The True Gladness of Wine
The debate over whether Christians ought to consume alcohol is not only an old one but, on the Web at least, a tired one. Much of the tiredness, though, is due to an excess of passion and a shortage of precision. Quarreling has been abundant and arguing scarce. I hope to contribute a bit here to the argument rather than the quarrel.
One example of arguing rather than quarreling dates back to the spring of 2006. I gather that Bob Bixby posted a case against the use of alcoholic beverages by Christians.1 Bob Hayton responded, in part, with an essay entitled “Wine to Gladden the Heart of Man”: Thoughts on God’s Good Gift of Wine. In the essay, Bob Hayton argues not only that “God gave us wine to bring us joy,” but also that the joy He had in mind is an effect of wine’s alcohol specifically.
Speaking of Judges 9:13, Ecclesiastes 10:19, and Zechariah 10:7, Bob observes:
It should be clear that even the intoxicating nature of wine is being praised, here. Wine lifts the spirit and gladdens the heart long before it actually overtakes you and makes one drunk. Wine can be enjoyed and its effects relished without losing control and becoming drunken.
This theme runs through the eight points that form the main structure of the essay. Following the eight points, a section focuses on counterarguments related to the biblical warnings against wine and the use of weaker brother passages. Though Bob wrote the post some years ago, I became aware of it during a discussion here at SI last year and pledged to write a response sometime. Here it is.
A little perspective
Before I delve into the particulars, a bit of framing. First, I believe that the decision to use (non-medicinal) alcohol judiciously or to abstain from it completely is a matter of conscience. Believers must apply the Scriptures and be fully persuaded in their own minds (Rom. 14:5) and must not despise one another (Rom. 14:3, 10) for arriving at different conclusions.
That said, matters of conscience (or liberty) are not matters we should avoid discussing or examining carefully.2 We owe it to our Lord, ourselves, and one another to have a conscience that is as clearly and truthfully informed as possible.
So it’s in that spirit that I’m going to try to upend the argument in Bob’s essay. I have the highest regard for him and for many of those who share his views on this question.
The eight points
In support of the idea that wine is God’s gift and we should enjoy it (the effect of its alcohol in particular), the essay offers eight points with supporting Scriptures:
- Wine is a gift of the goodness of God (Jer. 31:12-4, Ps. 104:14-15, 1 Tim.4:1-5).
- Wine produces joy—it “gladdens the heart” (Judg. 9:13, Ecc. 10:19 NASB, Zech. 10:7. See also Prov. 31:6-7, Jer. 16:7-8).
- Wine is used in rejoicing before God (Deut. 14:22-26, Isa. 62:8-9, Deut. 12:17-19. See also use of wine in drink offerings: Ex. 29:40, Num. 15:5, 2 Chron. 31:5, Deut. 8:4).
- Abundance of wine is a particular blessing from God (Joel 2:24-26, 3:18; Gen. 27:28; Deut. 7:13).
- Having no wine was a hardship or a judgment of God (Amos 5:11, Deut. 29:2-6. See also Deut. 18:39, Mic. 6:15, Zeph. 1:13).
- The absence of wine results in the absence of joy (Isa. 24:7-11, Jer. 48:33, Is. 16:10).
- Drinking wine is singularly festive, joyful, and celebratory (Ecc. 9:7, Isa. 22:13, Job 1:13, Esther 1, 1 Chron. 12:39ff, Gen 27:25 and several others).
- Wine will be part of the future feasting in Christ’s kingdom (Isa. 25:6-9, Jer. 31:12-14, Matt. 26:29, Luke 22:28-30, Matt. 8:11, Luke 13:29, etc.).
Points of agreement and contention
The crux of this particular debate is really not the eight points themselves but whether they truly support the thesis. Isolated from a particular conclusion, seven of the eight points are solid and well supported by Scripture. (Point six should probably be merged with point five since the passages listed there do not indicate a cause-effect relationship.)
But the argument as a whole hinges on a particular definition of “wine” and a particular view of wine’s relationship to one of its usual ingredients (alcohol). Since the pro-wine position needs to argue that fruit of the vine without alcohol is not a suitable modern-day substitute, it must attribute the blessings of wine to alcohol specifically. The thesis, then, is effectively that alcohol is a blessing God gave us to make us glad. Most advocates of the judicious use of wine maintain that if there is no alcohol, the beverage simply isn’t wine.
This is my main point of contention: Where passages do not clearly indicate the effects of intoxication (whether slight or severe), “wine” cannot be used validly as a synonym for “alcohol.”
The old non-alcoholic wine argument
At this point, I’m sure some have got me pigeon-holed as a proponent of the old “Christian people drank non-alcoholic wine” argument. But this is not where I’m going. I believe God’s people consumed wine with alcohol on a regular basis.
But does it follow that if wine usually contained alcohol, every statement in Scripture extolling wine is also extolling alcohol? A closer look at some of the passages Bob uses in his essay suggests an answer.
But the vine said to them, “Should I cease my new wine,
Which cheers both God and men,
And go to sway over trees?” (NKJV, Judg. 9:13)
Here, the “wine” cheers both God and men. Presumably, it cheers them both in a similar way—but how would God experience the cheer that comes from the early stages of intoxication? Since God is a spirit, the cheer in this passage is evidently not directly related to any ingredient the wine contains—and doesn’t even depend on drinking it. (Arguably, we could take this as a reference to God incarnate physically enjoying wine, but it seems less strained to see the cheer here as referring to the gladness of witnessing an abundant harvest.)
Joy and gladness are taken
From the plentiful field
And from the land of Moab;
I have caused wine to fail from the winepresses;
No one will tread with joyous shouting—
Not joyous shouting! (Jer. 48:33)
Gladness is taken away,
And joy from the plentiful field;
In the vineyards there will be no singing,
Nor will there be shouting;
No treaders will tread out wine in the presses;
I have made their shouting cease. (Isa. 16:10)
Consider this: how much alcohol does the “wine” in these verses contain? Here the term refers to the product of the press at the time it comes from the press—a liquid containing no alcohol at all. This use of “wine” in reference to the not-yet-fermented fruit of the vine is not unique. In Jeremiah 40:10 and 12 “wine” is what is “gathered.” In Amos 9:13, “wine” is what the mountains are dripping with. In Haggai 2:16, “wine” is still in the vat, and in Isaiah 65:8 the substance is “wine” even while still in the cluster!
Though it’s true (as far as I can tell) that wine was nearly always consumed with alcohol in it, the evidence does not support using “wine” as a synonym for “alcohol,” nor may we treat alcohol as an essential attribute. We can’t assume that all references to “wine” say something meaningful about alcohol in particular.
The real gladness
If we accept that “wine” does not refer to alcohol specifically, or even consistently to a beverage containing alcohol, we’re free to look at the wine-and-gladness passages with more openness and to allow the context to carry more weight in understanding what each reference reveals.
What that look reveals is that most of the passages which associate wine with gladness are about the gladness of physical nourishment or refreshment, the gladness of abundant harvest or the gladness of God’s blessing in general (many of these passages associate cheer with food as well in the same context). Most of the passages that associate lack of wine with sorrow are really about famine and loss due to God’s judgment. Few of these passages are actually about wine. Nearly all refer to it in service to some larger point.
The table below classifies all of the primary texts from Bob’s essay, and most of the secondary ones as well. (Some passages could be classified under more than one heading.)
Passages associating wine with the gladness of abundant harvest or God’s blessing in general | Jeremiah 31:12-14, Deuteronomy 14:22-26, Zechariah 10:7, Judges 9:13, Isaiah 25:6-9, Isaiah 62:8-9 |
Passages associating wine with the gladness of nourishment or the pleasure of eating and drinking | Psalm 104:14-15, Ecclesiastes 10:19 |
Passages associating lack of wine with the sorrow of meager harvest or loss of God’s blessing in general (judgment) | Amos 5:11, Deuteronomy 29:2-6, Deuteronomy 28:39, Micah 6:15, Zephaniah 1:13, Isaiah 24:7-11, Jeremiah 48:33, Isaiah 16:10 |
Passages associating wine with gladness vaguely (specific reference to intoxicating property not clear, but possible) | Ecclesiastes 9:7, Isaiah 22:13, Song of Solomon 1:2-3, 4:10 (and others in Song of Solomon) |
Passages not associating wine with gladness (mostly with other items representative of God’s provision and grace) | Exodus 29:40, Numbers 15:5, 2 Chronicles 31:5, Deuteronomy 12:17-19, Joel 2:24-26, Joel 3:18, Genesis 27:28, Deuteronomy 7:13, Matthew 26:29 (and Luke 22:17, 20), 1 Corinthians 11:21 |
Passages simply indicating that wine was consumed along with food, mostly on some special occasion | Job 1:13, Esther 1:7, 1 Chronicles 12:39-40, Genesis 27:25, Luke 7:33-34 |
Passages referring to medicinal use of wine | Proverbs 31:6-7 |
Passages that do not mention wine but would fit under one of the other headings if wine is assumed | 1 Timothy 4:1-5, Luke 13:29, Luke 22:28-30, Matthew 8:11 |
Since the gladness and cheer in these passages do not depend specifically on the presence of alcohol, those who enjoy the fresh juice of the grape (or of the grapefruit, for that matter) cannot be accurately characterized as rejecting the blessing of “wine” or of missing out on the biblical gladness it brings.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
- 745 views
Thank you for your comment. I don’t question your personal experience in inner-city ministry. I personally came to Christ while living on the south side of Chicago. Afterwards, I had ministered for years at the Pacific Garden Mission with thousands of addicts. This is the most famous rescue mission in the US. I am sure you have heard of the famous radio program, “Unshackled,” which broadcasts amazing stories of conversions at the mission. There was a firm policy of abstinence at the mission for all workers and residents. It was unthinkable that those preaching and counseling would imbibe. It was equally impossible for us to teach the new believers to embrace a policy of moderate social drinking. So my experience has been radically different than yours.
As a young boy I spent my life in the bars with my father on 51st street in Chicago. I understand the drinking-scene better than most. I made a promise to my mother that I would never drink. My dad is dead. Most of his five brothers died, lost in their sins, of alcoholism in their twenties, thirties, and forties. As I have witnessed and preached to many of my relatives in Boston, it would be inconceivable to them for me to drink.
Pastor Mike Harding
By the way, I understand your decision for abstinence. We all have different experiences. And I actually do respect your reasoning for abstaining even if you didn’t have this experience.
[Aaron Blumer] But this leads to another question, “Does the public in this culture/region have an accurate view of how Christians ought to live?” I suppose they never do, entirely, so we have two goals: (1) not to needlessly offend/confuse and (2) to teach the truth about what the Christian way of life really is.(emphasis added)
So with #2, we’re back to where we started: does Scripture reveal principles that, in our day, call for abstinence? We can’t really answer that by appealing to what unbelievers expect from us because what they expect is only ultimately only relevant if they’re right.
Aaron, since you are talking about unbelievers / testimony concerns in this comment, I’m seriously doubting your #2. Where do the Scriptures say we are to teach them in this way? I don’t see anything in Paul’s teaching on testimony concerns relative to meat, for instance, that would fit this idea. He seems to pretty much stop with #1, to say not to eat it in circumstances that would offend/confuse, and he doesn’t address #2 at all.
Am I missing something?
[23] “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. [24] Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. [25] Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. [26] For “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.” [27] If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. [28] But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience—[29] I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? [30] If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?JG,
(1 Corinthians 10:23-30 ESV)
Let me run this one by you. Read the above passage and look how Paul is arguing. He asks believers to “eat whatever is set before you.” Why? I think in part it’s because we are to live in a way that tells unbelievers that “the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof” and another is to partake in thankfulness to God and your host for what they have set before you. (As an aside, picky eating can be sin.) Once the unbeliever informs you that the meat had been offered to idols, you are to refuse it. Why? Because now you would be communicating something different to your host. We are to watch out for our unbelieving hosts in this regard.
People in the Bible, including Jesus, drank wine yet it labels drunkenness a sin
Consider history:
The Reformers and the Pilgrims drank alcohol (George Washington even made whiskey)
Abstinence didn’t rise to the status of a stated position until Prohibition
Consider personal observation:
Most of us have seen the damage caused by alcohol consumption
Maybe it’s a personal decision.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
There is not the least hint in this passage that the guest should say to the host, “Oh, you don’t understand what the Christian way of life really is. It’s ok for us to eat this because the earth is the Lord’s.” You simply say, “Ok, thank you for telling me,” and eat something else. There is no Biblical basis of which I’m aware for doing anything else.
The testimony factor in I Cor. 10 is strongly determinative on behaviour even if the activity in question is not in the least doubtful to the believer. In the presence of unbelievers who consider it wrong or inconsistent with Christian behaviour, for the Gospel’s sake we should not partake even if we are convinced it is completely acceptable. If there is a strong strain of this negative thought towards a practice within society at large, we should probably not partake (or purchase for that matter) in public.
[JG] In practice, I agree (re: picky eating, as well). If we’re going to be guests, we should be good guests. But I don’t see this as saying we’re supposed to be educating our hosts. The reference to the earth being the Lord’s is a reminder to believers that we’ll take no spiritual harm from eating the food that is put in front of us.The reference to the earth being the Lord’s is making the statement you say. There will be no spiritual harm for the believer. But the emphasis in this passage is how to love one’s neighbor. “Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.” Paul then immediately talks about what kind of neighbor one should watch out for. He’s going to an unbeliever’s house, and he’s to watch out for the unbeliever’s conscience. So I don’t think the emphasis is on the believer’s conscience here (“I do not mean your conscience, but his.”)
[JG] There is not the least hint in this passage that the guest should say to the host, “Oh, you don’t understand what the Christian way of life really is. It’s ok for us to eat this because the earth is the Lord’s.” You simply say, “Ok, thank you for telling me,” and eat something else. There is no Biblical basis of which I’m aware for doing anything else.You’re right, it’s all non-verbal. The entire passage is about how to communicate non-verbally what you also believe and speak verbally. We can be easily misunderstood. In fact, this would be one argument for public abstinence of alcohol in areas in which you’d be likely to find people who believe, even if falsely, that Christians are forbidden to drink. In the passage I think the host’s intension for saying “this has been offered to idols” (or anyone else at the meal) is to trap the Christian into worshiping false gods along with him in a sort of “gotcha.” By refusing to eat the meat, you’re refusing to participate in what your hosts/audience thinks is part of idol worship, but you’re also being a bad guest. Paul is saying to always choose to be a bad guest over appearing to participate in idol worship. The focus is always on how to clearly portray in word and deed what the truth is. I think that’s the goal for all of us here, but how things come across to different audiences in different situations is really touchy.
[JG] The testimony factor in I Cor. 10 is strongly determinative on behaviour even if the activity in question is not in the least doubtful to the believer. In the presence of unbelievers who consider it wrong or inconsistent with Christian behaviour, for the Gospel’s sake we should not partake even if we are convinced it is completely acceptable. If there is a strong strain of this negative thought towards a practice within society at large, we should probably not partake (or purchase for that matter) in public.I just don’t interact with many people who think like that where I am in my daily activity. In my very first comment on this issue here, I said this issue has geographic dimensions. The culture where I am is such that people are more shocked at the idea that Christians think drinking in moderation is wrong, than if they see a Christian drinking. As if to illustrate the point, I’m sitting feet away from my company’s large and diverse corporate beer fridge, where after 5:30 PM you may have a free beer on the house. The only other Christian I know at work in our office of 100 just grabbed one. This is the culture. Nobody cares. Different people’s contexts will be different, and I wonder how many Christians for fear of being tainted with the difficulties of sin, haven’t been to their non-Christian friend’s house for dinner… or don’t really have non-Christian friends.
[JG]It’s teaching the gospel. (The way of life is a necessary inference of the new birth). But it’s also just love of truth. There is no advantage to having the lost be confused about what Christian living is. The more they know the better.[Aaron Blumer] But this leads to another question, “Does the public in this culture/region have an accurate view of how Christians ought to live?” I suppose they never do, entirely, so we have two goals: (1) not to needlessly offend/confuse and (2) to teach the truth about what the Christian way of life really is.(emphasis added)
So with #2, we’re back to where we started: does Scripture reveal principles that, in our day, call for abstinence? We can’t really answer that by appealing to what unbelievers expect from us because what they expect is only ultimately only relevant if they’re right.
Aaron, since you are talking about unbelievers / testimony concerns in this comment, I’m seriously doubting your #2. Where do the Scriptures say we are to teach them in this way? I don’t see anything in Paul’s teaching on testimony concerns relative to meat, for instance, that would fit this idea. He seems to pretty much stop with #1, to say not to eat it in circumstances that would offend/confuse, and he doesn’t address #2 at all.
Am I missing something?
(I’ll add that every truth supports every other truth in some way or other… so it’s all good. But in this case, the benefit for clear communication of the gospel in particular doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57407128/is-sugar-toxic/
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
I would simply say morphine, coumadin, aspirin are drugs that should be used medically as drugs and not for recreational purposes. Neither should the drug of alcohol be used as a beverage for recreational purposes.
As for alcohol and sugar:
Suppose you are driving at night down a dark two lane road with steep ditches on each side. A car is coming to meet you. Would you rather the oncoming driver be driving fat or driving drunk?
David R. Brumbelow
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Greg Long] I’m not arguing that point, David…I’m simply responding to the argument that we should abstain from any alcohol intake because it is toxic.Ditto for me.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Pastor Mike Harding
[mike harding] 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 recreationallyWhat I mean is:
- “drink socially” is almost always used in pejorative way. But is that the opposite of:
- Drinking “anti-socially”? OR
- Drinking “lonely”?
- “Recreationally” has the same problem (in terms of definition)
- Does it mean “as a pastime”? OR
- “occasionally” ?
- If someone has a glass of wine with dinner and his spouse is there … well that’s socially
- If someone only drinks with a meal (say a beer with pizza) that would be occasionally / recreationally.
Suppose the surveys said (and there is some kind of a survey out there I’m sure):
- a staggering 64 percent of Protestant lay persons socially eat ice cream OR
- 60 percent of the USA population plays billiards recreationally
I raise this point - perhaps some think I am being silly - because in my long tradition as a fundamentalist Baptist I’ve heard this phrase AND used this phrase often: “I’m against social drinking”.
Discussion