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 Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service.
- 313 views
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.
[Larry]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.
Some assembly required, please. Three nights? What is the historical usage that becomes three nights from Friday to Sunday?
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)
What is the historical usage that becomes three nights from Friday to Sunday?
Because any part of a day is considered a day. So Friday is day and night. Saturday is one day and night. Sunday is one day and night.
“In conclusion, when one examines all the evidence, it seems that the New Testament, the Old Testament, and Rabbinic literature all agree that a part of a day is counted as a whole day-and-night. Thus, the expressions: “the three days and three nights,” “after three days,” and “on the third day” are all one and the same time span. These all support the fact that Christ was crucified on Friday and was resurrected on Sunday.”
Harold W. Hoehner, “Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Part IV: The Day of Christ’s Crucifixion,” Bibliotheca Sacra 131 (1974): 249.
There’s really no other option and Hoehner argues. If Wednesday crucifixion, you don’t have a first day resurrection. If Thursday crucifixion, you don’t have three days.
So then no modern English translation is successful in interpreting the original languages, in this case. Agreed? At least, I couldn’t find any modern translation that successfully puts into modern English (any English?) what you just explained.
I suppose this is why it is said to be a “historic-grammatical” literal hermeneutic. Historically speaking, if what you say is true (IAW history), then there is no problem. We must then rely on extra-biblical sources to apply our interpretation of scripture - and that’s fine with me, of course, especially since God, in his wisdom, chose to have the NT written in a language which he knew would pose translational challenges for all future generations.
But the larger question is this: if it took that kind of research of languages and history to recognize what our Bibles really mean with that passage, how can we be certain there aren’t any other passages where we are probably missing the point because we have not yet recognized that the real meaning has been shrouded by English assumptions (and a true lack of full comprehensibility of the original language) of the original meaning? In the case of Jonah and the 3 days/nights, we are forced to dig to uncover the solution to the apparent conflict. But what about places where God did not leave us with the benefit of an apparent conflict to cause us to dig?
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)
Idioms are the downfall of any “literal” translation. As I’m sure you know, when going from one language to another, a purely literal translation is not going to get all of the original meaning across, and literal or not, no translation between any two languages is perfect. This means that all reasonably valid translations are interpretive to some extent, and then the difference in translation theory really comes down to “How much interpretation is valid?” In other words, where do we translate the exact words and where do we translate meaning? There’s no perfect strategy, which I think is especially true the further back in time you go, and I think you agree this applies to the hermeneutic, which is why we don’t really use a “literal” hermeneutic, but as you mention, something closer to the “historical, grammatical” which can take into account local grammar variations and meanings of the time.
Even mostly literal translations, like, e.g., the King James version, have to translate some things idiomatically, but they may miss others. I’m not an expert in either ancient Greek or the culture at the time, so I pretty much accept when the experts agree on a phrase like “3 days and 3 nights.” I have, however, had plenty of experience in another modern language (German) than my mother tongue with messing up idioms during translation and having what I said come out sounding ridiculous, stupid, humorous, or even unintelligible. I got the words right, in a dictionary sense, but that’s not enough. And don’t even get me started on how much of a fool I have made of myself by messing up the word ordering (i.e. using the same order as in English, or even attempting proper German word order and not getting it right)! :)
Of course, none of this helps us know when we should take the exact scriptural words as written, and when we need to search for the “actual meaning.” I don’t know of a silver bullet, but there really is no substitute for lots of study and the enlightening of the Holy Spirit. Sometimes we won’t be completely certain of the meaning, or it will be difficult to determine, just as Peter commented about some of Paul’s writings. We just have to do the best we can, God helping us, and trust that if we are truly seeking to know, God will make a way. And guess what — we won’t always agree, and that’s not particularly satisfying, though it is reality.
Dave Barnhart
So then no modern English translation is successful in interpreting the original languages, in this case. Agreed? At least, I couldn’t find any modern translation that successfully puts into modern English (any English?) what you just explained.
All the English translations I am translate it correctly as three days and three nights because that is what the text says. Typically, translation don’t translate idioms or symbolic language.
But the larger question is this: if it took that kind of research of languages and history to recognize what our Bibles really mean with that passage, how can we be certain there aren’t any other passages where we are probably missing the point because we have not yet recognized that the real meaning has been shrouded by English assumptions (and a true lack of full comprehensibility of the original language) of the original meaning?
I don’t think this is a particularly new idea that arose out of a lot of research. It has been established for a long time, particularly given the whole of Scripture on the topic. I think modern research is helping in some ways, but I don’t know of any case where it new research is greatly affecting anything.
There are two things that make “three days and three nights” not work as a justification for playing semantic games with “wine”. For starters, the Bible nowhere states that Jesus was crucified on a Friday. That is inferred, rightly or wrongly, from an analysis of the events leading up to the Crucifixion.
Moreover, the “essentially literal” hermeneutic does not mean that we get to understand Biblical texts in the context of our culture, but rather in the context of the culture of the time. As Larry noted, is it indeed true that the Hebrews counted a part of a day as the whole? If so, there is no contradiction in that culture between the sign of Jonah and the notion that Christ was crucified on Friday.
So going back to wine, is it right to infer that a liquid that would burst wine-skins, make one cheerful in responsible use, and make one drunk if drunk in excess might contain alcohol? Is it right to infer that a liquid that gets better with age, is stored year-round 30 centuries prior to Thomas Welch and Louis Pasteur, and the like might be like the wine we know today? So if you use the ordinary exegetical methods and hermeneutic, you simply cannot (IMO) arrive at a two wines theory without endangering the first fundamental and Sola Scriptura.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Discussion