On the "requirement" to be a teetotaler

I am honored you would read and consider “Ancient Wine and the Bible,” though I respectfully disagree with your conclusions.

Boiled down grape juice (which keeps unfermented) was common in the ancient world (documentation is in the book), and is common today. Buy it at Amazon.com:

https://www.amazon.com/Alwadi-Al-Akhdar-Molasses-24-69-Ounce/dp/B001EQ4…

By the way, I would recommend using fresh grape juice and a slow, rather than vigorous boil. Also, the ancients had other common ways to provide unfermented wine throughout the year.

I happily challenge anyone to fairly compare the information in “Ancient Wine and the Bible.” I think the documentation in the book will hold up well.

While you may disagree with my view on abstinence, it is a historical fact that both fermented and unfermented wine were widely available in ancient times.

David R. Brumbelow

David, first of all, when you’ve got zero examples of this kind of thing in the Scripture, I’m sorry, but I cannot consider your book well sourced. Same thing with archeology—we see wine vats, wine presses, and the like, but not places to boil down grape juice. Reality is that most of your sources are 19th century temperance advocates and 20th century fundamentalists, people who really have an axe to grind in this regard. Really, even when you claim to quote the ancients, it’s coming through this filter.

Pretty much everybody else agrees that the general sense of “wine” as an alcoholic beverage is correct. I find this case far more persuasive when I consider the factors I mentioned. Boiing wine to make a syrup not only gives you Kool-Aid, but is a tremendously expensive, difficult, and dangerous way of getting scurvy and water-borne disease. More or less, I’ve come to view the writings of many of the prohibitionists as mostly an exercise in wishful thinking in light of this, often deriving from their simple inexperience with any society but their own. When you’ve got safe drinking water and an abundance of energy sources, it sort of makes sense—but Israel didn’t have these.

That is, as well, my perspective regarding your link to the grape molasses. Today, juice concentrates are made with a vaccuum pump (to lower the temperature needed) with extremely careful temperature control (my dad sold control equipment for Foxboro), and using fossil fuels for energy. That’s a far cry from standing by an open fire in August and burning the wood you’d want to bake bread in December, to put it mildly. Plus, it seems to be only popular among Muslims.

There is simply no comparison, and even many Muslims don’t go for this. In Iran, there are even now thousands of small, underground wineries making Shiraz-style wines—even after well over a millenium of Islam, people acknowledge the truth of Luke 5:39. I used to work with a guy who enjoyed them growing up in Iran. It is also well known that when many wealthy Arab “Muslims” come to the United States, they imbibe—my step-father’s uncle described in detail a party with several members of Jordan’s royal family, for example.

So to argue that people favored a cool-aid like drink…..sorry, I’m going to go with what our Lord said in Luke 5:39. There can be great reasons to abstain, but the idea that most wine in Bible times was not alcoholic is not among them.

“For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?” (I Corinthians 11:21,22a)

I wonder what kind of wine they were drinking? Grape juice or alcoholic? I wonder why Paul didn’t just say, “You know you are not supposed to be drinking alcoholic wine”? Instead, he tells them to drink their alcohol at home rather than at church. Hmmm. Just wondering.

I am an abstainer. I personally recommend it as the wisest course to follow. But my conscience will not allow me to twist Scripture to require something the Scriptures clearly do not require.

Isaiah 25:6 The LORD of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain; A banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, And refined, aged wine.

There may be a way to make this other than what the text clearly indicates. I will be disappointed if it is Welch’s grape juice. I understand the concerns, the abuse, and see daily in my work as a certified drug and alcohol counselor the ravages of drugs and alcohol. All God’s gifts - wine, sex, food, etc. - can be abused. I do not see a biblical case for abstinence although people may have good reasons to abstain - family history of alcoholism, etc. Those reasons, while good for them, are not binding on others. Bu we shouldn’t twist a “Don’t be near those who drink too much wine” (Prov. 23:30, NIV) or “Do not get drunk with wine” (Eph. 5:18) into prohibitions to never drink wine. Some people will do well to never drink wine. Others will do well in enjoying God’s gift.

Once again, Fundamentalists reveal how culture is shaping beliefs rather than Scripture and common sense. To make the Bible say something it doesn’t in order to support abstinence is unnecessary. But to use 1st century beverage practices to justify consuming today’s alcoholic beverages is also unnecessary and unwise. I am bothered by the growing number of Fundamentalists who are now justifying alcohol use, reflecting the influence of our culture masked by an appeal to Scripture. Today’s alcoholic beverages are not “God’s gift” but a curse given to us by modern society. What Muslims or anyone else are doing is irrelevant. With so many safe choices for beverage use, why any Fundamentalist would consume alcoholic beverages is astounding. The heart is deceitful and unpredictable. The next generation of Fundamentalists, our children and grandchildren, will reap the results of the changing attitudes and practices of Fundamentalists on alcohol consumption. At a time when we need to be focused on the great opportunities our degenerating culture is giving us for the gospel, far too many Fundamentalists are preoccupied with their “right” to drink wine. Amazing.

[WallyMorris]

Once again, Fundamentalists reveal how culture is shaping beliefs rather than Scripture and common sense. To make the Bible say something it doesn’t in order to support abstinence is unnecessary. But to use 1st century beverage practices to justify consuming today’s alcoholic beverages is also unnecessary and unwise. I am bothered by the growing number of Fundamentalists who are now justifying alcohol use, reflecting the influence of our culture masked by an appeal to Scripture. Today’s alcoholic beverages are not “God’s gift” but a curse given to us by modern society. What Muslims or anyone else are doing is irrelevant. With so many safe choices for beverage use, why any Fundamentalist would consume alcoholic beverages is astounding. The heart is deceitful and unpredictable. The next generation of Fundamentalists, our children and grandchildren, will reap the results of the changing attitudes and practices of Fundamentalists on alcohol consumption. At a time when we need to be focused on the great opportunities our degenerating culture is giving us for the gospel, far too many Fundamentalists are preoccupied with their “right” to drink wine. Amazing.

With all due respect, Wally, there aren’t that many “safe” beverages out there—ask anyone outside the U.S. or Canada (or from Flint MI) about the water, and ask the Mayo Clinic about any sweet beverage (including juices)—let’s not forget that diabetes and heart disease kill far more people than does alcohol. The difference is close to a factor of ten, brother. You want to act against something that’s killing fundamentalists that goes into their mouths? Let’s talk about the Super Big Gulp and the Old Country Buffet, brother. Let’s talk about Jell-O salads and the plate of fried chicken at the church potluck. Let’s talk about gluttony.

And along those lines, the Bible’s instructions for alcohol parallel those for food; moderation. Gluttony is sin with food, and drunkenness is sin with alcohol. No more, no less. Now given that Paul tells us in Colossians 3:23 that man made rules are of no value in restraining sensual indulgence—they leave the rule-maker worse off than he was before—by what logic do we assume that our rules are going to be more effective in stopping alcoholism than God’s teaching against drunkenness? Is the Bible our sole rule of faith and practice? Do we really believe Sola Scriptura? If we do, I think we’ve got to abandon our man-made rules in this and many other areas.

I like that opening, Bert, “With all due respect…”

Even though conviction-wise I agree with Bert and BikeBubba (whoever that is), I’m writing here with the intent of challenging Bert. I find that when we write things like “with all due respect” often the writer is just about to dis-respect his brother.

I think that Bert and BikeBubba’s arguments are sound. And GNB, Steve, etc. BUT Wally is not denying their validity as much as their importance. He is weighing the dangers of alcohol and finding himself convicted not to drink. Is a Big Gulp also dangerous - sure. Is gluttony also a sin? Sure.

My point: When I encounter a conviction that I don’t personally share (like Wally’s abstention) I might tend to see it as a challenge to my own freedom: “If he’s right, I must be wrong.” This type of thinking is unbiblical and counterproductive. We should see Wally’s conviction not only as a possibility, but also as a beautiful expression of God’s grace in his life. We tend to fail to see the beauty of these convictions in others.

Dan, I am “Bike Bubba”. Here’s how the nickname got started.

Point well taken on that phrase. I meant it more as “I emphatically disagree”, but I see your point.

On the flip side, there is a point where a Romans 14 or 1 Cornithians 8 conviction becomes sin, and that’s when we start to contradict Scripture in defending our convictions. If Scripture says wine is a blessing—and it repeatedly does—by what Biblical logic do we call it a curse? Isn’t it sin to contradict the Bible?

I can go with a number of abstentionist arguments, but contradicting Scripture crosses a line where I can no longer call it a conviction, let alone a beautiful one. We are to be conformed to His image, not the other way around, no? I’m OK with abstaining for the sake of those who cannot be moderate—with alcohol or certain foods, even—but a line is crossed when we call God’s blessings curses.

It seems that any serious discussion on wine in the Bible needs to reconcile the Bible’s negative message utilizing the term “wine” with its use of the same word in an apparently positive light. Psalm 104:15 speaks of God making wine to gladden the hearts of men and Isaiah 25:6 speaks of a great end-times feast at which death is destroyed, man feasts on choice morsels and wine aged over the lees. Does God giveman a pass on what Christians today call “social drinking?” Social drinking might be defined as the process of consuming inebriating beverages while maintaining the mental faculties to do so “responsibly.” You might sense the tension and apparent conflict of this position. With each drink of intoxicating substances comes a release of the very inhibitions needed to maintain sobriety. Yet the Bible speaks favorably of wine. How can this be?
Words have more than one definition. This is not to say that “wine” can in any way refer to mere grape juice. But there is another solution. Consider whether the term “wine” might have similar usage to our word “drugs.” If a man says, “I picked up some drugs at the pharmacist,” vs. “I picked up some drugs from this dude in the alley,” the same word denotes two related yet distinctly different substances. What two substances might have been intended in antiquities by the term “wine?”
Consider this statement at the close of a historical text (not a Scripture text), 2 Maccabees 15:39, “For as it is hurtful to drink wine or water alone; and as wine mingled with water is pleasant, and delighteth the taste: even so speech finely framed delighteth the ears of them that read the story. And here shall be an end.” How is this insightful? From the perspective of an ancient, devout Jew, neither substance, wine nor water, should be consumed alone, but each mingled with the other. Now ask yourself this, what would you call wine mixed with water once the two had been mixed. Would you ask your guests if they wanted “wine mixed with water,” and then direct a server to go pour two cups of “wine mixed with water?” Or, if you were a devout home that believed wine should never be consumed alone, would you just refer to it as “wine” and presume rightly that your guests would know what you meant by your reputation and standing as an upright, sober individual? The best understanding of “wine” in the Bible is that it can either refer to wine mingled with water or straight wine that is intoxicating.
From a scientific perspective, does mingling wine with water accomplish anything? A peer reviewed medical journal article published findings in 1995 showing that white wine eliminated deadly bacteria in 12 hours and red wine in 24 hours when either substance was mixed 1 to 8 parts with water. The same tests were repeated with ethanol and tequila and neither substance worked, proving that more than just any alcohol is required. (For easy reference, referenced in this “prepper’s” article here: http://www.prep-blog.com/2014/08/25/purifying-water-with-white-wine/)

It also seems the Bible refers to “mingled wine” as something very potent and thus very negative such as in Isaiah 5:22. While Provers 9:2,5 refer to Lady Wisdom mingled wine and must surely be in keeping with the spirit of the Maccabean quote above. Any thoughts as to whether my thinking is going in an illogical direction here?

…but on the chance it is of interest, here’s Mayo on diabetes. As Joe notes, weight is the #1 correlation, and that Super Big Gulp comes in because you can get upwards of 500 calories in those 44 ounces with an attendant insulin spike doing “not nice” things to your pancreas.

Back to the topic, and per Tim’s comment, the seeming ambiguity about the Bible’s teaching about wine is paralleled by what the Bible teaches about sugar (Proverbs 25:16 on honey) and even work (Proverbs 23:4); moderation.

[Jim]

• Drunkenness is always sin
• Some are convinced one way
• The others convinced another
• Ancient advice #1: “[Don’t] “quarrel … over disputable matters.” (Romans 14:1)
• #2 : “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant?” (Romans 14:4)
• #3: “be fully convinced in [one’s] own mind” (Romans 14:5)
• #4: “stop passing judgment on one another” (Romans 14:13)
• #5: “Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.” (Romans 14:13)
• #6 (the place of privacy): “whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God” (Romans 14:22)

True enough for issues that aren’t clearly taught in Scriptures in an ancient culture that understood clear biblical teaching. But item 1 is the reverse of begging the question… it assumes the issue was unclear at the time and in the culture in which the Scriptures were written. My question is whether the Scriptures weren’t crystal clear and that drinking a mind-altering quantity/concentration of alcohol would then be sin. Period.

I can appreciate the fact that gluttony is a sin, in one sense, as drunkenness is a sin. But my friends haven’t lost their lives to sugar addicts. I haven’t watched marriages destroyed by sugar. I don’t see children in sub-first-world conditions going hungry while their parents consume their paychecks on sugar. The social costs of alcohol to societies has been vastly different. Having watched Christian women who were shy young ladies at one point in their lives later destroy their marriage through sexual promiscuity with a neighbor or an acquaintance while under the influence of alcohol puts alcohol, in inebriating quantities, under a difficult category.

Items 2-6 stem from what might be a faulty conclusion of categorizing these matters under your theological category of “disputable matters” which might not be the thrust of what Romans 14:1 was saying in the first place. Obviously, we are disputing. Does that place the matter under your theological category of “disputable matters” and thus off-limits to biblical teaching? Others dispute over gay marriage. Some over homosexual clergy. Some over legalized “herbal relaxants” (pot). My JW relatives dispute over the deity of Christ. The presence of disagreement/dispute does not place a topic off limits.

Pastor Muri presents a fine argument from historical theology in the 2nd millenium AD. My argument goes back a bit further prior to the time of Christ and is what we call a primary historical reference that lands directly between the two testaments. These aren’t my words, but the words of a devout Jew to the effect that neither substance should be drunk alone but one mingled with the other. I would hold up my primary historical reference to his later-dated references as equally reliable if not more reliable into the ancient mindset.

Please understand that I am not arguing against the use of alcohol-content wine. Only arguing against the use of it in inebriating potency. Mingle it 1 to 4 with water or 1 to 8 with water and I have no quarrels. The Bible everywhere commends sobriety. And many among us only need a small wineglass of wine to relax inhibitions.

My ignorance shows here. But I wonder if that same glass of wine mingled with 4-8 glasses of water (still drinkable, though it seems one would be water-logged) would have the same effect of releasing inhibitions.

And what makes the Maccabean reference to wine so powerfully insightful is the fact that it is not a didactic passage addressing wine. He is making a statement that assumes consensus among his audience (devout Jews) and builds on that to make a clever ending to his writing. He cannot be accused of advancing some agenda. He is saying, “just as neither wine nor water should be alone, neither should fine speech and brevity be alone. Each should be mingled with the other.”

- BTW, this would probably be good advice for my preaching… and my blog posts :)

In any case, the writer is clearly drawing on a point common to his culture/audience and using it to turn a phrase into a clever ending. Look at ancient passover texts and instructions for the Eucharist. I believe you will see wine mingled with water. I believe this was the context out of which the usage of wine arises among the devout.