Why So Many Christians Are Relaxing over Drinks - As colleges drop drinking bans, some see alcohol as a moral good.

*Are you saying that alcoholic wine was ordered in Ex. 29:40, but forbidden in Lev. 10:9? My take is that the wine of Ex. 29:40 is not drunk by the priest; it is burnt in the offering.

Deut. 7:13. Notice that the wine mentioned is “new wine” i.e. not intoxicating.

Deut. 29:6. It is said that they did NOT drink wine in the desert wanderings.

1 Sam. 1:14-15. Hannah is said not to have drunk wine. No one denies that when wine is mentioned in the Bible, it may refer to alcoholic beverage.

Ezra 1:19. It is not said that Ezra demanded copious amounts of wine; simply that the king allowed for the wine to be included in the supplies. We simply do not know if and how wine might have been used by Ezra and his company from this passage. It could have been made available because pure supplies of water would be scarce. One legitimate use of wine was to supplement for impure water. Also, alcoholic wine was legitimately mixed with good water as a guard against disentary.

Neh. 8:10. The word here is “sweet” and may refer to several types of fruit juices. “Wine” is not mentioned for celebrating a feast day.

Psa. 104:15. The word “wine” here may refer to alcoholic drink, but it implies that it is God who provides it. Are we saying that God is in the alcoholic wine business, providing for man what He plainly condemns elsewhere in Scripture?

Prov. 23:30. Yes, abuse of wine is condemned. It is also condemned in 20:1, and its use is said to be foolish. Scripture warns against the use of wine because of its ability to lead men astray. Certainly, we should not be looking for excuses for or advocating its use. No one knows who will become the alcoholic when alcohol is first use.

Eccle. 9:7. Hopefully, one understands that Solomon is giving his view of life “under the sun,” i.e. the life lived from man’s view, not God’s. In 2:3, he says that he gave himself to “gratify his flesh with wine (same word). Since he was leaving God out of his thinking, he did not condemn his use of wine because he thought that there was no reason to deny himself anything.

Isa. 62:8. The word here is “must,” unfermented wine.

Jer. 48:33. There is no advocating of the use of wine in this verse. It simply states that the joy that the harvest and of the windpresses was to be taken from Moab. They were to be denied that which ordinarily produced delight.

Hos. 2:9. The word here is “new wine” or must, i.e. unfermented wine.

Zech. 10:7. No advocating of wine here; simply a metaphor that describes their joy as being similar to the uncontrolled exuberance that wine produces.

Matt. 9:17. Wine here is indeed alcoholic or fermenting, but there is no advocating of its use, only a recognition of its existence.

Matt. 21:33. Of course there is no negative connotation to the growing of grapes and the crushing of them at harvest in what was called a “winepress” — a place where grapes were trodden upon to extract the juice. There is no mention of alcoholic wine here.

Lk. 7:33-35. The fact that Jesus ate where “sinners” might be inclined to drink alcohol did indeed result in his being accused of being a winebibber, but this slander is not a proven fact. Jesus said that He came “eating and drinking,” i.e. with those who drank, and this would open him up criticism, not that the criticism was true, unless we want to say that Jesus was also a “glutton,” which is said to be a sin in Scripture.

John 2. There is no way to prove that Jesus made alcoholic wine in this incident. Are we going to say that Jesus actually produced an intoxicating beverage which use would result in a violation of Prov. 23. The miracle was in changing water (H2O) into a solution of a wholly different molecular structure, i.e. a miracle of creation.

[dmicah]

[mmartin]

I just read Mike Harding’s paper about the Christian and Alcohol. From my perspective it is well researched and I agree with the conclusions. While the Bible does not say in 100% black & white terms drinking alcohol is wrong, it comes Extremely close.

Regarding dmichah’s list of verses stated above, I feel a list like that is inadequate and potentially misleading. The word “wine” in the Bible can have several different meanings from grapes still on the vine to honey to an actual alcoholic beverage. There are additional uses of the word “wine” as well. Harding’s study on this subject is much better because it delves into the ancient language, analyzes the meaning, describes ancient cultural practices and the reasons for them and compares them to today.

Because this is such a sensitive topic and the word itself in the Bible can have multiple meanings to throw out verses about wine, both for and against, without explaining the meaning and intent of the word in a given context is often inaccurate if not worse.

In other words you’re saying the meaning is unknowable? We can’t know if it’s alcoholic wine, therefore, we shouldn’t drink wine?

There’s clearly a scholarly debate as to the expression and extent of definition for “fruit of the vine.” But logically, there is alcohol that can intoxicate, and it is mentioned numerous times in God’s Word. There is clear explanation to not be intoxicated. The “rule” of Scripture would therefore not be a yes/no or “thou shall not”, but an “in your use of these intoxicating beverages, don’t overdo it.”

Since you claim the list to be misleading, which is not its intention, tackle a couple of these verses - Lev. 10:9 & Num 6:3. Why was there a rule for priests, and a unique rule for one taking the Nazarite vow, regarding strong drink if there was a clear theocratic bright line that alcohol was forbidden in any shape or fashion for anyone? If God had made it clear that alcohol was a forbidden and/or unwise beverage, then why this particular guideline? Contextual interpretation trumps single word derivation.

[dmicah]

[mmartin]

I just read Mike Harding’s paper about the Christian and Alcohol. From my perspective it is well researched and I agree with the conclusions. While the Bible does not say in 100% black & white terms drinking alcohol is wrong, it comes Extremely close.

Regarding dmichah’s list of verses stated above, I feel a list like that is inadequate and potentially misleading. The word “wine” in the Bible can have several different meanings from grapes still on the vine to honey to an actual alcoholic beverage. There are additional uses of the word “wine” as well. Harding’s study on this subject is much better because it delves into the ancient language, analyzes the meaning, describes ancient cultural practices and the reasons for them and compares them to today.

Because this is such a sensitive topic and the word itself in the Bible can have multiple meanings to throw out verses about wine, both for and against, without explaining the meaning and intent of the word in a given context is often inaccurate if not worse.

In other words you’re saying the meaning is unknowable? We can’t know if it’s alcoholic wine, therefore, we shouldn’t drink wine?

There’s clearly a scholarly debate as to the expression and extent of definition for “fruit of the vine.” But logically, there is alcohol that can intoxicate, and it is mentioned numerous times in God’s Word. There is clear explanation to not be intoxicated. The “rule” of Scripture would therefore not be a yes/no or “thou shall not”, but an “in your use of these intoxicating beverages, don’t overdo it.”

Since you claim the list to be misleading, which is not its intention, tackle a couple of these verses - Lev. 10:9 & Num 6:3. Why was there a rule for priests, and a unique rule for one taking the Nazarite vow, regarding strong drink if there was a clear theocratic bright line that alcohol was forbidden in any shape or fashion for anyone? If God had made it clear that alcohol was a forbidden and/or unwise beverage, then why this particular guideline? Contextual interpretation trumps single word derivation.

Lev. 10:9 and Num. 6:3 might imply that those who were not priests or Nazarites might use wine and intoxicating drink, but this does not imply an advocating of such. The fact that a higher standard was required would imply that to imbibe represented an accommodation, but not an advocacy of. As in the NT requirements for bishops and deacons, a higher standard was required, probably as an example for others to aspire to. The fact is that Scripture may permit, but it does not advocate drinking alcoholic beverages. Abstinence is the higher model taught in Scripture.

[Jay]

[Todd Bowditch]

[Mike Harding]

Why stop with undiluted, alcoholic wine and beer for recreational use? Why not promote whiskey, vodka, gin, and other hard liquors? While we are at it, add a few smokes or even marijuana, cocaine, heroin, angel dust, or the drug of the month club. All in moderation of course! After all, none of these things are a fundamental of the faith. Yes, some of these things are currently illegal, but in time we can change that as well. In fact, I can think of a whole lot of things to add to the list that are not a fundamental of the faith. Maybe we can all meet at the local Casino and gamble, play poker, drink, and smoke together. It would be a great place for a Christian college faculty reunion or deacon board meeting. All this and heaven too!

Mike, I’m sure that you’re not using a “slippery slope” logical fallacy here. But just to clarify, the morality of an action should be judged on its own merits…not based upon what we assume might be connected to that action.

Actually, Todd, Mike does make a valid point with the mentioning of marijuana, which is now legal in some form in 10 states. I think we would all agree that taking hard drugs (heroin, coke, angel dust, 180 proof vodka, etc.) is unscriptural. This is also, BTW, the brilliance of Paul’s argument in I Cor. 10 - if Paul HAD said “Thou shalt not drink alcohol”, we’d be seeing a lot of “But there’s no prohibition against pot!” arguments.

Anyone here want to argue that drinking is OK but marijuana use is not? That might be an interesting discussion.

Jay, I had the same thought about pot, but I hesitate to get into these discussions. Bob, maybe pot was made for our joy as well?

[jimcarwest]

Psa. 104:15. The word “wine” here may refer to alcoholic drink, but it implies that it is God who provides it. Are we saying that God is in the alcoholic wine business, providing for man what He plainly condemns elsewhere in Scripture?

Jim, this is one of those circumstances that I’ve referenced several times. Your premise is that God wouldn’t give alcohol because it is bad. You simultaneously assert that alcohol is bad because God wouldn’t give it to anyone.

It isn’t bad for God to provide alcohol unless it is inherently bad. This passage could also indicate alcohol can be good because God gave it with specific purposes.

James,

Scripture clearly states wine was given for our good. It doesn’t state that about pot. A biblical conviction concerning God’s good creation would see God’s provision of medicine / medication from pain, by means of pot.

But it doesn’t state what kind of wine, explicitly.

It also doesn’t even deal with pot. How do you not endorse a mind altering drug when you already approve a previous one? Turns out you do endorse it. And that is all I say about that…

You do know that God didn’t make alcohol or pot right? People make those things from the creation. God made poppy seeds. Do you know what man makes with that?

I know, I know, some reformed guy wrote a book one time and that settles things.

[James K]

But it doesn’t state what kind of wine, explicitly.

Nope, that’s why conscience can dictate where Scripture does not.

[James K]

It also doesn’t even deal with pot. How do you not endorse a mind altering drug when you already approve a previous one? Turns out you do endorse it. And that is all I say about that…

You believe alcohol to be a mind-altering drug. How are you defining “mind-altering”? If you are talking about a temporary effect on mental state, then anything that triggers endorphins is “mind-altering”. If you intend it to be permanently “mind-altering”, then that is not the case with alcohol. Controlled, moderate alcohol usage does not cause any permanent mind-alterations.

The majority of Christian find controlled alcohol usage to be morally acceptable. Most do not classify marijuana the same way. The long-term effects of marijuana usage are well-documented. Do your Christian brothers a favor by not putting words in their mouths. Alcohol and marijuana are not the same substance and they are not approached the same way by most Christians.

You have chosen to argue what is on this discussion forum, a straw man argument. No one is suggesting that alcohol and marijuana are the same. We don’t recognize that as our position and we think less of you for trying to characterize our position in that fashion. Please stop.

[James K]

You do know that God didn’t make alcohol or pot right? People make those things from the creation. God made poppy seeds. Do you know what man makes with that?

The bible says quite clearly that God gave man alcohol. Alcohol has been used by mankind for thousands of years as a natural antiseptic, a source of nutrition, and a means of enjoying his creation. The chemical processes associated with fermentation are essential parts of nature. Furthermore, marijuana and poppies are plants that God indubitably created (barring a view that these plants came into existence after the Fall). There are proper (in my opinion), medicinal uses for these plants. Millions of people have had their their dying days or moments eased by these drugs. Your excessive use of rhetorical questions makes me doubt that you are concerned with serious interaction on this topic.

[James K]

I know, I know, some reformed guy wrote a book one time and that settles things.

Non sequitur, much? No one brought up “some reformed guy” until you did. I’m not sure where that is going. But it is oddly dismissive of you to assume that the only way to arrive at our conclusions is to idolatrously obsessed with “some reformed guy“ ‘s book.

Marijuana and alcohol are not in the same in same category per this discussion. Not even. Believe me, pot is a whole nuther beast.

[Jay]

[Todd Bowditch]

[Mike Harding]

Why stop with undiluted, alcoholic wine and beer for recreational use? Why not promote whiskey, vodka, gin, and other hard liquors? While we are at it, add a few smokes or even marijuana, cocaine, heroin, angel dust, or the drug of the month club. All in moderation of course! After all, none of these things are a fundamental of the faith. Yes, some of these things are currently illegal, but in time we can change that as well. In fact, I can think of a whole lot of things to add to the list that are not a fundamental of the faith. Maybe we can all meet at the local Casino and gamble, play poker, drink, and smoke together. It would be a great place for a Christian college faculty reunion or deacon board meeting. All this and heaven too!

Mike, I’m sure that you’re not using a “slippery slope” logical fallacy here. But just to clarify, the morality of an action should be judged on its own merits…not based upon what we assume might be connected to that action.

Actually, Todd, Mike does make a valid point with the mentioning of marijuana, which is now legal in some form in 10 states. I think we would all agree that taking hard drugs (heroin, coke, angel dust, 180 proof vodka, etc.) is unscriptural. This is also, BTW, the brilliance of Paul’s argument in I Cor. 10 - if Paul HAD said “Thou shalt not drink alcohol”, we’d be seeing a lot of “But there’s no prohibition against pot!” arguments.

Anyone here want to argue that drinking is OK but marijuana use is not? That might be an interesting discussion.

Actually Jay, Mike, and James, this is still slippery slope, in my opinion. There is no connection whatsoever between a Christian’s personal, controlled use of alcohol and the legalization of marijuana usage by some states. It is neither necessitated by logic, argumentative flow, or actual held positions.

The point of some contention in this forum is whether the Bible ever mentions alcohol positively…I believe that the majority consensus is that there are at least a few passages. There are at least passages that can or have been interpreted that way by good men. There is no such scriptural foundation for marijuana usage.

Someone has already mentioned it, but I wanted to respond to you since you took the time to address some verses. You are approaching this from a preconceived notion that alcohol is inherently wrong.

You said “The word “wine” here may refer to alcoholic drink, but it implies that it is God who provides it. Are we saying that God is in the alcoholic wine business, providing for man what He plainly condemns elsewhere in Scripture?

First, no one said God was in the wine business, which is a sarcastic and disingenuous barb that deflects the substance of the argument.

Second, you continue to assume God plainly condemns alcoholic beverages, but don’t supply biblical evidence.

Third, you continue to skirt around the issue by assuming first that any wine mentioned is non-alcoholic. You call new wine unfermented, but how do you know that? How do you know “sweet” or “sweet wine” is unfermented? How can you assume that a winepress is designed for grape juice, not actual fermented wine? You say a prophet used gladness and rejoicing of the heart with wine as a metaphor, but then don’t seem to grasp that he used this metaphor because the people identified with consuming wine. These assumptions come from an opinion, not the natural progression of logic.

Fourth, another quote Lev. 10:9 and Num. 6:3 might imply that those who were not priests or Nazarites might use wine and intoxicating drink, but this does not imply an advocating of such. The fact that a higher standard was required would imply that to imbibe represented an accommodation, but not an advocacy of. On the contrary, the higher standard actually proves my position. Alcoholic beverages as consumed by Israelites, including priests, on a day to day basis was intoxicating. And no one should be dealing with worship in a state with any mind altering substances in their body. So they were specifically warned not to do such. But when not in worship responsibilities, they were allowed to do as normal. The concept of “accommodation” is nonsensical in this argument.

If you approach from a blank slate, then you are forced into a corner. The Bible explains the pleasure of this gift and warns against its abuse. Again, the burden of proof is on those with the abstinence view because the plain renderings of Scripture lay out simple explanations of the topic.

[SuzanneT]

Marijuana and alcohol are not in the same in same category per this discussion. Not even. Believe me, pot is a whole nuther beast.

True that. Marijuana doesn’t even get a mention while alcohol enjoys a very unique Scriptural status. It is the only object/element since the fall that is defined as having an intrinsic morality (Prov. 20:1) and that will definitively determine the moral outcome for those who use it—“Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things.”

[Andrew K.]

The body is not made to inhale smoke. Period. Under no circumstances is it advisable. We have the advantage of knowing that now, so I think that’s off the table.

The body can, however, process alcoholic beverages and even derive health benefits from them. Our ancestors, for example, found that a low-alcohol beer helped them to work harder and longer than water alone.

Studies have shown that smoking a joint a day does not cause any long-term lung damage. You can also consume marijuana without inhaling smoke. There are also medical benefits to marijuana. The body can process both marijuana and alcohol in limited amounts. The body has trouble processing both in large amounts. I don’t see the distinction in the argument between the two. Just because the Bible mentions alcohol, that makes it permissible? The Bible doesn’t mention caffeine or transfats. Does that mean these are off limits as well?

[Barry L.]

[Andrew K.]

The body is not made to inhale smoke. Period. Under no circumstances is it advisable. We have the advantage of knowing that now, so I think that’s off the table.

The body can, however, process alcoholic beverages and even derive health benefits from them. Our ancestors, for example, found that a low-alcohol beer helped them to work harder and longer than water alone.

Studies have shown that smoking a joint a day does not cause any long-term lung damage. You can also consume marijuana without inhaling smoke. There are also medical benefits to marijuana. The body can process both marijuana and alcohol in limited amounts. The body has trouble processing both in large amounts. I don’t see the distinction in the argument between the two. Just because the Bible mentions alcohol, that makes it permissible? The Bible doesn’t mention caffeine or transfats. Does that mean these are off limits as well?

Barry, the jury is still out on marijuana.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/263936.php

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/marijuana-abuse/how-does-marijuan…

I’m convinced enough by the information to have no desire to use it. It is not inconsistent at all to hold that position. I’ve detailed that above.

Again, point of logic here. No one is claiming that a Biblical mention of alcohol makes it permissible. The point of discussion is that alcohol is mentioned positively in some instances and the abuse always condemned (of course, we are still discussing this). That understanding is filtered through biblical principles (conscience, testimony, stewardship, etc) to determine the morality of an action.

Furthermore, no one is claiming that items not mentioned in the Bible are de facto off limits. Your line of reasoning is flawed. It is not a logical development from the conversation or the from the positions that anyone is supporting.