A Wisdom Case for Total Abstinence from Alcohol in Modern Times
Image
In my view, the Bible is just ambiguous enough on the topic of beverage alcohol to put the question in the category of matters of conscience. But matters of conscience are not matters to “leave alone;” they’re not excluded from the call to “consider one another in order to stir up love and good works” (Heb. 10:24).
These issues call for respectful challenging of one another’s assumptions — and for pondering the path of our feet (Prov. 4:26).
So, I offer here a few thoughts, mainly with two groups of people in mind: those who are trying to decide what sort of stand they ought to make in their own lives, and those who are looking for ways to communicate a no-drinking position to others they care about.
I’m aware that most of the moderate-consumption advocates I know won’t find this at all persuasive, so in that sense, it’s not an entry in “the debate.” But in another sense, it is: some of the undecided and open minded may find something here that bears fruit later on.
Some framing
A strong wisdom case begins by pointing out a few facts and dismissing some distractions. For brevity’s sake here, just the facts.
- Relative to today, people in Bible times had fewer beverage options; it was harder (maybe impossible) to avoid fermented beverages entirely, even if you wanted to.
- In ancient times, wine was not normally fortified with alcohol as it often is today (more on this practice at winespectator.om, and winecoolerdirect.com, eater.com and of course Wikipedia).
- If not before, certainly after the rise of Greek culture, wine was routinely diluted with water (NY Times, Wikipedia), often to the point that the mix was more water than wine (winespectator.com, “Wine and Rome.”)
Along with these background facts, a few logically obvious points are often lost in the fray in discussions on this topic.
- Not everyone who ever got drunk started out with the intention of getting drunk.
- Nobody ever got drunk without a first drink.
- Nobody ever got chemically addicted to alcohol with the intention of getting addicted to alcohol.
- More than 10,000 people were killed in drunk driving crashes in the U.S. in 2016 (“It’s Not an ‘Accident,’ It’s a Crime.” Sheriff & Deputy, March/April 2018). Nobody who ever drove drunk and killed someone had their first drink that night with a DUI crash fatality as their goal.
I could go on like this for some time, talking about cheating lovers, domestic violence, and all sorts of other alcohol induced or aggravated crimes. To many of us, these facts alone point to some obvious conclusions. But they’re just background lighting for a biblical wisdom case against beverage alcohol.
The argument from wisdom
For various reasons, a “wisdom case” against beverage alcohol consumption tries to avoid the argument that Scripture directly forbids beverage alcohol or that Jesus and the apostles drank only non-alcoholic wine.
The wisdom case I’ve taught in various venues goes like this:
1 Believers must be wise stewards.
A few passages help bring well-known principle into fresh focus.
Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. (ESV, Matthew 10:16)
Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found faithful. (1 Cor. 4:2)
The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom, and whatever you get, get insight. (Prov. 4:7)
So then each of us will give an account of himself to God. (Rom. 14:12)
The “so what” of this principle is that if a course of action is dumb, we shouldn’t do it. If there’s a smarter option, we should do that instead. It’s good stewardship.
2 We are called to keep our minds sharp.
But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. 2 Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, (Titus 2:1-2)
For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness. 6 So then let us not sleep, as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober. 7 For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, are drunk at night. 8 But since we belong to the day, let us be sober … (1 Thess. 5:5–8)
Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. (1 Pet. 5:8)
These passages add up to strong direction to avoid anything that is likely to compromise our ability to stay sharp in tempting times.
3 Beverage alcohol poses dangers to both wise stewardship and sharp-mindedness.
The Bible’s warning passages in reference to “wine” and “strong drink” are well known, and it’s commonly claimed that they refer only to drunkenness and not to having the occasional drink. But as noted above, it’s really not rational to propose a complete non-relationship between drunkenness and “one drink.” You can’t have the former without the latter. They’re connected.
Since many get drunk without starting out with that goal, it’s absurd to claim that a single drink poses no risk at all of leading to drunkenness.
The likelihood may be low, but the stakes are high.
Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaining? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? 30 Those who tarry long over wine; those who go to try mixed wine. 31 Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly. 32 In the end it bites like a serpent and stings like an adder. 33 Your eyes will see strange things, and your heart utter perverse things. 34 You will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, like one who lies on the top of a mast. 35 “They struck me,” you will say, “but I was not hurt; they beat me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake? I must have another drink.” (Prov. 23:29–35)
To this and similar passages, we should add the humiliation of Noah (Gen. 9:20-26) and the degradation of Lot (Gen. 19:30-38). It’s significant that the first occurrence of “wine” in the Bible is a story of tragic family consequences. Did either of these men sit down with a mug that day thinking, “I believe I’ll get drunk now and do something ruinous”?
4 Avoiding pointless hazards is wise.
There is no risk-free living. Driving to work every day is a risky activity — but so is farming the back forty. We take these risks because they’re unavoidable and because the potential gain is worth the degree of risk involved. But acts with a high risk and low potential are just stupid, and recklessness is not a fruit of the Spirit!
The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it. (Prov. 22:3)
Folly is a joy to him who lacks sense, but a man of understanding walks straight ahead. (Prov. 15:21)
When a man’s folly brings his way to ruin, his heart rages against the Lord. (Prov. 19:3)
In our culture, we’d say the fool “gets it.” You have to enjoy life. Cut loose and have a good time … and it’s God’s fault when things go horribly wrong.
5 We should seek every advantage for successful competition.
Olympic athletes have a distinctive way of arranging their lives in pursuit of success. Their personal discipline amazes. They take advantage of every tiny detail of posture, clothing, or gear that might gain them a performance edge. Mostly, we respect that. They’re competing at the highest level.
Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. 25 Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. 26 So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. 27 But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified. (1 Cor. 9:24–27)
Every Christian is called to Olympic-level godliness –- elite uprightness of character. Few can claim to have achieved that, but the pursuit is supposed to be where we live every day.
I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 3:14)
Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, (Heb. 12:1)
If there is spiritual advantage in total abstinence, shouldn’t we be eager to seize that advantage?
Avoiding fermented beverages wasn’t easy in ancient times. There is little evidence that most bothered to even try. But in our times, tee-totaling is easy. Alcohol is a much-to-risk and almost nothing to gain scenario, and abstaining is a negligible sacrifice with a significant benefit. Wasting that opportunity is simply not wise.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
Ron asks a great question about why prohibitionism started, really, in the 18th & 19th centuries in England and the United States. It’s pretty simple really, a question of how much grain you could grow vs. how much you needed to eat. Fertile soil in the U.S. attracted immigrants, and that opened up farmland both in England and the U.S. for record setting yields.
The king didn’t like low prices hurting farmers, so he reduced limits on distilling spirits, especially gin. Think “Beer Street and Gin Lane”. Lots of hard liquor among people who had few other enjoyments (and a lot of free time) led to predictable problems, and well-meaning people thought that the problems would go away if they simply banned the substance instead of dealing with root causes. But to ban it, you’ve got to have a moral argument, so “theologians” of the time constructed a quasi-theological basis for doing so. In doing so, you’ll find gin, farm policies, know-nothingism, anti-Catholic bias, Prohibition, slavery, the Indian wars, and a whole lot more wrapped up into one messy package.
If you look at the work of David, and Teachout, you’ll not surprisingly see a ton of commentary from this era. An early source on David’s Genesis 40:11 claims is, for example, a commentary by a guy named Ellicott from 1878, and Teachout actually uses a 19th century dictionary (vs.a modern one) and ends up mis-defining “ale” as a result.
And with what I’ve seen of these sources, I’ve learned to be wary of them, as they really tend strongly to “begin with the end in mind” rather than soberly appraising the data.
One correction, though; alcohol is nowhere near as lethal as tobacco. It’s actually about an order of magnitude lower in terms of lethality, but if you limit the sample to problem drinkers (as really you should), what you really get is still that it’s a lot less lethal than tobacco, but is actually pretty close to SAD in lethality. We get worked up about it, again, because a portion of alcohol related deaths are quite frankly spectacular and bloody, not because there are more of them.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]And with what I’ve seen of these sources, I’ve learned to be wary of them, as they really tend strongly to “begin with the end in mind” rather than soberly appraising the data.
Forgive me, brother, but I’m literally laughing out loud when I read this. It has been clearly shown that you have done the same thing with the various passages you have presented in support of your position.
[Bert Perry]One correction, though; alcohol is nowhere near as lethal as tobacco. It’s actually about an order of magnitude lower in terms of lethality, but if you limit the sample to problem drinkers (as really you should), what you really get is still that it’s a lot less lethal than tobacco, but is actually pretty close to SAD in lethality. We get worked up about it, again, because a portion of alcohol related deaths are quite frankly spectacular and bloody, not because there are more of them.
You’re still stuck on deaths vs. deaths. I contend the impact alcohol has on society is worse than the impact tobacco has on society. (I am NOT contending Christians should be okay with smoking; although the Bible never prohibits or even warns against it ;))
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
“why doesn’t abstinence form alcohol become a “popular fundamental doctrine” until the prohibition era.”
First, I don’t consider abstinence from alcohol a fundamental doctrine, although Spurgeon just about went that far.
But it is true that abstinence from alcohol, with exceptions here and there over 2,000 years, did not become prominent until the late 1700s and 1800s, culminating in Prohibition almost 100 years ago.
But then, you could say the same about slavery. Yet I believe in regards to alcohol and slavery, the Bible directly and indirectly condemns both.
David R. Brumbelow
[David R. Brumbelow]But then, you could say the same about slavery. Yet I believe in regards to alcohol and slavery, the Bible directly and indirectly condemns both.
Please don’t get me started on “slavery” - which I put in quotes because we all know and agree that American slavery, as it was in our country and as it was outlawed, rightfully so, is easily condemned by scripture. But the concept of one owning another is most certainly not.
I do NOT say this to drum up conversation on the topic of human ownership, I say it to hopefully help others understand my position on hermeneutics. The Bible never condemns alcohol, but it certainly warns against it. The Bible even more so never condemns slavery - and it even gives instructions on how to properly be an owner of another human. There is instruction in the Bible on consuming alcohol - don’t get drunk by it.
So, there you have a question:
The Bible warns against wine, and commands us to not get drunk.
The Bible instructs us how to own other humans, and commands us to love one another (the most fundamental argument prohibiting American slavery).
So I concede that the Bible does not explicitly prohibit consuming alcohol. It also does not explicitly prohibit human ownership.
Who wants to be the first to propose human ownership, showing the many benefits which could be possible with such arrangements if done in accordance with God’s commands?
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Bert and Andrew, Once again, my point isn’t that Jesus drank wine or didn’t drink wine. My point is (1) the text of John 2 doesn’t say and (2) it isn’t the point of the story. Therefore, a pastor/preacher/teacher/Christian should not make it a point one way or the other from this text. It is certainly true that cultural context informs our exegesis and what they did may give some indication of what we can do (although there are a lot of factors before we get there). But again, that is to miss the point.
The point of exegesis is to arrive at the meaning of text in order to find its theological meaning. This text has nothing to do with wine or weddings. Those are simply props for the theological point about who Jesus was. This was a private miracle, done in a backroom, and the headmaster did not know who had done it. (That we know by actual exegesis.) And remember the idea of not drinking is known in the first-century as well (Remember John the Baptist.) So the idea that everyone must drink is simply not true.
No one would quibble if we said Jesus ate lamb, beef, olives, or cheese, as these were common, after all.
I would absolutely quibble with that on the same grounds — that the text says no such thing. For all your talk about the “first fundamental,” why abandon it now? Why do you feel so free to add to the text?
Preaching the text means preaching the text. I know that sounds odd for those who want to use the text to make some other point. But the idea of Jesus drinking or abstaining should never come up from this text because it isn’t in the text.
There is a little assumption here; that the guy who made the wine would have actually sampled it,I guess.
You guess? You are making a rather major point based on a guess? It might be true, but there is no reason to believe it based on what God, through John, said. And that returns us to the question of authority: The text inspired by God or Bert’s guess. Bert may be right, but then we have to wonder why God didn’t bother to tell us that. Perhaps because it isn’t relevant to the point God wants to make. Which may, to be sure, be different than the point Bert wants to make. But in the end, the text must be our authority.
And let’s be blunt here; Jesus here is clearly pointing at His upcoming wedding supper,
How is that clear? Having just preached this text a few weeks ago, I didn’t find that to be clear at all. I found no reason for it in the text. Some suggest it but the reasoning was unconvincing to me. And it was unconvincing to others too. This was the beginning of signs by which Jesus demonstrated his identity. In this story, that appears to be limited to his disciples who were with him. It does not appear to be any broader, again, based on the text itself.
Really, I don’t see the fuss.
My fuss is simple: The text doesn’t say what you say.
I have offered no opinion on whether Jesus drank or didn’t drink, or whether it was wine or grape juice, or whether we should drink or not drink. My point is that the text is being misused to say something it doesn’t say.
If we are going to talk about the first fundamental (as you put it), then we should actually limit ourselves to that. Use the words text in line with its intentions, not with your desire to make some other point.
“It was a wonderful miracle, and yet, after all, it was just a duplication of what our Lord Jesus Christ has been doing for millenniums on ten thousand hillsides, changing water into wine.” -H. A. Ironside (AD 1876-1951), author and pastor of Moody Memorial Church, Chicago, Illinois.
David R. Brumbelow
Larry, exactly how are we to understand the parables and such in Scripture if we don’t have an understanding of what’s left unsaid? Or, for that matter, the most recent quote David posted—if indeed John 2 says nothing directly about water being made into wine on ten thousand hillsides, and it doesn’t, I look forward to your evisceration of Ironside.
Or, quite possibly, the use of external information to infer reasonable conclusions from the context has been done by every theologian of note in history, and your claims simply don’t hold water. Any serious look at Biblical or systematic theology is going to build on a lot of connections—“types” is one kind of this—that are often not specifically mentioned in Scripture. Yes, it can get reckless, but you can bound the realm of possibilities by a serious look at the culture involved.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Larry]The point of exegesis is to arrive at the meaning of text in order to find its theological meaning. This text has nothing to do with wine or weddings. Those are simply props for the theological point about who Jesus was. This was a private miracle, done in a backroom, and the headmaster did not know who had done it. (That we know by actual exegesis.) And remember the idea of not drinking is known in the first-century as well (Remember John the Baptist.) So the idea that everyone must drink is simply not true.
The statement in bold above highlights part of the struggle I have when I am told that wisdom requires me to abstain. Matthew 11 states that John did not drink wine, but Jesus did. The accusations in Matthew 11 while not explicitly mentioning the wine as alcoholic, make it hard to understand it as anything but alcoholic wine. So John did abstain, but Jesus did not and he could have if he wanted to. If Jesus did not abstain, why does wisdom require us to abstain. I’m sure some will say Matthew 11 does not refer to alcoholic wine, but I view that as a stretch given the context in Matt 11.
The statement in bold above highlights part of the struggle I have when I am told that wisdom requires me to abstain.
Perhaps someone who will tell you that wisdom requires you to abstain will explain that. I will wait and see.
I think Jesus turned the water into mocha, coconut frappuccinos.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
The Mormon View:
As introduced by the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, Joseph Smith, the sacrament included the use of fermented wine, though the church now uses water.
Commanded in an 1830 revelation to Smith[5] not to purchase alcohol from enemies, the church focused on producing its own wine, eventually owning and operating vineyards and wineries in Utah Territory and California during the 19th century.
In 1833, Smith received the revelation known as the Word of Wisdom, part of which prohibits the consumption of alcohol, with the exception of sacramental wine. Initially, the Word of Wisdom was treated as a recommendation, and the early Latter Day Saints would still drink alcohol on occasion. During the late-19th century, church leaders began to interpret the Word of Wisdom as a mandatory requirement for members. This increased respect for the Word of Wisdom, combined with other scriptures in Doctrine and Covenants[6] led congregations to begin substituting water for the sacramental wine. The practice was officially adopted church-wide in 1912.[citation needed]
Occasionally, a lack of access to bread will result in the use of food other than bread in the sacrament. Crackers and tortillas are sometimes used in outdoor, rugged settings, such as church-sponsored Boy Scout camping trips.[citation needed] In such situations, the word “bread” is typically retained in the prayer.
Then there are the Amish (from Ask the Amish):
The Amish have two communion services per year. One in spring around Easter time and the other in the fall. Some communities use wine, while others use only grape juice.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[TylerR]I think Jesus turned the water into mocha, coconut frappuccinos.
There’s that gluttony thing again with those drinks coming in at 400 calories apiece…. and what couple doesn’t want a good strong hit of caffeine to prevent any sleep after the most exhausting day (or week in Hebrew culture) of their lives….?
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Larry]Bert and Andrew, Once again, my point isn’t that Jesus drank wine or didn’t drink wine. My point is (1) the text of John 2 doesn’t say and (2) it isn’t the point of the story. Therefore, a pastor/preacher/teacher/Christian should not make it a point one way or the other from this text. It is certainly true that cultural context informs our exegesis and what they did may give some indication of what we can do (although there are a lot of factors before we get there). But again, that is to miss the point. The point of exegesis is to arrive at the meaning of text in order to find its theological meaning. This text has nothing to do with wine or weddings. Those are simply props for the theological point about who Jesus was. This was a private miracle, done in a backroom, and the headmaster did not know who had done it. (That we know by actual exegesis.) …
Agree. The point of the narrative is not on what Jesus made but on that he could and did perform a miracle to meet the perceived need of the hour for the purpose of revealing himself as the One with exclusively God attributes now beginning public ministry as a human being. If the perceived need was ping pong balls He would have miraculously made ping pong balls for identical reasons. And that is not a guess because Mary knew what He would do because she knew Who He was (forever answering the question in the silly Christmas song [okay, that is an opinion] “Mary, did you know”?). They were out of oinos; they needed oinos; Mary knew He could and would provide oinos; He miraculously provided oinos. Jesus was there not to approve marriage, which He did elsewhere, or to approve wine. He was there to identify Himself as the Savior come to earth. That was the message of the text, and, quite frankly, the only message of the text.
Lee
Matthew 11
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, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!”
Several things to note about John Baptist and Jesus.
1. John Baptist did not eat or drink with the people. He did not socialize.
2. Jesus came eating and drinking, socializing with the people. That does not state He drank alcohol. I eat and drink with people, but do not drink alcohol.
3. It was Jesus’ enemies who slandered Him saying He was a winebibber (and glutton). Don’t take the word of those who hated and slandered Jesus as the gospel truth.
4. Some say Jesus must have drank alcohol for Him to be accused of being a winebibber. In other words, there had to be some truth to the accusation. Well, Jesus was also accused by His enemies of being demon possessed and mad (John 10). So, would the same people insist there must be some truth to this or His enemies would not have said it?
Of course there was no truth to Jesus even being a little bit demon possessed or a little bit mad.
And Jesus being falsely accused of being a drunk in no way proves He drank alcohol.
David R. Brumbelow
[David R. Brumbelow]And Jesus being falsely accused of being a drunk in no way proves He drank alcohol.
I think it’s also noteworthy to remember (it’s easy to forget sometimes; forest/trees analogy) who the author of the Bible is.
His accusers were indeed his enemies. If you want to believe his enemies’ accusations and build your doctrine around that, I think you are making a mistake - especially since that isn’t the point of this passage in the first place.
A Sola Scriptura, First Fundamental Literal, Historical-Grammatical Hermeneutic exegesis of this passage does not tell us whether or not Jesus consumed alcohol, period.
That’s two down (John 2 and Matthew 9). I’m guessing there are other passages you pro-Jesus-consumed-alcohol folks have to support your claims; let’s see if they hold up any better to sound exegesis than what you have offered with these. My mind is still open; I am still reading and listening; I have been searching for others on the web to see if anyone else has solid, exegetical support showing Jesus (1) consuming and (2) approving/blessing the consumption of alcohol. I’m coming up short so far.
Side-note:
Some of you have referenced “wine, that makes the heart merry.” I’m fascinated to hear your thoughts on that matter. Are we saying the intoxicating effects of alcohol (i.e. a buzz, which many DOT’s refer to as being drunk (buzz driving is drunk driving)) are being promoted by the Bible? If not, then what other “merriment” comes from alcohol that I can’t get from grape juice or the countless other things I can eat or drink? This is a serious question; I’m not mocking or trying to make a case for or against, I’m just trying to understand what it is about wine making merry.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Exactly what level of statement would it take to persuade the abstentionists here that Jesus did, indeed, drink real wine? With the insistence that you have to actually follow real, alcoholic wine past His lips and into His stomach, you’d have to have something like this:
It was a dark and stormy night, and Jesus raised the glass of real wine, the kind that will make you drunk if you have too much, to His lips and drank. And then he swallowed the wine…..
Thankfully, the Gospel writers didn’t write like Bulwer-Lytton, and that really presents a problem for those who would insist on this level of proof; Scripture doesn’t read like that because the society at the time didn’t talk like that. There was nothing remarkable about drinking wine that would justify such prose.
In short, I’m afraid you’ve set up a theory that is unfalsifiable, and unfalsifiable theories are inherently….false.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Exactly what level of statement would it take to persuade the abstentionists here that Jesus did, indeed, drink real wine? With the insistence that you have to actually follow real, alcoholic wine past His lips and into His stomach, you’d have to have something like this:
That is a very easy question to answer - there is no scriptural passage or passages that links Jesus drinking wine resulting in a merry heart (or for medicinal purposes, for that matter). If there were, I doubt there would be any controversy.
But it has been demonstrated that your conclusions are not based on sound exegesis, but on inference and assumption.
Here is the summary of why I believe what I believe:
“it” = alcoholic wine
1) We are commanded to be filled with the Spirit, not wine (drunkenness)
2) We are commanded neither to consume it nor to abstain from it, therefore, it is a matter of conscience
3) The choice to consume may cause a brother to stumble
4) We have far more passages warning about it than passages praising it
5) We know some who abstained
6) We know none whose consumption of it was approved and/or encouraged
These are all facts taken directly from scripture, not by inference or assumption based on a predisposition.
As a Christian with freedom to make choices in areas not clearly commanded/prohibited by scripture, my assessment of the consumption of alcohol is that consuming it has high risks while abstaining from it has virtually none; the only possible benefits to non-medicinal consumption specifically mentioned in scripture are superficial (a merry heart) and insufficient for me to be willing to take on the risks.
Therefore, it is a wise choice to abstain.
This is why I agree with Aaron’s article.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
I did not ask you whether you thought there was evidence to prove Jesus drank wine. I asked the forum what kind of evidence would suffice to demonstrate this. Again, if your hypothesis cannot be falsified—and that is your contention right now—it is false. Period.
So let’s have what kind of statement that would fit in the Hebrew mindset of the time that would suffice to convince you. Once again, if you cannot falsify your hypothesis, neither can you prove it.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Exactly what level of statement would it take to persuade the abstentionists here that Jesus did, indeed, drink real wine?
The “level of statement” it would take to persuade me is one that does not violate the rules exegesis, which is why I kept coming back to my question of trying to understand how you exegete scripture - because you must be applying a different hermeneutic than others in order for you to believe Jesus “did, indeed, drink real wine.”
[Bert Perry]Exactly what level of statement would it take to persuade the abstentionists here that Jesus did, indeed, drink real wine?
I may also have read your question too quickly and possibly incorrectly included myself with your queried audience. Were you directing your question to those who demand abstention as a scriptural mandate, or were you including those who believe the Bible does not demand abstention, leaving it a matter of conscience? I do not believe the former, although I grew up in a church that did.
It took me too many years to come out from that kind of church and recognize that we must never add to what the Bible says.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
[JNoël]The “level of statement” it would take to persuade me is one that does not violate the rules exegesis, which is why I kept coming back to my question of trying to understand how you exegete scripture - because you must be applying a different hermeneutic than others in order for you to believe Jesus “did, indeed, drink real wine.”
I would agree with you here that the Bible does not explicitly say Jesus drank wine in Matt 11/Luke 7 and I would be wrong if I try to claim that it did. However, it’s not wrong for me to read the passage and come away with several reasons why it is my opinion that the wine was most likely alcoholic, or at least that in my opinion there is no reason to assume otherwise. I won’t go through my reasoning here because there is no doubt that those with the opposite view will remain unconvinced. There are other passages (Deut. 14:26, Num. 28:7, etc,) that speak about wine in a positive or non-prohibitive way, however I know that those who abstain have reasons why they are not convinced these passages permit consumption of alcohol. I’ve studied this issue extensively and am not able to come to the same conclusions.
For those who truly believe that the Bible prohibits all alcohol consumption, they do right to abstain and to tell others to abstain based on what they believe the Bible teaches. While I disagree, I can respect that they are sticking with their Biblical convictions. But I do buck against the wisdom argument as applying to all believers, mainly because I grew up in church background similar to what JNoel described. The wisdom argument is perfectly fine for individual believers as they can apply the argument as their conscience dictates. But when saying that the Bible does not actually prohibit alcohol consumption and at the same time putting the wisdom argument out there as a reason why ALL believers should avoid alcohol, I believe that is a way of backdooring a prohibition that the Bible itself does not make.
Bert, somebody literally is going through this thread, and systematically disliking everything you write!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Ken S]For those who truly believe that the Bible prohibits all alcohol consumption, they do right to abstain and to tell others to abstain based on what they believe the Bible teaches.
Perhaps it is time to break out the various positions being expressed in this conversation.
Some demand abstinance (drinking alcohol = sin).
Some demand the Bible teaches that consuming alcohol is a blessing from God, to be enjoyed, but that drunkenness is sin.
Some believe the Bible lacks any clear commands against consumption, making it a matter of conscience.
I am in the third category. I do not in any way believe the Bible condemns or condones it, I believe it is a matter of conscience. I do not break fellowship with those who disagree.
As a parent, I believe the wisdom of abstinence is a good position in instructing my children why I choose not to consume. I can explain to them the variety of scriptural references about alcohol - not only the warnings, but the others, too. If I teach my children that Jesus drank alcohol and reference passages that Bert and others have referenced, they may grow up asking the same questions I have asked - why we are leaning on passages that don’t actually say that Jesus drank alcohol? That is not honest exegesis - it is eisegesis. But it would be just as wrong for me to try to build a case of consumption being sin - because the Bible doesn’t say that, either.
[Ken S]But I do buck against the wisdom argument as applying to all believers, mainly because I grew up in church background similar to what JNoel described. The wisdom argument is perfectly fine for individual believers as they can apply the argument as their conscience dictates. But when saying that the Bible does not actually prohibit alcohol consumption and at the same time putting the wisdom argument out there as a reason why ALL believers should avoid alcohol, I believe that is a way of backdooring a prohibition that the Bible itself does not make.
I wholeheartedly agree. I think it is more difficult to write on this subject than it is to play it out in real life. Honestly, the conversation about alcohol rarely ever comes up at church, in my home, or even with my unsaved co-workers (when we may be out at a dinner somewhere). If it does, I begin with telling them that I prefer not to drink alcohol because I find the risk too great. If they want me to expand on the conversation, I can, and reference what the Bible says about alcohol (and what it doesn’t), and how alcohol continues to ruin lives (finances, domestic violence, workplace problems, sexual crimes, vehicular situations, health, etc.) but I don’t pressure anyone into choosing to abstain - and I also don’t look down on them as being lesser than I because they may choose to consume. Of course I don’t think they are wise to do so, but it is still their decision to make, and I respect their decision to choose for themselves. I have personal friends I regard as role models regarding their manner of Christian living who enjoy beverage alcohol; I disagree with them on that decision, but that doesn’t make me holier than them.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
[TylerR]Bert, somebody literally is going through this thread, and systematically disliking everything you write!
Just for the record, it isn’t me. :)
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
I have a bottle of Newport riesling in my fridge right now. It is absolutely delicious in various (cooked) recipes.
It makes my heart merry. :)
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
The Bible never says Jesus drank alcohol. To say He did is your opinion, your interpretation.
And, of course, that works both ways. Although Matthew 26:29 and Mark 14:25 imply Jesus preferred the fruit of the vine and new wine – indications of drug-free wine.
Another big indication is Jesus’ sinless nature.
It is not for kings, O Lemuel, It is not for kings to drink wine, nor for princes intoxicating drink. -Proverbs 31:4 NKJV
For the record, I’ve not “liked” or “disliked” any comment here.
David R. Brumbelow
Jason gave a game try, but abstentionists need to come up with some kind of statement,that would prove the matter to them. So far, bupkus. And if you cannot come up with something, you automatically must discard your hypothesis.
Really, the argument being presented here, moreover, is that arguments of likelihood are inherently invalid. Now that’s hardly how one would analyze any other text—you make inferences, read between the lines, introduce knowledge about the society you’re looking at, all that—but if you’re going to insist on that, the ugly fact of the matter is that you’re pretty much insisting on something like the Bulwer-Lytton formulation I wrote above, which is pretty much impossible in that culture.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Bert,
I think the point being made by many here is that abstentionists (as compared with prohibitionists), and this applies to any behavior, not just alcohol consumption, only need to come up with something that is valid “for them,” as you put it, and not for everyone. Personally, I’d see “if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out,” as good enough for that purpose, even if I have no intention of plucking my own out on their particular issue. For the point of our own standards/fences/whatever you want to call them, inference or even personal conviction are enough, and from what I see in scripture, this attitude is commended, not condemned. An argument from “wisdom” might indeed convince some, and if that does convince them, I can’t see the harm. I have yet to see any real damage to Christianity from those who abstain from alcohol and argue the abstention (different from insisting on prohibition) position, and it’s still true that those who abstain will not get drunk on alcohol.
Of course, in any group of Christians, including SI, there will certainly be some prohibitionists (and again, not just regarding alcohol) out there as well. For that, I’d say you need at least implication from the text, if not outright condemnation. Wisdom arguments are not generally sufficient for this, but again, it appears to me that most here, including the ones arguing with you, are arguing for abstention, not prohibition. I think it’s actually healthy to have those kinds of conversations, especially in the light of the passages that tell us not to cause others to stumble. (I don’t believe those passages indicate that the only way to not cause others to stumble is to completely abstain from whatever oneself, but those passages certainly do imply the need for much wisdom in what we do and allow.) Maybe for some, given the differences between today and biblical times, it is indeed wiser to abstain and argue for abstention. Even if I disagree with someone on a particular issue, I find it’s usually worth my time to listen to those with reasoned arguments, even if I am not eventually persuaded. Given what I see in scripture on this topic, I think it’s far better to treat it with a healthy amount of caution, which for me, would put me firmly outside of the position that those who argue any form of abstention just “aren’t getting it.”
Dave Barnhart
The original argument is that it is wiser for all Christians, not just the one abstaining. Hence your claim that it is sufficient if it is valid for them does not apply; people are trying to bind consciences with the argument.
And in that light, it makes a lot of difference if they’re trying to bind consciences against something that Jesus most likely did. That is many things, but “wisdom” is not among them.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Aaron,
Thank you for your reasoned argument. Along those same lines I have argued for abstinence in a more extensive fashion. My position is stated on our church website under the heading of documents (fbctroy.org). Drunkenness is measured in some of the Midwest states as .06 alcohol content. Michigan is still .08, but lawmakers are considering lowering it. Some Christians also argue that distilled liquors are acceptable as recreational beverages for believers. I recommend Dr. Randy Jaeggli’s, “The Christian and Drinking” (2nd edition), for the best academic case regarding Abstinence (BJU Press). Randy has a background in chemical engineering and his Ph.D. is in OT Interpretation.
Pastor Mike Harding
I guess I misunderstood what you wrote here (or your reference): “…abstentionists need to come up with some kind of statement,that would prove the matter to them.”
Yes, Aaron is making the argument that it’s unwise for all (at least in his closing statement). I think it’s still sufficient to convince some, and for those for whom it isn’t, I believe it was still interesting (and worth the time) to hear and consider, even if not all agree with the conclusion. In fact, if I only read (and find worth in) arguments/papers/etc. with which I already agree with the conclusion, not only am I not being forced to think, I am also never going to learn. That’s as true for me with secular material as it is with sacred.
Plus, I think it is a legitimate point of disagreement/argument that Jesus “most likely” did something that the scriptures don’t actually say he did, even if you believe that all the factors convince you of the likelihood. The defining scripture for me against prohibitionism is actually the one mentioned a couple times already in this thread, but not really commented much upon — Deut. 14:26. That one is quite clear, without having to guess whether Moses, etc. partook or not. However, it’s harder to use that verse against abstentionism, especially since it didn’t require partaking.
But really, much of the Christian life (and in fact, a large part of preaching vs. just reading scripture aloud) is about taking what the Bible says, and making application or persuading others. I completely agree that some arguments are not going to persuade me. And Aaron already knew his arguments would not persuade everyone. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, or that everyone will find the exact same arguments persuasive.
Dave Barnhart
[dcbii]But really, much of the Christian life (and in fact, a large part of preaching vs. just reading scripture aloud) is about taking what the Bible says, and making application or persuading others.
I think this is a great observation. This is a matter of application where we must do our best to ascertain, from what God gave us, what a good decision is to make regarding beverage alcohol. God didn’t prohibit it, so we know it isn’t sin. He didn’t command it, so we know we are allowed to abstain, if we so desire. As a father, I choose to encourage my children to abstain - because if you never take the first drink, you’ll never need to be concerned about being one of those who will struggle with dependence. We can have a similar discussion about recreational poker (not for monetary gain, of course) or various other things that can produce physical dependence (caffeine is another real example).
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
- I agree with Aaron that Scripture gives many warnings regarding the use and potential for abuse of alcohol.
- I also agree with him that some of the safety benefits of alcohol (water purification) are not meaningful benefits for us today. (Thus the “pro” side of moderate consumption is diminished for us compared with Biblical times.)
- I also agree that the percentage of alcohol available in wine and spirits is higher than in Biblical times. (Thus the “con” side of moderate consumption is higher than in Biblical times.)
- I’m not sure if Aaron would seek my input, but if he did, I would say this: He has clearly read the Word, found warnings, and applies those warnings to make a personal conviction against moderate alcohol. In Paul’s language, Aaron is unable to drink, and he is so by means of his belief in the commands and warnings of Scripture. (And you could replace “unable” with “weak” in that last sentence.)
So nothing in here should be seen as an attempt to talk him out of his conviction, or especially to induce him to act against that conviction while it is held.
—=-=-======-=-=—
DANGER as a basis for convictions
The idea that danger is a argument for complete avoidance is not a completely sound argument.
John 17:15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one.
In countless ways, God has indented for us to live with temptation. He intended for us to live with the ability to sin. And He intended for us to engage in (and have pleasure in) some things that can easily turn into sin when either used to excess or when used in prohibited ways. You can pretty much name every pleasure and it falls in this category.
There are many Biblical statements about food being a gift meant for our enjoyment - yet, there’s gluttony.
There are many Biblical statements about sex being a gift meant for enjoyment within marriage - yet (especially now) we have so many other sinful outlets for sexual desire and pleasure.
There are many Biblical statements about oinos being a gift meant for enjoyment - yet there’s drunkenness and everything Aaron’s article warns about.
–—
God intended us to have pleasures that can turn into sin. And we should take measures to avoid falling into temptation. That sometimes means avoiding an ok thing just because to engage would make falling more likely. We should avoid “making provision for the flesh.”
However, the practice of attempting to avoid illicit pleasures by cutting ourselves off from entire categories of God-given pleasures is problematic. One, because it insults God’s gift, which He intended for our pleasure. This is the reason that the “weak” is prone to the sin of blasphemy in Rom 14. And two, because applied to the extreme, it is to be a monk. Since Anthony of Egypt, the idea of separation from temptation has taken many extreme forms - and they have failed. Sin goes with you.
There is a line of thinking that Jesus could not have produced alcohol at the Cana wedding because some people likely would have become drunk. But that line of thinking is completely opposed to everything God has done in our lives. He tells us His command and He allows (causes) us to be surrounded by temptation.
[Dan Miller]The idea that danger is a argument for complete avoidance is not a completely sound argument.
This is one of the best if not the best perspective on this subject I have read in this entire thread. Thank you for sharing!
My concern about the brief list you shared in this context does revolve around the “provision for the flesh” principle. If I make no provision for my flesh by participating in something that can become sin, then it never will become sin, right? But I agree that monk-ism isn’t the answer either - because we are to be in the world. I think the challenge comes in applying the in-the-world-but-not-of-it principle in a balanced manner.
But back to the fleshly provisions. Time and researched have proven that certain things are potentially life-changing, things that in a very short period of time of sinful decision making can have repercussions that are far more reaching than other sins. God knows my heart even more than me, but I know my heart well enough that if I begin to drink wine I am almost certainly going to thoroughly enjoy it - and I may very well become addicted to it and then struggle with addiction and damage lives beyond even my own. Certain pleasures are more inherently risky than others to some, so we each make our own decisions on which risks - which dangers we are willing to take.
And so I simultaneously stand behind my decision to abstain, drawing from the multitude of scripture and our knowledge of the substance, yet agree wholeheartedly that for some it is a perfectly acceptable practice. As a “weak” Christian, and as a husband and father, I believe this is a wise decision.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
“The idea that danger is a argument for complete avoidance is not a completely sound argument.”
This is true.
It’s also not my argument.
The argument is that we are stewards and bad risk-reward ratios are poor stewardship. So some dangers are well worth the risk they entail, while some are not. In this case, there is almost nothing to lose from total abstinence, almost nothing to gain from partaking, and significant risk in partaking.
It doesn’t boil down to avoiding the dangerous, but rather to avoiding the foolish — i.e., the dangerous and pointless.
To chime in on an earlier point also, yes, I am arguing that it is unwise for all. The biblical warnings are not qualified as to whom they apply, and while only 1 in 11 or so in UK (I think it’s more like 1 in 20 in the U.S.) develop chemical dependency from drinking alcohol, nobody really knows if they might be one of those under the right conditions. It’s a roll of the dice.
I suspect that there is no other activity with that level of risk that anyone would argue is a good bet. Alcohol consumption is apparently so culturally ingrained that we are, in general, blind to the absurdity of messing with it (when we have absolutely no need to do so).
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.
Right - what we disagree on is: The blessing aspect of wine (which includes individual and social pleasure as well as health)
( This Post was a lot longer, but there’s really no need for most of it. )
[Dan Miller]Right - what we disagree on is: The blessing aspect of wine (which includes individual and social pleasure as well as health)
If those are the only blessings, then I completely agree with Aaron - the risks far outweigh those blessings. Any health benefits from alcohol are completely available in our society via non-alcoholic means, and I honestly can’t imagine what social pleasures can come from drinking alcohol that also can’t be had in less risky ways.
If the individual blessing is the benefit available to us by learning increased dependence on God’s grace to enable us to avoid the temptation of drunkenness, then I guess that’s something to discuss, but I’m personally not there yet. And the personal enjoyment of the taste is too trivial for me to consider of any importance in the conversation.
And those things assume you believe all oinos is alcoholic, too, of course.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
I can think of a few more, starting with the fact that wine drinkers tend to learn a little bit about what they’re drinking, and hence they get the references in Scripture that demonstrate that as a rule, the words for “wine” actually do indeed mean “regular wine with alcohol”. They’ll get the 200+ references to wine (the majority being either positive or as a daily provision), the significance of the wineskins in Luke 5, the significance of the older wine being milder or better, the significance of taste buds getting duller with wine, the reality of fairly rapid fermentation, and the like.
Plus, there are at least three health benefits to having a little wine. First of all, in a world where first line antibiotics are increasingly becoming ineffective, I’m not totally persuaded that doing “1st century dental care” with a bit of wine won’t be helpful. Second, you’ve got the well known effects of resveratol and alcohol on the heart, and third, you’ve got the reality that in a world that gulps, wine is sipped.
I’d actually guess that last one is the big hitter.
One final note regarding the supposed risks is that they really become significant only when the drinker decides to get drunk. In my view, arguing against the responsible use of alcohol based on the irresponsible use of wine is a simple bait and switch akin to blaming all gun owners for the crimes of criminals.
Again, there are great reasons not to drink. You don’t like the taste, don’t want to bother, have a personal or family history of alcoholism, that’s fine. But to try to twist the Scripture to tell us not to do something that Scripture commends, and Jesus almost certainly did himself, crosses a line.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]But to try to twist the Scripture to tell us not to do something that Scripture commends, and Jesus almost certainly did himself, crosses a line.
And repeatedly warns against…
More assumptions about what Jesus drank…
Who exactly is twisting scripture here?
[Bert Perry]Plus, there are at least three health benefits to having a little wine. First of all, in a world where first line antibiotics are increasingly becoming ineffective, I’m not totally persuaded that doing “1st century dental care” with a bit of wine won’t be helpful. Second, you’ve got the well known effects of resveratol and alcohol on the heart, and third, you’ve got the reality that in a world that gulps, wine is sipped.
“First of all”…”I’m not totally persuaded.” That’s not a health benefit. That’s a guess, an opinion.
“Second”…”well known effects…” - are they really that well known? What effects do they have on the heart that have been scientifically proven (not more guesses) to benefit our health that cannot be had other ways? Over the past decade or so we have received back and forth reports from experts about the so-called health benefits of wine. The experts can’t even agree. I’m not sure how you are convinced, other than you want to be convinced because it fits your opinions.
“Third”…Are you saying wine is healthy because I would be forced to drink it slower? I’m not sure how that makes wine healthy, just that it means someone who downs Coke by the six pack a day is a glutton in comparison. Personally, when I drink my can of Polar seltzer, I savor it, probably in a similar manner in which you sip wine. I don’t gulp in large quantities any beverage except, of course, if I am very thirsty (for water) after a hard job or work-out. But that certainly isn’t unhealthy - that’s called natural thirst for hydration.
If those are your three health benefits, I’m still not seeing it….
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Regarding the health benefits, would you believe the Mayo Clinic? Or 1 Timothy 5:23? What about the fact that the Mayo Clinic Diet makes a point of telling people to greatly reduce carbonated soft drinks? You see no connection with the waists you see at church and gulping/gluttony? Really? No particular benefit in teaching Christians how to sip?
Do you have a problem of insufficient evidence, or of refusing to accept the evidence you see? Same thing with the Scripture part. I guess, if you want, you can see the dulling of tastes in John 2:10 as having nothing to do with alcohol, or no significance that Jesus is said to have made wine—with the ordinary meaning being “wine”, as in “containing alcohol.” You can see no significance in the parallelism in Matthew 11:19 or Luke 7:34, and no significance in what Jesus said about new wine ripping wineskins, or of old wine being better.
No significance in the fact that wine in the vat becomes alcoholic very quickly, no significance in wine cheering the heart, no significance in millenia of Christian theologians noting their belief Jesus was talking about and drinking real wine, no significance in wine as an offering or daily provision, ….
Again, is the problem insufficient evidence, or is it an unwillingness to consider evidence contrary to your position? It brings me back to the challenge I made; name something which could plausibly occur in Scripture that would convince the abstentionist wing of the church that would convince them that Jesus made, and drank, real wine.
So far, I’ve heard nothing on that, but again, falsifiability is a critical part of your argument. If you cannot state conditions under which your claims would be proven false, neither can you say it can be assumed to be true.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Regarding the health benefits, would you believe the Mayo Clinic? Or 1 Timothy 5:23? What about the fact that the Mayo Clinic Diet makes a point of telling people to greatly reduce carbonated soft drinks? You see no connection with the waists you see at church and gulping/gluttony? Really? No particular benefit in teaching Christians how to sip?
…..
So far, I’ve heard nothing on that, but again, falsifiability is a critical part of your argument. If you cannot state conditions under which your claims would be proven false, neither can you say it can be assumed to be true.
By the way, scripture does infer that Timothy was an abstentionist. I do not stake my claim on what the Bible doesn’t say about Timothy, but it seems as though he would not consume alcohol or Paul wouldn’t have told him to take a little wine for his stomach. Ironic, no? Again, I do not make my position on that inference, but it is worth at least noting.
There has been ample scriptural evidence given supporting the position of simple wisdom of abstention. Not prohibitionism, the decision to abstain. Start with Aaron’s original post and work from there.
I have no argument against “a little wine for the stomach” referring to obvious medicinal qualities of alcohol (NyQuil, anyone?). Any qualities alcohol had for Timothy are equally available either via a dose of NyQuil or some other modern-medicine (not table wine) option. You referenced wine vs. antibiotics; that’s an opinion that is as weak as my opinion that wine doesn’t have health benefits - neither of us can claim to be right about that, because even the scientists cannot agree. NyQuil and antibiotics are not equivalent comparisons.
And your argument about sipping vs. gulping is NOT a “benefit” of wine. Arguing against something by providing something that is not normally gulped (people do, of course, gulp alcoholic beverages, you know) does not make the latter substance inherently beneficial. I completely agree that soft drinks (either full of chemicals masked by the word “diet” or the normal versions) are horrible for your health - whether gulped or not. If I really want a can of Coke (rare day for me), I drink it like I am eating a piece of cake - like it is my dessert, because that’s all it is - liquid dessert. I’ve known a few too many people who literally sodad themselves to death by their daily consumption of 3 liter bottles of Mountain Dew, so I get it. But offering a substance that is normally sipped, not gulped, does not make that substance automatically healthy.
I fully acknowledge the passages in the Bible that refer to wine. Of course I do. I also fully acknowledge the stern warnings the Bible makes against it. Those warnings are there for a reason, and I choose to not consume alcohol because the risks are too high. One day, if we all actually do drink alcoholic beverages in heaven, you can tell me “told ya so” - and we’ll all enjoy it without the risks. But not here in this growing-ever-more-evil-in-my-flesh vessel.
I just don’t understand why you believe a position of abstention isn’t a wise, personal choice and, instead, you tell me I am twisting scripture in so doing. Yet the passages of scripture you use to claim I am wrong in making my choice are filled with assumptions and inferences and historical data.
My ground is firm - I weight out what the Bible actually tells me and I make a personal conviction choice based on what I see in scripture. You do the same thing and make the personal choice that it is a blessing and you consume. My problem with your argument isn’t that you drink alcohol or that you think it is actually a blessing from God and that Jesus consumed alcohol - that is your decision to make, and I respect that. My problem is that you accuse me of lacking ground to support a position of abstinence. It is a remarkably easy position to have in that I do not need to rely on any assumptions or inferences.
My follow-up concern is actually what concerns me even more, though, and is what I have been chewing on since we began our conversation - what other areas of doctrine have you come to your own conclusions by applying the same exegetical manner you have applied to come to your conclusions about alcohol. The grounds for your position are less reliable than that of we personal abstentionists.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
My ground is firm - I weight out what the Bible actually tells me and I make a personal conviction choice based on what I see in scripture. You do the same thing and make the personal choice that it is a blessing and you consume. My problem with your argument isn’t that you drink alcohol or that you think it is actually a blessing from God and that Jesus consumed alcohol - that is your decision to make, and I respect that. My problem is that you accuse me of lacking ground to support a position of abstinence. It is a remarkably easy position to have in that I do not need to rely on any assumptions or inferences.
I have weighed in on the critical-of-Aaron’s-article side. So let me clearly say that I find Aaron’s and your conviction to be Biblical and logical. That is, the “dangers” argument is Biblical and I take that as not just your opinion but the call of God on you for abstinence.
I do not hold it myself. Instead, I take the same warnings and apply them to moderation.
[Dan Miller]I have weighed in on the critical-of-Aaron’s-article side. So let me clearly say that I find Aaron’s and your conviction to be Biblical and logical. That is, the “dangers” argument is Biblical and I take that as not just your opinion but the call of God on you for abstinence.
I do not hold it myself. Instead, I take the same warnings and apply them to moderation.
Thank you, Dan.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
[JNoël]
My follow-up concern is actually what concerns me even more, though, and is what I have been chewing on since we began our conversation - what other areas of doctrine have you come to your own conclusions by applying the same exegetical manner you have applied to come to your conclusions about alcohol. The grounds for your position are less reliable than that of we personal abstentionists.
Actually, I’ve got the same concern about the position, and let’s start with Aaron’s original premiss; that it is wiser today for all Christians to abstain. We are not just talking about one person’s decision, but rather about an assertion of a general principle. Now there is trouble with this if we interpret the word “wine” in its dictionary meaning; the fermented juice of the grape, and that basic meaning is retained in the Hebrew and Greek root words. So what I’ve seen here is a lot of work-arounds to argue against what Scripture clearly says; Jesus made, and almost certainly drank, ordinary wine with alcohol.
You want a big old theological problem here? How about the simple fact that re-defining words in this way puts the perspicuity of Scripture in doubt and is a body blow against both Sola Scriptura and the First Fundamental?
And yes, I’m well aware that in these “work-arounds” to accomodate our cultural biases, it is not believed that clear hints of alcohol in the drink actually refer to that. It is stated that unless it’s stated so explicitly, you will not believe that Jesus actually drank, or made, real wine. Fair enough, but let’s remember that you will not find an explicit formulation of the Trinity, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, the necessity of believer’s baptism, or any of a number of other critical doctrines in Scripture, either. If you are going to do theology, you have to make reasonable inferences from the text using the standard tools of textual analysis that we should have learned in high school English class. Put in other terms, you need to learn to read between the lines, or else you’re going to have a ton of trouble understanding the Scriptures.
Finally, you’re just not getting the problem of falsification; no amount of evidence can rescue an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Step one towards rescuing an unfalsifiable hypothesis is to rewrite the hypothesis so it’s falsifiable, to come up with a plausible set of arguments which would disprove it. So get cracking!
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Fair enough, but let’s remember that you will not find an explicit formulation of the Trinity, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, the necessity of believer’s baptism, or any of a number of other critical doctrines in Scripture, either. If you are going to do theology, you have to make reasonable inferences from the text using the standard tools of textual analysis that we should have learned in high school English class. Put in other terms, you need to learn to read between the lines, or else you’re going to have a ton of trouble understanding the Scriptures.
Where would you put the position of the wisdom of abstention in Henebury’s Rules of Affinity?
https://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/rules-of-affinity/
I agree with you that some inferences are required for various doctrines we believe. I have conceded that my position to abstain is not a command of scripture - or it would be a C1 or C2 according to Paul H. But it seems you want to force me to concur that my personal position of abstention is actually being proclaimed by me and Aaron and others as a C1.
Not that my theological life revolves around Paul’s Rules of Affinity, but it is a pretty good rubric, don’t you think?
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
I think it’s a mistake when danger held up as something that ought to be avoided completely.
Aaron, back on the first page of comments:
(It should be obvious that a beverage with all the taste and feel-good properties of alcohol but with zero potential for intoxication and folly would be superior, indeed. I can’t claim Jesus did this. Nobody can prove He did not.)
Very interesting statement. On the face, it seems “obvious.” But why not apply it to the world in general? Is it equally obvious that the presence of a beverage with all the taste and feel-good properties of wine but with zero potential for intoxication and folly would be superior? If so, don’t we put ourselves in a position where we think we would have done better with creation that God did?
You can argue for the POSSIBILITY of non-alcoholic wine in those jugs at Cana. Sure. But Christians reading John 2 for the first 1800 years of church history would have read “oinos” as wine. They would have expected that the wine you serve at a wedding is wine with alcohol. Thus, when the master of the feast proclaims it the best and the type of stuff you serve first, Christian readers for centuries would have understood that as wine.
So to say now that it was NOT to be understood as Jesus supplying wine to a celebration is a significant challenge to perspicuity.
There is no Christian tradition of teetotalism prior to 1800 (that I know of). (I’m not including Manichaeism as I don’t view that as Christian.)
Jason, given that the word “wine” is used to describe what Jesus made in the second chapter of John, that would fit in as C1. So would the blessing of full wine-vats. Other passages that hint at the intoxicating nature of wine (linguistically, usage determines meaning) would be C2.
This is why I’m fairly passionate about the matter—the evidence is simply not subtle that wine can be a blessing, and that Christ made it….if we fail to heed this, whatever our personal use or non-use of wine, we are pretty much bound to get a lot of other things wrong.
The one place where I’d quibble with Paul is that I can’t consider this a “fundamental”. True, yes. Evidence of one’s general approach to Scripture, yes. Is someone damned if he doesn’t agree with me? Nope. You can get wine wrong and still be saved. Perhaps that’s not precisely the meaning he’s getting at, but that is, after all, why our forebears put together five fundamentals to identify non-apostate churches.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Jason, given that the word “wine” is used to describe what Jesus made in the second chapter of John, that would fit in as C1. So would the blessing of full wine-vats. Other passages that hint at the intoxicating nature of wine (linguistically, usage determines meaning) would be C2.
Okay, so now I understand why you are set on this - you are completely convinced that all “wine” in the Bible is alcoholic. Correct?
So we come to a question of word definitions.
Are there cases in the Bible where the original language words cannot possibly mean the substance is alcoholic? In other words, is it a C1 that the original language words used that we translate into wine are always alcoholic?
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Jason, the better way of phrasing it is that the ordinary use of wine (yayin, oinos) is for fermented grape juice, but there are (wine in the cluster) some cases where the word is obviously used figuratively. The trick there is that the exceptions do not define the rule.
So what I’m convinced of is that, from dictionary definitions and the usual usage of the words involved, that wine is generally wine, but that there are certain fairly narrowly defined exceptions that can be gleaned from the context. By no means, however, do these figurative uses re-define the central meaning of the word.
Basic linguistics, really. Another way of putting the issue is that if you’re consistently arguing with the dictionary when you’re exegeting a translated text, you are either doing it wrong, or you need to provide a different translation that better represents the original. In this case, we’ve got 23 centuries of translation, including the Septuagint, that agree—Catholic, Coptic, Orthodox, Protestant, evangelical alike—that these words ought to be translated in the same way you see them in your English translation.
Hence this debate with Webster is extremely dangerous business.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Jason, the better way of phrasing it is that the ordinary use of wine (yayin, oinos) is for fermented grape juice, but there are (wine in the cluster) some cases where the word is obviously used figuratively. The trick there is that the exceptions do not define the rule.
I’ve been chewing on this on and off since April, and something came up recently in my family Bible time with the kids, something that now has me questioning Bigger Picture interpretation of scripture. I am hoping some of you experts can shed some light on the subject for me.
Many of us talk about the literal historical-grammatical hermeneutic, or something of that flavor. We read the Bible, and we take what it says for what it says, in the context of the passage, allowing scripture to speak for itself; in passages where there is ambiguity, we allow the clear to assist us with the unclear.
But what do we do with passages that are not, in themselves, at all ambiguous, yet looking at the “ordinary use” are in conflict with other passages? What kind of hermeneutic should we apply there, and who gets to decide which is correct?
One example:
What do we do with Matthew 12:40? Can that passage be any less ambiguous? It does not even leave it with the “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” statement, it even references Jonah’s 3 days and 3 nights in the fish (Jonah 1:17). Yet that is in clear conflict with a Friday crucifixion and burial and a Sunday resurrection. No “ordinary use” normal reading of those passages can break that conflict.
I have read several answers to that quandary, and all of them mean to me that I can apply all sorts of gymnastics to various passages that appear to be in conflict and do so with a clear conscience as long as I am not violating a black and white command. So one could do that with passages about “wine” of course, too, and feel confident in his position. Another example could be Matthew 12:31, the apparently unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Spirit.
My purpose in writing is not to get answers to these specific questions, but to better understand what the correct way is to approach scripture when there are passages that, in their normal reading and interpretation, simply do not make any logical sense when using a literal hermeneutic.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Yet that is in clear conflict with a Friday crucifixion and burial and a Sunday resurrection. No “ordinary use” normal reading of those passages can break that conflict.
I am not sure the conflict. Friday, Saturday, and Sunday is three days and three nights in historical usage. Any part of a day is considered a day.
I think the answer is to use a literal hermeneutic that reads the passage normally understanding the usage of the times.
Discussion