On the "requirement" to be a teetotaler
BikeBubba’s boiling experiment
Verdict: it is extremely unlikely that this would have been done on a large scale anywhere around the Mediterranean. It’s not witnessed in Scripture or archeology, it uses too much wood, and it would be a lot of work for the purpose of getting scurvy and water-borne diseases instead of enjoying robust health by eating raisins and having a glass of wine.
- 48 views
First humorous (that will not convince anyone):
Baptist Kids Learn Exciting Account Of Jesus Turning Water Into Grape Juice
Children at First Baptist Church Of Auburn were reportedly awed and excited Sunday morning to learn about Jesus’ first recorded miracle, wherein the Savior instantly transformed over a hundred gallons of water into delicious grape juice.
“Isn’t that amazing?” their Sunday School teacher reportedly said as she placed another piece on the flannelgraph in front of the class. “They were in danger of running out of grape juice, and Jesus saved the party by making jars and jars of the stuff—all from plain ol’ water!”
“The people at the wedding would have been really unhappy without their Juicy Juice!” she added.
One misguided Presbyterian child visiting from a neighboring state reportedly raised his hand and told the teacher that the way he learned the story, Jesus had turned the water into a delicious, high-ABV Merlot. The child was asked to stand in the hallway for the remainder of the lesson.
At publishing time, the teacher had teased next week’s Bible story, wherein the storied biblical patriarch Noah had one too many glasses of Welch’s and lied down in his tent with a tummy-ache.
I am view B
It’s worth noting that Deuteronomy 29:6, Numbers 28:7, and Exodus 29:40 give us no indication, contra Teachout, whether the beverage was intoxicating or not. Also noteworthy is that, having found Teachout’s dissertation, it appears that Mr. Brumbelow’s work is largely a retread of Teachout’s tires, so to speak.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I’m a B+!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]I think the implications of Lev 10 (mentioned earlier, here) are worth discussing as we consider this issue.
The first question we ought to ask regarding that passage is what other priestly regulations (beards, wives, etc..) we retain in the NT—I can’t think of any, really. Couple that with the fact that we’re no longer offering sin offerings, and it’s hard to make an argument when the NT is silent. We are brought back to the obvious implications Todd mentions about 1 Corinthians—if beverage alcohol was wrong for Christians, that would have been a great place to mention it. But Paul does not.
Really, it’s a lot like a response to the Lutheran understanding of baptismal regeneration—if it really does save to sprinkle an infant, then why isn’t it mentioned in the NT? Why isn’t it easier to derive such a doctrine that would be so important?
The quick answer there is that baptism does not save; with regards to beverage alcohol, it is because we are not Aaronic priests. Plus we don’t need a steady hand to slit the throats of unwilling animals and then gut them at work!
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I suppose it depends on how you think the law functions for the believer today. Your point about the rituals (e.g. garments, procedure, etc.) for the sacrificial system in general are moot, because Christ has fulfilled all those rituals which were a parable to teach about His perfect, finished work to come.
The fact remains that believers today can draw some kind of principle from Leviticus, can’t they? Are they merely law codes from a by-gone time, or do they reflect timeless principles from God which transcend the temporary boundary of the Old Covenant? Several principles are adopted wholesale into the NT from Leviticus:
- The OT temple has been replaced by the individual temple of God in the believer
- The literal sacrifices to maintain fellowship with the Lord in covenantal relationship have been replaced by spiritual sacrifices of service and devotion; that of a slave to His master
- The holy priesthood doesn’t belong to the Levites right now; now all believers are part of a holy priesthood!
Given this, it should at least give folks reason to pause and reflect a little bit on why the Levites were specifically forbidden to “drink wine or strong drink” while ministering in the outer compartment of the tabernacle. What is the connection between this and the “strange fire?” What is the connection between the holy and the common, between the clean and unclean?
Consider how holy God expected His Levite priests to be. Now, of course, Christ was holy and perfect for us. Got it. Yet, God still expects His people to be holy, because He is holy (see, another Leviticus quote made it’s way into the NT!). If we’re each holy priests before God (and been declared holy and righteous by Christ’s imputed righteousness), then how ought we to think about “wine or strong drink” in light of Lev 10:8-10?
This isn’t a slam-dunk argument; it’s more of an observation that I’ve always found particularly compelling. I just read through Leviticus again, too - maybe that has something to do with it!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
…there’s also a requirement that a priest MUST marry a virgin of the daughters of Israel. And really, it brings up the question of whether “ritual stone cold sobriety” was a ritual or a moral requirement, no? And really, if indeed Jesus drank and even made wine, wouldn’t it be blasphemous to suggest that we’d be “more holy” if we abstained? He is our example, no?
So it’s a ritual law, not moral, along with a good idea when you’re slitting the throats of animals for a living.
On Jim’s quiz, C leaning into D, as I’m sure many guessed. I don’t try to hide it, but I don’t try to parade it, either. Ask me about it, and I’ll basically say “it’s Biblical, and the big reason one ought to abstain is problem drinking or alcoholism.” Regarding “hiding” drinking, count me very, very skeptical of the notion that a typical alcoholic is going to fall off the wagon because he sees a brother in Christ drinking or buying liquor; the same guy drives past a dozen bars and liquor stores every day, and he sees and hears dozens of ads for liquor.
No objection to those who abstain, but a huge objection when people start spreading nonsense theories to infringe on Christian liberty.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
As we read the scriptures we find verses warning of the dangers of wine and other verses showing the blessings of wine. There is no verse that says a Christian shall never drink any alcohol, but there are plenty of verses that clearly show that drunkenness is a sin. Part of the challenge is to even know when a person is actually drunk. Is a person drunk when they would be issued a DUI or does drunkenness occur as soon as there is any sort of mental impairment? One could even argue that drunkenness occurs as soon a person’s inhibitions are let down.
Though there is debate on the accuracy, we actually have the technology to measure intoxication levels today. Further we can look at labels and determine how much alcohol content a specific bottle has. For a mixed drink a mathematical formula would have to be used in addition to the the bottle’s label. The problem is that even if you were to measure out the exact alcohol content of your drink and you were to consult a chart that told you how much you could drink before feeling the effects of alcohol, there are so many other factors at play- how much you had eaten, how old you are, your body’s tolerance to alcohol, how long it took you to drink the alcohol, and even your genetic makeup.
The fact that we have labeling on our alcohol gives us an advantage that our fellow Christians 2000 years ago did not have. It also gives us a responsibility.
Today we are still debating the alcohol content of Biblical wines. Even if we were to travel back in time, it would not be easy to settle this dispute. Did the wine that Jesus made have any alcohol content? Some would argue that it did not based on the principle that Jesus would never endorse drunkenness. Others would argue that even a ripe banana has a certain alcohol content, but that one would never get drunk from a ripe banana. The wine that Jesus made could have had such a small alcohol content that no one would ever get drunk no matter how much they drank. The issue is not if it had any alcohol or not. The issue is that drunkenness is wrong, and I do not believe that Jesus would have encouraged anyone to get drunk.
Today, not all wine has the same alcohol content. The same was true in Bible times. In fact, there is evidence that the fresh squeezed wine was simply non alcoholic juice. Since a ripe banana has some alcohol content, it is possible that if you were to travel back in time with a science lab, you could prove that certain fresh squeezed wines actually had some trace amount of alcohol in them. Really that does not matter. The issue is that drunkenness is a sin.
Wine with such a low alcohol content is not a danger for drunkenness. In fact, the catalyst for the prohibition movement in the United States was the higher alcohol content that came from refineries following the industrial revolution. Before that time, there were those who made very potent alcohol, but it took much time and effort. The typical wines were not causing the same level of rampant drunkenness that came about after the industrial revolution when high alcoholic content wines were more readily available.
Not only did a man in Bible times not have access to detailed labels or a science lab, they could not even depend on their sense of taste or smell. Many of the wines in Bible times had herbs, ashes, dust, or salt added to them, therefore it would be difficult for a person to always know whether or not they were drinking wine that was of no danger for intoxication vs a wine that was a danger for intoxication. I believe that is why neither Jesus nor the apostles said that you should never drink alcohol, but instead scripture warns against drunkenness.
There is a passage in the Bible that gives detailed instruction on the use of wine and I believe that it is directly applicable to the challenge of not knowing if the alcohol was intoxicating or not.
29 Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaining? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? 30 Those who linger long over wine, Those who go to taste mixed wine. 31 Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it goes down smoothly; 32 At the last it bites like a serpent, And stings like a viper. 33 Your eyes will see strange things, And your mind will utter perverse things. 34 And you will be like one who lies down in the middle of the sea, Or like one who lies down on the top of a mast. 35 “They struck me, but I did not become ill; They beat me, but I did not know it. When shall I awake? I will seek another drink.” (Proverbs 23:29-35 NASB)
Many have looked at vs 31 and have suggested that the color of the wine, the fact that it sparkles, and that it goes down smoothly is an indication that it is alcoholic wine and must be avoided. The problem is that Welches grape juice goes down much more smoothly than strong alcohol. Further, the color and sparkle are not clear indicators either.
To understand what is being addressed we must look at the whole context. Notice in verse 30 that the woe, conflict, complaints, wounds, and red eyes of vs 29 were the result of too much wine. I believe that vs 31 is a warning to stop drinking the wine before you get to the problems that go along with drunkenness (vs 29). I think vs 31 is the description of what many today call a “buzz.”
Remember that the alcohol did not have a label. It may have tasted so salty or had so much pepper that you could not tell if it was strong drink or not until you had these symptoms. If you were to find yourself in this position, then you would know that you had crossed the line. The warning is to stop before you have the heartache of vss 29 and 32-35.
Some may ask, why not just drink in moderation until you get a buzz, thus applying vs 31? The surrounding verses show how dangerous that is and further vs 31 also shows that by the time you have a buzz the alcohol is going down smoothly. In other words, by the time you have a buzz it is so easy to just keep going and to linger at the wine. Today I have labels. I do not have to wait for the buzz to avoid vs 32-35. Further, I know drunkenness is a sin, and I consider a buzz to be just a little drunk. For the Old Testament saint, who found himself in the place of vs 31, he may not have ever intended to get there. If he were to immediately stop, God’s grace was more than sufficient for such an incident.
The use of all wine was not prohibited in the scriptures. In fact, Timothy is told to use a little for his stomach. I believe that command was given because of the dangers from contaminated water. Some believe that Paul was suggesting that Timothy simply drink non alcoholic juice to avoid the water. Others suggest that Timothy add alcohol to the water to kill the germs. Others suggest that Timothy was to simply drink alcohol instead of the water. Regardless, Timothy would have had to take Proverbs 23 into consideration and he would have had to be careful even if he thought that the wine was alcohol free.
Today I have a label so I know what to stay away from. If I were to some day find myself in a third world region without labels and I did not know what I was drinking, I would need to be responsible. I would have to apply Proverbs 23, since the choice of simply avoiding something labeled beer, wine, or whiskey may not be an option. Then I would have to apply the ageless principle of Proverbs 23.
I understand that not everyone will make the same choices I do concerning alcohol, but I am thankful that I have the advantage of a label after having seen the effects alcohol has had on so many lives. I am thankful as well that not every life has been ruined by it, but I do not even want to take the chance. I guess that would put me between A and B and Jim’s chart. I will not say it always a sin to drink alcohol, but I will say it is wise to avoid it.
[Larry Nelson]I don’t really know anything about the controversy surrounding the book, but I do know that this was the first time I encountered an argument for abstinence that I found convincing. All of the standard arguments I heard growing up in fundamental churches, schools, and camps were irrational or inconsistent with the whole of Scripture.Randy, imo, does a great job of knocking down the weak arguments for prohibition and replaces them with much stronger arguments for abstinence based on biblical wisdom, the pursuit of holiness, and a right understanding of Christian liberty. He even deals with the questions relating to Isaiah 1:22, and if I get a chance later, I’ll post an extended quotation.This book was originally met with criticism from Fundamentalists, pulled by BJU Press, partially rewritten, and then reissued:
I have the book, but I haven’t read it. I don’t think you can make a Scriptural case that alcohol is absolutely forbidden. But, I think a right understanding of personal holiness should result in abstinence. I plan to read the book soon.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
1. “Buzzed” is probably the wrong word to use with regards to the symptoms described in Proverbs 23, because those symptoms—more or less feeling no pain and the like—generally occur at about .15% BAC or higher. That is not “buzzed”, but rather “seriously drunk.” The typical usage of “buzzed” I’ve heard occurs around .04-.06%—when a person is feeling very friendly, and probably shouldn’t drive, but isn’t going to get a DUI arrest if he does.
(though some will say “buzzed” when they want to minimize how much they’ve actually been drinking)
2. We probably make too much of a big deal wondering what the alcohol content of ancient beers and wines was—we can infer from the fact that people got seriously drunk (again, Proverbs 23) by drinking them without blowing out their bladders (see “Tycho Brahe”) that they were about the same strength as today’s unfortified beers and wines. We are, after all, dealing with more or less the same ingredients of barley, grapes, water, and yeast that the Egyptians used. Hence, with minor adjustments for techniques—getting the sugar concentrations right, getting complete fermentation—we’re going to be at a similar point to where they were.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Bert, I have to admit that I did not know that there was a technical threshold for the buzz. I was just going by what the people in the bar were describing to me. In an earlier time in my life I spent a lot of time in bars even though I did not drink myself. Seeing the results up close and knowing that the bar was the best place to find my dad may have had something to do with my choice to abstain way back in my teen years.
My thoughts are that vs 31 -where it starts to go down more smoothly and sparkles more- would go along with someone “feeling very friendly.” I stated that I felt vs 31 was about the “buzz,” and the other verses were about full drunkenness. I view vs 29-30 and vs 32-35 forming a Hebrew chiasm with vs 31 in the middle. Thus we find the warning to stop sandwiched between the extremes of drunkenness. The “chiasm” was a Hebrew form of communication where you would typically find an ABC CBA pattern. In other words it would start and end with a similar idea with a point in the middle.
1 Timothy 5:23 reveals no evidence for social or moderate drinking.
First, the wine referred to could have either been fermented or unfermented. The Bible and ancient writings often refer to unfermented wine by the name wine (Isaiah 65:8; Matthew 9:17; etc.).
Modern English translations do so as well.
Ancients knew and practiced multiple ways of preserving unfermented wine. It was available throughout the year.
Unfermented wine or grape juice has the same, if not more, healthy properties as alcoholic wine; without the harmful side effects. The healthy part is not the alcohol.
Health benefits of unfermented wine (grape juice):
1. Contains beneficial antioxidants.
2. Helps protect cardiovascular health.
3. Encourages flexible arteries.
4. Contributes to healthy blood pressure.
-gleaned from Welchs website; 2009, www.welchs.com.
(But watch out for grape juice with “added” sugar.)
“Older men and women who drank fruit and vegetable juices more than three times a week were 76 percent less likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease than those who drank juices less than once a week, a new study shows.” -alzinfo.org; 2006.
“Alcohol is not actually heart-healthy…Red wine contains some beneficial compounds such as flavonoids and resveratrol, a potent antioxidant in the skin of grapes associated with a number of health benefits. Of course, grapes, raisins, berries, and other plant foods also contain these beneficial compounds. You do not have to drink wine to gain these benefits.” -Joel Fuhrman, M.D., The End of Diabetes; 2013.
However, even if Paul was recommending alcoholic wine:
1. He only said a little wine.
2. Strictly for medicinal purposes.
At most, this is only justifying a little alcohol for medicinal reasons. In addition, today there are usually more effective medicinal drugs than alcohol.
3. It is also interesting that as a pastor, Timothy, for good reason, had been abstaining from wine.
David R. Brumbelow
It is now 0820 (PST). The clock is running, Bert. Don’t let us wait too long …
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I know David brought this up earlier in a different context, but I have always though that the pro-choice crowd (that is choice to drink alcohol in moderation) :-) , if they were serious, would bring a bottle of Jack Daniels to the next church picnic. You could line up a row of shot glasses, pour it all out, and let everyone have a shot. Only one mind you.
Has you ever seen that? I wonder why not?
Discussion