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

Exactly what level of statement would it take to persuade the abstentionists here that Jesus did, indeed, drink real wine? With the insistence that you have to actually follow real, alcoholic wine past His lips and into His stomach, you’d have to have something like this:

It was a dark and stormy night, and Jesus raised the glass of real wine, the kind that will make you drunk if you have too much, to His lips and drank. And then he swallowed the wine…..

Thankfully, the Gospel writers didn’t write like Bulwer-Lytton, and that really presents a problem for those who would insist on this level of proof; Scripture doesn’t read like that because the society at the time didn’t talk like that. There was nothing remarkable about drinking wine that would justify such prose.

In short, I’m afraid you’ve set up a theory that is unfalsifiable, and unfalsifiable theories are inherently….false.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

[Bert Perry]

Exactly what level of statement would it take to persuade the abstentionists here that Jesus did, indeed, drink real wine? With the insistence that you have to actually follow real, alcoholic wine past His lips and into His stomach, you’d have to have something like this:

That is a very easy question to answer - there is no scriptural passage or passages that links Jesus drinking wine resulting in a merry heart (or for medicinal purposes, for that matter). If there were, I doubt there would be any controversy.

But it has been demonstrated that your conclusions are not based on sound exegesis, but on inference and assumption.

Here is the summary of why I believe what I believe:

“it” = alcoholic wine

1) We are commanded to be filled with the Spirit, not wine (drunkenness)

2) We are commanded neither to consume it nor to abstain from it, therefore, it is a matter of conscience

3) The choice to consume may cause a brother to stumble

4) We have far more passages warning about it than passages praising it

5) We know some who abstained

6) We know none whose consumption of it was approved and/or encouraged

These are all facts taken directly from scripture, not by inference or assumption based on a predisposition.

As a Christian with freedom to make choices in areas not clearly commanded/prohibited by scripture, my assessment of the consumption of alcohol is that consuming it has high risks while abstaining from it has virtually none; the only possible benefits to non-medicinal consumption specifically mentioned in scripture are superficial (a merry heart) and insufficient for me to be willing to take on the risks.

Therefore, it is a wise choice to abstain.

This is why I agree with Aaron’s article.

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)

I did not ask you whether you thought there was evidence to prove Jesus drank wine. I asked the forum what kind of evidence would suffice to demonstrate this. Again, if your hypothesis cannot be falsified—and that is your contention right now—it is false. Period.

So let’s have what kind of statement that would fit in the Hebrew mindset of the time that would suffice to convince you. Once again, if you cannot falsify your hypothesis, neither can you prove it.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

[Bert Perry]

Exactly what level of statement would it take to persuade the abstentionists here that Jesus did, indeed, drink real wine?

The “level of statement” it would take to persuade me is one that does not violate the rules exegesis, which is why I kept coming back to my question of trying to understand how you exegete scripture - because you must be applying a different hermeneutic than others in order for you to believe Jesus “did, indeed, drink real wine.”

[Bert Perry]

Exactly what level of statement would it take to persuade the abstentionists here that Jesus did, indeed, drink real wine?

I may also have read your question too quickly and possibly incorrectly included myself with your queried audience. Were you directing your question to those who demand abstention as a scriptural mandate, or were you including those who believe the Bible does not demand abstention, leaving it a matter of conscience? I do not believe the former, although I grew up in a church that did.

It took me too many years to come out from that kind of church and recognize that we must never add to what the Bible says.

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)

[JNoël]

The “level of statement” it would take to persuade me is one that does not violate the rules exegesis, which is why I kept coming back to my question of trying to understand how you exegete scripture - because you must be applying a different hermeneutic than others in order for you to believe Jesus “did, indeed, drink real wine.”

I would agree with you here that the Bible does not explicitly say Jesus drank wine in Matt 11/Luke 7 and I would be wrong if I try to claim that it did. However, it’s not wrong for me to read the passage and come away with several reasons why it is my opinion that the wine was most likely alcoholic, or at least that in my opinion there is no reason to assume otherwise. I won’t go through my reasoning here because there is no doubt that those with the opposite view will remain unconvinced. There are other passages (Deut. 14:26, Num. 28:7, etc,) that speak about wine in a positive or non-prohibitive way, however I know that those who abstain have reasons why they are not convinced these passages permit consumption of alcohol. I’ve studied this issue extensively and am not able to come to the same conclusions.

For those who truly believe that the Bible prohibits all alcohol consumption, they do right to abstain and to tell others to abstain based on what they believe the Bible teaches. While I disagree, I can respect that they are sticking with their Biblical convictions. But I do buck against the wisdom argument as applying to all believers, mainly because I grew up in church background similar to what JNoel described. The wisdom argument is perfectly fine for individual believers as they can apply the argument as their conscience dictates. But when saying that the Bible does not actually prohibit alcohol consumption and at the same time putting the wisdom argument out there as a reason why ALL believers should avoid alcohol, I believe that is a way of backdooring a prohibition that the Bible itself does not make.

Bert, somebody literally is going through this thread, and systematically disliking everything you write!

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

[Ken S]

For those who truly believe that the Bible prohibits all alcohol consumption, they do right to abstain and to tell others to abstain based on what they believe the Bible teaches.

Perhaps it is time to break out the various positions being expressed in this conversation.

Some demand abstinance (drinking alcohol = sin).

Some demand the Bible teaches that consuming alcohol is a blessing from God, to be enjoyed, but that drunkenness is sin.

Some believe the Bible lacks any clear commands against consumption, making it a matter of conscience.

I am in the third category. I do not in any way believe the Bible condemns or condones it, I believe it is a matter of conscience. I do not break fellowship with those who disagree.

As a parent, I believe the wisdom of abstinence is a good position in instructing my children why I choose not to consume. I can explain to them the variety of scriptural references about alcohol - not only the warnings, but the others, too. If I teach my children that Jesus drank alcohol and reference passages that Bert and others have referenced, they may grow up asking the same questions I have asked - why we are leaning on passages that don’t actually say that Jesus drank alcohol? That is not honest exegesis - it is eisegesis. But it would be just as wrong for me to try to build a case of consumption being sin - because the Bible doesn’t say that, either.

[Ken S]

But I do buck against the wisdom argument as applying to all believers, mainly because I grew up in church background similar to what JNoel described. The wisdom argument is perfectly fine for individual believers as they can apply the argument as their conscience dictates. But when saying that the Bible does not actually prohibit alcohol consumption and at the same time putting the wisdom argument out there as a reason why ALL believers should avoid alcohol, I believe that is a way of backdooring a prohibition that the Bible itself does not make.

I wholeheartedly agree. I think it is more difficult to write on this subject than it is to play it out in real life. Honestly, the conversation about alcohol rarely ever comes up at church, in my home, or even with my unsaved co-workers (when we may be out at a dinner somewhere). If it does, I begin with telling them that I prefer not to drink alcohol because I find the risk too great. If they want me to expand on the conversation, I can, and reference what the Bible says about alcohol (and what it doesn’t), and how alcohol continues to ruin lives (finances, domestic violence, workplace problems, sexual crimes, vehicular situations, health, etc.) but I don’t pressure anyone into choosing to abstain - and I also don’t look down on them as being lesser than I because they may choose to consume. Of course I don’t think they are wise to do so, but it is still their decision to make, and I respect their decision to choose for themselves. I have personal friends I regard as role models regarding their manner of Christian living who enjoy beverage alcohol; I disagree with them on that decision, but that doesn’t make me holier than them.

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)

[TylerR]

Bert, somebody literally is going through this thread, and systematically disliking everything you write!

Just for the record, it isn’t me. :)

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)

I have a bottle of Newport riesling in my fridge right now. It is absolutely delicious in various (cooked) recipes.

It makes my heart merry. :)

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)

The Bible never says Jesus drank alcohol. To say He did is your opinion, your interpretation.

And, of course, that works both ways. Although Matthew 26:29 and Mark 14:25 imply Jesus preferred the fruit of the vine and new wine – indications of drug-free wine.

Another big indication is Jesus’ sinless nature.

It is not for kings, O Lemuel, It is not for kings to drink wine, nor for princes intoxicating drink. -Proverbs 31:4 NKJV

For the record, I’ve not “liked” or “disliked” any comment here.

David R. Brumbelow

Jason gave a game try, but abstentionists need to come up with some kind of statement,that would prove the matter to them. So far, bupkus. And if you cannot come up with something, you automatically must discard your hypothesis.

Really, the argument being presented here, moreover, is that arguments of likelihood are inherently invalid. Now that’s hardly how one would analyze any other text—you make inferences, read between the lines, introduce knowledge about the society you’re looking at, all that—but if you’re going to insist on that, the ugly fact of the matter is that you’re pretty much insisting on something like the Bulwer-Lytton formulation I wrote above, which is pretty much impossible in that culture.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Bert,

I think the point being made by many here is that abstentionists (as compared with prohibitionists), and this applies to any behavior, not just alcohol consumption, only need to come up with something that is valid “for them,” as you put it, and not for everyone. Personally, I’d see “if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out,” as good enough for that purpose, even if I have no intention of plucking my own out on their particular issue. For the point of our own standards/fences/whatever you want to call them, inference or even personal conviction are enough, and from what I see in scripture, this attitude is commended, not condemned. An argument from “wisdom” might indeed convince some, and if that does convince them, I can’t see the harm. I have yet to see any real damage to Christianity from those who abstain from alcohol and argue the abstention (different from insisting on prohibition) position, and it’s still true that those who abstain will not get drunk on alcohol.

Of course, in any group of Christians, including SI, there will certainly be some prohibitionists (and again, not just regarding alcohol) out there as well. For that, I’d say you need at least implication from the text, if not outright condemnation. Wisdom arguments are not generally sufficient for this, but again, it appears to me that most here, including the ones arguing with you, are arguing for abstention, not prohibition. I think it’s actually healthy to have those kinds of conversations, especially in the light of the passages that tell us not to cause others to stumble. (I don’t believe those passages indicate that the only way to not cause others to stumble is to completely abstain from whatever oneself, but those passages certainly do imply the need for much wisdom in what we do and allow.) Maybe for some, given the differences between today and biblical times, it is indeed wiser to abstain and argue for abstention. Even if I disagree with someone on a particular issue, I find it’s usually worth my time to listen to those with reasoned arguments, even if I am not eventually persuaded. Given what I see in scripture on this topic, I think it’s far better to treat it with a healthy amount of caution, which for me, would put me firmly outside of the position that those who argue any form of abstention just “aren’t getting it.”

Dave Barnhart

The original argument is that it is wiser for all Christians, not just the one abstaining. Hence your claim that it is sufficient if it is valid for them does not apply; people are trying to bind consciences with the argument.

And in that light, it makes a lot of difference if they’re trying to bind consciences against something that Jesus most likely did. That is many things, but “wisdom” is not among them.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Aaron,

Thank you for your reasoned argument. Along those same lines I have argued for abstinence in a more extensive fashion. My position is stated on our church website under the heading of documents (fbctroy.org). Drunkenness is measured in some of the Midwest states as .06 alcohol content. Michigan is still .08, but lawmakers are considering lowering it. Some Christians also argue that distilled liquors are acceptable as recreational beverages for believers. I recommend Dr. Randy Jaeggli’s, “The Christian and Drinking” (2nd edition), for the best academic case regarding Abstinence (BJU Press). Randy has a background in chemical engineering and his Ph.D. is in OT Interpretation.

Pastor Mike Harding

I guess I misunderstood what you wrote here (or your reference): “…abstentionists need to come up with some kind of statement,that would prove the matter to them.”

Yes, Aaron is making the argument that it’s unwise for all (at least in his closing statement). I think it’s still sufficient to convince some, and for those for whom it isn’t, I believe it was still interesting (and worth the time) to hear and consider, even if not all agree with the conclusion. In fact, if I only read (and find worth in) arguments/papers/etc. with which I already agree with the conclusion, not only am I not being forced to think, I am also never going to learn. That’s as true for me with secular material as it is with sacred.

Plus, I think it is a legitimate point of disagreement/argument that Jesus “most likely” did something that the scriptures don’t actually say he did, even if you believe that all the factors convince you of the likelihood. The defining scripture for me against prohibitionism is actually the one mentioned a couple times already in this thread, but not really commented much upon — Deut. 14:26. That one is quite clear, without having to guess whether Moses, etc. partook or not. However, it’s harder to use that verse against abstentionism, especially since it didn’t require partaking.

But really, much of the Christian life (and in fact, a large part of preaching vs. just reading scripture aloud) is about taking what the Bible says, and making application or persuading others. I completely agree that some arguments are not going to persuade me. And Aaron already knew his arguments would not persuade everyone. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, or that everyone will find the exact same arguments persuasive.

Dave Barnhart