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.

Discussion

As often happens on this topic, we’re now mired completely in meta-debate: debate about points that are not actually relevant, especially debate about the debate.

Absent any doctrinal teaching on the topic, what Jesus and the apostles drank given the options of their day has no bearing on what we ought to drink given the options of our day.

Should we all go back to first century dental hygiene since that’s what Jesus and the apostles (presumably) did? If it was good enough for them, it has to be good enough for us, right? The emptiness of this reasoning is obvious to anyone with an even half way open mind.

As for the (irrelevant) miracle at Cana, if you read with incorrect assumptions to begin with, you’ll arrive at incorrect conclusions about what it proves. Biggest erroneous assumption is a semantic error: selecting a particular meaining from the range of meanings of a word and assuming it, rather than starting with the rull semantic range and letting the context determine its meaning.

Oinos was used of everything coming form the grape, from the stuff right out of the press to the stuff drunk by the ordinary Joseph every day, to the stuff people mixed to purposely give it a bigger kick. It isn’t valid to read its most common meaning into every context, especially when the context provides some compelling reasons for doubting that meaning. Wine does not normally come from water. This wine did.

But the inescapable fact is that we are not told what its composition was, and any claims on that point are somewhere on a range of probability, with high uncertainty, at best.

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.

[JNoël]

Andrew K wrote:

I’m sorry, but if you know anything at all about traditional hospitality cultures, you’ll find the whole argument about the silence of the text re. Jesus’s drinking the wine rather absurd.

More than the wine conversation, my concern is about exegesis. You and Bert choose to apply a different method of interpretation than others; you prefer to make assumptions (

Bert Perry wrote:

Let’s be blunt; do we fundamentalists tend to refuse to use extra-Biblical evidence to shed light (or darkness as it were) on a passage? Do we, for example, refuse to add information about drunkenness when we discuss alcohol? Do we fail to bring in incidents related to that? Of course not. This very thread is clear evidence of that!

), I do not. Yes, I have brought in cultural examples of the dangers of alcoholic beverages to help support my position of the wisdom of abstinence. And the Bible also expresses applying wisdom. I would be more than comfortable to never mention the obvious cultural impacts of alcohol (domestic abuse, drunk driving incidents, sexual assault, substance dependence, etc.) and to simply look to the passages that tell us that drinking alcoholic wine is an unwise choice. But I have not made claims that the Bible never makes to support my position: you both assume Jesus drank alcoholic wine and that all wine is alcoholic.

My contention isn’t about wine, it is about the manner in which you are using scripture to support your position.

You are using a hermeneutic and approach here that you would use on no other matter of practical Biblical exposition or doctrine; because, on this issue, you are blinded by your culture and traditions.
Let me put the matter plainly: If I were to preach from this text that drinking alcohol is acceptable because Jesus drank alcohol at Cana, resting on the silence of the text as proof, and the proof as the license, that might be construed as eisegesis.
Were I, however, to argue that given the cultural practices of the time, as well as other Scriptural references aforementioned, the absence of specific reference to Jesus drinking fermented wine puts the burden of proof on those who say he did not rather than on those who say he did, then submit that logical inference as part of a body of evidence in favor of a holistic Scriptural teaching favoring the “moderation” approach to alcohol… well, call that what you like, but it is how the majority of our systematic doctrines are constructed. You might disagree, but to call it “eisegesis” is preposterous.
Incidentally, I see this whole debate as a peculiarly American cultural product, having little relevance elsewhere in the world, excepting those places where we have exported it.

Bert Perry and Joeb,

You can amuse yourselves by hand squeezing table grapes, and mocking, if you want.

But you apparently fail to understand, there is a big difference between wine grapes and eating grapes. Wine grapes are smaller, filled with seeds, have thicker skins, and a lot more juice. The grapes you buy at the grocery store are table or eating grapes.

Another consideration is that someone who did this on a regular basis (Genesis 40:11) would develop an unusually strong grip and skill. What you could not do, he could. Hand squeeze wine grapes into a cup, six days a week for a year, and then get back to me. I bet you’ll be good at it by then!

I also fail to understand why you disbelieve and mock a common practice (pressing grapes into a cup to make wine) that is told in Scripture and repeatedly in ancient literature. And, in the ancient world they also had numerous types of grapes that were used for different purposes, much like today.

I grew up gardening, preserving produce, grafting fruit trees, etc. In that environment you learn much about preserving and the different keeping qualities (and other qualities) of various fruits and vegetables. Get recipe books written before pasteurization (pre AD 1864) was discovered, and you learn much more about the ancients. Some modern day books teach the same, such as modern day books on lactic fermentation.

The documentation is in “Ancient Wine and the Bible,” but I’m sure some would not lower themselves to read a book they disagree with.

But if you are going to do an experiment to prove or disprove an ancient practice, at least research it enough to do it the way it was practiced in the ancient world.

Another example – Bert’s furiously boiling frozen grape juice concentrate and then saying his flawed experiment proves the ancients could not have boiled wine to produce a nonalcoholic product.

Unless you do an experiment today like they did it back then, you are proving nothing except your own lack of knowledge and lack of understanding.

But again, the original article here is right – It is unwise to drink alcohol (or take other recreational, mind-altering drugs), or encourage others to do so.

David R. Brumbelow

David, the simple fact of the matter is that Genesis 40:9-11 discusses a dream where a vine grows up before the eyes of the wine-steward, where grapes form before his eyes, and he then squeezes them into the cup. Now if you argue that this proves they drank their “wine” as fresh squeezed grape juice, you must simultaneously agree that this means that the Egyptians knew grape-vines that grew up in the time-space of a dream, instead of over years, and that they produced ripe grapes in the time of a dream, instead of over months.

We might even infer from this method of exegesis that the grapes formed did not even need to ripen, but rather budded from the stems fully ripe. Miracles in ancient Egypt lost to mankind!

For my part, I know I have a number of dreams where quite frankly there is no particular reality to the matter, and to ascribe a cultural meaning to the dream is iffy at best because we know the rest of the dream simply doesn’t happen. There never has been such a grape-vine as the dream describes, and hence we assume that this is simply a picture—truncated—of his restoration to his position.

More fun with this; I am quite frankly dubious of the idea that, 3000 years before the invention of toilet paper, that anyone would desire grapes squeezed by hand and not allowed to ferment. Think about it for a minute—to this day in many Asian and African societies, you do not eat with your left hand because that’s the hand that’s used. Even the right hand is suspect—if you doubt this, put some dye on your left hand and see how long it takes to get all over.

Come on, David, give it a try. Don’t protect your absurd claim by saying your hands aren’t well developed enough yet, give up using toilet paper for a couple months, squeeze some of those grapes, put up the result on YouTube. Tell me how you feel after a few days, I might even pony up for your antibiotics.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

9 Everyday Behaviors that Make You Look Dumber than You Really Are

Business Insider: http://www.businessinsider.com/common-behaviors-that-make-you-look-dumb…

Came across this completely by accident a little bit ago.

1. Holding an alcoholic drink

It’s pretty obvious that drinking yourself into a stupor can make you look ridiculous. But a 2013 study found that simply holding a drink can make you seem less intelligent.

The authors dubbed this phenomenon “the imbibing idiot bias.” Drinking and idiocy are so closely linked in our minds, they say, that when we see someone carrying a Corona, we assume that person will act like a buffoon.

In one experiment from the study, managers saw photographs and read transcripts from a hypothetical dinner interview. Results showed that the managers perceived the candidates who ordered wine instead of soda as significantly less intelligent and less hirable.

But I’m sure it would work to just hold a sign that says “I only drink in moderation.”

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.

OK, Aaron, if you’re going to cite Business Insider, I’m going to feel pretty good about citing basic biology, history, and the like. Never mind that there just might be an issue of “setting” in when it is, or is not, allowable to have a drink, or perhaps the kind of drink had might make a difference. Yes, it matters whether it’s beer, wine, spirits, or mixed drinks, it matters when it’s enjoyed, the brand matters, and quite frankly the amount matters. It’s a very silly article you’ve cited, really.

And really, your assertion that the specific substance at Cana doesn’t matter just boggles the mind. Early readers were taking all kinds of lessons from that miracle, and yes, it does matter that Jesus made good wine(Luke 5:39, John 2:10), wine that the feast-master knew would dull the taste. In other words, the alcohol-containing wine that was the common daily drink because Louis Pasteur and Thomas Welch were 18 centuries in the future. It speaks to the wedding supper of the Lamb, God’s choice of Israel (and later the Church) as His bride, and a whole host of Biblical doctrines related to this.

It means we cannot say that wine is ipso facto “wrong” or “unwise” without making that same accusation of our Savior. It says something about the nature of the coming celebrations in Heaven. Making it a miracle juice or grape juice simply would not convey the same picture to that ancient culture.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

David, yet another place where you’re wrong. I did not boil it furiously, but rather had it in an All-Clad pan with aluminium sandwiched by stainless steel to spread the heat on a light boil, not a rolling boil. Much better heat flow than the lead pans that the ancients used 2000 miles from Israel in Spain, not to mention my smooth top stove has much better heat control than an open fire, and hence much less carbon taste than Columella and his guests would have “enjoyed” on their way to lead poisoning induced madness.

Honestly, it boggles the mind that you keep claiming that this was done in Israel when it has zero archeological support in that country. It boggles the mind even more when one remembers that doing so on a large scale would have resulted in mass lead poisoning, smoke inhalation and heat stroke deaths among those unfortunate enough to be required to make it, infectious disease deaths among those deprived of real wine, scurvy because Vitamin C is destroyed at 170F, and deforestation because all the wood in the country would have been required to do the boiling.

And those lucky enough to survive all that would have then been far more at risk of diabetes because all that sugar would be hammering their pancreas. Yum.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

I think Jesus turned the water at Cana into espresso.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

[TylerR]

I think Jesus turned the water at Cana into espresso.

Those are the ‘kingdom jitters.’
But I’ve gone sour on all these wine jokes, Tyler. Let’s try to be a little more sober, shall we?
;)

[Bert Perry]

not to mention my smooth top stove has much better heat control than an open fire

Not necessarily. Smooth top electric stoves have actually relatively poor stable temperature control because the heating elements cycle on and off. Older, open coil electric stoves were superior in that the coil actually had a regulator circuit that would keep the coil at a particular voltage output to provide a single, stable output of heat. Smooth-tops don’t work that way due to safety concerns with the glass top.

Did I mention I have a background in electrical theory?

;)

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)

Yes, smooth top stoves are less control than a gas stove, but we are comparing to a fire made from twigs from vines, not a Viking gas stove. And lead’s thermal conductivity is about a sixth that of aluminium, and about half that of steel.

And I’m a EE who’s been cooking since the age of six. Gotcha beat. I know very well how to boil liquids without needless carbonization, and the simple fact is that without burning the liquid on the bottom of the pan, the resulting goop (I’m being generous here) had the distinct taste of charcoal. There is a reason we know the name of Thomas Welch, and it ain’t because boiling down juices is an economical and tasty way of preserving them safely.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Another wisdom consideration is the fact that alcohol increases your risk for cancer.

“The importance of alcohol drinking as a contributing factor to the overall cancer burden is often underappreciated. In fact, alcohol drinking is an established risk factor for several malignancies.”

“Alcohol is causally associated with oropharyngeal and larynx cancer, esophageal cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, breast cancer, and colon cancer. Even modest use of alcohol may increase cancer risk, but the greatest risks are observed with heavy, long-term use.”

-American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2017

http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2017/11/alcohol-and-cancer.html

David R. Brumbelow

I agree that alcohol is physically harmful as is smoking (which is why we don’t follow Spurgeon’s example). But why doesn’t abstinence form alcohol become a “popular fundamental doctrine” until the prohibition era. The Reformers and Pilgrims loved their beer, George Washington ran a distillery (I know that many of us don’t consider him a Christian), and I suspect if you’d asked any Christian before prohibition what wine was, the majority would have said “wine” and not grape juice or rehydrated raisins.

"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 at Cana into espresso.

Nah, it couldn’t possibly have been the real stuff.

It must have been decaf.