John MacArthur: "It is puerile and irresponsible for any pastor to encourage the recreational use of intoxicants—especially in church-sponsored activities"

In John MacArthur’s original article, he wrote

For some who self-identify as “Young, Restless, and Reformed

Then in the next day’s follow-up article, an editor wrote

Just in case you missed John’s point in the dust-up (not only in our comment thread, but in other playgrounds as well), here it is: It’s irresponsible and wrong for YRR leaders to make beer/wine-drinking one of the badges of the YRR movement. That’s it. So, if that shoe fits you, wear it; If it doesn’t, let it pass.

To Bob and Todd: Personally, I don’t think the shoe fits either one of you even though you both drink in moderation and are leaders in your respective churches. From what I have read around here, neither one of you touts your drinking as some sort of badge and it appears that you both are in favor of wine only (maybe I’m mistaken, but that’s my perception). Also, I don’t know your ages, but I’m guessing of the three words for YRR, the only one that may possibly fit you is the last R. :O Thanks for joining in the conversation. I was wondering if/when one or both of you would chime in.

Shaynus,
You said, “‘’And they had multiple ways of preserving unfermented wine.’ Care to back that up?”

I’ll be glad to.

First, ancients often boiled new wine (unfermented wine, grape juice) down to a thick consistency. This thick wine would not ferment and would not spoil at room temperature. It was mixed with water to drink. I have some that has been opened and kept at room temperature in Southeast Texas for months; it is still as good and fresh as when it was opened.

Second, the grape harvest could be made to last for approximately six months. During this time they could directly squeeze grapes into a cup (Genesis 40:11) for wine. By the way, first century historian Josephus calls this fresh squeezed nonalcoholic fruit of the vine “wine.”

Third, they could preserve fresh grapes for months and again, any time of the year press them to produce new wine.

Fourth, they made raisin wine. They also had other ways. For more detail see: http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2010/10/preserving-unfermented-wine…
David R. Brumbelow

So how would one be drunk with this wine?

Shaynus,
You ask, “So how would one be drunk with this wine?”

You could not be drunk with this nonalcoholic wine, although you could drink too much and get sick, like eating too much honey.

The point is that wine in the Bible and in ancient literature was used to refer to both alcoholic and nonalcoholic wine. They had both, just as we do today. Some you could get intoxicated on, some you would not.
David R. Brumbelow

Bob Hayton,
I take issue with several of your contentions about the verses you quote. Let me use one as an example. You quote,

“But the vine said to them, ‘Shall I leave my wine that cheers God and men and go hold sway over the trees?’ (Judges 9:13)”

It is incorrect to say this verse is condoning drinking alcohol.

First, the Hebrew word used is tirosh. Tirosh always, or almost always referred to unfermented wine. Back then they called both alcoholic wine and nonalcoholic wine by the same name, “wine.” The Jewish Encyclopedia says tirosh always referred to unfermented wine.

Second, the vine said, “my wine.” A vine does not possess alcoholic wine, only nonalcoholic wine. You have to work at it to produce drinkable alcoholic wine, and this comes long after it is on the vine.

Third, it is a questionable view that says you have to have drugs to make your heart glad. My heart has often been cheered without the use of hard drugs.

Fourth, do we really have a God who is cheered by getting a little drunk? To me at least, that does not square with the context of the rest of Scripture.
David R. Brumbelow

[Brenda T] To Bob and Todd: Personally, I don’t think the shoe fits either one of you even though you both drink in moderation and are leaders in your respective churches. From what I have read around here, neither one of you touts your drinking as some sort of badge and it appears that you both are in favor of wine only (maybe I’m mistaken, but that’s my perception). Also, I don’t know your ages, but I’m guessing of the three words for YRR, the only one that may possibly fit you is the last R. :O Thanks for joining in the conversation. I was wondering if/when one or both of you would chime in.

You’re right, I am not militant about the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Each of us, including my abstentionist brethren, must be faithful to our convictions. They guys who are militant moderationists seem usually to be in the “cage stage” following their conversion to moderationism. The irony is that they insist upon their own Christian liberty while rushing to impose upon the Christian liberty of abstentionists. When I see their comments on the Internet I cringe and hope they grow up before causing much damage.

As far as “wine only,” no. Alcohol is alcohol — and drunkenness is drunkenness. Moderationists understand that the volume consumed must be inversely proportional to the concentration. Following state guidelines will keep you on the straight and narrow regardless of what beverage you are enjoying.

By the way, someone made a comment about drinking and driving. Good point! Yet it is one of the best-kept secrets of law enforcement that the definitive study to date on this indicates a slightly lower accident rate at 0.01% BAC — pretty much where you’ll be if you follow state guidelines. In other words, you may actually be a safer driver at 0.01% BAC than at 0.0. I’ll never forget when we learned that in Intoxilyzer school, back when I was a cop. All the cops were astounded! There have been all sorts of attempts to explain away this bump in the data, but there it stands.

Greg Long,
New wine was often, very often, never fermented. See link referenced above.

In Acts 2:13 this was a mocking derision of the disciples. Somewhat like mocking a Baptist preacher today as being drunk on coffee or iced tea.

The word used for wine in Acts 2:13 is not oinos, but gluekos. The word we get glucose from. Notice our word glucose means something thick, sweet and nutritious, not something alcoholic. Aristotle and other ancients said sweet wine (gluekos) would not intoxicate.

Ancients could make alcoholic wine sweet, but it was out of the ordinary back then and accepted that sweet wine was the nonalcoholic kind; alcoholic fermentation took the sweetness away and they had no cane sugar back then. You can make any beverage alcoholic, but like a Dr. Pepper today, while it can be made alcoholic, it is proper to say it is a nonalcoholic drink.
David R. Brumbelow

[David R. Brumbelow] Shaynus,
You ask, “So how would one be drunk with this wine?”

You could not be drunk with this nonalcoholic wine, although you could drink too much and get sick, like eating too much honey.

The point is that wine in the Bible and in ancient literature was used to refer to both alcoholic and nonalcoholic wine. They had both, just as we do today. Some you could get intoxicated on, some you would not.
David R. Brumbelow

So it’s alcoholic when it fits your point of view, but not when it doesn’t. That doesn’t seem like a good pattern of exegesis.

[David R. Brumbelow] Greg Long,
New wine was often, very often, never fermented. See link referenced above.

In Acts 2:13 this was a mocking derision of the disciples. Somewhat like mocking a Baptist preacher today as being drunk on coffee or iced tea.

The word used for wine in Acts 2:13 is not oinos, but gluekos. The word we get glucose from. Notice our word glucose means something thick, sweet and nutritious, not something alcoholic. Aristotle and other ancients said sweet wine (gluekos) would not intoxicate.

Ancients could make alcoholic wine sweet, but it was out of the ordinary back then and accepted that sweet wine was the nonalcoholic kind; alcoholic fermentation took the sweetness away and they had no cane sugar back then. You can make any beverage alcoholic, but like a Dr. Pepper today, while it can be made alcoholic, it is proper to say it is a nonalcoholic drink.
David R. Brumbelow

You are correct that the word in Acts 2:13 is gleukos. But the rest of your post does not make sense to me. You can’t be serious that they were saying something of the equivalent of “You must be drunk on coffee” or “You must be drunk on iced tea”???!!! What you’re really saying is that they were saying, “You must be drunk on grape juice” which again makes no sense. No, the only way it makes sense is if gleukos was intoxicating.

Gleuchos
(“must”), “sweet wine,” which seems to have been of an intoxicating nature. It is used in Acts 2:13, where the charge is made, “They are full of sweet wine,” to which Peter replies (v. 15), “These men are not drunk, as you suppose.” If the wine was not intoxicating, the accusation could only have been ironical. From the explanations of the ancient lexicographers we may infer that the luscious qualities of this wine were due not to its being recently made but to its being produced from the purest juice of the grape. (from The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary. Originally published by Moody Press of Chicago, Illinois. Copyright © 1988.)

The inevitable impression produced on the mind by a general review of the above notices is that both yàyin and tirôsh, in their ordinary and popular acceptation, referred to fermented, intoxicating wine. In the condemnatory passages no exception is made in favor of any other kind of liquid passing under the same name, but not invested with the same dangerous qualities. Nor, again, in these passages is there any decisive condemnation of the substance itself, which would enforce the; conclusion that elsewhere an unfermented liquid must be understood. The condemnation must be understood, of excessive use in any case for even where this is not expressed, it is implied; and therefore the instances of wine being drunk, without any reproof of the act may with as great a probability, imply the moderate use of an intoxicating beverage, as the use of an unintoxicating one. (from McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

As to the intoxicating character of this drink, the allusions to its effects are confined to a single passage, “Harlotry, wine [yayin] , and new wine [tirosh] take away the understanding” (Hos 4:11), where tirosh appears as the climax of engrossing influences, in immediate connection with yayin. (from The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary. Originally published by Moody Press of Chicago, Illinois. Copyright © 1988.)

I would challenge you to list any standard lexicon that would agree with your definitions of tirosh, oinos, and gleukos.

Shaynus,
My contention is that if they called both alcoholic and nonalcoholic wine “wine,” and if nonalcoholic wine was common in that day, and if the Bible refers to both kinds of wine - then it is poor exegesis to always assume when the Bible speaks of wine it is always alcoholic wine.

It would also be poor exegesis to always interpret the word God / god the same way. Or the word angel, etc. Most every word in the English language has more than one nuance or meaning. We have to properly interpret biblical words by the context, and how they were used in ancient times.
David R. Brumbelow

[David R. Brumbelow] Shaynus,
My contention is that if they called both alcoholic and nonalcoholic wine “wine,” and if nonalcoholic wine was common in that day, and if the Bible refers to both kinds of wine - then it is poor exegesis to always assume when the Bible speaks of wine it is always alcoholic wine.

It would also be poor exegesis to always interpret the word God / god the same way. Or the word angel, etc. Most every word in the English language has more than one nuance or meaning. We have to properly interpret biblical words by the context, and how they were used in ancient times.
David R. Brumbelow

But you’re coming to each text with an assumption that drinking alcohol is wrong, then interpreting the passage accordingly without textual warrant.

Greg Long,
You said, “I would challenge you to list any standard lexicon that would agree with your definitions of tirosh, oinos, and gleukos.”

First, Lexicons or Dictionaries are not inerrant and often follow what other Lexicons have said rather than doing their own original research.

But to list a few authorities:

“Thus any mixed drink is called oinos, ‘wine.’” -Aristotle; Poetics; c. 350 BC. Shows the wide, generic use of the word wine.

“Sweet wine…does not inebriate as ordinary wine does.” -Aristotle; Meteorology, Book IV; c. 350 BC., vol. I; The Complete Works of Aristotle, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey; 1984. I would consider Aristotle quite an authority on ancient wine, and the usage of the word.

Sweet Wine “attacks the brain less…” -Hippocrates, On Regimen in Acute Diseases, c. 400 BC; translated by Francis Adams.

“I regard it as established beyond fair contradiction, that it was a very common thing to preserve wine in an unfermented state, and that when thus preserved it was regarded as of a higher and better quality than any other.” -Moses Stuart in a letter to Dr. Nott; quoted from Oinos by Leon C. Field.
Moses Stuart (1780-1852), a graduate of Yale and professor at Andover Theological Seminary. He authored a Hebrew Grammar and taught the famous missionary Adoniram Judson.

“Heb. Yayin ‘seems to be used to describe ‘all sorts of wine’ (Neh. 5:18), from the simple grape juice, or a thickened syrup, to the strongest liquors with which the Israelites were acquainted, the use of which often led to deplorable scenes of drunkenness’ (Fairbairn Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia)” -quoted in Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Editors: Charles F. Pfeiffer, Howard F. Voss, John Rea. Moody Press, Chicago; 1975.

“Yayin can refer either to fresh juice or to fermented wine.” -Dr. Robert P. Teachout, The Use of Wine in the Old Testament: Doctoral Dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary; 1979.

“Oinos…is used for both intoxicating and non-intoxicating wine.” -Dr. Kenneth O. Gangel, Holman New Testament Commentary, editor Dr. Max Anders, Broadman & Holman, Nashville; 2000.

“ ‘Tirosh’ includes all kinds of sweet juices and must, and does not include fermented wine (Tosef., Ned. iv. 3).” -Jewish Encyclopedia; 1906.

Oinos - “wine, grape juice.” -Dr. Robert Young, Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, Eerdmans, 1970.

Gleukos - “sweet or new wine.” .” -Dr. Robert Young, Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible; 1970.

I could give many more such references and authorities. On top of this, the Bible itself gives a number of references to wine, calling wine what is clearly nonalcoholic wine.
David R. Brumbelow

On the two-wine theory, see my post I linked above. On Judges 9:13, tirosh is used of something intoxicating in Hosea 4:11. Also this is a poetic analogy. Poetically, the product wine comes from the plant- the vine. Yes there is a maturing process, but even just plucking grapes off the vine will start that process. There’s enough sugar to produce a weak vine with no additives added at all.