March 18, 2006
Drinking Beer and My Right to Read the Bible in The Middle of the Street
Today is a special anniversary for LaShawn Barber. Nine years dry. And she gives all the glory to God. Her testimony inspired me to vent a little on this subject.
There is a breed of Christians who grew up in homes and churches where abstinence was taught. Unfortunately, it wasn’t always taught well and there were some misapplications of Scripture. Today’s sophisticated youth want better arguments against alcohol. If you cannot give a perfectly, airtight, exegetical argument from the Bible then you must not speak to the issue at all. They also want to drink.
Well, I am here to defy the intimidation of the knowledgeable exegetes of Scripture who know that arguing against alcohol by Biblical exegesis alone is a hard task. Not impossible, I might add, but hard. But I defy the reasoning that we have to go to meticulous parsing of Hebrew and Greek words every time we dare to stand up and urge people to abstain. And I am weary of a lot of the young fundamentalists at Sharperiron.org who don’t realize how stupid they sound decrying a strong stance against alcohol. Therefore, though I happen to think the Bible does give some good arguments, I also think that the two I am about to give are pretty good:
1. I urge people to abstain because I hate what drinking alcohol does to people.
2. I urge people to abstain because I think drinking alcohol is stupid.
There. Two arguments. The second is just an expansion of the first. Now, I know that a number of young Christians are going to rise up in arms at my willingness to urge people to do anything without necessarily parsing a Hebrew verb. But I shall do it anyway. And I’m talking to you who roll your eyes in pious frustration at the out-of-date preachers who get vexed every time they think about alcoholic beverages.
First, I urge people to abstain because I hate what alcohol does to people
I think I may urge people to abstain purely on the basis that I hate strong drink and what it does to people with a perfect hatred. Before you tell me that I am out of place, let me ask you a few questions:
Have you personally poured gallons of it down a kitchen sink while a drunken church member (a previous ministry) alternately shouted threats that he was going to beat the daylights out of you and sobbed out thanks for helping him dispose of the abominable liquid?
I have.
Have you personally cleaned up the feces, urine, and vomit of drunks?
I have.
Have you watched the door of the bar at closing time?
I have. My wife and I lived next to a bar when we were in Europe and too many were the nights that I’d see a poor woman came to the bar late at night with her teenage daughter to pick up her soused husband. My heart would break as I watch him, disgraced, and playing the slobbering fool, hang on to his wife and daughter as they with long faces began the long, tormented walk home. He would shout curses to the neighbors and sing loudly as his humiliated wife and teen stoically bore the shame that he was oblivious to.
Have you ever gone to church in your Sunday best and stepped in human poop in the entry way of your church building just because the drunks across the street couldn’t control their bowels?
I have.
Have you ever seen your father in his Sunday suit clean up the urine of drunks even while tears were running from his eyes?
I have.
Have you ever looked across the kitchen table as one of the faithful attendees of your church who has struggled mysteriously for years with unstable emotions finally tells you that she is a passive drunk who, once the kids go to bed, drinks herself silly every single night? Have heard such a person tell you through her weeping that you might as well go away because she has been doing it for twenty years without missing a night and she doesn’t expect to ever overcome it? Have you ever seen children like hers suffer from a parent’s passive drunkenness when they didn’t even know their mother drank? Have you seen such a family ravaged by the slow, inexorable destruction of alcoholism?
I have.
Have you seen the tears of the Christian woman whose Christian husband, a former alcohol abuser, has once again been overcome by the lure of the bottle?
I have.
Therefore, on the basis of my experience alone, I would be a poor shepherd of souls if I did not urge anyone who heard me to avoid all forms of alcoholic beverage. Some of the most fitting names for beer I have ever come across are given to two European beers (French and Belgian. Belgium is famous for its beer): Lucifer and Le Diable (“The Devil”). Appropriate names, I must say.
Second, I urge people to abstain because I think drinking alcohol is stupid
Even if it could be argued that there is no biblical case for abstinence (as some do), I think an argument in favor of common sense is legitimate, even for preachers. Let me use the same kind of argumentation my friends use to protect their right to drink for my right to do my devotional Bible reading in the middle of the street.
My Christian Liberty Allows Me to Be an In-the-Street Bible Reader
I resent you legalists that tell me otherwise. There is no airtight theological and exegetical argument that prohibits me from sitting out in the middle of the street to read my Bible. It is my right and frankly I get a little irritated by people who get worked up about my middle-of-the-street Bible reading. You have yet to give me solid exegetical evidence, and your claim that streets with automobiles just aren’t the same as they were in Bible days just doesn’t cut it. Besides, I have one good Bible verse which seems to support my right to have devotions in the middle of the street: “Watch and pray.”
You state your case well, but my arguments are just too good. Here’s why I think you fundy people ought to quit talking about how bad it is to have devotions in the middle of the street. I have ten solid arguments:
1. Christian liberty, Everybody! Helloooo! This trumps everything for anyone that knows anything about the Bible (as you obviously don’t), but I will persevere for the sake of edification.
2. The best concordances of the Bible do not show one single entry for “Middle-of-Street-Bible-Reading.”
3. Christian liberty. You poor people have been so conditioned to think that reading one’s Bible in the street is sin. Come on! It’s getting hit by a car that’s the bad thing, folks! If there is not a verse against getting hit by cars in the Bible, we all agree that suicide is strictly forbidden. Let’s confront that. But — please — refrain from telling me or anyone who wants to street read that we cannot read our Bibles in the middle of the street.
4. Granted, it could be dangerous, but I am quick on my feet. If a car comes I can spring off to the side. This actually enhances my spiritual life. The narrow escapes are always fresh reminders of the grace of God that has given me such quickness. Those of you who read your Bibles in the safety of your legalistic living rooms will never know the rush of pure, unadulterated, spontaneous worship and thanksgiving that fills my soul as I lay panting on the ground breathing in the fresh aroma of burnt rubber, having just rolled out the way of a speeding Jeep. Thanksgiving is never purer or more sincere.
5. I appreciate your concern for the weaker brother. I realize that others are not as nimble as I, so I am careful not to bring my paraplegic friend out on the street with me for Bible reading. And people who have been run over tend to be a little bit paranoid out there. I understand. But I personally do not think that I abuse my liberties by hurting the weaker brother. In fact, I think YOU are the weaker brothers because you can’t concentrate on Leviticus while cars are coming at you. Get some maturity, folks!
6. Christian liberty. You folks exasperate me. Bible –guided rationale, common sense, logic, experience, and the irrefutable documentation that speeding cars running over humans kill humans 9 times out of 10 are all arguments which fall like a house of cards before the Doctrine of Christian Liberty.
7. Soul-winning. It opens up a door of utterance to jaywalkers. It’s a crying shame that fundamentalists have been so legalistic about reading the Bible in the street that they have missed a golden opportunity to meet jaywalkers. Jaywalkers need to get saved too, you know.
8. CHRISTIAN LIBERTY!
9. Now, I don’t want you to think I’m a libertine who has not thought through the ramifications of my liberty. For example, I share your concern for suicidal people. You are absolutely right that people with suicidal tendencies should not have their devotions in the middle of the street, no matter what devotional plan they are using. They simply cannot resist the temptation to just stay there and get smashed when the delivery truck comes roaring at them. I, however, am not suicidal so I can sit in the middle of the street whenever I wish. Can’t you people understand Christian liberty and grace? My God-given urge to save myself from being smeared all over the highway compels me to scram for safety when the Peterbilt comes careening toward me. (I don’t mean to boast. That adrenaline-fueled surge of panic is ALL OF GOD. I do not deserve it whatsoever. I truly am what I am by the grace of God. I must not take credit for my self-preserving scram).
10. Sigh. Christian liberty.
And thus many young Christians want to argue in defense of their right to drink a beverage that has killed millions and held countless others in disgrace and indignity. I don’t need an airtight Biblical argument. If chocolate sundaes had such a damnable effect on society as alcohol has, I would never eat one again. And I KNOW the Bible has nothing to say about chocolate sundaes.
Posted by Bob Bixby at March 18, 2006 07:26 PM | eMail this entry! | 1748 WordsThis entry was posted in the following categories: Things I have learned
Well said, my friend. Well said indeed.
Posted by: Greg Linscott at March 18, 2006 08:07 PMAmen! So what if I do (for the sake of argument) have the liberty to consume alcohol—as a redeemed one, a bondslave of Jesus Christ, and a steward, I don’t have the option to be focused on my rights and my liberty. When are we going to realize that true love for God and our fellow men will limit our behavior (including our exercise of liberty) in far greater ways than legalistic requirements ever could?
Posted by: Lyn Marshall at March 18, 2006 10:44 PMHave you ever seen a 14 year old raped without her knowledge because she was so drunk?
I have. But she thought she could handle a few, it would be fun.
Have you ever had to put a breathing tube down an adolescent’s trachea because they were so drunk?
I have.
Have you ever seen an innocent child crushed/destroyed by a drunk driver(her dad)?
I have.
None of these people planned for these results. The effects of alcohol took them by surprise.
Well said. With all this liberty flying around people are forgetting to apply biblical wisdom.
Posted by: LeeB at March 18, 2006 10:51 PMI believe you are as wise as a serpent and (almost) as harmless as a dove. I wish common sense were more common. :)
Posted by: David Siglin at March 18, 2006 11:36 PMBob,
Thanks for these thoughts. Libertinism is just as evil as legalism. Drunkenness is a sin that has indeed addicted millions and destroyed lives. Let’s continue to preach hard against it!
Posted by: Brian McCrorie at March 19, 2006 12:00 AMLee,
Am I right to assume you are a pediatrician? I think you see physical consequences often. Thanks for the added testimony.
Posted by: Bob at March 19, 2006 07:35 AMAnother point - along the lines of what Paul writes using the word “expedient” is for what do I need alcohol? Is it really necessary to have a good time? I never want to try to enjoy my wife and family through the haze of alcohol.
Great post, Bob.
Very good application.
I understand the passion, etc.
JLS
Bob thanks for this. I especially appreciate the deeper arguments against chapter-and-verse legalism. Sometimes wise application and common sense are enough for pastors to warn their people.
Posted by: Scott Aniol at March 19, 2006 08:19 AMThe Bible both praises and cautions against alcohol. Christ even made wine as his first miracle to demonstrate that He is the very God who always provides the good gift of wine.
Therefore, only former fundies even bother trying to make an argument for drinking based on Christian liberty. No one needs an argument FOR drinking. Arguments are needed to prohibit drinking.
God made all things and declared them good. wine is a thing, therefore it is good. To paraphrase Augustine, evil is not a thing, it is the absence or abuse of things.
For every example you give for people abusing drink — and there is no question that people do abuse and bring sorrow to themselves and all around them — there is at least one example of people who use drink wisely and well. Here’s just one: Every Sunday, in churches around the world, thousands of people worship the one who gave his blood by taking and drinking the wine which he also gave.
Comparing this to reading in the middle of a busy street is just ridiculous. One could respond by arguing that Christ warned against praying on the street corner, so we could infer that we should not devote in the middle of the street. However, there is really no need to make an argument against this rhetorical device.
Reasonable and godly people everywhere and at all times have found some drinking to be a good thing. No reasonable person anywhere would consider reading in the middle of a busy street used by cars and trucks a good thing.
Keith
Posted by: Keith at March 19, 2006 08:52 AMOddly enough I was just invited over to a fellow seminarians home to partake in fellowship and was told not to worry they would bring the beer. These are young men who did not grow up in Fundamental circles and from my interaction are godly guys and want to glorify God.
I would not argue with one who wants to wine in the Lord’s Supper, but I would ask those who drink even in moderation one question, why? Paul explicitly states we should eat and drink to glorify God.
If you can drink in faith to glorify God, go at it. But some who are raised in fundamental circles just want to drink to drink—because they can.
Sure. God made everything and it is all good, but why could not Adam and Eve eat of tree after God declared it good? Why can not I dope just a bit, God made that, it is good. That is a faulty argument. There are seemingly positve references to wine, but brothers we must be wise and not react.
Mathew S.
Posted by: Mathew Sims at March 19, 2006 03:14 PMKeith,
I think you miss the point on several counts. First, the Bible has almost nothing to say about alcohol. Wine, yes. But not alcohol. Critical point.
Also, the point of my “middle of the street” parody was not as much to make an argument for or against alcohol as to show the folly of arguing in favor of it uniquely on the basis of Christian liberty. An argument that you say lacks punch except to “former fundies.” Also, most of my readership probably falls into the category of fundamentalist or “former fundies.” Thus, I lampooned the “Christian liberty” argument. Did you not notice I repeated it several times?
Also, as a person who grew up in the Wine Country of the World (France) and ministered in the Beer Capital of the World (Belgium), I hate to burst your stereotype of “former fundies” being the only ones that use the “Christian liberty” argument. That happens to be the main arguement and I have heard it countless times by people who have never heard the word “fundies.” It is almost the only argument that is ultimately relied upon whenever the evidence that even our weakest beverages are more potent than the strongest drinks in biblical times starts to carry the day. In the minds of people who at least respect the notion that Scripture consistently warns against strong drink, it is a wee bit disconcerting to the honest folks that wine and strong drink in Scripture are not necessarily the same thing.
I will not deny that reasonable and godly people everywhere and at all times have found some drinking to be a good thing. I have very good friends that fall into that category. But I’m not sure how in the world that stands as a good argument. In fact, that rates up there with the “Christian Liberty” argument as over-used and ineffective, probably argued most often by former whatever you are. Reasonable and godly people everywhere and at all times have done stupid things.
I myself have partaken in communion services where wine was served. Many of those services included an optional grape juice out of deference to former alcoholics in the congregation. Hmmmm. That seems like a concession that the drink is dangerous, that it is not required for the Lord’s Supper, and that one would rather undercut the picture of oneness and unity that is supposed to be depicted in the Lord’s Supper in favor of keeping alcohol.
Alcohol is a drug. The burden of proof is on the drug-users, not on the common-sensical abstainers. You said, “No reasonable person anywhere would consider reading in the middle of a busy street used by cars and trucks a good thing.”
Uh, yah. I’m relieved you didn’t miss my point. That’s why I’m confused that reasonable and godly people everywhere (not just former fundies) want to argue in favor of sipping on drugs on the basis of Christian liberty.
Finally, your argumenation stuns me here: “For every example you give for people abusing drink — and there is no question that people do abuse and bring sorrow to themselves and all around them — there is at least one example of people who use drink wisely and well” (emphasis mine).
Wow! The ratio really does go in your favor. Shame on me. Only one for one “do abuse and bring sorrow to themselves and all around them.” I wonder why I ever got concerned in the first place. I wish more people would spread the good news. It’s only one for one.
Posted by: Bob Bixby at March 19, 2006 03:47 PMsilliness…
aren’t there genuine atrocities we should consider more important? Oh, I dunno… human right violations around, uncontrolled diseases spreading for lack of medication, starvation and hunger, illicit drug use, poverty…? Oh, no… that would be a waste of our time right? I mean really… Jesus sat around all day disputing standards & rules of conduct didn’t he? Oh wait, no… he actually went and talked to the poor, reached out to the sick, interacted with the sordid underbody of his culture… with a purpose… to show love, grace & forgiveness to all despite how they look or live.
Why get hung up on whether Christians should drink beer or not (among other topics we get hung up on)? The Bible teaches moderation in all things. Whether this means none or little is an individual choice. It’s completely misguided if we truly think sitting around diatribing about this is what God has called us to do.
Get over yourselves, stop wasting your God-given life jabbing your finger at fellow Christians (regardless of your position on this topic) and start making a difference reaching out to the poor, feeding the orphans, helping the widows, and trying to connect with those around you to give them a reason to seek Christ rather than be repulsed by his children. None of this conversation accomplishes any of this.
Silly poorly focused Christians… none of this brings glory to our God.
Posted by: jd at March 19, 2006 05:00 PM>I think you miss the point on several counts. >First, the Bible has almost nothing to say about >alcohol. Wine, yes. But not alcohol. Critical >point.
Since you admit the Bible speaks of wine and strong drink, and since the topic of your post and my comment deal with alcoholic beverages, I’m not sure how I missed the point here. Wine is alcoholic grape juice — in shorthand alcohol. I think it was fairly obvious that I was not refering to rubbing alcohol.
>Also, the point of my “middle of the street” >parody was not as much to make an argument for >or against alcohol as to show the folly of >arguing in favor of it uniquely on the basis of >Christian liberty. An argument that you say >lacks punch except to “former fundies.” Also, >most of my readership probably falls into the >category of fundamentalist or “former fundies.” >Thus, I lampooned the “Christian liberty” >argument. Did you not notice I repeated it >several times?
Yes, I noticed that you repeated it several times. In part, I agree with you. I think that there are better arguments than “Christian liberty” for drinking. I gave one — Christ made wine and made it a part of one of the ordinances/sacraments.
>Also, as a person who grew up in the Wine >Country of the World (France) and ministered in >the Beer Capital of the World (Belgium), I hate >to burst your stereotype of “former fundies” >being the only ones that use the “Christian >liberty” argument. That happens to be the main >arguement and I have heard it countless times by >people who have never heard the word “fundies.” >It is almost the only argument that is >ultimately relied upon whenever the evidence >that even our weakest beverages are more potent >than the strongest drinks in biblical times >starts to carry the day.
I stand corrected and amend my comment to read as follows: “Only fundamentalists who want to remain fundamentalists AND drink, former fundamentalists who still feel some need to justify their drinking to fundamentalists, and people who are confronted by fundamentalist missionaries make an argument for drinking based on Christian liberty.”
My point was and is that most people who drink do so because it is a normal part of life. They don’t make for arguments to defend it anymore than they make arguments to defend eating dinner. I’ll stand by this point even though I haven’t lived in France or Belgium.
>In the minds of people who at least respect the >notion that Scripture consistently warns against >strong drink, it is a wee bit disconcerting to >the honest folks that wine and strong drink in >Scripture are not necessarily the same thing.
Scripture warns against abuse. It does not, to my knowledge, prohibit proper use. And, it does not call proper use stupid. It easily could have. Since you acknowledge that both wine and strong drink are addressed in Scripture, and since wine and strong drink likely caused just as many problems then as now, I wonder why there is not one passage that makes an argument similar to yours?
>I will not deny that reasonable and godly people >everywhere and at all times have found some >drinking to be a good thing. I have very good >friends that fall into that category. But I’m >not sure how in the world that stands as a good >argument. In fact, that rates up there with >the “Christian Liberty” argument as over-used >and ineffective, probably argued most often by >former whatever you are. Reasonable and godly >people everywhere and at all times have done >stupid things.
Now you miss the point. My point was that your analogy is fundamentally flawed. You compared something that everyone everywhere would agree is stupid to something that not everyone everywhere would agree is stupid.
>I myself have partaken in communion services >where wine was served. Many of those services >included an optional grape juice out of >deference to former alcoholics in the >congregation. Hmmmm. That seems like a >concession that the drink is dangerous, that it >is not required for the Lord’s Supper, and that >one would rather undercut the picture of oneness >and unity that is supposed to be depicted in the >Lord’s Supper in favor of keeping alcohol.
I wonder what those poor Christians for the more than 1,000 years before Dr. Welch did to make the Lord’s Supper safe? As to undercutting oneness and unity, I fail to see how showing deference to those with weaker conciences or who struggle with drunkenness does that.
>Alcohol is a drug. The burden of proof is on the >drug-users, not on the common-sensical >abstainers.
This is the heart of our disagreement. I maintain that since Christ made wine for a party (non sacramental/non medicinal use) and since He made it a part of His supper (sacramental use), the burden of proof is on the abstainers.
Furthermore, by employing the drug argument, you neutralize the “the wine was weaker then” argument. Unless you are saying Jesus’ wine was just a really weak drug and really weak drugs are ok.
>Finally, your argumenation stuns me here: “For >every example you give for people abusing drink —>and there is no question that people do abuse >and bring sorrow to themselves and all around >them — there is at least one example of people >who use drink wisely and well” (emphasis mine).
>Wow! The ratio really does go in your favor. >Shame on me. Only one for one “do abuse and >bring sorrow to themselves and all around them.” >I wonder why I ever got concerned in the first >place. I wish more people would spread the good >news. It’s only one for one.
Once again, you miss the point. I stated “AT LEAST one” — which means one or more than one. I was attempting to avoid hyperbole, however I believe there are far more than one. There are probably hundreds if not thousands. Even your examples indicate such. You saw one drunk dragged home by his wife and daughter — how many were in the bar? What percentage of people in any church or in any town would be drunks or former drunks?
Again, I agree that drunkenness causes real harm, and I in no way care to minimize or make light of that. However, so does the abuse of every good gift. Haven’t you had to clean up the messes of adulterers? Do you encourage all to castrate themselves? Haven’t you had to clean up the messes of gamblers? Do you encourage all to abstain from money? Haven’t you had to clean up the messes of gossips? Do you encourage all to abstain from talking? Haven’t you had to clean up the messes of greedy workaholics? Do you encourage all to refrain from work?
In closing, I meant and mean no insult. I was attempting to engage your argument. I think I did understand your argument: Christian liberty allows me to read in the street just like Christian liberty allows me to drink alcohol. But, drinking alcohol is just as stupid as reading in the street. And, I think I engaged it: Drinking is not just as stupid as reading in the street — Jesus gave wine and most people who drink are not in danger of becoming drunks.
Keith
Posted by: Keith at March 19, 2006 10:03 PMJosh,
You can drink alcohol without being in a haze. Most of the people at my church do so regularly.
Matthew,
God determines the proper use. He said that the good tree was not to be used for food.
He also clearly says to not be drunk. He doesn’t say be drunk in moderation. Doping just a little would be like getting a little drunk not like drinking a little. The good things used to make the various kinds of dope have other uses — non drunken uses — that are good.
Wine, on the other hand, God says gladdens the heart. He says take and drink. He has determined its use — drink, but not too much.
Keith
Posted by: Keith at March 19, 2006 10:18 PMI agree with Keith on a philosophical, Biblical level. But the culture I reside in views drinking as an unChristian activity. So, I must give up my Christian liberty to drink and practice love.
Posted by: David Siglin at March 19, 2006 10:21 PMDavid, no one “gives up” their Christian liberty. Christian liberty is the freedom to give up neutral things for the sake of others.
Posted by: Scott Aniol at March 19, 2006 10:40 PMKeith,
Since your fundamental argument seems to be that Jesus made wine, can you please tell me what the alcohol content of that wine was? Also, could you tell me what the alcohol content of biblical wine typically was?
I have enjoyed non-alcoholic wines.
Also, you originally said:
God made all things and declared them good. wine is a thing, therefore it is good. To paraphrase Augustine, evil is not a thing, it is the absence or abuse of things.
Your syllogism is faulty, I think.
Major premise: God made all things and declared them good.
Minor premise: Wine is a thing.
Conclusion: Wine is good.
Nifty. Let me try it.
Major premise: God made all things and declared them good.
Minor premise: Methampetamine is a thing.
Conclusion: Methampethamine is good.
That seems problematic to me. The problem is that meth is a man-made concoction. It seems dubious to me to declare it good merely because it is a ‘thing.’
Jesus turned water into wine, of course. But He didn’t make any of the wine that we have today, nor did he make wine similar to what they had in his day. The host was quite impressed, remember, because he noted it was so much better than the wine they had already been served. The wine that they had been served was presumably the best available until Jesus’ wine appeared. Now, what made Jesus’ wine different? Did it have less or more alcohol content? Did it have alcohol? How do you know?
What we do know is that man makes the alcoholic beverages that we drink today. Man also makes meth.
I’m not saying you don’t have the liberty to drink alcohol. But even my pastor friends that drink wine aren’t so desparate that they declare wine to be made by God, therefore good. Man is wicked to the core. Give him nothing but God-made ingredients and his evil soul will create a concoction never intended by God.
I doubt God wants to take the responsiblity for Lucifer and Le Diable even though you are so generous to give Him the credit for it.
Posted by: Bob at March 19, 2006 10:42 PMScott, not according to the Bible.
1 Cor 10:27-30 “27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— 29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?”
Paul states that Christians have the liberty to eat meat offered to idols but should not if it offends or is a stumbling block. I suggest a more thorough reading of 1 Corinthians 8-10.
Posted by: David Siglin at March 19, 2006 11:51 PMScott, not according to the Bible.
1 Cor 10:27-30 “27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— 29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?”
Paul states that Christians have the liberty to eat meat offered to idols but should not if it offends or is a stumbling block. I suggest a more thorough reading of 1 Corinthians 8-10.
Posted by: David Siglin at March 19, 2006 11:51 PMIf you want a biblical reason for drinking alchohol, read Deuteronomy 14:26. As part of the tithing ceremony, you were supposed to buy wine and strong drink and whatever else you wanted and have a feast with the priests, aliens, widows and orphans to celebrate the goodness of God.
Drunkenness and the related style of partying is clearly forbidden in scripture. But moderate drinking is also commanded and accepted. The Recabites of Jeremiah 35 are the oddballs.
Posted by: Billy Bob at March 20, 2006 02:38 AMFirst, it makes no difference at all what the content of Jesus’ wine or biblical wine was. It clearly had some alcoholic content. If it didn’t, there would be no biblical warnings against being drunk with wine. Furthermore, there were drunks in bible times. So, I don’t see how it matters that they might have had to drink more in order to abuse it.
Second, in common English, non-alcoholic wine is called grape juice.
Third, it really doesn’t matter whether one finds a logical conclusion “problematic”. Logic doesn’t care whether we like it. I will stand by the syllogism — the ideas represented in it were discussed by Augustine and embraced by the Reformers and Puritans. I stand by it even when you replace the minor premise. I don’t see anyway in which meth itself is evil. It is the abuse of meth that is evil. Meth sitting on a shelf doesn’t hurt anyone. Meth won’t go to hell. Furthermore, the various components of meth can be used properly to good ends.
Fourth, the fact that Jesus’ wine was so much better than the other wine does not prove that it was not similar to other wines of his day. In our day wines of various quality are available. Some are far better than others. That doesn’t mean they are not similar. They are all wine. The wine Jesus made was sufficiently similar to the other wines of his time that the people at the wedding party knew to call it wine. It was just really, really good wine. You are correct that I don’t know whether it had more or less alcohol content, but neither do you. Nevertheless, I think it reasonable to conclude that it had some alcohol — no one who knows anything about wine would say that grape juice is better wine than wine.
Fifth, It is certainly true that man excercises his dominion over creation and exhibits the image of God in the sub-creative process of wine making. Nevertheless, God made grapes and He made them in such a way that their juice would ferment. His world works this way with or without man’s involvement. In fact, it takes man’s invlovement to prevent grape juice from becoming wine.
Sixth, since the fall, man is totally sinful. He regularly takes GOOD THINGS and abuses them.
Finally, Lucifer, Le Diable roams about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. I wish he could be contained in a bottle.
Keith
Posted by: Keith at March 20, 2006 09:09 AMExcellent, Keith.
Posted by: Ashley at March 20, 2006 11:00 AMKeith,
Not excellent.
First, the Bible wasn’t written in common in English. The common understanding of wine in Biblical times is what matters, not what is understood by the word today. Nonetheless, even in common English there is a distinction between grape juice and wine. The real question that scholars debate is if there was such a distinction in biblical times. In other words, some contend that the word “wine” in biblical times was more like what we call “juice” today. It doesn’t really matter. What matters is that you are mistaken that non-alcoholic wine is grape juice.
Secondly, non-alcoholic wine is, in fact (as already stated), different than grape juice. Non-alcoholic wine is fermented to dryness (a procedure not done to simple grape juice). While it is physically impossible to take 100% of the alcohol out of any fermentation, it is also possible to ferment grapes for the “dryness” effect and retain less than 1% alcohol. What is also certain is that it is quite easy even in primitive fermentation procedures to retain a very low alcohol content and very difficult to attain the higher alcohol content that is in our beverages today. Third, it would obviously take a lot more drinking to get drunk by naturally fermented beverages that contain low alcohol content. One would get sick to one’s stomach before one got drunk.
Reasonability would favor my assertion that since it is a sin to get drunk, Jesus the Lord would not have offered to sinful people a means by which they could sin and debase themselves. Granted, they could have consumed so much that they got sick to their stomachs, but even if that had occurred because of their gluttony (sin), the effect doesn’t potentially harm others, debilitate their minds, and become addictive. It takes a real stretch of imagination to pretend that the Lover of Souls would have prepared a wine that could enslave a sinners.
Third, you created a straw man. I never said anywhere that alcohol is evil. I have only made the case that I can, on the basis of personal experience, knowledge of the facts, and a preponderance of biblical evidence of the dangers of strong drink urge people not to drink. I can not forbid them, but I am not afraid to tell people that their Christian liberty argument is stupid. You are red herring (can I make a verb out of that?) this discussion by suggesting that I am making a claim that it is absolutely forbidden in Scripture. I haven’t. You have have liberty to drink wine. So do I, by the way. My original point was that I don’t need a black/white command in Scripture to “urge” people (my word) to abstain, not forbid them to drink. I will go as far as I possibly can with that “urging.”
I concede that a ‘thing’ is not evil per se, but all things are under the curse/stain of sin — especially things produced by sinful humanity. You may find some redeeming quality for meth (I grant the possibility), but I am not yet aware of meth labs that have for their driving motivation the good of humanity. We don’t simply decide on the merit of something by syllogistic reasoning.
But your syllogism is still problematic. And it is not problematic because it is illogical. It is logical. Your syllogism is problematic because the conclusion you arrive at is not how wise people function.
Paul the Apostle would agree with you: “All things are lawful for me” (1 Cor. 6:12). I agree with you and Paul. But Paul would also agree with me: “but not all things are helpful.” I can argue vehemently against wine drinking purely on the basis that it is “not helpful.” The evidence of alcoholic beverages “unhelpfulness” is easy to come by, and the sources I use are not from radical evangelical/fundamental teetotalers. The “unhelpfulness” (what an understatement) is pandemic. Alcoholic beverages are beyond “not helpful.” They are addictive and have a proven track record of ruining lives.
Theologically, I embrace the liberty that alcoholic beverages are lawful to me. In fact, I have had communion in churches where wine was the only option, and I partook. My conscience did not bother me. I comprehend and appreciate the absolute liberty in Christ Jesus. I also believe with Peter that “to the pure all things are pure.” But, as I said before, you would never catch me exerting any energy whatsoever defending the right to drink alcohol (as you are) when it is clearly a huge stumbling block world-wide and it is clear even to secularists that the alcoholic beverages (fermentation procedures) of Biblical times was significantly different than what we have today.
It also seems strange to me that you and others like you want to burn energy defending your right to drink when the emphasis of Scripture is warning about the effect of strong drink. You have liberty. So do I.
But remember that people in my church who struggle with temptation EVERY DAY to go to the bottle are reading your words. If you want to go on the record before God and mankind as providing information to weaker brothers to return to their addictions, go ahead.
To me, that’s exactly like preaching one’s Christian liberty to read his bible in the middle of the street. You’re free to do it. But I don’t think I’d brag about it. God forbid that somebody follow your example only to get crushed.
Posted by: Bob Bixby at March 20, 2006 11:53 AMBob, I agree with you. But the last part of your most recent post is too vindictive and doesn’t communicate a loving spirit. You wrote the article about drinking knowing people would debate it. You set the stage for the debate. Don’t attack people who accept the challenge.
Besides that, good stuff. :)
Posted by: David Siglin at March 20, 2006 12:01 PMKeith, that is an excellent summary. Thank you.
Posted by: Matthew Fitzsimmons at March 20, 2006 12:05 PMWhat is amazing to me is how so many, who are otherwise good Bible scholars, completely ignore what the Bible has to say on the subject of alcohol. I used to take their word for it, until I decided to read the Bible at face value and see what it had to say. You can see the result on my website.
I would also like to add a little tidbit in contrast to your comments about former alcoholics. Our small church has at least one former alcoholic. What does he do when all the other church members around him are drinking? He drinks. Does he drink too much? No. Does he get even moderately drunk? No. Why is this? Because he learned that the answer to drunkenness is not AA, or learning to deny yourself even the smallest taste because it could set you back. No, on the contrary, the answer to drunkenness and any other addiction is to value Christ more than the things of this world. There is no other godly alternative. If your church is full of former alcoholics who would suffer a serious setback if they saw other Christians drinking, or if they tasted some alcohol, then they have not truly been freed from the power of the sin of drunkenness and alcoholism.
To the one who said that you don’t drink because your culture views drinking as an unChristian practice, what culture are you a part of? That certainly isn’t true in the USA.
Posted by: Matthew Fitzsimmons at March 20, 2006 12:13 PMI apologize for appearing “vindictive.” Keith is a faceless entity to me. The faces I see are the wretching, tear-stained, scarred, and hollow eyes of people I have loved, cried with, and ministered to. “Keith” is a cyberspace challenger. Fine. But the real images to me are of the person in my church who fell back into drinking addiction by following the example of her much loved theologian pastors who rightly understood liberty, but stupidly abused it.
So, I don’t mind going on the record as hating the stuff so much that I get passionate - even at the risk of offending the sensibilities of theologues who must have never stayed up all night hearing a grown man sob because he was losing his wife and children due to his addiction. (I have too many of those kinds of experiences).
I am not vexed by the fact that we have liberty. I am vexed by the thoughtless celebration of it in the face of indisputable evidence that is dangerous stuff.
Posted by: Bob Bixby at March 20, 2006 12:14 PMTo Matt: the are various sub-cultures in the USA. What is true in my culture may not be true in yours. If that is the case, be glad you have the freedom to excercise your liberty without being an offense or stumbling block. For me that is not an option.
To Bob: I understand your passion. It is good to be passionate about what you believe. But remember that the people you interact with on here are (most likely) your brothers as well. Tell the truth in love. And realize that certain sub-cultures within the USA struggle with alcohol more than others. Just a thought.
Posted by: David Siglin at March 20, 2006 12:21 PMWell said, Bob. Your point has been made clearly. I agree with the view that many people who drink and have no knowledge of “fundamentalism” use the argument that “Jesus drank wine” to support their practice. I grew up in a home with an alcoholic father who used those very words. BTW, he used them during the years before he became a drunkard and still used them after the “serpent” poisoned him. He didn’t use it after the Lord saved him and delivered him from sin AND alcohol.
Anyone who is around alcohol begins to realize why they are called “spirits”.
Thanks again.
Ron Bean
Posted by: Ron Bean at March 20, 2006 12:29 PMBob said, “But even my pastor friends that drink wine aren’t so desparate that they declare wine to be made by God, therefore good. Man is wicked to the core. Give him nothing but God-made ingredients and his evil soul will create a concoction never intended by God.
I doubt God wants to take the responsiblity for Lucifer and Le Diable even though you are so generous to give Him the credit for it.”
Bob, God takes credit for wine in the OT and NT (read below) and your statements to the contrary are wrong. I think you owe Keith AND God an apology for this falsehood.
Scott
Ps 104:14-15
14 He causes the grass to grow for the cattle,
And vegetation for the service of man,
That he may bring forth food from the earth,
15 And wine that makes glad the heart of man,
Oil to make his face shine,
And bread which strengthens man’s heart.
Hos 2:8
8 For she did not know
That I gave her grain, new wine, and oil,
And multiplied her silver and gold—
Which they prepared for Baal.
Joel 2:19
19 The LORD will answer and say to His people,
“Behold, I will send you grain and new wine and oil,
And you will be satisfied by them;
I will no longer make you a reproach among the nations.
Joel 2:23-24
23 Be glad then, you children of Zion,
And rejoice in the LORD your God;
For He has given you the former rain faithfully,
And He will cause the rain to come down for you—
The former rain,
And the latter rain in the first month.
24 The threshing floors shall be full of wheat,
And the vats shall overflow with new wine and oil.
John 4:46
46 So Jesus came again to Cana of Galilee where He had made the water wine.
And grapes can even ferment on the vine. As Keith said earlier, man’s intervention is needed to prevent fermentation, not to cause it.
Posted by: Matthew Fitzsimmons at March 20, 2006 01:09 PMDavid, you admonished Pastor Bixby to have a “loving spirit” and “tell the truth in love.” In my view, he is writing in true love—not that mushy, emotional feeling, but rather agape love that does what is best for the object of one’s love. There is nothing more loving than warning people that they are in the path of an oncoming, speeding vehicle that is about to destroy them in a way that devastates their family, as well.
Posted by: Lyn Marshall at March 20, 2006 01:24 PMLyn, when Paul talks about telling the truth in love he is meaning building up brothers/sisters with truth. There is a way to communicate truth roughly. Yes, Bob has every right to be passionate about this topic. But when dealing with fellow brothers/sisters he needs to make sure not to sound vindictive. Keith did not know former alcoholics read this site. He was discussing with Bob a topic Bob brought up. So when Bob posts: “If you want to go on the record before God and mankind as providing information to weaker brothers to return to their addictions, go ahead.” It was a little over the top. I’ve been guilty many times of either being vindictive or not communicating myself clearly and appearing vindictive. Internet posts make it very easy to be misunderstood.
You are right about nothing being more loving than confronting someone in danger. Still, I stand by my previous post.
Posted by: David Siglin at March 20, 2006 01:46 PMOn SharperIron, the recent thread regarding alcoholic beverages (which is now closed) referenced Bob Bixby’s blogsite (which is where we are now). The direction of the discussion was sent here since the SharperIron thread was closed (it reached the 20-page limit). I’d like to direct some attention to the use of alcoholic beverages in Scripture, and a biblical ‘theology’ of the moderate use of alcohol. I think that answers to Bob’s dealings with people in his church who struggle with drunkenness is very difficult, but his ‘answer’ isn’t biblical, nor is it correct to assert the notion that drinking alcohol in moderation is sinful, wrong, or stupid.
Greg Price wrote a good article which is on the Reformed Presbyterian Church’s website, http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/alcoholb/alcoholb.htm
To answer some of Bob Bixby’s erroneous conclusions, Greg Price states this (from the above mentioned website):
“A reponse to the “constitutional alcoholic” argument.
(a) It is true that certain people have different levels of tolerance to alcoholic beverages (just as it is true that there are differing degrees of tolerance for food among people).
(b) But the notion that a predispostion toward a particular kind of sinful abuse (whether beer, sex, food, violence, fashion or any thing else) should lead all Christians to abstain permanently from the lawful use of that object (whether to abstain from all alcoholic beverages, from all sexual relationships with one’s wife, from all food, from all corporal discipline, or from all clothing) is not biblical. Again, you should never wittingly tempt one whom you know to be vulnerable in a particular area, but that is quite different from advocating the permanent cessation of a good gift from God in all circumstances.
(c) The Bible teaches that all men are predisposed to sin by nature and that all men are “constitutional sinners” (Ps. 51:5; Ps. 58:3; Rom. 5:19) and yet all men are responsible for their own sin. The fact that one habitually and sinfully abuses beer and is predisposed to abuse it, should not put him into some preferential class of treatment, for all men, women, and children are in the same condition (some of our sins are just more observable than others). The point that must be made if you are to truly help one who abuses alcoholic beverages is that his problem (like abuse in any other area) is a violation of God’s holy Law. It is sin against the Most High God (in biblical terms he is a drunkard cf. 1 Cor. 5:11; 1 Cor. 6:10). His problem is not that he has developed an incurable disease (called alcoholism). His problem is that he has been convinced that he can never be completely cured (“once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic”). Thus, he is told, “Take even one sip of wine in the Lord’s Supper and it might set the disease off again.” The answer for the one who has abused alcoholic beverages is the same answer for all sinners: All sinful habits and sinful abuses are curable by the redemptive grace of God (once an alcoholic is not always an alcoholic for “where sin did abound, grace did much more abound” Rom. 5:20). The Bible proclaims in Romans 8:12 that all who have died with Christ are no longer debtors to the flesh (i.e. by God’s grace Christians who have turned from the abuse of alcoholic beverages do not have to answer the door, when the temptation to become drunk comes knocking at the door). Furthermore, the one who was once a drunkard is no longer viewed as a drunkard after he has been washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Are the rest of the sinful abuses mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 incurable diseases? God forbid! The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to all who believe (Rom. 1:16). Thus, one is not necessarily helping the “alcoholic” by abstaining from all drinking any more than one would be helping the glutton by abstaining from all eating.
(d) If it is true that all Christians should abstain from all alcoholic beverages for the sake of the “constitutional alcoholic”, then Jesus was not wise in using wine in the presence of many “constitutional alcoholics” or potential “constitutional alcoholics” (Lk. 7:33-35) and even creating it to be used in a wedding feast where the possibility for drunkenness was certainly present (Jn 2:1-12).”
I’m sorry that this is a very long post, but it’s necessary that Scripture is used to defend any one ‘position’ on the use of alcohol as a beverage. Abstaining from the lawful use of drinking alcohol in moderation— which is the biblical norm— is not ‘stupid’, nor is it sinful. In conclusion, Greg Price writes this, “One the one hand, each one was to be convinced in his own mind (i.e. not to act contrary to what you believe you are required to do at the time, Rom. 14:5b,22-23). On the other hand, the “weak” were not to stubbornly remain in a weak position. They were to diligently study the issue involved from the vantage point of God’s Word and when persuaded that God approved of the practice in question, they were to submit their conscience to God’s authoritative Word and change their conviction regardless of how they might still “feel” about the issue. “
Posted by: Larry Lawton at March 20, 2006 02:28 PMLarry, thanks for the completely biblically based synopsis.
I too have read the article and would second Larry’s recommendation of it as a good, biblical overview of the subject of alcohol.
Posted by: Matthew Fitzsimmons at March 20, 2006 02:34 PMI hate to post another long comment, but… I think this should be said, in the context of this discussion.
Why drink wine?? Good question! I respect your arguments from common sense and Biblical principles. These are not light-weight arguments. Yet I think there is a big Scriptural argument for the use of wine that you are overlooking.
Before presenting that argument, let me hasten to say that I can only imagine the sorrow liquor has caused many people and many families. Drunkenness is a sin which Scripture strongly condemns and warns us against. And more than many sins, it can affect innocent bystanders, and unfortunate family members. It should be no laughing matter for such an argument to be raised. The injury and harm alcohol has caused so many deserves no scorn from the eyes of young fundamentalists eager to partake in another activity they deem permissible from Scripture.
If I agree so much with your argument, why then would I go on and seek to argue for the use of alcohol? Why not just stay quiet, and agree to disagree privately? I cannot remain quiet, because truthfully I feel the argument I have to present is of such a nature that to disregard it would be to despise God and His Word.
Ps. 104:14-15 presents my argument: “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.” Here the Psalmist praises God for the gift of wine. And he declares that God gave us wine to gladden our hearts. My argument is that Scripture abundantly declares this truth: God gave us wine to bring us joy. I want to present 8 points which combine to make this truth extremely clear. God gave us wine for our joy. [Scriptures are taken from the ESV, unless otherwise indicated.]
1) Wine is a gift of the goodness of God.
Jeremiah 31:12-14 “They shall come and sing aloud on the height of Zion, and they shall be radiant over the goodness of the LORD, over the grain, the wine, and the oil, and over the young of the flock and the herd; their life shall be like a watered garden, and they shall languish no more. Then shall the young women rejoice in the dance, and the young men and the old shall be merry. I will turn their mourning into joy; I will comfort them, and give them gladness for sorrow. I will feast the soul of the priests with abundance, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness, declares the LORD.”
See also Ps. 104:14-15 above. 1 Tim. 4:1-5 applies also, I believe.
2) Wine produces joy—it “gladdens the heart”.
Judges 9:13 “But the vine said to them, ‘Shall I leave my wine that cheers God and men and go hold sway over the trees?’”
Ecclesiastes 10:19 (NASB) “Men prepare a meal for enjoyment, and wine makes life merry, and money is the answer to everything.”
Zechariah 10:7 “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.”
It should be clear that even the intoxicating nature of wine is being praised, here. Wine lifts the spirit and gladdens the heart long before it actually overtakes you and makes one drunk. Wine can be enjoyed and its effects relished without losing control and becoming drunken. Prov. 31:6-7 encourages Lemuel to give wine and strong drink to the sick and the sorrowful of heart. And Jer. 16:7-8 points to a practice of comforting those who are mourning over the death of loved ones with wine and a feast—”the cup of consolation”. Rabbinical literature declares that such was a common practice—particularly in obedience to Prov. 31:6-7.
3) Wine is used in rejoicing before God. It is also used in offerings and must be tithed on.
Deuteronomy 14:22-26 “You shall tithe all the yield of your seed that comes from the field year by year. And before the LORD your God, in the place that he will choose, to make his name dwell there, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always. 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, 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 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.”
Isaiah 62:8-9 “The LORD has sworn by his right hand and by his mighty arm: ‘I will not again give your grain to be food for your enemies, and foreigners shall not drink your wine for which you have labored; but those who garner it shall eat it and praise the LORD, and those who gather it shall drink it in the courts of my sanctuary.’”
Deuteronomy 12:17-19 “You may not eat within your towns the tithe of your grain or of your wine or of your oil…but you shall eat them before the LORD your God in the place that the LORD your God will choose….”
Notice that in the Dt. 14 passage above, even strong drink [everyone agrees that this is alcoholic] can be drunken before the Lord with rejoicing! Strong drink is also used as a drink offering in conjunction with certain sacrifices, see Num. 28:7. Wine, of course, is also used for drink offerings, see Ex. 29:40, Num. 15:5, 2 Chron. 31:5, Dt. 8:4.
4) Abundance of wine was a particular blessing from God.
Joel 2:24-26 “The threshing floors shall be full of grain; the vats shall overflow with wine and oil. I will restore to you the years that the swarming locust has eaten, the hopper, the destroyer, and the cutter, my great army, which I sent among you. “You shall eat in plenty and be satisfied, and praise the name of the LORD your God, who has dealt wondrously with you. And my people shall never again be put to shame.”
Joel 3:18 “And in that day the mountains shall drip sweet wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the streambeds of Judah shall flow with water; and a fountain shall come forth from the house of the LORD and water the Valley of Shittim.”
See also Gen. 27:28 (part of Isaac’s blessing for Jacob) and Dt. 7:13.
5) Having no wine was a hardship or a judgment of God.
Amos 5:11 “Therefore because you trample on the poor and you exact taxes of grain from him…you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine.”
Deuteronomy 29:2-6 “And Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: ‘You have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, the great trials that your eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders. But to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear. I have led you forty years in the wilderness. Your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandals have not worn off your feet. You have not eaten bread, and you have not drunk wine or strong drink, that you may know that I am the LORD your God.’”
The above passage has Moses describing the glories of God that the people saw and also stressing that they had endured trials in the wilderness. He speaks of the miraculous provision for them, but also of God’s keeping them from the normal joys of life—eating bread and drinking wine and strong drink. God did all of this so they would know that He was their God, yet they had no spiritual circumcision of heart to appreciate that. The point I am drawing out is that not having wine and strong drink was a hardship, exactly parallel to not having bread. Bread is good, and so is wine and strong drink. (See also Dt. 28:39, Micah 6:15, and Zeph. 1:13)
6) The absence of wine results in the absence of joy. No wine, no joy.
Isaiah 24:7-11 “The wine mourns, the vine languishes, all the merry-hearted sigh. The mirth of the tambourines is stilled, the noise of the jubilant has ceased, the mirth of the lyre is stilled. No more do they drink wine with singing; strong drink is bitter to those who drink it. The wasted city is broken down; every house is shut up so that none can enter. There is an outcry in the streets for lack of wine; all joy has grown dark; the gladness of the earth is banished.”
Jeremiah 48:33 “Gladness and joy have been taken away from the fruitful land of Moab; I have made the wine cease from the winepresses; no one treads them with shouts of joy; the shouting is not the shout of joy.”
See also Is. 16:10.
7) Drinking wine is singularly festive, joyful, and celebratory.
Ecclesiastes 9:7 “Go, eat your bread in joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do.”
Isaiah 22:13 “And behold, joy and gladness, killing oxen and slaughtering sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine. ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’”
It goes without saying that wine is associated with times of joy and feasting (Job 1:13, Esther 1, 1 Chron. 12:39ff., Gen. 27:25 [a special occasion—the passing on of the blessing]). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988; edited by Geoffrey Bromiley] points out, “A banquet hall is called a bet misteh hayyayin (lit. ‘house for drinking wine’ Est. 7:8), and a ‘feast’ is literally a ‘drinking’ (Heb. misteh, Gen. 21:8; Jdg. 14:10; 1 S. 25:36; 2 S. 3:20)” (vol. 4, pg. 1070). Further it states, “wine…was an essential part of feasting in the biblical tradition” (pg. 1071).
(Another point, similar to this is that the joys of sexual intimacy and love are compared to the joy produced by wine. See Song of Solomon 1:2-3; 4:10; 7:1-2, 9; 8:2.)
8) Wine will be part of the future feasting in Christ’s kingdom (and/or the eternal state, depending on your eschatological position).
Isaiah 25:6-9 “On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken. It will be said on that day, ‘Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us. This is the LORD; we have waited for him; let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation.’”
Jeremiah 31:12-14 “They shall come and sing aloud on the height of Zion, and they shall be radiant over the goodness of the LORD, over the grain, the wine, and the oil, and over the young of the flock and the herd; their life shall be like a watered garden, and they shall languish no more. Then shall the young women rejoice in the dance, and the young men and the old shall be merry. I will turn their mourning into joy; I will comfort them, and give them gladness for sorrow. I will feast the soul of the priests with abundance, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness, declares the LORD.”
Matt. 26:29 “I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
See also Lk. 22:28-30, Mt. 8:11, and Lk. 13:29. It is worthwhile to mention here that from the above verse, it is clear Jesus drank wine. The celebration of the Passover had developed into including 4 cups of wine. From the passage in Luke you see they drank at least two cups of wine (Lk. 22:17 and 20). In Lk. 7:33-34 Jesus himself says that he came “eating and drinking”. Since John the Baptist was specifically said to have abstained from alcoholic drinks (Lk. 1:15), and since Jesus contrasts himself with John in this text, Jesus is saying he came drinking alcoholic drinks. While it is obvious Jesus was no drunkard, the charge of “drunkard” would sound ridiculous if Jesus had been a tee-totaller. Not only did Jesus drink wine, but he was concerned to produce the best kind of wine for those at the wedding feast in Cana (Jn. 2).
Also, the feast of the Lord’s supper looks forward to the feast with Jesus in His kingdom (see the Mt. 26:29 passage above). And it is clear from 1 Cor. 11:21 that the beverage used at the Lord’s table in Corinth could make some drunk. Paul in no way castigates them for using the wrong kind of beverage. He even points out that they could drink in their own houses (v. 22). So it makes Biblical sense to expect that the feast in Christ’s glorious New Kingdom will include alcoholic drinks.
Now I have presented my Biblical argument—that God has given us wine to make our hearts glad. So I say we should glorify God by the wise use and enjoyment of his good gifts to us (see 1 Tim. 4:1-5).
Now some will be hanging onto a weak argument here. They will be trying to convince themselves that wine most often does not mean intoxicating juice of grapes, but rather non-intoxicating juice similar to the Welch’s variety. Yet much evidence exists that this is not correct. Modern grape juice was not really available until the late 1800s when Mr. Welch began marketing his variety. ISBE says, “Both yayin and tiros are fermented grape juice with alcoholic content; hence both are able to cause intoxication (cf. Hos. 4:11) and are to be distinguished from ‘must’ or unfermented grape juice….The ‘new wine’ (Gk. gleukos) of the Pentecost account (Acts 2:13) was the vintage of the recent harvest; the thrust of the taunt requires that it refer to wine that can cause intoxication.” (vol. 4 pg. 1069) The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary [Chicago: Moody Press, 1988; edited by Merrill F. Unger] states, “In most of the passages in the Bible where yayin is used (83 out of 138), it certainly means fermented grape juice; and in the remainder it may fairly be presumed to do so. The intoxicating character of yayin in general is plain from Scripture.” Now it is true that ancient wine was not as alcoholic as wine today. Yet it is also clear it could intoxicate. In NT times, wine was a common table beverage (diluted of course). Yet ISBE says, “Wine is not attested as the normal table beverage of OT times. It seems generally to have been reserved for special occasions…” (vol. 4 pg. 1070). More evidence could be cited, I am sure, but I agree with Unger that it is plain that wine was quite able to intoxicate. Yet God says this is good—it gladdens our hearts.
I have two further counter arguments. One counters the argument you (Bob Bixby) have brought up in this post. The other counters another common argument, which has been brought up in the comment thread. I will start with the latter argument.
Should we not refrain from alcohol and wine, strong drink, etc. out of deference to weaker brothers who might stumble? Is not this the point of Rom. 14:21? In a sense I would agree. But the context speaks to situations where you know a brother will be observing you drink in such a way that he may stumble and offend his conscience. If one happens to stumble upon me and find that I am drinking, I could charitably explain my reasoning for doing so. But for me to disregard his conscience and deliberately challenge him or cause him to be offended would be quite another thing. Applying 1 Thess. 5:22 to this case is a false application of that text. It refers to actual cases of evil—avoiding actual evil. Not avoiding what appears to be evil but in fact is neutral or not evil. And it also specifically in context refers to the judging of each prophecy in the setting of a church or Christian gathering.
My second counter argument deals with your argument concerning the great potential harm that alcohol can cause families and individuals. Yes, this is a strong caution and particularly listens to the warnings of Prov. 20:1 and other like passages. However, let me ask something. Is total abstinence the best preventative course for me to pursue with regard to the rearing of my children? Since Scripture does not forbid alcohol, and actually encourages its moderate consumption, how can I in good conscience teach against its use period? Would the argument you propose be received as sufficient from my children? Or could it not be as effective (or more) for me to model the moderate use of wine in front of my children and family? My children would learn by example that wine and liquor is not to be consumed frivolously, but rather to be enjoyed in moderation—always thanking God for the blessing of wine when we partake of it. This also seems to be more in line with being controlled by the Spirit in this dispensation of the new covenant, in my opinion.
Before closing, let me point your attention to two articles on this topic written by a friend of a friend of mine. Alcohol and the Christian, and Alcohol and the Christian Part Deux. In the second article there is an extended discussion which approaches the topic from many perspectives and seeks to apply Biblical principles to the decision whether or not to enjoy God’s gift of wine, this side of heaven. I think you (and your readers) may find the discussion beneficial in thinking through this issue.
God bless you.
Bob Hayton
Posted by: Bob Hayton at March 20, 2006 03:02 PMI need to fix an ‘oopsie’ from my last post… Near the end, I wrote, “Abstaining from the lawful use of drinking alcohol in moderation— which is the biblical norm— is not ‘stupid’, or is it sinful. Sorry this statement didn’t make sense! Replace the word “Abstaining from” with “Partaking in moderation of”. Sorry!
Posted by: Larry Lawton at March 20, 2006 03:03 PMGood to see you here, Bob H. Excellent comment.
On an administrative note, how come checking the little box never has it send me an email when new comments have been added, and doesn’t send me a copy of my own comment?
Posted by: Matthew Fitzsimmons at March 20, 2006 03:24 PMBecause I don’t want anyone that disagrees with me to get any consolation from supporting antagonists to my view…. ;-)
I’ll check into it.
In the meantime, I’m working on my dissertation.
Posted by: Bob at March 20, 2006 03:31 PMWhen you hit “preview” it unchecks the box. So be sure to check it again after hitting preview.
-this has been brought to by your friendly tech guy. Me. :)
Posted by: David Siglin at March 20, 2006 03:41 PMThanks, David, but I already tried that. Still nada.
Posted by: Matthew Fitzsimmons at March 20, 2006 03:45 PMWhat if, as some would say, wine is the result of sin? Would it not change the arguments some? It appears that drunkeness (thus, alchohol?) first appears after the flood (possibly due to the cataclysmic changes that from that point on allowed fermentation to take place?: greatly reduced air pressure, and much lower oxygen content) with Noah.
If this is true (if), then fermentation could be just another form of sin’s corruption (like cancer, or anything else). God thus would not be directly responsible for it, but rather sin’s curse.
Quite a discussion. Though I do not believe that the Bible requires fully abstaining from alcohol, I do not equate today’s alchoholic beverages with the wine of the Bible, nor the practices of the Bible (http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1937.htm). I believe that what is sold today, including beer, would have been considered strong drink back then, and thus forbidden. The wine of the Bible that was considered acceptable to drink was very low in alcohol content, and thus required someone to “tarry long at the wine” to become intoxicated.
I believe that abstaining is the best choice, and the practice of leaders and priests, as well as those that desired to be close to God, and that those that had no hope nor position drank strong drink (Proverbs 31:4-7).
Bob, thanks for sharing your experiences (which I am selfishly thankful not to have had many of the same). I agree with your logic that you do not need chapter and verse to warn people away from the snares of intoxication.
— Kevin (a tee-totaler)
Posted by: Kevin Subra at March 20, 2006 04:29 PM“If this is true (if), then fermentation could be just another form of sin’s corruption (like cancer, or anything else). God thus would not be directly responsible for it, but rather sin’s curse.”
This seems to go against the biblical record. Read again some of the passages quoted by Bob H.
“I believe that what is sold today, including beer, would have been considered strong drink back then, and thus forbidden.”
Again, look at the verses. Strong drink was not forbidden.
“I believe that abstaining is the best choice, and the practice of leaders and priests, as well as those that desired to be close to God…”
Priests were only told to abstain when they were going into the tabernacle or temple, not at any other time. It was not normal for them to abstain.
“I agree with your logic that you do not need chapter and verse to warn people away from the snares of intoxication.”
Amen! We should warn people away from the snares of intoxication, gluttony, materialism, fornication, etc.
Posted by: Matthew Fitzsimmons at March 20, 2006 04:35 PMBob,
In your “Not excellent” reply to me, are you serious?
1) Of course I am aware that the Bible was not written in common English. I never claimed it was. I was addressing your uncommon use of existing common English words.
2) You state that it is physically impossible to remove 100% of the alcohol from “non-alcoholic wine”. So, I guess non-alcoholic really means slightly-alcoholic. Sounds like a modern marketing gimmick more than truth or common sense English.
3) When you state that it would take a lot more drinking to get drunk with Bible time wine and that one would get sick to one’s stomach first, are you trying to argue that Bible time wine never caused drunkenness? If so, why does the Bible tell us “be not drunk with wine . . .”? Is the Bible prohibiting an impossibility?
4) You say the Lord would not have offered sinful people a means whereby they could sin and debase themselves. Again, are you serious? The Lord makes and offers us all kinds of things whereby we can sin and debase ourselves. He made food for people — gluttony is a sin. He made women — lusting after them is a sin. Etc. Etc. Etc.
5) I never made a straw man or engaged in “red herring”. I did not claim that you said alcohol was evil or that you claimed it is absolutely forbidden by Scripture. Me thinks you do protest too much. I stated that alcohol is a good thing to help make my case that drinking is not the same as reading in the middle of the street.
6) It’s fine with me if you urge people not to drink. I don’t care if some people don’t drink. However, I don’t think you have anything like a preponderance of the biblical evidence.
7) You say that my syllogism is logical but wise people don’t function that way? Do wise people behave illogically?
8) Wine and alcoholic beverages are unhelpful to some and helpful to some. Those who find them uhelpful should by all means abstain. Many people, however, find it helpful that ,as the Bible says, wine gladdens the heart. Many find it helpful to remember that the Christ who made wine for the wedding is still with us making wine for us today. Many of us find wine helpful in reminding us that Christ gave his blood for us.
9) I am more than willing to go on record before God and man when stating what I believe to be the truth. The truth is what sets people free not ridiculous analogies about having devotions in the street. Nowhere did I encourage anyone to return to their addictions. Repeatedly, I stated that drunkenness is sinful.
Those of you in Bob’s church, please DON’T GET DRUNK. If you have to abstain from all alcohol to avoid getting drunk, then by all means stay away from all alcohol. Nevertheless, the truth is that alcohol is not the problem — your not yet glorified flesh is the problem, and Christ is the solution.
10) In my last, “Are you serious,” for this post, I’d like to ask how you justify having a blog on the internet? You seem to think it important to urge people to completely avoid things that can be addictive and ruin lives. Well, last time I checked, internet pornography was a growing problem worldwide, was addictive, and was ruining lives.
Haven’t you ever had to deal with anyone who was tear stained, scarred, and losing his family as a result of sexual sin? Well, I have, and it makes me hate that brand of sin. I understand your passion against sin, so you don’t have to apologize about being “vindictive.”
Nevertheless, just because the internet can be abused for sexual sins, I don’t urge everyone, everywhere to avoid the internet or call the use of it stupid. I call the abuse of it stupid.
If you are going to be consistent, where’s your outrage and common sense on this topic and many others?
Keith
Posted by: Keith at March 20, 2006 04:39 PMDo you have spam software? A lot of spam catchers tend to mark these kind of alert emails as spam.
Posted by: Andrew at March 20, 2006 04:41 PMAndrew, I do, but it hasn’t shown up in my spam box either. I also don’t usually have a problem with blog site notifications.
Posted by: Matthew Fitzsimmons at March 20, 2006 04:44 PMLarry,
Quote Larry, to say “predisposition … should lead all Christians to abstain permanently from the lawful use of that object … is not biblical.”
Bob never asserted this. He urged all Christians to abstain; he did not say God leads “all Christians to abstain.” Nor did he say it was “biblically mandated” for all Christians to abstain.
His argument was indeed Scripturally based. I Cor 6:12 “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” Do you have the liberty as a Christian to drink alcohol in moderation? Yes. Is it expedient? In Bob’s opinion and mine, NO. Based on reams of experiential and documented evidence both inside and outside of the Bible. Alcohol has the potential to bring me under its power (in contrast to clothing, corporal punishment, ual relations with one’s wife, etc.). These are biblical reasons to take an “alcohol, while not overtly sinful, is unwise” position.
As to point C. I believe you are right: God does offer grace to these sinners. Have you decided then that your liberty is more important than compassion? Do you have the omniscience to know that the drunkard in your church has dealt with his sin appropriately? Will you test his maturity by exposing him to alcohol? I suppose this is like the floating test for witches… if they float they are a witch and should be burned, if not they will sink. How do you know, even if he has dealt with his sin appropriately, that you are not giving him a sore trial and temptation by telling him that you have the liberty and drinking in front of him? God can’t tempt any man, but it seems that because of your liberty you can. I would not recommend that someone who had been a drunkard attend a church where alcohol was common such as you describe.
As to letter D, as Bob indicated, for some reason the situation at Cana was such that the wine that Jesus made would not cause any to sin. “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:” Whether it would make someone sick before drunkenness, or not alcoholic or whatever, it was not a stumbling block for any person there. Can you be so sure your drinking is not a temptation or stumbling block?
In your last paragraph you make the mistake of focusing on someone else’s responsibility and not considering your own. It seems you are intent on taking the passages on liberty to support your position, without regard to the limits Paul is clear should be placed on our liberties. Read the entire Romans 14. It is good to limit liberty out of love. If you consider yourself the “strong,” this is what you need to take to heart. “For meat destroy not the kingdom of God.” If you are the weak then you can work on your part… growth (as you stated). But it is not my responsibility to tell someone “You are weak, deal with it, and grow up.” But rather limit myself in love, so as not to offend. Then my love will give me the credibility and opportunity to edify. “We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.” I Cor 8:13 “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.” How do you know that the exercising of your liberty to drink alcohol does not offend? Can you say as Paul does, “I will eat [drink] no flesh [alcohol] while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend”?
Bob stated the clear effects of alcohol, the dangers of causing others to stumble, and stated that he thought drinking alcohol was stupid. I guess your liberty is more important than LOVE? Study I Cor 8:1-2. When you sin so against the brethren and wound their weak consciences ye sin against Christ. I Cor 8:12.
Paul over and over says yes, you have liberty. But my liberty should be limited for LOVE, not staunchly defended out of PRIDE. cf I Cor 8:1
Posted by: LeeB at March 20, 2006 04:45 PMThere is no mention of drunkeness, etc. before Noah - that much of the Biblical record is clear. The only question is “why?”.
As far as strong wine being forbidden, how would you understand Proverbs 23:29-31? (29 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;). I’m not in any way a wine expert (maybe a “whine” expert), but the Word does seem to differentiate between types of alcohol (stuff that should be avoided altogether), as well as the tarrying long at the wine (weak drink, but still having residual alcohol).
Not arguing. I appreciate the discussion and stimulation. Think I’ll go have a drink ;>). Thanks.
It looks like you’ll need to check with whoever maintains your server….they’re specifically blocking emails from the address “weblogadmin@noreply.com” (it’s set to that so I don’t get deluged by all the people from various weblogs who inevitably reply to the comment subscription emails).
Here’s the error log you can pass on to them.
2006-03-20 18:17:46 1FLTdA-0004xw-4W ** matt@fitzage.com R=lookuphost T=remote_smtp: SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO:: host mail.fitzage.com [207.7.108.203]: 554 Service unavailable; Sender address [weblogadmin@noreply.com] blocked using blackhole.securitysage.com; SecuritySage RHSBL5 - Please see http://www.securitysage.com/rhsbl.html
Aha! Ok, thanks. That’s fine then. I’d rather not have the average email@noreply.com come through. Thanks for checking it out.
Kevin, if you notice some of the verses Bob quoted above, strong drink is specifically mentioned as acceptable in at least one of them.
In regards to the passage you mention, some of it at least seems to indicate more of the condition of the person that makes the wine appear such, as opposed to a characteristic of the wine itself.
LeeB, I can’t speak for Larry, but my reasons for arguing this so strongly are as follows:
1. I am trying to make it clear that I am not in sin for partaking of alcohol, but instead am fully partaking of the gifts God has given for our enjoyment. I believe this is the clear biblical teaching.
2. I am reacting to the legalism that is trying to rob me of this liberty. If you believe that your application of biblical principles leads you to be convinced to not partake of alcohol, then that is fine with me. What bothers me is the legalistic approach of trying to force this personal conviction upon other believers. This bothered me even before I decided to partake of alcohol. I knew that it was not condemned in the Bible, and was not about to condemn someone else who partook. Later, I grew in faith to the point where I could partake without offending my conscience, and can drink to the glory of God.
3. The majority of arguments against alcohol involve much twisting of the clear textual and contextual testimony of Scripture, in an attempt to make it subject to either 1) the way society has abused God’s gifts, or 2) obscure attempts to prove the unprovable assumption that the alcohol praised in the Bible was incapable of causing drunkenness. This casual treatment of Scripture infuriates me.
Posted by: Matthew Fitzsimmons at March 20, 2006 05:40 PMMatthew,
Thanks for the continued reference to Bob H’s verses. The challenge for me is that before I would equate terms in English, they would need to be qualified in Hebrew. We must compare apples with apples. I’m not casting aside your referral - the discussion cannot truly be accurate without identifying the terms (a worthy project, indeed).
Also, I would still refer to MacArthur’s limited study of the topic which I linked to: http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1937.htm. There is good information there on the idea that the wine & alchohol of today are not the same as it was then. If this is indeed the case, then all arguments would necessarily need to be reviewed, yes?). If wine was, in those days, always mixed with water, and would in our day be considered non-alchoholic or sub-alchoholic, where would be the arguments?
Though I truly concur with someone’s liberty to “imbibe,” when does one become intoxicated, and thus unclear in his or her thinking? Is drunkenness a point - a threshold? Is not drunkenness rather a process, and the more one drinks, the more intoxicated one gets? When is the liberty of consumming alcohol (if it is such) wrong beyond the topic of drunkenness? Is alcohol necessary to “be glad” (I’ve not found it to be such)?
“If” the alcohol of today is not to be mixed, and can be equated with the wine of the Bible (which I do not believe it can be), we certainly, in our responsibility within our liberty, be very sparing in our consumption of such, because intoxication is not far from the first sip.
(Thanks again to all for this stimulating discussion. I am needing to absence myself from my computer for a time. I apologize for not being able to readily continue our interaction, at least for a time.)
— Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Subra at March 20, 2006 06:18 PMMatthew states: I am trying to make it clear that I am not in sin for partaking of alcoholNeither Bob nor I have stated that it is a sin… We have repeatedly said that it is a liberty, and as such should be handled as a liberty. Limited if need be for the body, or for expedience, or because we may become “under the power” of it. See Romans 14 and 15. I Cor 8. You keep emphasizing your own enjoyment… Paul focuses on others. “Let every one of us please his neighbor for his good to edification.” I don’t think it is wrong to enjoy the good gifts that God has given us, unless it is at the expense of our brothers and sisters in Christ, or personally risky (not expedient).
Matthew states: I am reacting to the legalism that is trying to rob me of this liberty.
Again you are not dealing with our arguments. I believe you have that liberty! I just think it is unwise, Bob said “stupid” to drink alcohol.
Paul says, “If meat makes my brother offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth lest I make my brother to offend.” Paul was offering this standard to the Corinthians in terms of restricting his liberty. Are you calling what Paul said Legalism? Is asking you to consider restricting your liberty in this way for the brethren Legalism? vs 9. “Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak.” You are responsible for the effects of your liberty on your weaker brother.
Matthew states:Yet you stop with the liberty passages at the point where Paul says you have the Liberty… what about your brother? Look at the entire passage dealing with liberty. Do you have the same standard for yourself that you hold for others?
The majority of arguments against alcohol involve much twisting of the clear textual and contextual testimony of Scripture, in an attempt to make it subject to either 1) the way society has abused God’s gifts, or 2) obscure attempts to prove the unprovable assumption that the alcohol praised in the Bible was incapable of causing drunkenness. This casual treatment of Scripture infuriates me.
If I have used scripture wrongly I will happily admit it.
Posted by: Lee B at March 20, 2006 06:32 PMLeeB, When I come to the point where there is risk of causing a brother to stumble by my partaking, I will decide not to partake for the sake of my brother and the glory of God.
To answer your question, though, your “asking [me] to consider restricting your liberty in this way” is legalism. You are asking me to never partake because you think that it will cause a brother to stumble. This is turning Christian liberty on it’s head. By doing this, you are calling my use of my liberty sin, no matter how much you may deny it.
Kevin, I appreciate your attitude. I want to deal briefly with one thing that seems to be at the heart of your position:
“‘If’ the alcohol of today is not to be mixed, and can be equated with the wine of the Bible (which I do not believe it can be), we certainly, in our responsibility within our liberty, be very sparing in our consumption of such, because intoxication is not far from the first sip.”
This is why I believe that alcohol content makes no difference in the discussion, and why many people who don’t drink, or don’t spend much time with those who do, think it does. Specifically, your last statement that “intoxication is not far from the first sip.”
If you are drinking straight distilled liquor, this may be the case. However, with the average social drinking it is not the case. I have on one occasion had 5 drinks over the course of an evening. A shot of hard liquor, a mixed drink, and three beers. This was over the course of about 3 hours or so, and I was not intoxicated. This was a special event, and I have never drank more than a couple of beers at a time since. That one night was the closest I have been to intoxicated, but I wasn’t.
My point is that alcohol isn’t as intoxicating as many teetotalers think it is.
I will also repeat that whatever alcohol level was consumed in biblical times was capable of making people drunk, and evidently frequently did considering the number of warnings against it. I don’t know what the alcohol content of the “strong drink” commended in the Old Testament was, but the definition I have found in Strong’s says that it was a highly alcoholic beverage. What is highly? I don’t know, but it was definitely higher than that of the wine of the time, whether than wine was 2 or 3 percent (which I think is highly unlikely) or 5 or 6 percent, or whatever.
Posted by: Matthew Fitzsimmons at March 20, 2006 06:58 PMBob B,
I have been through enough personal Bible study and blog discussions to know where I stand and always will stand on this issue. I admit I scanned about half of the comments, just to preface. The first half seemed an iteration of arguments I’ve heard too many times to count. At least pixels are cheaper than ink.
I feel like the strongest arguments on the “don’t drink” side of things are “I know or have heard of people that had bad things happen when they or someone else drank.” Is this really an argument at all? Seriously?
More people are injured or killed in my area (read: sub-culture) by ice on the roads than by drunk drivers. When I look in the little precious, cute, crying faces of the children left behind…blah, blah, blah. I have no patience for this line of tear-jerking that leads to exactly nothing substantial or - dare I say it - Biblical. These arguments lack the power of God’s Spirit and as such are to be counted as horse - well, you know.
No one here disagrees on the drunkenness issue. The Bible commands that we don’t drink enough to become drunk. So what is the argument here? By posting a position piece that includes terminology like “drinking is stoopid [spelling mine]” and “I urge people to abstain,” you are attempting to make your opinion/practice that of Christianity. You are not allowing that you could be wrong and given the weight of Scripture, you most certainly are. Paul felt compelled to deal with people like you in I Timothy 4. Does the phrase “deceitful spirits and teachings of demons” even give you pause? Does he allow in that passage or any other for the inerrant “common sense” of twenty-first century Americans? “But our culture [or my sub-culture] is different now!” Really. That’s true, but the Roman, temple-prostitution atmosphere of Paul’s day was better? Was alcohol abused less or more then? The media and government decry both drunk driving and drunkenness in general today. I doubt that was the case then. In fact, it is far more socially acceptable to moderately drink than to be an alcoholic. Why do groups like AA and MADD exist? The church didn’t put them there. Why am I even saying these things? What does it matter for Christians? There I go taking the bait again.
The only reasons the Bible tells us not to drink at all is if it would cause a conscience crisis of a weaker (less mature, underdeveloped, baby — ignorant) Christian or of the unsaved (Romans 14:21-22; I Corinthians 10:23-30; and more). In both cases, this is only a restriction for the occasion, not a life-permeating command. The ones who would be offended (in their conscience, not in their ideology or creed) are those who do not yet know that God intended all things to be received through faith with thanksgiving. Yes, that would be the “theologically ignorant.” Are the big bad scholars who pull things like “I saw a guy die once” out of their box of third grade debate cards (do you make little hearts to dot the i’s?) really the ignorant unbelievers or ignorant new believers that the rest of us are to bend over backward for? I doubt it. An educated and “mature” believer who tells others what not to eat or drink would fall into the I Timothy 4 category of those who spread “teachings of demons.”
I appreciate whoever it was earlier that said something to the effect of “this shouldn’t even be an issue.” If you want to do something about drunk driving, join MADD (or DADD if they have it). Don’t twist the Words of my God or use His Church for your own social and thereby temporal purposes.
Posted by: nathan at March 20, 2006 09:10 PMOk, if I admonished Bob for seeming vindictive I can’t ignore a warning to Nathan. Let’s leave the vitrile and sarcasm at the door. Thanks. You can proceed.
Nathan, you said: “The only reasons the Bible tells us not to drink at all is if it would cause a conscience crisis of a weaker (less mature, underdeveloped, baby — ignorant) Christian or of the unsaved (Romans 14:21-22; I Corinthians 10:23-30; and more). In both cases, this is only a restriction for the occasion, not a life-permeating command.”
Let me point you to 1 Corinthians 8:13 where Paul says: “Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.”
Does that sound like a restriction for the occasion or a permanent decision?
We can all argue about our liberty and right to drink, but our liberties and rights end where our brother’s conscience begins. Far better to give up your liberty than to cause a “little one” to stumble. Jesus made it VERY clear what he thought of those who knowingly caused their brother to stumble.
Posted by: David Siglin at March 20, 2006 09:21 PM“We can all argue about our liberty and right to drink, but our liberties and rights end where our brother’s conscience begins. Far better to give up your liberty than to cause a “little one” to stumble. Jesus made it VERY clear what he thought of those who knowingly caused their brother to stumble.”
And his point still stands. These aren’t the people involved in this discussion.
Posted by: Matthew Fitzsimmons at March 20, 2006 09:25 PMPerhaps former alcoholics who still struggle with temptation aren’t on this thread, but I was focusing our attention to the “real world” where there are people like that. It is foolish to say: “I have a right to drink so I will!” without thought for your brother. In America there are MANY MANY MANY Christians who are former alcoholics and who would stumble if they saw a stronger brother drinking. Christ lived for others. Let’s follow His example.
If you live in an area where your drinking won’t be a stumbling block then enjoy your liberty. But don’t ignore the need to not cause your brother to stumble. Nathan ignored his obligation when he posted: “I feel like the strongest arguments on the “don’t drink” side of things are “I know or have heard of people that had bad things happen when they or someone else drank.” Is this really an argument at all? Seriously?” The strongest argument against drinking is not causing your brother to stumble. Nathan’s failure to realize this shows, I think, a grave shortcoming on his part. Yeah, that sound harsh but I’m trying to be as nice about it as possible.
Your obligation to not be a stumbling block to your brother is not a point that can be argued.
Posted by: David Siglin at March 20, 2006 09:33 PM“Let me point you to 1 Corinthians 8:13 where Paul says: “Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.”
Does that sound like a restriction for the occasion or a permanent decision?”
Sounds like hyperbole to me. Do you honestly think that Paul ate no more meat after he said this? He was making a hypothetical statement. If my drinking caused my brother to stumble, I wouldn’t drink either.
But it doesn’t. Notice the if in that verse. A proof text methodology that rips texts