a very thorough study on the topic and did an excellent presentation on it at the Conference on the Church for God’s Glory in ‘08. His paper was called “The Wrath of Grapes.”

I don’t recall specifically… seemed more than two wines are involved. Will have to dig it up. But he talked about spring wine vs. later and fresh vs. aged, etc. Mixing with water was quite common and skipping the mixing when you wanted to get drunk was also common.

The thing with Proverbs is that they always have to be interpreted in view of what a proverb is… very, very compressed generalization. They are brief so as to be poignant and memorable. But, being generalizations, there are always conditions and qualificaitons that are not stated. This is easy to see when reading, for example, the many Proverbial promises regarding wealth and prosperity (Proverbs 22:4 for example). Jesus met the stated conditions but “had no place to lay His head.” So there would have to be other conditions that sometimes apply.

That said, the Proverbs that warn about intoxication are not unclear. The intent is to say “the stuff is trouble.” But they should not be construed to say something so precise as “any liquid containing any amount of alcohol is a sin to consume as a beverage under any circumstances.”

To me, the best case that can be made is probably the one in Jaegeli’s book (not sure, haven’t read it)… i.e., (1) we simply do not need to have alcohol in our beverages today. It’s easily avoided and there is nothing to gain from drinking it yet risk in drinking it. (2) It’s a fabulous opportunity to “not conform” and take the high ground in reference to something that has destroyed so, so many lives.

[Aaron Blumer] To me, the best case that can be made is probably the one in Jaegeli’s book (not sure, haven’t read it)… i.e., (1) we simply do not need to have alcohol in our beverages today. It’s easily avoided and there is nothing to gain from drinking it yet risk in drinking it. (2) It’s a fabulous opportunity to “not conform” and take the high ground in reference to something that has destroyed so, so many lives.

I’ve heard the same arguments offered for why we should not own guns. Don’t need ‘em and they’ve destroyed so many lives.

Actually, alcohol doesn’t destroy lives; choices do. And the same is true with guns.

BTW, I am not advocating alcohol use or gun control … just pointing out some inconsistencies in Jaegeli’s arguments. I’ve been told it’s my spiritual gift! :D

There is a surface similarity to these arguments, but it doesn’t go very deep.

Nobody is addicted to guns. The use of a gun doesn’t attract anyone to a chemical dependency on guns. Though some may claim otherwise, having or using a gun does not in itself impair the judgment of its owner… even if he shoots it alot.

And guns are extremely useful for disposing of invaders who intend harm to your family or yourself, etc.

Not mention that there are no biblical warnings against the dangers of weapons (except maybe “he who lives by the sword will die by the sword” … but context is key there).

It’s true, though, that alcohol does not do the destroying without people making choices. But it’s a bit of a technicality. We’re still talking about a substance that does nothing good (that cannot be achieved in better ways) and which time immemorial has shown to be a snare to vast numbers.

As for Jaeggli’s book, I don’t really know if he makes these arguments.

Some interesting material on the book here: http://www.jonathantaylor.eu/jat/2009/05/review-the-christian-drinkig-b…

Actually, alcohol doesn’t destroy lives; choices do. And the same is true with guns.

I don’t think your comparison holds and bad analogies don’t make good arguments.

Guns don’t alter mental states. They don’t cause you to lose your inhibitions or do crazy things. Most people who do something with their guns don’t wake up the next morning and wonder what they did last night. Most of the times that guns are involved in immorality is it because someone is pointing it at someone else. It’s not because they lingered a little too long over the barrel.

Alcohol is completely different. It does alter a mental state. It does cause you to lose your inhibitions. And on and on.

And I don’t think drinking is necessarily wrong.

I think Monte’s appeal to Prov 20:1 doesn’t actually deal with Prov 20:1. That proverb speaks to those who are deceived by it. (The word probably “led astray” and can be used in other ways such as in Prov 5:19 of a man’s satisfaction with his wife which could hardly be described as “deceived,” though the next verse uses the same word, probably in an ironic way. In Isa 28:7, it’s only other use with wine I think, it clearly means intoxicated. So in Prov 20:1, its meaning with wine is probably “intoxicated,” but I will go with the KJV on this out of deference to Monte). A great many people who drink alcohol as a beverage are not deceived by it; they are not intoxicated by it.

Monte’s case about John 2 is another classic case of bad argumentation: “It can’t be real wine because drinking is prohibited.” That’s a bad argument. It assumes that your conclusion that drinking is completely forbidden is right. And then you have to write off all evidence to the contrary as really meaning something else. I doubt many wedding parties served grape juice in the first century. It may have been diluted, but it was impressive to the people at hand. Historically total abstinence as not been the position of the church (which means little to many, particularly those who hold a particular view of the Scriptures themselves). But it is at least something to consider.

Now, let me remind you as I said recently on my blog, I think drinking alcohol as a beverage is silly. I think it is unwise. I think it is unnecessary. I say that publicly and privately. I tell people “I don’t think you should drink and here’s why.” I have told people, ‘You cannot drink and remain a member of this congregation.” But the Bible does not give a clear categorical condemnation of it, and therefore we must tread lightly. Harding’s title “The Wrath of Grapes” is apt, and should be heeded.

So I am not making a case for drinking. I don’t want to and don’t need to. I don’t think you should drink. My point is about bad arguments.

Fundamentalists must guard against an anachronistic set of rules that fails to see the true intent of Scripture and creates a caricature of New Testament Christianity. At the same time, Fundamentalists must be honest with themselves about the presence of worldliness within our own churches and individual lives and not forsake true holiness under the guise of a false Christian liberty.

I was discussing rearing our kids in church with someone the other day, having learned through brutal experience that it is incredibly naive to treat the church as if it is a safe haven from sinful behavior and worldly influences. I agree with the above quote, because I think achieving this balance (holiness and liberty) is one of the most difficult things to accomplish in one’s own life and thus in the church. We are so often guilty of deceiving ourselves- picking and choosing what principles we want to apply to our lives (and the lives of others)… that IMO is what creates the caricature of NT Christianity.

Actually, alcohol doesn’t destroy lives; choices do. And the same is true with guns.

I understand what you are saying here, Bro. Fields, but we can’t ignore the inherent potential in some practices, as well as their social acceptability. Alcohol abuse is shrugged off and even laughed at, while I can’t think of an instance where ‘gun abuse’ was considered amusing. More and more, the other behaviors listed are funny eccentricities instead of abominations in the sight of God. But you can’t advise people not to watch their favorite source of entertainment, because then you’ve done gone and stepped in it.

[Aaron Blumer] “The Wrath of Grapes.” … I don’t recall specifically… seemed more than two wines are involved.

I think I forgot to mention. They all contained alcohol.

[KenFields]

[Aaron Blumer] To me, the best case that can be made is probably the one in Jaegeli’s book (not sure, haven’t read it)… i.e., (1) we simply do not need to have alcohol in our beverages today. It’s easily avoided and there is nothing to gain from drinking it yet risk in drinking it. (2) It’s a fabulous opportunity to “not conform” and take the high ground in reference to something that has destroyed so, so many lives.

I’ve heard the same arguments offered for why we should not own guns. Don’t need ‘em and they’ve destroyed so many lives.

Actually, alcohol doesn’t destroy lives; choices do. And the same is true with guns.

BTW, I am not advocating alcohol use or gun control … just pointing out some inconsistencies in Jaegeli’s arguments. I’ve been told it’s my spiritual gift! :D

Started reading comments - ok yeah, obviously guns are not the same as alcohol… BUT - Ken is combating Blumer’s “best case” arguments - apparently Jaegeli defines alcohol as something unneeded and dangerous. Strictly speaking, if you want to attach Ken’s analogy - you have to attack it based on Aaron’s definitions without importing other features of alcohol or guns into the discussion. It’s not an open ended analogy.

[ssutter]

[KenFields]

[Aaron Blumer] To me, the best case that can be made is probably the one in Jaegeli’s book (not sure, haven’t read it)… i.e., (1) we simply do not need to have alcohol in our beverages today. It’s easily avoided and there is nothing to gain from drinking it yet risk in drinking it. (2) It’s a fabulous opportunity to “not conform” and take the high ground in reference to something that has destroyed so, so many lives.

I’ve heard the same arguments offered for why we should not own guns. Don’t need ‘em and they’ve destroyed so many lives.

Actually, alcohol doesn’t destroy lives; choices do. And the same is true with guns.

BTW, I am not advocating alcohol use or gun control … just pointing out some inconsistencies in Jaegeli’s arguments. I’ve been told it’s my spiritual gift! :D

Started reading comments - ok yeah, obviously guns are not the same as alcohol… BUT - Ken is combating Blumer’s “best case” arguments - apparently Jaegeli defines alcohol as something unneeded and dangerous. Strictly speaking, if you want to attach Ken’s analogy - you have to attack it based on Aaron’s definitions without importing other features of alcohol or guns into the discussion. It’s not an open ended analogy.

…but having lived for nearly 20 years in rural WV, the idea of guns as unnecessary is laughable. Unless you don’t mind dogs killing your chickens and rabbits, black bears knocking on your back door, or thugs stealing anything that ain’t nailed together. I certainly couldn’t deal with any of the above situations by pouring a bottle of JD all over it.

Every analogy falls apart at some point, but this one only takes a sneeze and kaflooey- there it goes.

In the first century, people drank alcoholic beverages. Many people abused them. Timothy may serve as an example of some Christians who did, to a very large extent at least, abstain from drinking. Presumably it was to maintain face. I find it most telling, though, that our Lord did not choose to model this course for his people. Not only did he create wine at Cana, he certainly drank often enough that bigoted individuals could wrongly accuse him as a drunkard. Matthew 11:18-19 18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.”

I believe the Lord’s Supper provides the context for a Christian understanding of alcohol. Jews drank alcoholic beverages as part of their religious festivals, with no indication that it was a shame, a disgrace, or a little “shaky.” One can make all sorts of baseless assumptions about the nature of the “wine,” but we all know what’s strong about “strong drink.” Deuteronomy 14:24-26 24 And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the LORD your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the LORD your God chooses, to set his name there, 25 then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the LORD your God chooses 26 and spend the money for whatever you desire- oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.

When the Lord’s Supper was instituted, Jesus certainly used real wine, keeping the Jewish tradition. The imagery of wine in connection with God’s saving work has OT roots as well. (Here again, grape juice hardly makes sense.) Zechariah 10:6-7 “I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph. I will bring them back because I have compassion on them, and they shall be as though I had not rejected them, for I am the LORD their God and I will answer them. 7 Then Ephraim shall become like a mighty warrior, and their hearts shall be glad as with wine. Their children shall see it and be glad; their hearts shall rejoice in the LORD.

What a beautiful way to teach! In the Lord’s Supper, we learn that alcohol is a good gift from God. It is for children, it is for adults, it is for men, it is for women. It makes the heart glad. In the church, Christians can learn to use alcohol without abusing alcohol, a line that Corinth seemed not to always get just right. Yet abstinence is not Paul’s solution 1 Corinthians 11:20-21 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.

Obviously, the 19th century introduction of grape juice in the place of wine was the result of an unbiblical attitude toward alcohol. Really, it was an affront to the history and practice of the church. Alcohol is in some ways like sex; the perversions of it have often fostered a “sex is dirty” attitude in the church that is the opposite of rejoicing in God’s gift to his people, within his boundaries. The Lord’s Supper instructs us on how to receive wine as it is - God’s gift.

Note: Obviously, the Lord’s Supper is not about alcohol; it is about Christ’s work on behalf of his church. Nevertheless, I believe that reflecting on it brings insight into the Christian’s relationship with alcohol.

You beat me to the punch, Charlie. I was thinking that a better comparison than guns is sex. Proverbs warns strongly against the strange woman but we don’t conclude that the admonition is against sex, just illicit sex. That said, we should not insist that everyone get married and have sex, we should just say that the matter is one of personal liberty. Romans 14 is prominent in this matter. If you drink, you should not flaunt it, if you don’t you should stop your opinion with yourself and not judge your Master’s other servants until and unless drunkenness enters the picture. Then we should condemn it soundly.

[Susan R] Every analogy falls apart at some point, but this one only takes a sneeze and kaflooey- there it goes.

The analogy was not meant to be an end-all to the discussion … just a stimulant! I guess it worked!

In reality, it was a tongue-in-cheek point about non-biblical arguments regarding alcohol consumption and other “worldly” activities.

Do we have a tongue-in-cheek smiley? :~

[Dennis Clemons] If you drink, you should not flaunt it, if you don’t you should stop your opinion with yourself and not judge your Master’s other servants until and unless drunkenness enters the picture. Then we should condemn it soundly.

The better question (and one that I’ve heard Dr. Bauder address) is this: how does a consumer of alcohol know when he has reached the point of drunkenness?

And biblically speaking, when does the one drinking become drunk? When he can’t walk straight … when his blood alcohol content reaches the state’s .08 level? When he feels ‘the buzz’?

For me, this is the best non-biblical argument for abstinence (from alcohol): the consumer is often unaware of the point of inebriation.

Charlie,

Well said;. My wife and I have been attending and will probably join a PCA church, and while they offer grape joice, wine is the default drink in communion. I have drunk the wine every time I’ve taken communion at the church, and it has caused me to think about the history of the church’s practice, and the massive deviation that using grape juice entails (I mean, wine in communion was is a truly catholic practice: in all times and all places). I think you’re right, too, that had the church kept wine in the communion, people would have learned a better and more biblical way to understand the place of alchohol in life; just as if we had never adopted cultural and sinfully prudish assumptions about sexuality, we would never have had to deal with some much nonsense in attitudes towards sexuality in the church, so too if we had kept a biblical view of alcohol, afforded to us in the Scripture, the history of israel, and the history of the church, much of the nonsense on alcohol (a huge waste of time, when one reflects on how much time people spend on backing up patently unbiblical and wrong positions) would never have occurred.

It’s an ironic instance of the culture dictating its norms to the church - not for the first time, of course. The church in America particularly really messed up on the issues concerning the body and pleasure generally, and those mistakes, which can be traced back to more substantive theological moves in the Western tradition, have had significantly deleterious effects on the church’s practical witness and its approach to issues concerning the body, pleasure, etc.

[Susan R]

[ssutter]

[KenFields]

[Aaron Blumer] To me, the best case that can be made is probably the one in Jaegeli’s book (not sure, haven’t read it)… i.e., (1) we simply do not need to have alcohol in our beverages today. It’s easily avoided and there is nothing to gain from drinking it yet risk in drinking it. (2) It’s a fabulous opportunity to “not conform” and take the high ground in reference to something that has destroyed so, so many lives.

I’ve heard the same arguments offered for why we should not own guns. Don’t need ‘em and they’ve destroyed so many lives.

Actually, alcohol doesn’t destroy lives; choices do. And the same is true with guns.

BTW, I am not advocating alcohol use or gun control … just pointing out some inconsistencies in Jaegeli’s arguments. I’ve been told it’s my spiritual gift! :D

Started reading comments - ok yeah, obviously guns are not the same as alcohol… BUT - Ken is combating Blumer’s “best case” arguments - apparently Jaegeli defines alcohol as something unneeded and dangerous. Strictly speaking, if you want to attach Ken’s analogy - you have to attack it based on Aaron’s definitions without importing other features of alcohol or guns into the discussion. It’s not an open ended analogy.

…but having lived for nearly 20 years in rural WV, the idea of guns as unnecessary is laughable. Unless you don’t mind dogs killing your chickens and rabbits, black bears knocking on your back door, or thugs stealing anything that ain’t nailed together. I certainly couldn’t deal with any of the above situations by pouring a bottle of JD all over it.

Every analogy falls apart at some point, but this one only takes a sneeze and kaflooey- there it goes.

Actually, Susan, what you said has nothing to do with the analogy, nor does Ken’s analogy fall apart; it’s works perfectly. Analogies do not fall apart - they get over-extended or they are bad and hence don’t work..The point of analogy is to compare things with respect to some specific shared properties, in order to same something about one on the basis of its similarity (or disimilarity) to the other.

Whether or not those who argue that guns are unnecessary are right or wrong is completely irrelevant: Ken’s point was that the argument about alcohol (that it’s unnecessary and that it’s damages lives) is an argument he’s seem before in a context where it was clearly a bad argument. Now, he seeing the same argument again, and, guess what? It’s still a bad argument! And this is so for exactly the same (or similar) reasons that it was a bad argument against guns. One of the mains reasons the argument is bad is because it places responsibility and power in the thing (guns, alcohol, etc.), which is a way of avoiding the fact that things are only not responsible, their users are. That something can be seriuosly misused is no argument against it, which is why such arguments are nor usually framed in terms of misuse because then it’s much clearer how bad the argument is; so the argumetns are framed in terms of the thing having a kind of power and responsibility, which is, again, a misleading (but often effective) way of framing the issue.

One of the mains reasons the argument is bad is because it places responsibility and power in the thing (guns, alcohol, etc.), which is a way of avoiding the fact that things are only not responsible, their users are.

Responsibility, yes. Power is a different issue. Alcohol has a power over an individual that a gun does not. Shooting a gun all day long will not give the gun power over the person. Shooting a gun every day for years will not give the gun power over a person. Alcohol will. So I think it is a bad argument to try to compare guns and alcohol. They are two very different types of things.

And I don’t think communion helps your point, and I have no idea what you mean “cultural and sinfully prudish assumptions about sexuality” but it strikes me as an odd statement, particularly in this context.

I read an article a few weeks ago that I thought was the best article against drinking I had ever read. I failed to bookmark it for later reference though. I noticed in a previous post that Larry wrote about an article he had posted on his blog, so I went to my Google Reader to see if his article was the article I had remembered and sure enough it was.

http://stuffoutloud.blogspot.com/2009/06/in-diner.html Here It is.

p.s. Larry is not shameless like me in plugging his blog in his signature!

Is there any independent evidence from the ancient world for the “two wines” theory? It strikes me as wishful thinking.

First, the Hebrew scriptures portray wine in a very negative way. The warnings against wine are extremely strong and the effects of wine are seen as devastating. Abstinence is connected with special dedication and spiritual responsibility.

Prov 20:1

20:1 Wine Is a Mocker Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise.

NKJV

Prov 20:1

20:1 Wine Is a Mocker Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise.

NKJV

Prov 20:1

20:1 Wine Is a Mocker Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise.

NKJV

Prov 23:29-24:1

29 Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaints? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes?

30 Those who linger long at the wine, Those who go in search of mixed wine.

31 Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it swirls around smoothly;

32 At the last it bites like a serpent, And stings like a viper.

33 Your eyes will see strange things, And your heart will utter perverse things.

34 Yes, you will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, Or like one who lies at the top of the mast, saying:

35 “They have struck me, but I was not hurt; They have beaten me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake, that I may seek another drink?”

NKJV

Prov 20:1

20:1 Wine Is a Mocker Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise.

NKJV

Prov 23:29-24:1

29 Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaints? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes?

30 Those who linger long at the wine, Those who go in search of mixed wine.

31 Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it swirls around smoothly;

32 At the last it bites like a serpent, And stings like a viper.

33 Your eyes will see strange things, And your heart will utter perverse things.

34 Yes, you will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, Or like one who lies at the top of the mast, saying:

35 “They have struck me, but I was not hurt; They have beaten me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake, that I may seek another drink?”

NKJV

Prov 31:4-5

4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, It is not for kings to drink wine, Nor for princes intoxicating drink;

5 Lest they drink and forget the law, And pervert the justice of all the afflicted.

NKJV

Prov 20:1

20:1 Wine Is a Mocker Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise.

NKJV

Prov 23:29-24:1

29 Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaints? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes?

30 Those who linger long at the wine, Those who go in search of mixed wine.

31 Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it swirls around smoothly;

32 At the last it bites like a serpent, And stings like a viper.

33 Your eyes will see strange things, And your heart will utter perverse things.

34 Yes, you will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, Or like one who lies at the top of the mast, saying:

35 “They have struck me, but I was not hurt; They have beaten me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake, that I may seek another drink?”

NKJV

Prov 31:4-5

4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, It is not for kings to drink wine, Nor for princes intoxicating drink;

5 Lest they drink and forget the law, And pervert the justice of all the afflicted.

NKJV

Hab 2:15-16

15 “Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbor, Pressing him to your bottle, Even to make him drunk, That you may look on his nakedness!

16 You are filled with shame instead of glory. You also — drink! And be exposed as uncircumcised! The cup of the LORD’s right hand will be turned against you, And utter shame will be on your glory.

NKJV

Special examples are given connecting abstanance from wine with special dedication to God.

Priests were not to drink wine when ministering in the temple (Lev. 10:9).

Daniel and his friends refused wine (Dan. 1).

Those under a Nazerite vow abstained from wine and strong drink (Num. 6:1-4)

Second, the strong warnings and restrictions in the Hebrew scriptures provide the basis for the prohibitions in the Christian scriptures.

John the Baptist, the Hebrew transition prophet, abstained from Wine and strong drink (Matt 11:18).

Church Elders were to not be given to wine (1Tim. 3:3).

Deacons were not to be given to wine (1Tim.3:8

The effects of wine are contrasted to the effects of being filled with the Holy Spirit (Eph. 5:18).

In light of the nature and severity of the warnings and examples of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, we must consider abstinence from wine and strong drink as integral with any and all calls to spiritual commitment in the Christian church (Rom. 12:1-2).

From a life experience standpoint, as one coming from a non Christian home and lifestyle, having spent 4 years active duty in the Navy where I was converted to Christ, I cannot see the wisdom of any Christian seeking to find a place or allowance for alcoholic beverages in a Christians life. Past history of the churches, and present cultural allowances for such in Europe and other places, have been a factor in weaker testimonies and churches.

In American culture today, making allowance for alcoholic beverages can have many detrimental results. I have heard several teenagers who have made excuse for their drug use by stating that adults have a drug of their choice called alcohol. Use alcohol and you weaken the example and basis for your own children. We are asked to present our bodies as a living sacrifice at Rom. 12: 1-2. If the effects of alcohol on the body are contrasted to Spirit control at Eph. 5:18, how can we sincerely do that while seeking to ignore strong warnings of scripture regarding a thing and seeking to find the possible loopholes for that thing.

[KenFields]… how does a consumer of alcohol know when he has reached the point of drunkenness? … For me, this is the best non-biblical argument for abstinence (from alcohol): the consumer is often unaware of the point of inebriation.

The Lord didn’t seem to be as concerned about this scenario as modern fundamentalists are. And the vast majority of Christendom throughout history did not have difficulty understanding the distinction. So we should be careful not to go further than Scripture does and condemn them for their moderation. What I’m getting at is that, biblically, consumption does not equate to sin, only drunkenness does and most of the church has understood the distinction.

[Dennis Clemons]

[KenFields]… how does a consumer of alcohol know when he has reached the point of drunkenness? … For me, this is the best non-biblical argument for abstinence (from alcohol): the consumer is often unaware of the point of inebriation.

The Lord didn’t seem to be as concerned about this scenario as modern fundamentalists are. And the vast majority of Christendom throughout history did not have difficulty understanding the distinction. So we should be careful not to go further than Scripture does and condemn them for their moderation. What I’m getting at is that, biblically, consumption does not equate to sin, only drunkenness does and most of the church has understood the distinction.

Good point, Dennis.

Most people should be aware that comparing wine in Jesus’ day to wine in our day is trying to compare apples to automobiles. Winemakers today routinely use technology and knowledge to create wines that are much stronger than the ancients ever possibly could, simply because we have the ability to keep it much longer and chemically alter it to make it stronger. I learned that in my public school health class all the way back in 8th grade.

[red] +++MODERATOR NOTE+++

Let’s get around to discussing the other aspects of the FBFI Resolution, or at least bring the debate about the use of alcohol around to how this part of the resolution might affect… I don’t know- Christianity, Fundamentalism, folks who are members of or support the FBFI…? In other words, let’s find a way to get back to the main topic.

If you have any questions or concerns about this moderator note, please notify me via email.

I think I’ll go start a thread dedicated to this debate- I’ll be back in a minute to post a link.

I started a thread- “What Does The Scripture Say About The Use of Alcohol” here- http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-what-does-scripture-say-about-use-o…

Please use it to continue the debate about drinking wine. Thanks.

Trying to analyze it further, I kept reading it over and over again to see if I could figure out what they were really reacting to. They seemed to be saying, “Don’t say we’re a product of the culture. That would invalidate what we’re really about.” Even if Billy Graham or some other equally recognizable personality today were to call fundamentalism a product of the culture, so what? It is undeniable that every issue that makes a splash in fundamentalism is culturally driven. Consider their list: the use of alcohol as a beverage, premarital sex, adultery, homosexuality, profanity, vulgarity, immodesty. We could just as easily say that those things along with their viewpoints on music, gambling, tattoos, cigars, Bible translations, etc. are all reactions to culture. Is that a slur so long as the position staked out is biblical? (All too often, it is not, but that’s for a different thread.) So what’s the point of the statement? It seems to be without one.

I had a friend in college who would occasionally frown at me and say “You think too much.” Sometimes she was right. I’ve a got a deacon who has once or twice suggested I was “overthinking” something.

Anyway, Dennis, maybe that’s what’s happened to you here. Looks to me like all they’re saying is “Those who say Fundamentalism is a purely human thing (consisting of all the right wing extremist elements of any given culture) are wrong. It’s about trying to live by the Bible.” It’s a simple point, but definitely a point and I’d argue that it’s one worth making as well.

[allenjs] Yes, the inclusion of “use of beverage alcohol” on that list really undermines the credibility of what is an otherwise reasonable and thoughtful post.

The Gerald Priest article rightly claims that fundamentalists are sometimes seen as “out of touch” kooks. But saying that “early Christians were accused of the same by Roman Hedonists” is no defense. You must stick to scripture for your defense. Claiming a blanket biblical prohibition on alcohol beverages is about as honest as claiming that the bible prohibits the use of electrical organs in church, since King David didn’t have electricity. It’s just kooky.

And for the record, I am not a hedonist either. I just think that honestly is important.

Amen! Preach it! I could not agree more fully!

[Aaron Blumer] Looks to me like all they’re saying is “Those who say Fundamentalism is a purely human thing (consisting of all the right wing extremist elements of any given culture) are wrong. It’s about trying to live by the Bible.” It’s a simple point, but definitely a point and I’d argue that it’s one worth making as well.

Thanks for the paraphrase, Aaron. Maybe they should have let you write the thing. :)

[Aaron Blumer] Anyway, Dennis, maybe that’s what’s happened to you here. Looks to me like all they’re saying is “Those who say Fundamentalism is a purely human thing (consisting of all the right wing extremist elements of any given culture) are wrong. It’s about trying to live by the Bible.” It’s a simple point, but definitely a point and I’d argue that it’s one worth making as well.

Yes, Aaron, but the list suggests that what they were really talking about was that their standards — the most visible part of Fundamentalism — were not cultural, but Biblical. And that’s not consistently true. Sometimes the list of standards has been cultural, sometimes Biblical, and sometimes some kind of weird mutant hybrid of the two.

It is clear that the FBF believes their stand against the listed sins is Biblical, including the position that the use of beverage alcohol is a sin. With their position I heartily concur. Some have dismissed the idea of beverage use of alcohol as a sin far too easily, betraying their relative ignorance of the controversy. For my reformed friends, I would remind you that the FBF also views baby baptizing as a sin—a position taken by every real Baptist. I’m simply saying that the position of the FBF does not need to satisfy reformed, covenant Christians—indeed, in many points it can not do so while being true to Baptist convictions.

Dr. Jaeggli’s book, “The Christian and Drinking” seeks to take the arguments of the moderation crowd and tries to make them fit the abstinence crowd. If you’ll read his book objectively, you’ll find his arguments are hopelessly flawed and at odds with the policies of BJU. For example, Jaeggli claims Christ produced and distributed full strength alcoholic wine. Dr. Bob has assured me in personal correspondence that any student involved with alcohol is expelled from BJU. The ridiculous irony should be obvious: If Jesus were a student at BJU, He would get expelled! I’m simply saying that once you declare Jesus made and distributed alcoholic wine, you have no more Biblical arguments for abstinence. (Any such “arguments” would constitute a new Phariseeism in which modern American believers are to be holier than Jesus.)

For a complete review of Jaeggli’s book, check out my blog at pastormonte.blogspot.com

[Mike Durning] Yes, Aaron, but the list suggests that what they were really talking about was that their standards — the most visible part of Fundamentalism — were not cultural, but Biblical. And that’s not consistently true. Sometimes the list of standards has been cultural, sometimes Biblical, and sometimes some kind of weird mutant hybrid of the two.

Yes, it is an interesting mix. I suppose no two believers agree on what prohibitions are “biblical” (and transcend cultures) and which are “derived from Scripture” and applied to features of a particular culture. But some of the items in the list are clearly not culture-specific.

Still not sure it matters that much though, as far as the resolution goes… muddies it up a bit, but point is clear enough, seems to me.

First,

[FBFI REsolution 9-2] Fundamentalists must be honest with themselves about the presence of worldliness within our own churches and individual lives and not forsake true holiness under the guise of a false Christian liberty. We cannot have true revival without an attending holiness, and we will not truly reach the world without the power of God that accompanies true revival.

I find this ironic, in light of the changes being made in (at least some FBFI affiliated) fundamentalist worship services. We’re making it more and more like a movie theater every Sunday. Do we even remember how to worship without a projector?

Second, there’s an unsaved man in my church. He has told me that it troubles him that fundamentalists say they believe the Bible, but they really don’t.

This resolution is the kind of thing he refers to. The Bible clearly condones “beverage use of alcohol” and it clear does not qualify as “sins previously not named among believers.” The subset of believers that call it sin started doing so less than 200 years ago. This kind of resolution helps convince him that scripture takes a back seat to fundamentalist dogma in my church. This makes him very difficult to reach. (He doesn’t drink, by the way.)

The Wrath of Grapes

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

(yayin) wine.

The word is used 140 times, 12 of these in combination with shekar (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 (nasak) 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).



(shakar) 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).

(shekar) 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).

5. 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.

6. 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 society.

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.