What Does The Scripture Say About The Use of Alcohol?
This topic started in the FBFI Resolution thread, so let’s continue it here and explore it fully.
Some positions on this so far have been-
Mike Durning: Let me be clear. I do not drink alcohol. Never have. Never will.
I preach against it as strongly as the Scriptures permit. I wish I could find Scriptural authority for calling “using alcohol as a beverage” a sin. I believe, depending on attitude and intent, that a particular believer may be sinning by doing so, but I’m not sure there is enough Scripture to get us to calling it a sin outright.
Despite all the strong warnings in Scripture against alcohol, they generally seem to lean toward warning against abuse.
There are several troubling passages where use of it without abuse seems to be affirmed.
And, clearly, if the Lord had wanted to say “no intoxicating beverage”, He could have found some way to say so.
There are undeniably serious testimony issues that arise when a Christian consumes alcohol — enough that I think they SHOULD keep the modern Christian away from alcohol entirely. But that is a secondary consideration, and should be presented as such.
So I’m uncomfortable with the placement of “alcohol” on a list of other sins as though they are all set equal in God’s eyes.
Red Phillips: When I am in discussions with other conservative Christians, not necessarily inerrantists but people with a “high view” of Scripture, (usually Reformed, old school high church types, and traditionalist Catholics) they often bring up the absolute prohibition against alcohol among evangelicals and fundamentalists as proof that the self-proclaimed inerrantists add their own biases. Now maybe some of them have a dog in the hunt and like their alcohol a little too much, but it does make us look unserious and our inerrantists position suspect.
It is simply not credible that the Bible forbids all use of alcohol as a beverage. Alcohol was ubiquitous in the ancient world. It had to be. They had no refrigeration and didn’t always have ready access to potable water. What were they going to do? Go to their frig and get some Welch’s or go stick a few quarters in the Coke Machine? Carry a goat along to milk whenever the need arose? The new wine into old wineskins parable doesn’t make sense unless you understand fermentation was taking place. How long would fresh juice last in the hot Israel sun anyway?
This sort of obliviousness to historical reality makes us look bad. The Bible does prohibit drunkenness and in the modern age with all our alternatives it may well be wise to avoid alcohol altogether, but claiming the Bible prohibits all use of alcohol as a beverage hurts our credibility. I would not have included it in the list.
Pastor Marc Monte:The issue stems from whether you take a “one wine” or “two wine” position. One wine people see all wine in the Bible as alcoholic. Two wine people see some as alcoholic and some as grape juice—depending on words and context. I take the two wine view.
As for Randy Jaeggli’s book, “The Christian and Drinking,” I believe it is poorly written, confusing, and is a poor argument for abstinence. In fact, his argument for abstinence is so weak that—in my view—it actually supports the arguments of those who use alcohol in moderation. I have approached BJU about withdrawing the book, but they have refused to do so thus far.
As an example of Randy’s audacity, he claims that the wine made by Jesus at Cana was full strength, alcoholic wine. Even John MacArthur denies that! (If Jesus made and distributed full strength alcoholic wine, you have NO argument for abstinence—at least from the Bible.)
Larry: I think Monte’s appeal to Prov 20:1 doesn’t actually deal with Prov 20:1. That proverb speaks to those who are deceived by it. (The word probably “led astray” and can be used in other ways such as in Prov 5:19 of a man’s satisfaction with his wife which could hardly be described as “deceived,” though the next verse uses the same word, probably in an ironic way. In Isa 28:7, it’s only other use with wine I think, it clearly means intoxicated. So in Prov 20:1, its meaning with wine is probably “intoxicated,” but I will go with the KJV on this out of deference to Monte). A great many people who drink alcohol as a beverage are not deceived by it; they are not intoxicated by it.
Monte’s case about John 2 is another classic case of bad argumentation: “It can’t be real wine because drinking is prohibited.” That’s a bad argument. It assumes that your conclusion that drinking is completely forbidden is right. And then you have to write off all evidence to the contrary as really meaning something else. I doubt many wedding parties served grape juice in the first century. It may have been diluted, but it was impressive to the people at hand. Historically total abstinence as not been the position of the church (which means little to many, particularly those who hold a particular view of the Scriptures themselves). But it is at least something to consider.
Now, let me remind you as I said recently on my blog, I think drinking alcohol as a beverage is silly. I think it is unwise. I think it is unnecessary. I say that publicly and privately. I tell people “I don’t think you should drink and here’s why.” I have told people, ‘You cannot drink and remain a member of this congregation.” But the Bible does not give a clear categorical condemnation of it, and therefore we must tread lightly. Harding’s title “The Wrath of Grapes” is apt, and should be heeded.
So I am not making a case for drinking. I don’t want to and don’t need to. I don’t think you should drink. My point is about bad arguments.
Charlie: In the first century, people drank alcoholic beverages. Many people abused them. Timothy may serve as an example of some Christians who did, to a very large extent at least, abstain from drinking. Presumably it was to maintain face. I find it most telling, though, that our Lord did not choose to model this course for his people. Not only did he create wine at Cana, he certainly drank often enough that bigoted individuals could wrongly accuse him as a drunkard. Matthew 11:18-19 18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.”
I believe the Lord’s Supper provides the context for a Christian understanding of alcohol. Jews drank alcoholic beverages as part of their religious festivals, with no indication that it was a shame, a disgrace, or a little “shaky.” One can make all sorts of baseless assumptions about the nature of the “wine,” but we all know what’s strong about “strong drink.” Deuteronomy 14:24-26 24 And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the LORD your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the LORD your God chooses, to set his name there, 25 then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the LORD your God chooses 26 and spend the money for whatever you desire- oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.
When the Lord’s Supper was instituted, Jesus certainly used real wine, keeping the Jewish tradition. The imagery of wine in connection with God’s saving work has OT roots as well. (Here again, grape juice hardly makes sense.) Zechariah 10:6-7 “I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph. I will bring them back because I have compassion on them, and they shall be as though I had not rejected them, for I am the LORD their God and I will answer them. 7 Then Ephraim shall become like a mighty warrior, and their hearts shall be glad as with wine. Their children shall see it and be glad; their hearts shall rejoice in the LORD.
What a beautiful way to teach! In the Lord’s Supper, we learn that alcohol is a good gift from God. It is for children, it is for adults, it is for men, it is for women. It makes the heart glad. In the church, Christians can learn to use alcohol without abusing alcohol, a line that Corinth seemed not to always get just right. Yet abstinence is not Paul’s solution 1 Corinthians 11:20-21 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.
Obviously, the 19th century introduction of grape juice in the place of wine was the result of an unbiblical attitude toward alcohol. Really, it was an affront to the history and practice of the church. Alcohol is in some ways like sex; the perversions of it have often fostered a “sex is dirty” attitude in the church that is the opposite of rejoicing in God’s gift to his people, within his boundaries. The Lord’s Supper instructs us on how to receive wine as it is - God’s gift.
Note: Obviously, the Lord’s Supper is not about alcohol; it is about Christ’s work on behalf of his church. Nevertheless, I believe that reflecting on it brings insight into the Christian’s relationship with alcohol.
Bob T: First, the Hebrew scriptures portray wine in a very negative way. The warnings against wine are extremely strong and the effects of wine are seen as devastating. Abstinence is connected with special dedication and spiritual responsibility.
Prov 20:1
20:1 Wine Is a Mocker Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise.
NKJVProv 20:1
20:1 Wine Is a Mocker Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise.
NKJVProv 20:1
20:1 Wine Is a Mocker Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise.
NKJV29 Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaints? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes?
30 Those who linger long at the wine, Those who go in search of mixed wine.
31 Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it swirls around smoothly;
32 At the last it bites like a serpent, And stings like a viper.
33 Your eyes will see strange things, And your heart will utter perverse things.
34 Yes, you will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, Or like one who lies at the top of the mast, saying:
35 “They have struck me, but I was not hurt; They have beaten me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake, that I may seek another drink?”
NKJV
Prov 20:1
20:1 Wine Is a Mocker Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise.
NKJV29 Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaints? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes?
30 Those who linger long at the wine, Those who go in search of mixed wine.
31 Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it swirls around smoothly;
32 At the last it bites like a serpent, And stings like a viper.
33 Your eyes will see strange things, And your heart will utter perverse things.
34 Yes, you will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, Or like one who lies at the top of the mast, saying:
35 “They have struck me, but I was not hurt; They have beaten me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake, that I may seek another drink?”
NKJV
4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, It is not for kings to drink wine, Nor for princes intoxicating drink;
5 Lest they drink and forget the law, And pervert the justice of all the afflicted.
NKJVProv 20:1
20:1 Wine Is a Mocker Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise.
NKJV29 Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaints? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes?
30 Those who linger long at the wine, Those who go in search of mixed wine.
31 Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it swirls around smoothly;
32 At the last it bites like a serpent, And stings like a viper.
33 Your eyes will see strange things, And your heart will utter perverse things.
34 Yes, you will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, Or like one who lies at the top of the mast, saying:
35 “They have struck me, but I was not hurt; They have beaten me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake, that I may seek another drink?”
NKJV
4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, It is not for kings to drink wine, Nor for princes intoxicating drink;
5 Lest they drink and forget the law, And pervert the justice of all the afflicted.
NKJV15 “Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbor, Pressing him to your bottle, Even to make him drunk, That you may look on his nakedness!
16 You are filled with shame instead of glory. You also — drink! And be exposed as uncircumcised! The cup of the LORD’s right hand will be turned against you, And utter shame will be on your glory.
NKJVSpecial examples are given connecting abstanance from wine with special dedication to God.
Priests were not to drink wine when ministering in the temple (Lev. 10:9).
Daniel and his friends refused wine (Dan. 1).
Those under a Nazerite vow abstained from wine and strong drink (Num. 6:1-4)
Second, the strong warnings and restrictions in the Hebrew scriptures provide the basis for the prohibitions in the Christian scriptures.
John the Baptist, the Hebrew transition prophet, abstained from Wine and strong drink (Matt 11:18).
Church Elders were to not be given to wine (1Tim. 3:3).
Deacons were not to be given to wine (1Tim.3:8
The effects of wine are contrasted to the effects of being filled with the Holy Spirit (Eph. 5:18).
In light of the nature and severity of the warnings and examples of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, we must consider abstinence from wine and strong drink as integral with any and all calls to spiritual commitment in the Christian church (Rom. 12:1-2).
From a life experience standpoint, as one coming from a non Christian home and lifestyle, having spent 4 years active duty in the Navy where I was converted to Christ, I cannot see the wisdom of any Christian seeking to find a place or allowance for alcoholic beverages in a Christians life. Past history of the churches, and present cultural allowances for such in Europe and other places, have been a factor in weaker testimonies and churches.
In American culture today, making allowance for alcoholic beverages can have many detrimental results. I have heard several teenagers who have made excuse for their drug use by stating that adults have a drug of their choice called alcohol. Use alcohol and you weaken the example and basis for your own children. We are asked to present our bodies as a living sacrifice at Rom. 12: 1-2. If the effects of alcohol on the body are contrasted to Spirit control at Eph. 5:18, how can we sincerely do that while seeking to ignore strong warnings of scripture regarding a thing and seeking to find the possible loopholes for that thing.
This will be SI’s One Stop Shopping for all discussions on this topic- Happy debating!
- 797 views
[Pastor Marc Monte]Isn’t this exactly what Pastor Harding has done? He argues that based on the difference in alcoholic content between “today’s wine” and “biblical wine,” moderation in biblical times is more-or-less equal to abstinence today, because you can’t find alcohol today in such low concentrations. As far as I understand, this is the same reasoning employed by Jaeggli and Mazak (another BJU prof). You see this position as inconsistent, and I do too to some extent. Your solution (I believe) is to deny that there was any alcoholic drunk in biblical wine and strong drink, whereas mine is to take a moderationist position.
You can not build an abstinence position (based on the Bible) when you hold that the Biblical position and practice was moderation.
Do you think that BJU used to hold your position and now doesn’t?
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
If Biblical wine was fermented naturally and diluted for daily use but modern wine is usually fortified, then that presents a plain reason for treating modern alcoholic beverages differently from the way the Bible talks about treating “wine.” (Thus, one could say that the biblical data read plainly and contextually teaching a very careful moderation position, but today abstinence is the best choice.) I fail to see how this is “inconsistent.”
Charlie thinks it’s inconsistent and goes for moderation.
Pastor Marc thinks it’s inconsistent and goes for a teetotaler position.
If there’s valid support for the difference between Bible-wine and modern wine, why is it “inconsistent” for that difference to play a role our positions?
1. Alcohol, the Beloved Enemy (Jack Van Impe)
2. Discerning Alcohol (Paul Chappell)
3. The Biblical Approach to Alcohol (Stephen M. Reynolds)
4. Bible Wines or the Laws of Fermentation ad Wines of the Ancients (William Patton)
In short it is my position that when wine is spoken of in positive terms in the Bible it is unfermented. When it is spoken of in negative terms, it is fermented. Could grape juice be preserved unfermented in ancient times? Yes, and the practice was common throughout the Jewish and Grecian world—see Patton’s “Bible Wines…”
As to the difference between wines ancient and modern, understand that the ancients could ferment grape juice to the same level of alcohol as modern table wines. When people talk about wine, they are usually talking about table wine, not fortified wine. The only wines that are fortified (generally speaking) are port and sherry. These are not commonly consumed as are table wines. The ancient wines could reach an alcohol level naturally identical to common American table wine. For confirmation of this, check the websites of wine producing vineyards.
To say that modern wines are “fortified” is only true (generally speaking) with port and sherry. Modern table wines and ancient wines could easily have the same alcohol content.
Since some wine is condemned and other is praised in Scripture, there must be two different types of wine. Obviously that is true, since one must have grape juice BEFORE he can have alcoholic wine. Do you get it? Two types of wine: one grape juice (often preserved unfermented) and one alcoholic. Alcohol = Bad; Grape Juice = Good. Simple enough. And there’s good evidence to back it up, both from Scripture and history.
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
[Pastor Marc Monte]I think this is fallacious. Some activities associated with and effects of wine are ill-spoken of in Scripture. Certain Scripture passages will not support your dichotomy, such as 1 Timothy 3:8, where deacons should not indulge in “much wine.” Now, why would it be problematic to drink much grape juice? And if it is fermented, then your neat dichotomy breaks down.
Since some wine is condemned and other is praised in Scripture, there must be two different types of wine.
I have great doubts that the word οινος was ever regularly used to indicate “unfermented” wine (grape juice). Every lexicon (BDAG, Louw-Nida, Friberg, UBS, Thayer, LSJ, Middle Liddell, Slater, Autenreith) says “wine,” with BDAG, Louw-Nida, LSJ, and Friberg calling special attention to its fermented status. Louw-Nida explains that οινος means fermented wine unless combined with a modifier stating otherwise, such as νεος (new) or απυρος (unfermented). LSJ and BDAG note that sometimes οινος was used as a generic term for other alcoholic drinks, such as barley beer. From that, it seems that the word may have become even more associated with alcohol than with grapes.
Furthermore, there was a word that specifically means “must,” the unfermented juice of grapes - τρυξ. I notice, though, that even though there are a variety of linguistic options available to distinguish between unfermented and fermented grape beverages, the NT writers consistently use the one term that consistently points to a fermented drink.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Pastor Marc Monte] In short it is my position that when wine is spoken of in positive terms in the Bible it is unfermented. When it is spoken of in negative terms, it is fermented.Pastor Marc, you’re certainly not the only person to hold to this position. A lot of sincere men I know do. But it’s a logical (and exegetical) fallacy. I’ve studied the words that are used in both positive and negative contexts in Scripture, and they are the same words. Exegetically, there’s no difference. Your second statement quoted above is leaving out a premise that you’re assuming. Here’s what you’re really saying:
…
Since some wine is condemned and other is praised in Scripture, there must be two different types of wine.
Premise A: Because some wine is condemned and some is praised in Scripture, and
Premise B: Because alcoholic wine is inherently evil, then
Conclusion: There are two different kinds of wine mentioned in the Bible.
You cannot reach the conclusion above without Premise B. But you’re assuming the conclusion above in order to turn Premise B into its own valid conclusion. The intellectually honest way to frame that reasoning would go something like this (remembering that contextually there is no difference in the words):
Premise A: Because some wine is condemned and some is praised in Scripture, and
Premise B: Because Scripture would never praise something that is inherently evil, then
Conclusion: Wine itself is not inherently evil.
Now, for a little common sense. Alcoholic content in various wines is a moot point. Whatever it was in the various words for “wine” and “strong drink,” etc., could you get drunk if you drank too much of whatever it was? Yes. Otherwise all the biblical warnings of excessive wine and strong drink consumption make no sense.
One other little soapbox item for me. IFB‘ers are often the biggest hypocrites in this area. We will hear a preacher get up and talk about how much wonderful food he ate at the pot luck, and how his diet program consists of periodically buying bigger pants. We all laugh. Ha ha. Then he’ll launch into a fiery sermon proclaiming that abstinence (more accurately, prohibition) is the only biblical position and all the “moderators” are simply trying to flirt with sin and be like the world. He might even use the first part of Proverbs 23:20, “Be not among winebibbers …” He’ll say that it’s so bad, we’re not even supposed to hang around people who drink. And I’m left dumbfounded about how he completely misinterpreted the word “winebibbers” and completely ignored the second part of that verse: “… among riotous eaters of flesh.” The IFB position, in practice, is often one of extremes, both wrong. Completely prohibit one thing, and habitually consume the other to great excess.
I did read the quote from BJ, Sr. (incidentally, there’s a radical difference between whiskey & wine, but that’s another matter), but I also sat under BJ, Jr from 1976-82. On more than one occasion, I heard Jr. address this issue in chapel, and I vividly recall him saying that there were numerous times he’d been in a European country and was offered a glass wine or champagne, but he always declined. He did so, he said, NOT because it would’ve been inherently sinful for him to drink 4 oz. of the beverage, but because 1) he didn’t want to open the door to where that one drink might take him and 2) he didn’t want the possibility of leading anyone else into sin, alcoholism, etc. Jaeggli’s book employs the exact same arguments (and more) for abstinence.
On p. 5 Dr. Jaeggli states his thesis: “As we shall see, a cavalier attitude toward even moderate consumption of alcohol is not warranted by Scripture.” 67 pages later, he concludes with the following:
“The beverage use of alcohol is incompatible with growth in personal holiness; it hinders progress in being conformed to the image of Christ. A believer who drinks moderately risks setting a disastrous example for fellow Christians and the children who grow up in his own home. What he does in moderation could influence another person to become a drunkard. It is true that the Bible does not condemn the moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages within an ancient cultural setting that mandated their use for safe hydration as a necessary part of life. But drinking today is not comparable to biblical times. Modern drinks are far more intoxicating. We have plenty of non-alcoholic options for safe hydration. We ought to be growing in holiness and not cozying up to the world system. Let’s be careful to set the biblical standard correctly for the generations to follow us….(1 Cor. 10:31).”
So while Jaeggli may not match the rhetoric of Sr.’s sermonizing against alcohol, he unquestionably argues for the same thing: a Christian in today’s world ought to avoid the consumption of alcohol as a beverage. I concur with his analysis of alcoholic beverages/wine/strong drink in the Bible, his arguments for an abstinence position, and his conclusions. Furthermore, I see no positional change within BJU regarding alcoholic beverage; instead, I see a scholarly argument for the position the university has always held.
[BryanBice] On p. 5 Dr. Jaeggli states his thesis: “As we shall see, a cavalier attitude toward even moderate consumption of alcohol is not warranted by Scripture.” 67 pages later, he concludes with the following:It is interesting to me that this thread has gone to discussing Dr. Jaeggli’s book — and we were encouraged to go to this thread to discuss moderation vs. abstinence in drinking alcohol rather than to debate it at the thread on Dr. Jaeggli book. I believe that Pastor Harding posted an excellent study on alcohol in that thread. His statements in that thread sum it all. The statement above sums up the debate.
“The beverage use of alcohol is incompatible with growth in personal holiness; it hinders progress in being conformed to the image of Christ. A believer who drinks moderately risks setting a disastrous example for fellow Christians and the children who grow up in his own home. What he does in moderation could influence another person to become a drunkard. It is true that the Bible does not condemn the moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages within an ancient cultural setting that mandated their use for safe hydration as a necessary part of life. But drinking today is not comparable to biblical times. Modern drinks are far more intoxicating. We have plenty of non-alcoholic options for safe hydration. We ought to be growing in holiness and not cozying up to the world system. Let’s be careful to set the biblical standard correctly for the generations to follow us….(1 Cor. 10:31).”
So while Jaeggli may not match the rhetoric of Sr.’s sermonizing against alcohol, he unquestionably argues for the same thing: a Christian in today’s world ought to avoid the consumption of alcohol as a beverage. I concur with his analysis of alcoholic beverages/wine/strong drink in the Bible, his arguments for an abstinence position, and his conclusions. Furthermore, I see no positional change within BJU regarding alcoholic beverage; instead, I see a scholarly argument for the position the university has always held.
I read somewhere in this thread where someone said basically “If God did not want us to drink wine as a beverage, He could have found a way to say it.” That statement made me laugh. He did. He told us the dangers of the “drunkenness” (see Pastor Harding’s thread for verse references in the other thread on the book). You can’t get “drunk” without drinking that beverage.
I do not believe that the University has changed positions. As Bryan Bice states above, On p. 5 Dr. Jaeggli states his thesis: “As we shall see, a cavalier attitude toward even moderate consumption of alcohol is not warranted by Scripture.” That is what I have seen over and over again in the arguments for “moderation” — a cavalier attitude.
As I said before, “who decides moderation?” Moderation appears to be defined by most as “when you get caught.” How else can “drunkenness” be determined? God help us all.
Respectfully,
Lydia
[LydiaH][BryanBice] I read somewhere in this thread where someone said basically “If God did not want us to drink wine as a beverage, He could have found a way to say it.” That statement made me laugh. He did. He told us the dangers of the “drunkenness” (see Pastor Harding’s thread for verse references in the other thread on the book). You can’t get “drunk” without drinking that beverage.Obviously that last statement is true, but the question should be, can you drink and not get drunk? Does drinking require that one become intoxicated? I don’t think so. So then, none of those passages about drunkenness apply unless I am drunk. At the same time, there are many passages that talk about the positives of alcohol, from making the heart merry to medicinal purposes.
Jaeggli’s book is a marked departure in both position and attitude regarding beverage alcohol at BJU. The most conservative, “old-school” BJU pastors and Christian leaders have grave concerns about this book. At the very least this controversy indicates the confusion caused by Jaeggli’s poor treatment of his subject.
I would ask you who defend Jaeggl’s book this question: According to Jaeggli’s book does the BIBLE teach abstinence or moderation? I am not asking about Jaeggli’s personal abstinence or his conclusion that drinking wine is “unwise” for today. In other words, does Jaeggli teach in his book that beverage alcohol consumption is wrong according to the Bible.
If one can not show that beverage alcohol consumption is wrong according to the Bible, then every believer should feel free to drink in moderation. No limitation or restriction could be placed on moderation—except, of course, institutional standards and policies that claim no Biblical authority. (Institutional standards are always appropriate and need not be sanctioned by the Bible.)
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
From what I understand, the book from BJU does not teach anything that is heretical. In contrast, Peter Ruckman’s bookstore is full of heretical teeachings.
Can you understand why many believers out there just cannot take the warnings from the Sword too seriously?
I have stayed out of this discussion because I have not read the book. But I was wondering if you had a response to Bryan Bice who has read the book? I was there 89-93 and I remember Mazak saying that wine of the Bible had achoholic content but much less than todays table wines. He still taught abstinence. My point is that the position that you say is a deviation was taught when I was there almost 20 years ago.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
[Pastor Marc Monte] Reading some of the recent posts makes me think that some of the contributors have not read Jaeggli’s book in its entirety. Before addressing the book, I think every blogger should state, “I have read Jaeggli’s book in its entirety.” Reading brief quotations posted on the web does not count. You can not discuss a book objectively without having read it completely through.In answer to Marc’s question, I believe Jaeggli’s position is that the Bible does teach abstinence, but not in the way Marc seems to think it does. The Bible doesn’t command, “Thou shalt not drink wine,” just as it doesn’t command, “Thou shalt not smoke or chew tobacco” and “Thou shalt not buy a lottery ticket.” But Jaeggli demonstrates that the Bible does teach an abstinence position for alcoholic beverages in the same way it teaches abstinence from tobacco products or buying lottery tickets—through clear biblical principles that apply to the issues.
Jaeggli’s book is a marked departure in both position and attitude regarding beverage alcohol at BJU. The most conservative, “old-school” BJU pastors and Christian leaders have grave concerns about this book. At the very least this controversy indicates the confusion caused by Jaeggli’s poor treatment of his subject.
I would ask you who defend Jaeggl’s book this question: According to Jaeggli’s book does the BIBLE teach abstinence or moderation? I am not asking about Jaeggli’s personal abstinence or his conclusion that drinking wine is “unwise” for today. In other words, does Jaeggli teach in his book that beverage alcohol consumption is wrong according to the Bible.
If one can not show that beverage alcohol consumption is wrong according to the Bible, then every believer should feel free to drink in moderation. No limitation or restriction could be placed on moderation—except, of course, institutional standards and policies that claim no Biblical authority. (Institutional standards are always appropriate and need not be sanctioned by the Bible.)
In Marc’s conclusion that “If one cannot show that beverage alcohol consumption is wrong according to the Bible, then every believer should feel free to drink in moderation,” he seems to assume that showing alcohol consumption is wrong demands a biblical injunction or command. In other words, his conclusion could be paraphrased, “If one cannot show that the Bible commands believers to abstain from drinking alcohol as a beverage, then….” If that paraphrase is an accurate interpretation of Mark’s statement, then the conclusion is faulty. Since I cannot produce a biblical command that says, “Believers must abstain from smoking,” does it follow that “every believer should feel free to smoke cigarettes or chew tobacco”? Or Since I cannot produce a biblical command that says, “Believers must abstain from gambling,” does it follow that “every believer should feel free to buy lottery tickets, play the slots, and gamble the night away in Las Vegas”?
Bottom line: The Bible teaches an abstinence position (I’ve read Jeaggli’s book and that’s his conclusion, too), but it does so without issuing a command.
Jaeggli’s book is a marked departure in both positionMarc,
You have said this several times, but you have yet to clarify.
You said that Jaeggli’s book teaches abstinence.
Are you saying that BJU disagrees with Jaeggli and does not teach abstinence? Or that BJU did not use to teach abstinence and now has departed from that to teach abstinence?
If BJU has taught abstinence (as you say they did), and if they still still abstinence (as Jaeggli’s book does and BJU’s web statement does), then how is there a “marked departure”? Aren’t you being a bit dishonest here?
Anyone wanting to justify moderate beverage alcohol use could read Jaeggli and find justification for moderate drinking from the arguments presented in the book. I challenged Dr. Hankins to read the book from the standpoint of a sophomore college student who wants to drink an occasional beer. Once he understands from Jaeggli that Jesus produced and distributed full strength alcoholic wine, he has no reason not to partake of the same. To demand abstinence from something Jesus condoned is a new phariseeism of the most extreme level.
If Jaeggli’s book had been a clarion call to abstinence based upon the precepts of the Bible, I would have used the book in my own ministry and recommended it to others. At best, Jaeggli is confusing and at worse his arguments will be used to justify moderate consumption of alcohol.
Those who have not read Jaeggli’s book need to do so. Also, I invite comments on my lengthy review of his book. You can read it at pastormonte.blogspot.com. If I have been inaccurate to Dr. Jaeggli in my review, I invite correction. If I have misrepresented him, I invite correction. (Thousands of copies of this review have gone out both in printed and electronic form. No one has yet demonstrated—or even attempted to demonstrate—that I was unfair in my treatment of Dr. Jaeggli’s book.)
Mr. Bice claims (above) that Jaeggli teaches abstinence is the Bible’s position. Here’s a quote from Jaeggli’s book—judge for yourself: does Jaeggli believe the Bible teaches abstinence or not:
“It is true that the Bible does not condemn the moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages within an ancient cultural setting that mndated their use for safe hydration as a necessary part of life.”
Jaeggli CAN NOT teach that abstintence is the Bible’s position because he believes that Jesus produced and distributed full strength alcoholic wine (Jaeggi, pp. 38-39).
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
[Pastor Marc Monte] Anyone wanting to justify moderate beverage alcohol use could read Jaeggli and find justification for moderate drinking from the arguments presented in the book.Anyone wanting to justify moderate beverage alcohol would do it whether Jaeggli had written his book or not. That does not make it a dangerous book that needs to be withdrawn from circulation.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[Pastor Marc Monte] My problem with Jaeggli’s book is his argumentation. He uses the arguments of the moderate beverage crowd throughout his book and then raises the flag of abstinence at the very end. (His declarations for abstinence are weak and are not based upon the Bible, but rather upon cultural concerns.)Several things from Marc’s post deserve attention. In the first place, it would be better to characterize Jeaggli’s first four chapters as “explanation” rather than “argumentation,” because therein he’s not actually arguing for a position. In ch. 1, he explains the “Old Testament Teaching on Alcoholic Beverages.” In ch. 2, he explains the “New Testament Teaching…” Ch. 3 explains “Historical Views of Alcohol Consumption,” and ch. 4 explains the “Medical Views on Alcohol Consumption.” In those chapters, he explains the way things are. To be sure, there are places where he argues for an interpretation (e.g. the nature of the wine at Cana), but that doesn’t change the basic character of his writing: he’s explaining the facts involved in the issue or question of the moderate consumption of alcoholic beverage. In those chapters, he’s not arguing for or against the issue. Now, just because the “moderate use” crowd looks at those same facts and then argues in favor of their position doesn’t mean it’s dangerous or “stepping on the slippery slope” to acknowledge the facts in the case. The real questions are 1) what do you do with those facts and 2) where do you go from there? Jaeggli 1) doesn’t distort them in order to promote an abstinence position, but 2) argues that a) the facts do not justify the moderate-use position, and b) there are legitimate biblical principles that demand an abstinence position, the earlier facts notwithstanding.
Anyone wanting to justify moderate beverage alcohol use could read Jaeggli and find justification for moderate drinking from the arguments presented in the book….
Mr. Bice claims (above) that Jaeggli teaches abstinence is the Bible’s position. Here’s a quote from Jaeggli’s book—judge for yourself: does Jaeggli believe the Bible teaches abstinence or not:
“It is true that the Bible does not condemn the moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages within an ancient cultural setting that mndated their use for safe hydration as a necessary part of life.”
Jaeggli CAN NOT teach that abstintence is the Bible’s position because he believes that Jesus produced and distributed full strength alcoholic wine (Jaeggi, pp. 38-39).
Second, regarding the question: “Here’s a quote from Jaeggli’s book—judge for yourself: does Jaeggli believe the Bible teaches abstinence or not: ‘It is true that the Bible does not condemn the moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages within an ancient cultural setting that mndated (sic) their use for safe hydration as a necessary part of life’.” The answer is “Yes.” If the question were, “Does Jaeggli believe the Bible commands believers to abstain?” the answer would be “No.” The fact is, there is no biblical command that says, “Thou shalt not drink alcoholic beverages, even in moderation.” But neither I nor Jaeggli need a command to conclude that the Bible teaches abstinence. In a similar vein, I believe the Bible teaches abstinence from tobacco and gambling, but I haven’t a command for either. Frankly, it would’ve been a more accurate representation of Jaeggli’s position if Marc had continued quoting. After writing (in the concluding paragraph of the book), “It is true that the Bible does not condemn…” he continued, “But drinking today is not comparable to biblical times…. We have plenty of non-alcoholic options for safe hydration. We ought to be growing in holiness and not cozying up to the world system. Let’s be careful to follow the biblical standard [abstinence!] correctly for the generations that follow us.”
Finally, Marc’s conclusion, “Jaeggli CAN NOT teach that abstintence is the Bible’s position because he believes that Jesus produced and distributed full strength alcoholic wine” is simply untrue. Yes, indeed, he can, and he does.
How can one Scripturally and logically insist on abstinence when one teaches that Jesus Christ produced and distributed full strength alcoholic wine? I know Jaeggli does so in his book, but it makes no sense. That’s what I mean by saying his argumentation is the problem. His arguments don’t follow each other logically.
Would someone please explain to me how something is right for Jesus and wrong for me. Assuming Jesus produced and distributed full strength alcoholic wine, why can’t I? (I’m playing devil’s advocate here.) Since Jesus apparantly tended bar at the wedding feast in Cana, why can’t I? Since Jesus supposedly depended on the guests’ diluting the wine, why can’t I be a bartender, believing that my customers will drink responsibly?
Jaeggli is asking us to abstain from something he claims Jesus did. That makes no sense regardless to me, nor does it ring true to the Scriptures.
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
[Pastor Marc Monte] Bryan,I suppose if you’ve read the book (which I know you have) and Jaeggli’s arguments in the final chapter make no sense to you and you cannot follow the logic, there’s certainly nothing I can say that will change that. I would say, though, that it’s a stretch to deduce that Jaeggli’s view makes Jesus a bartender at a wedding.
How can one Scripturally and logically insist on abstinence when one teaches that Jesus Christ produced and distributed full strength alcoholic wine? I know Jaeggli does so in his book, but it makes no sense. That’s what I mean by saying his argumentation is the problem. His arguments don’t follow each other logically.
Would someone please explain to me how something is right for Jesus and wrong for me. Assuming Jesus produced and distributed full strength alcoholic wine, why can’t I? (I’m playing devil’s advocate here.) Since Jesus apparantly tended bar at the wedding feast in Cana, why can’t I? Since Jesus supposedly depended on the guests’ diluting the wine, why can’t I be a bartender, believing that my customers will drink responsibly?
Jaeggli is asking us to abstain from something he claims Jesus did. That makes no sense regardless to me, nor does it ring true to the Scriptures.
By the way, would you allow a woman, other than your wife, massage and kiss your feet? [see Luke 7:44-46]
[BryanBice]
By the way, would you allow a woman, other than your wife, massage and kiss your feet? [see Luke 7:44-46]
44 Then He turned to the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has washed My feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head. 45 You gave Me no kiss, but this woman has not ceased to kissIs this to suggest what this woman did to our Lord in worshiping him is equivocal to what our Lord created for others, namely fermented wine? Your offering that these two are equal measures of the same principle is a brittle assertion. Our Lord is being worshiped, we are not to be worshiped. However, where our Lord exercised certain liberties as in the creation and use of fermented wine not just for himself in the context of his divinity but as a man and for all men, then we can speak of contextual comparisons.
It is fair for you to search for and present equivocal contexts but this is not one by any means. Find one of those and you will have a context for appropriate analysis and determination.
But more egregious is the suggestion you are proposing which supplants the text itself, specifically that the woman by your account was “massaging” our Lord’s feet when in fact the effort was not one of muscular stimulation but washing as a sign of worship. Interestingly in places where foot washing is practiced (though I reject its practice based on the interpretation and application used in such quarters) it is quite acceptable for any brother or sister to wash the feet of another regardless of martial status and with none of its practitioners ascribing questionable sentiments as you are implying.
[Pastor Marc Monte] How can one Scripturally and logically insist on abstinence when one teaches that Jesus Christ produced and distributed full strength alcoholic wine? I know Jaeggli does so in his book, but it makes no sense. That’s what I mean by saying his argumentation is the problem. His arguments don’t follow each other logically.Pastor Marc, what do you mean when you indicate “full strength alcoholic wine”? Are you talking about something with enough punch to get people drunk, like today’s fortified wines? Or are you talking about wine that most of the others in Jesus’ culture drank - wine that was either 1:4 parts wine to water or 2:3 parts wine to water?
If you’re talking about the former, then I think you have to deal with the logic of why Jesus would create something that would cause the audience to violate God’s own command. If you are referring to the latter, then your own line of reasoning falls apart.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[BryanBice] My point is simply that the practice the woman engaged in would not be tolerated by any Christian in our culture today. Even foot-washers don’t kiss the feet they wash. To draw a parallel, if I had an assistant pastor who was primarily instrumental in leading a woman to Christ, she would naturally be extremely grateful for my assistant’s role. But I wouldn’t tolerate it if the lady desired to show her appreciation for him by taking off his shoes, rubbing his feet with oil, wiping them with her hair and kissing them. And I’m pretty confident he wife wouldn’t tolerate it, either. I was simply illustrating, Alex, that I would insist that my assistant abstain from something that Jesus did, and I would do so based on biblical principles that mitigate against something that was once acceptable in another place and time—that’s all & nothing more. Let’s not get sidetracked, please.And again your point is an attempt to equivocate one context with another and it, as I succinctly pointed out, is a platform of the weakest sort. They are not equivocations and unfortunately instead of rebutting my points you ignored them and just repeated the assertion. This not only does not make for a convincing argument but it demonstrates a certain unwillingness to return volleys that force you to move from a stationary position. Nevertheless I too have made my point and best wishes with the rest of the topic.
As to the main topic and the general trend I have observed in the ongoing discussion (not meaning I have your posts in view now, just the overall trend), I myself, find the lack of theological perspicacity and the moral posturing in place of healthy exegesis to be a bold enough front to keep me from wrestling with ten-armed bandits such as these (but trust me I am happy to fight these theological larcenists from time time and have with zest). But not every engagement is characterized by people shooting at imagined targets, some very strong presentations have distinguished themselves and I will say the read is good at times.
“And again your point is an attempt to equivocate one context with another and it, as I succinctly pointed out, is a platform of the weakest sort. They are not equivocations…”
Actually, my point was not to attempt to equivocate (at least not as my dictionaries define it nor as the word is most commonly used). Assuming you mean by “equivocations” that two things are equal or parallel or something like that, I certainly don’t believe they are on any level other than both are things Jesus did that we should not do. Again, I was simply challenging the notion that everything Jesus did we are free to do—that’s it. Nevertheless, I’m so glad you’re going to drop any further straining at this gnat.
[BryanBice] Alex wrote….And that is just what an equivocation is dear Brian. You have equivocated the two contexts by default by attempting to use certain events in one to buttress the other or support it in principle. Sorry but the contexts do matter and they are not compatible, hence their elements, some or all are not evidence for your argument.
“And again your point is an attempt to equivocate one context with another and it, as I succinctly pointed out, is a platform of the weakest sort. They are not equivocations…”
Actually, my point was not to attempt to equivocate…I certainly don’t believe they are on any level other than both are things Jesus did that we should not do…Nevertheless, I’m so glad you’re going to drop any further straining at this gnat.
*Don’t forget while I was straining at an alleged gnat it appears you are quite as eager to pursue its livelihood so before you thumb your nose in contempt at my pursuit, it might be wise to look in the mirror and understand there are two people engaged here, not one. But alas, we are going off topic so with respect to the thread and protocol if it is necessary for you to finish this side bar have the last word my brother.
Had the Lord or Paul looked as strongly on abstinence as some do today, he had the perfect opportunity to tell them that they were doing wrong by consuming at all. But he did not do so. This should speak volumes to us in the matter and allow us to see this clearly as a Romans 14 issue.
I’m neither advocating nor condemning moderate consumption. But there are always those who think that what God has said doesn’t go far enough and that we have to improve upon it. They ultimately make themselves out to be holier than God. To you, I appeal as Paul did in Romans,
2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. … 12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God. 13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. ~ Romans 14
Dennis The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. ~ Proverbs 18:17
Drinking causes….
Drinking leads to…
When it would be more accurate to say:
Drunkenness causes…
Drunkenness leads to…
Many who believe in abstaining from alcohol will use the words “drinking” and “drunkenness” interchangeably. I do not believe that they mean the same thing. If someone believes that they are interchangeable, then I genuinely cannot discuss the “issue of alcohol” with them. We do not speak the same language.
For the record, I believe that wine/alcohol has medicinal value, and I don’t have any objections with someone using it this way- or even in cooking ( real vanilla is usually about 35% alcohol) but I have serious doubts about ‘social drinking’. Ain’t nothing good ever come of it, there’s more in the Bible about the evils of drinking alcoholic wine than the benefits of it, and as has been pointed out, wine is different today than it was back then- from the production methods to storage to the necessity of it because of the scarcity of potable water.
I can’t in all fairness say that I’m objective about this topic, being married to a former alcoholic who had no problem spending hundreds of dollars in pool halls, cheating on me, then coming home to break furniture and put holes in the walls when he’d had one or two or five too many. Oh- and he was an assistant pastor while this was going on until I blew the whistle. I also had to talk my 11 yob out of committing suicide because of the pain and suffering alcohol abuse caused our family. So there’s my disclaimer for ya’. It was a very unpleasant experience, and I’d advise anyone supporting moderate consumption to be very, VERY careful about it. You give the flesh an inch, and it’ll take a mile, and then you’ve got hell to pay.
To your initial question, I would respond that self control is a fruit of the Spirit and those who do not yield to Him can find themselves where you and your family found yourselves. Nevertheless, it is clear from Church history and Christian circles where moderation is practiced today that this isn’t as mysterious as we sometimes pretend it is. Those who imbibe in moderation don’t drink wine as though it were Gatorade after a long run. They have it in small quantities with dinner or a beer after work. I’ve often wondered at the large wine glasses and small quantities that they pour. This is apparently not just to enhance the wine’s bouquet but the practice of moderation.
In the end, to pretend that people are incapable of drinking moderately is to ignore what is plainly observable in both Christian and non-Christian circles because of equally observable excesses. This usually proves to be more Pharisaical than godly. (I am not referring to your post in that regard.)
Dennis The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. ~ Proverbs 18:17
[Side note: this thread appears to be the place for discussing the merits of abstinence or moderation. Half of the thread is about Jaeggli’s book, and another thread exists for that. So it makes this thread quite confusing. I have not read Jaeggli but I’m intrigued by his book, having noticed it a few months back. Now back to my post….]
I had no compulsion to drink, and hardly knew anyone who drank. I was married with 2 kids at the time of my “conversion”. For a few years previous I had kept a list of question verses on alcohol. They intrigued me, and seemed to contradict a strict idea that the Bible condemns all non-medicinal alcoholic consumption. But as I started reading blogs in the summer of 2005, I came across a couple posts on the topic which really challenged me. A young man was planning to drink in moderation for the benefit of his children, since he couldn’t just tell them “the Bible says drinking is bad”, he wanted to model a wise use of alcohol. Later, I ran into a friend who had just completed a study on every use of wine or drink in Scripture. That got me thinking and I looked more closely at the evidence for myself.
Eventually I became convinced of two things: 1) Scripture does not forbid the use of alcohol, but its mis-use (drunkenness). [With women, food, and money, we can see the same teaching. Nothing inherently is evil, but a moral entity (a person) can misuse God’s good gifts and that is where sin comes in.] 2) Scripture praises alcoholic drinks for their unique joy-producing qualities. Scripture goes out of its way to connect joy and wine. Ps. 104:15 illustrates this:
“You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man’s heart.”
I appreciated Mike Durning’s questions he listed earlier (here) challenging us to not base abstinence on the teaching Scripture but only on Biblical principles applied to our current situation. I want to challenge in another way, however. Scripture says so many positive things about wine, that we need to be careful that we don’t inject our own worldly wisdom when speaking on the topic. Who are we to condemn and be prejudiced toward a substance God claims is his good gift to man?
This is the thought that gripped me, and compelled me to explore the pleasures of wine, beer and small amounts of other liquors. I can testify that I have never been drunk, and rarely have had more than 1 drink at a time, but this has brought me great joy — both experientially, and as I am bringing my life in line with the Scripture’s teaching, not mere traditions of men.
Before you cling to a two-wine theory in refuting this, please consider why alcohol is praised: it gladdens the heart. It cheers the heart. It makes the heart merry. This is a description of the spirit-uplifting effects of alcohol that come well ahead of any drunkenness. This effect is real and is what is described in the Scripture, and it does not require drunkenness. Scripture uses similar phrases to describe drunk people (their hearts are merry with wine) in contexts where drunkenness is in view. So this intoxicating effect of wine is singled out as praiseworthy, even though over-indulgence of it later characterizes drunkenness. Consider the following texts.
Bread is made for laughter, and wine gladdens life, and money answers everything. (Eccl. 10:19)Another thing to note here is in the 1 Sam. 25:36 passage above, a few verses earlier Abigail serves wine to David and his men. There is nothing in the context of the passage leading us to think any difference is in view between the wine she served them and the wine Nabal enjoyed. See also, 1 Sam. 1:14,24 and Joel 1:5, 10 in this regard. One last verse to note with the idea of a two-wine theory: “Now what was prepared at my expense for each day was one ox and six choice sheep and birds, and every ten days all kinds of wine in abundance. Yet for all this I did not demand the food allowance of the governor, because the service was too heavy on this people.” (Neh. 5:18). How would you explain that one?
Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do. (Eccl. 9:7)
But the vine said to them, ‘Shall I leave my wine that cheers God and men and go hold sway over the trees?’ (Judges 9:13)
Then Absalom commanded his servants, “Mark when Amnon’s heart is merry with wine, and when I say to you, ‘Strike Amnon,’ then kill him. Do not fear; have I not commanded you? Be courageous and be valiant.” (2 Samuel 13:28 )
And Abigail came to Nabal, and behold, he was holding a feast in his house, like the feast of a king. And Nabal’s heart was merry within him, for he was very drunk. So she told him nothing at all until the morning light. In the morning, when the wine had gone out of Nabal, his wife told him these things, and his heart died within him, and he became as a stone. (1 Sam. 25:36)
On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha and Abagtha, Zethar and Carkas, the seven eunuchs who served in the presence of King Ahasuerus, (Esther 1:10)
Then Ephraim shall become like a mighty warrior, and their hearts shall be glad as with wine. Their children shall see it and be glad; their hearts shall rejoice in the LORD. (Zechariah 10:7)
One last word: I don’t claim there aren’t valid wisdom concerns that would lead many Christians to not drink. But to cavalierly dismiss the above Scriptural teaching seems unwise. Those who have such a perspective on wine, and who carefully and moderately enjoy it, should not be shunned as profligate sinners. They should be treated charitably in line with Rom. 14-15.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Pastor Marc Monte] Bryan,This is clear reasonning, Gabe! :) Jaeggli’s position is untenable. The problem with the notion that Jesus created alcoholic wine at Cana is that God breathes “Woe” against it. As He warns us in Habakkuk 2:15 that it is a condemnable act to give “his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also…”, it would be a serious indictment against Christ, if he gave those who had “well drunk” additional intoxicating drink. The word methusthowsin means to become drunk, so Jesus would have committed sin. Yet, the One, who came from glory and who created all things, could certainly have created the very best tasting unfermented wine for the host. He must have done so, or would be subject to the “woe” of Scripture against Him. Why would it seem so incredulous, that the Creator could make unfermented, good tasting, wine out of water?
How can one Scripturally and logically insist on abstinence when one teaches that Jesus Christ produced and distributed full strength alcoholic wine? I know Jaeggli does so in his book, but it makes no sense. That’s what I mean by saying his argumentation is the problem. His arguments don’t follow each other logically.
Would someone please explain to me how something is right for Jesus and wrong for me. Assuming Jesus produced and distributed full strength alcoholic wine, why can’t I? (I’m playing devil’s advocate here.) Since Jesus apparantly tended bar at the wedding feast in Cana, why can’t I? Since Jesus supposedly depended on the guests’ diluting the wine, why can’t I be a bartender, believing that my customers will drink responsibly?
Jaeggli is asking us to abstain from something he claims Jesus did. That makes no sense regardless to me, nor does it ring true to the Scriptures.
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
In the end, to pretend that people are incapable of drinking moderately is to ignore what is plainly observable in both Christian and non-Christian circles because of equally observable excesses.I agree- wine doesn’t make people drunk any more than Golden Corral makes people fat or turns them into candidates for a triple bypass. And it’s much easier to cry “Abstain!” about alcohol, but you don’t see too many folks practicing moderation at a church potluck now do ya’?
Uh-oh, have I gone to meddlin’ there or what. ;) But although gluttony is another topic, it is related in that any good thing from God can be abused and become sin. As a matter of fact, a lot of sin boils down to something basically good twisted out of proportion.
Using ellipses (…) in your quote helps give the impression that Hab. 2:15 says it is wrong to give someone a drink. The passage teaches it is wrong to give them a drink, 1) in order to get them drunk, 2) and then in order to see their nakedness.
Here’s Hab. 2:15-16 in a few good Bible versions to see my point clearly.
KJV:
Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink,
that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also,
that thou mayest look on their nakedness!
Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also,
and let thy foreskin be uncovered: the cup of the LORD’s right hand
shall be turned unto thee, and shameful spewing shall be on thy glory.
NASB:
Woe to you who make your neighbors drink,
Who mix in your venom even to make them drunk
So as to look on their nakedness!
“You will be filled with disgrace rather than honor.
Now you yourself drink and expose your own nakedness
The cup in the LORD’S right hand will come around to you,
And utter disgrace will come upon your glory.
ESV:
Woe to him who makes his neighbors drink—
you pour out your wrath and make them drunk,
in order to gaze at their nakedness!
You will have your fill of shame instead of glory.
Drink, yourself, and show your uncircumcision!
The cup in the LORD’s right hand
will come around to you,
and utter shame will come upon your glory!
Now about John 2, I contend that the feast lasted perhaps a few days. At the latter part of the feast, the best wine would not have been served typically. But Jesus’ wine was amazingly good. In light of Scripture’s teaching that 1) wine (the cultivated finished product) is a good gift from God to men, to cheer their hearts (see my last post above), and 2) the coming eschatological feast of celebration would include only the richest wine (Is. 25:6ff.) — in light of this, Jesus’ creation of great wine makes sense. He is not condoning drunkenness by making much wine, he is providing thoroughly for the remainder of the feast in a symbolic way to emphasize the glory of His coming. (Incidentally, it is ceremonial washing pots that would have made something unclean, that are overpowered by Jesus’ miraculous power to become fit vessels for serving festive wine.)
Finally, the very word “feast” is literally a “drinking”. Drinking wine is something you do at a joyous festal occasion. Scripture is replete with examples of festivals and wine. Think, Deut. 14:26 for a quick example.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Bob Hayton] Silverghost,Thank you Bob for your reply. Whilst I agree with you as to the normalcy of drinking alcoholic wine at wedding feasts, because of natural process in those times, and that imbibing it was common and sanctioned in Old Testament Scriptures, drunkenness was never approved by the Lord. The John 2 passage indicates that Jesus and his Mother had been invited to the feast, that they had “well drunk” at some point, and that they had run out of wine. This would indicate that some of these celebrating had sufficient alcohol in their system.
Using ellipses (…) in your quote helps give the impression that Hab. 2:15 says it is wrong to give someone a drink. The passage teaches it is wrong to give them a drink, 1) in order to get them drunk, 2) and then in order to see their nakedness.
Now about John 2, I contend that the feast lasted perhaps a few days. At the latter part of the feast, the best wine would not have been served typically. But Jesus’ wine was amazingly good. In light of Scripture’s teaching that 1) wine (the cultivated finished product) is a good gift from God to men, to cheer their hearts (see my last post above), and 2) the coming eschatological feast of celebration would include only the richest wine (Is. 25:6ff.) — in light of this, Jesus’ creation of great wine makes sense. He is not condoning drunkenness by making much wine, he is providing thoroughly for the remainder of the feast in a symbolic way to emphasize the glory of His coming. (Incidentally, it is ceremonial washing pots that would have made something unclean, that are overpowered by Jesus’ miraculous power to become fit vessels for serving festive wine.)
Finally, the very word “feast” is literally a “drinking”. Drinking wine is something you do at a joyous festal occasion. Scripture is replete with examples of festivals and wine. Think, Deut. 14:26 for a quick example.
The reason I had used ellipsis in the Habakkuk quote, was to indicate the seriousness of making a neighbor drunk. The end result would be the loss of inhibitions indicated. Maybe I should have included the rest of the verse, but it is wrong to give intoxicating drink to someone that would undoubtedly make him drunk. The Scripture does not indicate that Jesus had come “fashionably late” to the wedding, for that would be absurd. To think that the Creator of the universe could not create the exquisite tasting wine, that would not inebriate further those who were already influenced, is somehow limiting of the obvious miracle. To consider Him to have produced intoxicating beverage to give to those “well drunk,” would make Jesus suspect of contributing to the drunken state. It simply doesn’t wash, for the One of whom it is said that He “knew no sin.”
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
I had also replied on the other thread about John 2 specifically. My post there helps address some of your concerns here. i won’t repeat it, so as not to have multiple conversations going on in multiple threads which isn’t what SI’s commenting policy encourages.
Here’s that other reply link:
http://sharperiron.org/forum/poll-jesus-turned-water-john-2?page=1#comm…
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Susan R] Uh-oh, have I gone to meddlin’ there or what. ;)Susan, this is a fundamentalist board, we do not allow women to preach here.
Meddlin’ - now that’s a whole different animal, and we do allow women to do that. :bigsmile:
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[JohnBrian]Does this mean I have to get rid of the pulpit I use as a desk for my laptop? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-sad025.gif[Susan R] Uh-oh, have I gone to meddlin’ there or what. ;)Susan, this is a fundamentalist board, we do not allow women to preach here.
[Susan R]We’ll have to call a council of fundamentalists and spend 9 months or more[JohnBrian]Does this mean I have to get rid of the pulpit I use as a desk for my laptop? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-sad025.gif[Susan R] Uh-oh, have I gone to meddlin’ there or what. ;)Susan, this is a fundamentalist board, we do not allow women to preach here.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[Susan R] Does this mean I have to get rid of the pulpit I use as a desk for my laptop? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-sad025.gifIt depends on what stain or color the desk is painted, and also upon who manufactured your Laptop… :D
We’ll be sending you a 75 page questionnaire to fill out so that we can come to an appropriate decision.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
[Susan R] Since the prohibition against drinking wine is linked with impairment, how does one monitor this? At what point is a person officially ‘drunk’, if drunkenness is in fact the point at which your responses are affected by the alcohol? It takes 20 minutes for alcohol to take effect (since most of it is absorbed in the small intestine and not the stomach), so by the time most folks ‘feel’ the effects of alcohol, they are already impaired. It is going to be different for every person, so there is no way to recommend general guidelines.Having previously been a Chaplain for a number of years at a rescue mission, we are currently developing a mission at our church. I certainly can attest to many who have been caught up in the evils of alcohol, some of them claiming to be ministers of God. I sympathize with anyone going though the dregs of this problem. Thank the Lord many can be rescued. :)
For the record, I believe that wine/alcohol has medicinal value, and I don’t have any objections with someone using it this way- or even in cooking ( real vanilla is usually about 35% alcohol) but I have serious doubts about ‘social drinking’. Ain’t nothing good ever come of it, there’s more in the Bible about the evils of drinking alcoholic wine than the benefits of it, and as has been pointed out, wine is different today than it was back then- from the production methods to storage to the necessity of it because of the scarcity of potable water.
I can’t in all fairness say that I’m objective about this topic, being married to a former alcoholic who had no problem spending hundreds of dollars in pool halls, cheating on me, then coming home to break furniture and put holes in the walls when he’d had one or two or five too many. Oh- and he was an assistant pastor while this was going on until I blew the whistle. I also had to talk my 11 yob out of committing suicide because of the pain and suffering alcohol abuse caused our family. So there’s my disclaimer for ya’. It was a very unpleasant experience, and I’d advise anyone supporting moderate consumption to be very, VERY careful about it. You give the flesh an inch, and it’ll take a mile, and then you’ve got hell to pay.
Open our eyes, Lord. Luke 24:31,32,45 KJV <·)}}}>< Silverghost °Ü°
Discussion