;)
Revisiting “Alcohol Today”
Posted by Chris Johnson in Baptist Life, Bible & Theology, News & Culture, Uncategorized
Is abstinence a worthy pursuit? I’ll answer that question right off the bat. Yes it is!…and the activity known as abstinence seen in the pages of biblical history is very well documented (Numbers, Chapter 6). With that well understood concept, it is also vitally important to remember that abstinence, as introduced in the special Nazirite (some translations render it Nazarite) vow, had very little to do with the alcoholic content of wine. The relationship of the “vow” was with what God had given to the Israelites for sustenance. And why? This vow represented a separation, a typification of Christ’s resolve to the finish a work given to him by the Father many years in the future, and there would be other clear typification’s that would occur along the way in the very same manner. Christ’s fulfillment of the type is the only resolve that is capable of maintaining complete relationship with the Father, …..as the nation of Israel had just began to learn in the days of Moses, and witnessed in the days of John the Baptist, and now live to acknowledge in the days of a risen Savior.
Peter Lumpkin’s work titled “Alcohol Today” reveals an emotionally charged appeal, but more importantly it discloses a dissimilarity to a consistent biblical hermeneutic while defining its case for abstinence to a Christian audience. I have spent quite a bit of time reducing this commentary and answer to Peter’s response from a question posed several weeks back, so pardon the brevity of the exposition of passages supporting a consistent biblical hermeneutic. Although brief,..the two themes presented are clear and unambiguous.
To be sure, my intent is not to disparage Peter or his work. As I have said repeatedly and in a previous review, I believe that his background and the many years of research have produced a book worth having on the shelf. Yet within the vein of positive attributes and his obvious motive within the 172 pages, it is important to examine its use of biblical evidence that leads to his final conclusion. That is my aim in this short response exposing why wine was given to Israel;… as well as wine at the Cana wedding. I believe that abstinence is a worthy pursuit,…yet for the same reasoning developed throughout the scriptures….which is different than the evidence given or argued for in “Alcohol Today”.
Gnostic Playground
The bottom line for slipping into a neo-Gnostic type thinking is a tendency to develop a maneuver, a subterfuge,… typically using the language of evil, or the hint of evil, while defining the game….even if the intended method leads toward a morally acceptable outcome. That is what occurs in many religious settings. Many well meaning brothers and sisters want the right thing to occur or a successful moral outcome, regardless of the expense to the Holy Spirit’s leading to rightly teach His Word.
Chapters 10 and 11 of “Alcohol Today” introduce the reader to the same neo-Gnostic flaws of past history. Not as brash and forward as typical Gnosticism, yet born of the same leaven. In the beginning of the book,…it was encouraging to read the opening nine chapters. Why? Because, even in the midst of what I suspected would be most likely the inevitable conclusion, the majority of the first nine chapters developed a reasonable history of why people drink intoxicants. In the American culture….beyond the practice of some other cultures,…I can completely agree with Peter’s assessment. Most people that drink “distilled alcoholic beverages” do so with the intention to create the buzz. The buzz seems to be a consistent and meaningful confidant. The issue then …. Is why do people think this way? Is it because of the “evil” that exists in the fermented beverage, or is it because they seek a buzz, and not a Savior? Do they seek for hedonistic idols,…and forget about love for their brothers and sisters in Christ? If the “confidant is the goal”,…certainly Christ and love are not.
To this point, it appears that Peter and I are on the same trajectory. Of course, that’s until we get to page 81 of the book. This is where the words begin to veer off of a consistent hermeneutical course and then begin to set in motion an eisegetical biblical argument for a moral construct …when he writes:
“First, rehearsing passages from the Bible that offer positive support for a particular moral position – in this case, wine is to be enjoyed in moderation – without fairly dealing with those passages that appear to negate the position one is advocating is both unacceptable and inadequate in forging a moral construct – especially a moral position in which its foundation is the Word of God. The truth is, we shall see later, many passages of Scripture offer negative support for consuming wine.
Second, the unproven premise on which moderation is constructed is that whenever the Bible speaks of wine, it speaks of only one particular type of wine; that is, wine which is fermented and therefore intoxicating. We intend to show this premise to be both unproven and unlikely. Consequently, if we are correct, the entire moral construct of moderately consuming alcoholic beverages for recreational purposes collapses. If God commends some wines (non-intoxicating) but condemns others (intoxicating), no moral case can be made from Scripture for the recreational use of intoxicating beverages today. Even more, if no moral case can be made for intoxicating beverages, we possess full moral authority to make a solid case against the recreational use of any and all intoxicating substances regardless of whether is it consumed in beverages, swallowed as capsules, or directly injected. Obviously, the medicinal usage of drugs is not in view. The Bible makes this clear (cp. [compare passage] 1 Tim. 5:23; more on this passage follows).”
This section of the book is very confusing and misleading. First of all, there is little consistency on the terms used; intoxicating beverages, alcoholic beverages for recreational purposes, wine, intoxicating substances…consumed in beverages, and a few other naming conventions are used by the author.
We get a little better idea about the definition, albeit an inaccurate statement rendered on pages 67-68:
“First, the “wine” about which the Bible speaks – fermentation aside – is hardly the mass-produced, distilled substances sold exclusively for recreational usage in bars and supermarkets today. And, contrary to what some suggest, whether, contextually, the substance of Scripture either commended or condemned is identical to the substances available today really does not make a difference. Thus, we must address this possible substance discrepancy. In Part 3 I intend to focus more on this.Second, to limit the biblical record’s application to simply “wine” or even alcoholic beverages for that matter neglects the much larger and desperately needed application to an endless parade of intoxicants whose primary purpose is identical to “wine” – stimulating pleasure. Incidentally, once again we must remind ourselves, unlike the ancients who necessarily consumed grape products specifically for survival, those lobbying for moderately consuming intoxicants today in the form of drinking distilled wines, beers, and other alcoholic beverages are lobbying for consumption distinctively driven by pleasure alone.
Even so, Scripture knows nothing of mind-altering drugs we have today on both open and black markets. Nevertheless we believe biblical revelation speaks definitively – albeit indirectly – about them. Furthermore, as we construct our moral position on consuming intoxicating substances, “wine” is simply one of many intoxicants within a conglomeration of substances a biblically driven ethic brands as largely immoral if used strictly for recreational purposes.”
The language of the book seems to convey, and it is certainly clarified by the end of the book, that “intoxicating substances” (such as fermented wine) in and of themselves are immoral agents (active against morals)… as though stemming from evil. This type of language is common to a religio-gnostic tone. Teachers must be careful when they begin to develop a “biblically driven ethic” without a consistent biblical hermeneutic. No matter the lack of definition that is given to beverages that bring pleasure and are associated to recreation….. I would estimate that the beverages that we drink are pleasurable,….that seems to be a reasonable pursuit for drinking something other than water (some water tastes better than others as well…and today…to make water even more consistent, we treat it or filter it).
Additionally,….Did the ancients know of mind altering intoxicants and drugs?….you bet they did! That is abundantly clear from the history and customs of ancient Egypt. So, the current culture’s use of drugs and intoxicants would be no surprise to the ancient world during the time of the Exodus. The larger and more important question is…. do the Scriptures agree with what Peter’s book seems to deduce about “biblical wine” in its natural stages of formation? Let’s look further to understand this better….and reveal a biblical and less complex design for “wine”; bearing a solid hermeneutic.
The Fruit of the Vine
“Fruit of the Vine”…What an expression! An outstanding gift from God to His people and a clear and unambiguous typological language that extends from the very formation of God’s chosen people until we meet again at the marriage supper of the Lamb. The final cup with our Lord will be glorious and will be revealing of the final “type” rendered time and time again in God’s dealings with His people.
Why was “wine” given as a type and gift to Israel?
This was God’s “provision” to His people. Not a provision for six to twelve hours only,… before fermentation ensues as the natural yeast enzymes begin to act upon the sugar of the grape, but moreover a provision throughout the year until the next season. God made wine for the season, not for one day only, or a fraction thereof. This is the context of all the verses illuminating “new wine”. New wine was the introduction of the provision, not a sign of alcoholic content. Israel understood the feasts and the seasons as God had described…..and in the thirty nine (5 of which appear in the New Testament letters) or so instances where “new wine” is described in the scriptures, the hermeneutic for describing “new wine” as symbolic of the “beginning of the harvest season”…. It is unanimous. The “new wine” expression is not written to convey at what stage this beverage was “to be” drank (that would only serve eisegetical maneuvering),… but in each instance and with clarity “new wine” demonstrated the initiation of and the sustaining nourishment provided by God throughout the season. In all instances, except for three, the intent of the writer is to express the provision and promise of God. The other three are exposed for another reason by Hosea. The expression “new wine” is indicative of God’s promise to provide a promised fertile land for wheat, barley, grapes, and other foods designed to nourish and sustain the people in this land of milk and honey. “New Wine” is the seasonal expression of God’s goodness of initiating his sustaining power “season after season” for His people. God’s promises are true, and His people benefit forever, ….not for a few hours.
Furthermore, it is clear and consistent that the natural process God created for the preserving of this “new wine” is fermentation. Fermentation, which ensues in earnest by the sixth hour after crushing the grape, is its natural and God delivered process for the seasonal sustaining of this food source. Wild yeast, more distinctively known as “enzymes” floating throughout the land of milk and honey would naturally cling to the receptive skin of the grape and wait as tiny engines, rendered by God, to assist Israel in its effort to sustain its people throughout the year. The annual harvest yielded grapes, covered with enzymes, designed to convert the juice of the grape into wine. This is clearly depicted by Hosea as God demonstrates what He had created for His people, and subsequently laid bare that provision in judgment for their deeds:
“For she does not know that it was I who gave her the grain, the new wine and the oil, And lavished on her silver and gold, Which they used for Baal. “Therefore, I will take back My grain at harvest time And My new wine in its season. I will also take away My wool and My flax Given to cover her nakedness.
(Hosea 2:8-9)“It will come about in that day that I will respond,” declares the LORD. “I will respond to the heavens, and they will respond to the earth, And the earth will respond to the grain, to the new wine and to the oil, And they will respond to Jezreel. “I will sow her for Myself in the land. I will also have compassion on her who had not obtained compassion, And I will say to those who were not My people, ‘You are My people!’ And they will say, ‘You are my God!’”
(Hosea 2:21-23)My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children. The more they multiplied, the more they sinned against Me; I will change their glory into shame. They feed on the sin of My people And direct their desire toward their iniquity. And it will be, like people, like priest; So I will punish them for their ways And repay them for their deeds. They will eat, but not have enough; They will play the harlot, but not increase, Because they have stopped giving heed to the LORD. Harlotry, wine and new wine take away the understanding. My people consult their wooden idol, and their diviner’s wand informs them; For a spirit of harlotry has led them astray, And they have played the harlot, departing from their God. They offer sacrifices on the tops of the mountains And burn incense on the hills, Under oak, poplar and terebinth, Because their shade is pleasant. Therefore your daughters play the harlot And your brides commit adultery. I will not punish your daughters when they play the harlot Or your brides when they commit adultery, For the men themselves go apart with harlots And offer sacrifices with temple prostitutes; So the people without understanding are ruined.
(Hosea 4:6-14)
It is important to note that Hosea does not make the argument on the “alcoholic” content of the wine. He reminds the people of God’s provision of grain, new wine as a season spawned gift, and wine throughout the year, etc. , and yet “all” of the provisions have taken away the understanding of the people. Hosea, does not play the religious Gnostic ploy,… his prophetic warning demonstrates that the true God is a jealous God, and it is God that demands obedience from his people. God provided the wine throughout the year,…therefore it is demanded that his people worship him and thank him for the provision in its season. “New Wine” is representative of what God is providing as a promise to his people,..once again, it is not referring to some legal limit of alcoholic content, or level of fermentation.
The fruit of the vine, from its introduction each season as “new wine” hinged upon God’s language of provision, …never depicting any stage of fermentation, which naturally began very soon after the grape was crushed and its juice rendered; being used throughout the year for offerings, harvest celebrations, and annual food supplies. Hosea has no need to define alcohol as evil… since the decision to use God’s provisions wrongly is in view. This same consistent hermeneutic is also present against those offering food to idols at Corinth and in the Apostle Paul’s warnings to the church through his letters to Timothy and Titus. The Apostle Paul’s warnings were no different than that of Hosea; a consistent understanding of the Holy Spirit’s working in the lives of his chosen people to be obedient to the Savior and have love one for another.
Was Cana’s Wedding About Wine?
Let’s examine the truth of the scriptures and apply it to this question.
On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus *said to Him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus *said to her, “Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come.” His mother *said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.” Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each. Jesus *said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” So they filled them up to the brim. And He *said to them, “Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.” So they took it to him. When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter *called the bridegroom, and *said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him. After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother and His brothers and His disciples; and they stayed there a few days. The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
(John 2:1-13)
The passage that explains Christ’s first miracle is actually for that purpose; “a miracle”, ….and, secondarily this easily recognizable beverage, wine, gives unquestionable context to this “miracle event”. As the Apostle John describes the event, he is careful to show us the clear and untainted view of Christ’s first miracle. The headwaiter knew of only “the taste” of the wine present during the season. So, he was a good judge of the knowing the difference of water, watered down wine, and wine. Thus John builds a wonderful case at the beginning of the passage where the waiter is unaware of the wine that is about to be presented to him during this March wedding. March weddings are always great and celebratory in the land of Israel, especially around Cana, as the seasonal rains begin to usher in the barley harvest, and all kinds of plants are poised to spring into bloom. In fact, the shriveled vines that will ultimately carry the fruit begin to drink in these spring rains, so as the summer emerges within the next few months,… grape harvests become an amazing site and reality in July and August. This was of particular interest to the waiter, since the good wine had not only been brought out, but exhausted,…so he became a bit perplexed to discover that some additional wine had been found and the lighter less fortified beverage was not available as was the custom at this juncture in the wedding.
So it was, that the servants, and ultimately the disciples actually knew of the most important event “the miracle”….where the uninformed waiter only verified the vintage with no pretense of its quality. He was not aware of the miracle, but he was aware of the taste of Israel’s wine which can only be compared from the previous summer harvest. What Jesus provided for him, was comparable to the good wine which had already been delivered at the wedding…first.
To be absolutely clear,…Cana was about “a Miracle”. The wine was an amazing reminder and type… clearly pointing to the provision that God was providing for His people and will always provide for His people. The quality of the wine was well known, so that the servants and others may know of God’s provision without hesitation, and this was to manifest Christ’s Glory.
Where Does Abstinence Fit In
While I can agree with Peter that much of the contemporary culture is hedonistically involved with distilled wines, and a multitude of alcoholic beverage,….. it is not hermeneutically accurate or honest to paint emotionally sifted definitions onto clear and unambiguous biblical passages concerning God’s provision for His people. There really is no need to forge new moral constructs, when obedience to God’s command has already been forged through the power of the Holy Spirit.
A case in point is my own personal testimony concerning abstinence. I take God’s word seriously, as it teaches me not to be drunk with wine.
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father; and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.
(Ephesians 5:15-21)
I have been filled with the Spirit since my eighth birthday….and not one time in fifty years have I ever been drunk. Please don’t think that is unusual, or that I am trying to bring attention to my works….since my concept of not getting drunk is a conscience effort of obedience to God. I make that choice every day of my life by the gracious gift of the Holy Spirit. Have I drunk wine, yes I have. Even though I do not drink much wine at all…. I have and may drink wine in the future (I probably have enough fingers and toes to count the occasions so far), yet I will not be drunk. The difference is clear to me….and there may be times in my life that I will choose not to drink wine. To practice abstinence is a good thing….especially if there is an occasion to love my brother or sister in Christ. I am “subject” to my brother or sister in Christ….so I choose to serve them.
Serving my brothers and sisters with a clear and unambiguous hermeneutic concerning why God gave wine is extremely important as well. Clouding the unambiguous hermeneutic concerning wine with emotional pleas for a new moral standard beyond what is clearly designed and presented as God’s provision to His people is counterproductive to the body of Christ,…and in a very real way reaches back to all of the Children of Israel, indicting the feasts and intentions of those serving the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Blessings,
Chris
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Brother Chris,
It has been a long time and it is good to interact with you again. I hate that this interaction comes with a disagreement but it is what it is.
Your position is one that is not new. You argue for the right to drink, never do you argue for the right to not drink. You take on Brother Peter’s arguments as if they are unique to him. If you will notice his arguments have a historical basis. While your arguments may have great appeal to Christians in today’s society there is no historical basis for them. Certainly no historical argument for the consumption of beverage alcohol prior to prohibition.
One more point that I believe those who argue for the moderation approach have failed miserably to answer. If I were to accept the moderation argument then I would be very remiss and even dishonest with myself to argue the wine today was to be used in moderation. No one has ever, nor ever will, argue that the wine today is the same as the wine in the biblical times. The wine today is referred to as “strong drink” of the biblical times. Thus, any argument for moderation today fails miserably due to the content factor of the wines today.
Now, you may drink one glass of wine today and not be “drunk”. However, you cannot argue, scientifically or otherwise, that you are not impaired. So, the question has to be answered; how much impairment from beverage alcohol does God allow, a little drunk or a lot of drunk?
Blessings,
Tim
From a biblical interpretive standpoint…… what evidence is there that “wine” remained unfermented as beverage for Israel throughout the year? Is there any biblical evidence besides what is offered as:
1. Jesus (God) would never do such a thing….., which would demand the conclusion that evil exists during fermentation.
Is there any other evidence?… since:
1. Evidence is clear that fermentation is a natural occurrence.
2. In the case of crushed grapes….. documented science relative to the time for fermentation to begin is no later than six hours.
3. Biblical evidence is that wine was stored, and used throughout the year and at festivals and is the provision that God provided for the people.
4. Biblical evidence reveals both the use and abuse of wine.
5. The Bible explains the blessings and warnings for wine throughout the year and in the lives of the Israelites.
It was several years back that John MacArthur went through this same exercise. He had come up with the same marginal constructs as you (Tim) are referring to, and as Peter has put forward again in his work,….but after further study, he had no option than to revert back to a consistent biblical hermeneutic for the sake of his listeners. During his stubborn time…. He was trying to convince folks that the good Israelites only drank a beverage that was reconstituted grape paste with water. His change in teaching on the subject did not change his recommendation to remain abstinent,….which he certainly has every right to maintain. But he did realize the error of overstating his view above and beyond the plain and simple biblical hermeneutic concerning wine for Israel.
So John remains teachable……and now less political..
Brother Chris,
Sorry for being away so long. Getting ready for a mission trip on Friday and last minute loose ends are killing me.
I am not sure about John McAurthur but I know I will not allow my child to drink wine today, but in the biblical times they allowed their children to drink such. Thus, if he has changed it appears he has done so not on a wholistic biblical hermeneutic but on a political expediency one.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim, You ask how much “impairment” is allowed? Biblically, we can say…
Enough to make the heart glad. (Ps. 104:15)
Enough to take the ‘common man’s’ mind off his troubles. (Prov. 31:6-7)
Enough to help one enjoy a wedding celebration. (John 2)
All those are more than none. You need to stop calling evil what the Holy Spirit has called good in the Bible.
And stop saying no one will answer your question. If no one has yet, it’s been done now.
Brother Brent,
Your positions are medicinal at least and an affirmation for drunkeness at best. Notice the positions you take concern, not the drinking of wine for the sake of social consumption but for the sake of medicinal purposes. Also, the one example you use for the consumption until impairment is for celebration. Something the Scripture clearly does not endorse.
So, am I to understand we are to drink for the sake of feeling good? We are to drink to “unwind” from a hard day? This is the first steps of understanding one is an alcoholic.
Not trying to be hard but this is exactly what I am saying. The wines of the Scripture did not “impair” anyone after one serving. However, after one serving of today’s wines one is impaired. It may not be to the point of not being able to drive, but impairment is evident and proven.
So the argument moves from the level of moderation to the level of how much drunkeness does God allow.
Blessings,
Tim
Of course in the Rogers/Lumpkins style, there is no good answer to your question because you frame it incorrectly.
“How much drunkenness does God allow?” None. the Bible clearly decries drunkenness. But drinking is not drunkenness—A distinction overly clear in the Bible which you refuse to acknowledge. (That is, I think, the point of Chris’ original post.)
As the Ps 104 and Pr 31 show, the Bible does not condemn drinking enough alcohol so that one feels the calming, ‘making-glad’ effects. The line is between THAT and drunkenness. You’re trying to redefine drunkenness to include that. In doing so, you’re being unfaithful to Scripture.
Brother Brent,
It is not the “Rogers/Lumpkins” perspective. It is common sense when one reads the Scriptures in context of author setting/intent when he writes and not in context as to modern day society.
Thank you we agree!!! Now how much impairment is drunkenness?
Blessings,
Tim
Chris,
Thanks for the article. I appreciate the balance you offer. Not balance between two opposing views, but balance in recognizing that both the positive and negative passages of the Bible call for care, caution, and conscientious decision on the part of each person.
Brother Andrew,
Am I reading that your argument is the wines of the Scripture and the wines of today are the same?
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I agree with Chris that wine is not a moral agent. So it is not any more or less holy to drink a glass of wine with 10% alcohol content instead of one with 20% alcohol content. Alcoholic beverages today range in their alcohol content, and it’s a mistake to assume that people in Old Testament and New Testament times were unable to produce higher-proof beverages back then or to assume that all their alcoholic beverages amounted to little more than a Mountain Dew. I find this quote from Danny Akin (quoting Robert Stein) to be laughable:
Yet the Bible doesn’t warn about drinking too much wine because people might lose bladder control. It warns us about getting drunk. Drunk is drunk. And if a half a glass of wine, a can of beer, and a shot of whiskey all contain the same amount of alcohol, it’s not that one is more or less holy than the others, but the reasons for and the results of the drinking that are sinful or not.
Brother Andrew,
Would you promote parents to you allow their child, regardless of age, to drink wine today?
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
You’ve asked me this question before. My response is the same.
Is there something you’re trying to get at with this question? I doubt that you’re asking me because you’re wondering if it’s okay or not.
I’m sure Andrew is plenty capable of responding but I’ll say this… Is your only method of response to try and trap people in their words? Do you not know how to have a substantive conversation?
Are the wines of Scripture and the wines of today the same? Yes and no. Sure there’s a difference. But it’s one of degree, and not one that matters much to this discussion. The wine throughout Scripture was clearly able to make people drunk. Did it take more back then? Possibly so. It doesn’t change the principle that the Bible lays out. Drinking is not drunkenness.
Brother Brent,
Drinking is not drunkenness, you are correct. See we agree again. Impairment is drunkenness. The level of impairment is man made, but the bible calls impairment drunkenness. The question you need to answer, without accusing me again of trying to catch someone in their words, is simple. What level of mental/physical impairment as a result of drinking beverage alcohol does the Bible allow? But you cannot answer that question because you would have to admit that “buzzed driving is drunk driving.”
Blessings,
Tim
Thanks for giving this some thought Tim,…. Good to hear from you as well!
You are right,…the position that I advocate is very well known throughout history as a consistent hermeneutical approach to understanding the intent of God’s provision for His people. I agree that Brother Peter’s arguments are not unique to him,…yet they are unique to a consistent hermeneutic, and are not inconsistent with applying evil to nature as some groups tend to have done throughout history.
I don’t think my arguments are going to appeal to Pastor’s that try to defend a position of moderation for the sake of their “right” to drink. There is no such right!….at least with whatever moderation is defined to be by various groups. There is the commond to love your brother….which opens up the real reason for abstaining from drink or food. Abstinence is a biblically substantiated advantage for believers, but not for the arguments and reasons espoused in the “Alcohol Today” book.
I don’t argue for moderation….. I argue for a consistent hermeneutic,…not for today’s crowd…. That is actually what Peter has done. The book seems to be written for a crowd of folks,….not necessarily to a group of Christians with a consistent biblical hermeneutic.
So, instead of taking this to a theological position…… you seem to be comfortable moving to “what level” of alcohol is acceptable. This is not the intent of the use of wine in scripture as well. It’s the wrong argument IMHO…..and an argument that dodges a historical biblical hermenuetic.
From a scientific standpoint…… are you also trying to argue that there are wines today that are not at the same level of alcoholic content as ancient wines given by God to the Israelites? It is pretty obvious that distilled and enhanced beverages increase the alcohol level………. , but to argue that wine produced today is somehow always in that category with say 100 proof is just silly.
Again….that is not the point of the post anyway.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
The one thing each of us must remember is that we each approach Scripture from certain hermaneutical predispositions. One is as apt to be considered hermaneutically incorrect, as another based upon those predispositions.
Now, lest anyone stomp on me, I do not mean to imply there are no absolutes. I am saying, that for example, a 5-pointer and non-5-pointer can exegete the same passage and come away with vast dis-similar conclusions.
There is terrible danger in supposing, about questionable things, that we have the absolute truth. Either one way or the other.
Mike
Chris,
Well done. You have pointed out what many people need to realize, that the term “wine” refers to a continuum, not a discrete product. The Israelites used the “wine” from the moment it was crushed, through every stage of fermentation, all the way to vinegar.
There is absolutely no evidence that the Israelites were a teetotaling race, or that they were ever meant to be a teetotaling race. Their consumption of food and drink was regulated to the finest degree. If they were meant to abstain from alcohol, the Moses would surely have recorded it in the Law.
The wine steward remarked that the best wine was usually served first, and the cheap stuff was brought out when everyone had “after the guests have had too much to drink”. That doesn’t sound as if the “good wine” was grape juice. And what would the “too much” criteria be?
It seems clear to me from what’s actually in that passage, that the “best wine” was alcoholic in content.
Brent, you make a good case, too. When Peg and I go on a cruise, I typically have a glass of red wine with dinner. It does what you state, in addition to aiding in my digestion, which can be problematic (I think that’s the first time I ever actually used the word “problematic”…) when we’d eat a typically late dinner.
If I eat dinner after 6:30 or so, my digestion stops when I go to bed and I will wake up quite nauseous. That happened several times annually when I went to London on business and we had dinner with our people at Lloyd’s, always late in the evening. That one glass of red wine solved the problem, without fail.
There are plenty of absolutes in the Bible, but abstinence for all believers isn’t one of them.
Mike,
I agree…. We are all in that boat!
What I am attempting to do here though is come to a consistent and reasonable conclusion based upon a hermeneutical principle.
For instance,….even though I personally have been raised to not drink beer, alcoholic beverages, etc., I should not use that predilection as an opportunity to bring everyone into my upbringing. There are so many times that guys, now Pastors, take us into their intrepid past with an agenda to rid the world of what they could not control on their own or assuming now even with the Holy Spirit. That is the wrong approach to life, and a disaster when it comes to a clear and consistent hermeneutic…..and a defeated approach to being drunk in the Spirit.
The scriptures are not that difficult….. and we as teachers should not use our experiences to trump teaching the scriptures rightly.
Blessings,
Chris
I think a discussion of the place of alcoholic beverages within the context of 21st century America is a needed one. As evidenced (especially amongst American Christians) by our burgeoning waistlines, Americans as a whole are incredibly over-consumptive. Moderation is largely foreign to us and indeed, over-consumption is in many ways touted as a virtue in our culture. Add alcohol to that context, and you have the problems we see in our culture. There are certainly principles a Christian worldview can bring to that discussion.
But that is a different matter than whether the bible forbids consumption of beverages containing alcohol. In that discussion, American culture is irrelevant.
Chris, thanks for this carefully thought out response.
Thank you Mark,
Biblical fidelity is important to the hearer. My response to Peter is more along the lines of what does the scripture really say relative to the “provision” that God gave,….instead of trying to use scripture out of context and/or for selfish purposes to push some personal agenda.
There is a lot to learn from the 39 instances of “new wine” in the scriptures…..since each and every one of them has nothing to do with an argument over fermentation. In fact, it is an acknowledgement of the process that God has designed.
The impact of understanding the reason and the “why” concerning the the author’s use of the term “new wine” is thrilling to understand, because it illustrates the promises that God gave and sustained for His people.
Knowing that….and understanding the real reason for the event at Cana is outstanding.
Chris,
Thanks for this much needed post and well-thought out, balanced approach to such a controversial issue. I did not grow up around alcohol abuse. My parents did not and still do not drink, nor do I. Ironically, however, this distance from alcohol made it even easier for me to condemn alcohol and those who drink it as unlawfully seeking after pleasure. As I have grown older, I have not only recognized the lack of biblical warrant for my prior position, but also have recognized that many godly people drink, not out of a desire to get drunk, but with thankfulness to God.
By the way, neither wine nor beer are distilled beverages. Not then, not now. The alcohol content would be similar, unless the wine was diluted with water. The ancients had access to the same stuff we do.
To all,
After reading the comment stream it appears that I am certainly in the minority here so instead of continuing to instigate negative comments and attitudes toward me I will just bow out.
You know my position and that it a clear hermeneutic approach based, not on today’s societal desires to drink and be part of the culture, but on the clear teaching of scripture–anything that impairs is drunkenness.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
Again,….you are arguing an entirely different subject. You are wanting someone to set a limit for you………that you can agree with…..
What seems to be abuntantly clear in scripture…. is that God gave Israel wine as a provision to sustain and protect His people throughout the year,…along with a clear teaching of never to be drunk on what He had provided. God certainly planned for and provided the process of fermentation which does keep the wine potable and sustained for the duration of the year. Therein rests our theological and hermeneutical differences. It appears that you believe that God did not provide wine for the purpose of sustaining His people throughout the year. It appears that you believe and as Peter argues,…… that fermentation is an evil process, with an evil result, therefore anyone who partakes of wine wherein these processes have occurred……they are in sin…….since as you put allude to…..any level of alcohol ingested is impairing.
So that seems to be your basis for interpretation.
Tim,….I believe I understand your position,…. Which I would agree is a certain type of hermeneutic, yet not a biblically consistent one. The impairment argument (where fermentation is absent) simply will not stand against the clear provision made by God for His people and demonstrated throughout the scripture.
The other question,…theologically is……… Can God’s provision and sustaining of grapes through fermentation be applied in the same way today, or has a culture eliminated God’s law and expectation. In other words,….Can we not trust the Holy Spirit to maintain the same law that was given to the Israelites of ancient times the same way today.
Your answer seems to say…..no we can’t trust the Holy Spirit.
-Chris
Some other things.
Are you arguing that there was no process to preserve the wine in its natural state once it was removed from the grape? You are either being intentionally deceptive or you are ignorant of history. There are multitudes of historical facts that reveal the wines of the New Testament were not fermented. One such scholarly resource is; “Dictionary of Religious Knowledge” in an article by Dr. Lyman Abbott. Dr. Abbott says;
So, Chris, it appears your argument for fermented alcohol can only stand up to your “consistent hermeneutic” approach because you come to the text with a preconceived notion that the Bible interprets all wine as being fermented. When it is clear, according to the context of the scripture and the historical data that is not the case.
Blessings,
Tim
Those processes obviously were available…and surely some availed themselves of that practice….so no preconceived notion on my part……..what’s your point?….. that Israel had this non-fermenting routine as the law of the land? Where is your evidence for such in the scriptures?
Brother Chris,
What’s my point? Come on!! You and others have argued the wine had to be fermented because they could not preserve the wine.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Chris,
One more time. I am not arguing for a limit to be imposed. I am arguing that impairment today and “drunk” in Scriptural times are the same thing. You are impaired after drinking one glass of wine. Now if you consume it with your meal during a dinner, one will have to drink more to be at the same point of impairment if you drank the glass of wine by itself with no meal. Either way, with a meal or without, impairment sets in. There is no limit imposed and no one is trying to impose a limit. I am using a consistent hermeneutic in my approach. Does the Bible define “drunk” as being sloppy and falling all over the place? No, it doesn’t. “Drunk” as defined in a consistent hermeneutic can mean sloppy but it can also mean being impaired. Thus, instead of spending all of your time on defining the wines, fruit of the vine, and other nebulous arguments that gives you the piousness to drink and then drive buzzed because that is not drunk, you should follow a consistent hermeneutic approach to define drunkenness. Even the alcohol companies recognize that being buzzed is the same as being drunk.
Blessings,
Tim
Furthermore Brother Tim,….look at Christ’s analogy of wine to new life as one simple example of the many. Christ is not arguing for drinking wine or not drinking wine, or that wine will be filled up to the brim if you drink,…or that every Christian that lives post resurrection should have the right to imbibe moderately. It is very obvious that his analogy is born out of the reality, knowledge, and understanding of his listeners , his own disciples, and then many others that would hear and eventually read this same analogy.
“And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled out, and the skins will be ruined. “But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. “And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, ‘The old is good enough.’”
(Luke 5:37-39)
Jesus knew of the wine and its attributes and made it an excellent teaching tool. His metaphor is real life to the disciples, who clearly understood his remark, since they had lived in the culture for many years following generation after generation which is illuminated by his opening statement “And no one”.
Maybe he (Christ) just pulled this analogy out of thin air….or maybe he used it only because the pagans practiced storing new wine in old wineskins. I don’t think so….. It is more realistic to recognize that Christ was comparing a well known practice (for all peoples) to a real change in “newness of life”. These are the types of examples that are used to illuminate the culture and times, and form a proper hermeneutic for interpretation. Jesus did not have any political ax to grind with his disciples…..his teaching methodology certainly allows us to form context.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Chris,
Are you now arguing that Christ’s analogy to new and old wine is his admonishing us that drinking wine is ok? Not quite sure I can follow this one.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,….Christ knew what wine was in Israel….so it made for a very good analogy.
A consistent hermeneutic for abstinence would (I think) have to hold that the Israelites were a nation of teetotalers (or at least were commanded to be). Where in the Law is that prohibition found?
Also, there is no evidence in scripture that suggests that the Israelites kept their wine in its unfermented state, even if they knew how. Quite the opposite in fact, because they had and used vinegar.
Bill,
You bring up the pivotal argument, “evidence”. As Tim has stated,….there is no question that ancients tried many methods with the grapes, in both directions…. increasing alcoholic content by adding sugar,…or decreasing it by adding other chemical, sulfur compounds, etc.
Of course there is no law concerning the wine, yet there are numerous warnings against drunkenness.
You are right about the evidence from scripture…..which is the primary content for developing a consistent hermeneutic, along with the language and the culture if its time. Using the modern culture to give a reason for why wine is to be realized only in a non-fermented state as acceptable wine ….is not a reasonable response.
The argument that “impairment”, whatever that means, equals drunkenness is where it falls apart. It may be technically true, by modern scientific levels of accuracy and measurement, that any level of alcohol in the bloodstream will produce a corresponding level of “impairment”, albeit in many cases one that is not noticeable. But this level of precision is unknown to the ancients, and there is no prohibition against impairment. It can’t be had both ways. Even if alcoholic wine was heavily watered, it would still produce impairment by today’s level of precision. Was that sin? Clearly not.
I have followed these alcohol debates for some time. I have never seen anyone on the abstentionist side make the claim that the Israelites were teetotalers. I think a consistent hermeneutic demands that they must have been, and that the prohibition be clearly spelled out in the Law.
Brother Bill,
Ok, I will bite.
Are you arguing that when the Bible says “drunkenness” it is referring to sloppy, knuckle dragging, slobbering spittle, and violating personal space, drunk? What is “drunk”?
Also, are you arguing that there was a difference in being “impaired” in biblical times and being “impaired” today? Really! Really?
Blessings,
Tim
“Are you arguing that when the Bible says “drunkenness” it is referring to sloppy, knuckle dragging, slobbering spittle, and violating personal space, drunk? What is “drunk”?”
I am arguing that drunk means drunk, as in clearly drunk. Not some infinitesimal and unrecognizable level of biological impairment. Being “impaired” is not necessarily a sin, since there are lots of biological agents besides alcohol that interfere with normal bodily functions (either by increasing them or decreasing them). The bible never speaks of “impairment”, but rather drunkenness.
I’m arguing that the modern word “impaired” is not the same as the biblical word “drunk”.
There is, as far as I know, no culture in the world, nor has there ever been, that considers a person with ANY level of alcohol in them, to be drunk. Law enforcement authorities use greater precision when drawing the line between someone who is legally drunk and someone who is not, but not one of them, as far as I know, draw that line at zero alcohol. So everyone in the world, throughout history, of every culture, Christian or not, seems to recognize that there is a distinction between having a drink and being drunk, except a tiny subset of modern (mostly American) evangelicals.
You cannot redefine words.
Do you believe that Israel was a nation of teetotalers, and that they were commanded to be so? If so, could you point me to the place in the Law where that command is?
Brother Tim,
“What’s my point? Come on!! You and others have argued the wine had to be fermented because they could not preserve the wine.”
I have never argued that point….. in fact, I agreed with your point. The normative preparation for wine though, during biblical times, was the process of fermentation. Certainly today….the grape can be arrested of the natural process of fermentation with much more precision, accuracy and frequency. The natural process though, remains the same, and would give the same results even today.
What is your biblical evidence that the normative nature of wine in Israel was unfermented throughout the year?
The statement was made above that wine begins to ferment after six hours, as though the ancients could do nothing about it. The same could be said of a cow after it was killed. Does that mean all meat was rotten meat back then? Of course not. They had multiple ways of preserving meat; and multiple ways of preserving wine, whether fermented or unfermented.
Wine does not ferment if the temperature is too high or too low.
They had a number of ways to preserve unfermented wine or grape juice: http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2010/10/preserving-unfermented-wine-in-bible.html
In Bible times distilling was not known. So they could not get the alcohol content higher than about 15%; most alcoholic wine would have been much less, especially since their custom was to mix it heavily with water.
They obviously had alcoholic wine. They just as obviously had nonalcoholic wine. They called both wine. That is why it is unjustified to assume all wine in Scripture was alcoholic wine. Or to assume their wine was the same as ours.
By the way, Peter Lumpkins’ book, “Alcohol Today,” is a great book that should be read by everyone. It clears up a lot of misconceptions.
David R. Brumbelow
Just because some of the ancients may have been able to preserve juice in its unfermented form doesn’t mean that they did it, or that it was a typical or widespread practice.
I said this above but I’ll say it again, wine is not a distilled beverage. Not then, not now. I don’t know what people think the percentage of alcohol in wine is, but it is well below the need for distillation. The ancients could easily make wine comparable to what is available today. Whether they watered it is not relevant. The question is whether a beverage containing alcohol is forbidden. If it is, then it doesn’t matter the alcohol percentage.
David,
I don’t disagree with you….that it is worth getting Peter’s book. His book does have some good and helpful information. The caution though,….as you read the book, it is important to understand the motive, which he does explain in the beginning. Abstinence is a Godly and worthy pursuit which does not need to be tied to a poor hermeneutic. The important matter is…. study the 39 instances of new wine in the scriptures and understand what it is illuding to….it is not building a presciption for the content of alcohol in wine whether high or low. In greater distinction it is discussing God’s provision each season for the people that were given the promised land.
-Chris
Every English translation of the Bible says that Jesus turned water into wine. In English wine has one meaning:
From Wikipedia: Wine is an alcoholic beverage, made of fermented fruit juice, usually from grapes.
To claim to have some deeper knowledge about ‘wine’ than everyone else leads to the charge of gnosticism.
Peter’s book tries to cloud the issue and say that sometimes wine doesn’t mean wine. But we are not in vacuum here. There are still Jews today and for the passover they STILL drink wine. I asked Peter this before and he thought the question unimportant but I ask again, Can you show where in history the Jews stopped drinking non-alcoholic grape juice and started drinking wine? If you can not then the only sensible thing to conclude is that Jesus drank wine. If he did why are we condemning him? How can we? I don’t drink. There are a bunch of reasons for that but one of them is NOT because wine is evil in and of itself.
The way we approach this issue is making us look foolish. I have no problem being foolish for Christ but if my foolishness is turning people away from the truth of Christ how will that please Him?
Better yet, is there any evidence that the Jews EVER used grape juice for Passover?
Chris:
I just do not see how those that position themselves in the abstinence camp support their positions without twisting the scriptures in the Bible. It is just way to much of a stretch to believe that the wine in Jesus day was nonalcoholic grape juice.
My greatest concern is when they want to use their abstinence position to disqualify people from ministry positions.
Tom,
Not only is it a stretch…. it is poor biblical scholarship. I, like so many others,…and like the Apostle Paul understand the act of disobedience to be drunk with wine,…. so did Timothy or he would have not had any questions as to whether he could consume wine or not. Fortunately for those that understand the scriptures….the Apostle Paul is crystal clear as to the evil or non-evil present in the fermented wine. Gnostics,…like so many others that play in that world….tend to want to clean up the substance, instead of clean up the actions. To pin or transition disobedience into whether wine is fermented or unfermented is simply poor teaching. There is a lot to be said about men that would be disqualified from teaching because poor or vascilating hermeneutic.
Chris:
I detest and maybe that is too strong of a word the legalism these folks try to place on others about alcohol. And for the record I do not drink alcohol but could not in all honesty show my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ the verses in the Bible that condemn any and all drinking.
BTW, I think you are correct about this being Gnosticism.
The methods ancients used to preserve unfermented wine (grape juice) were widely used and historical evidence shows this to be true. If the ancient Jews were clueless about preserving food and drink, they would not have survived long. Just because you don’t know how, doesn’t mean they did not know how. The Gulf Coast Pastor article referenced above gives some of that documentation. Ancients even gave wine recipes that could not have possibly been alcoholic. And yes, they called it wine. Like “drink” today, sometimes “wine” referred to an intoxicating drink, sometimes it did not.
The juice just pressed out of grapes is never alcoholic; it is always fresh unfermented wine or grape juice. Yet the Bible calls that fresh unfermented juice “wine” multiple times (Proverbs 3:10; Isaiah 16:10; Joel 2:24; etc. ). The modern English versions call this fresh juice “wine” as well. Aristotle, Plutarch, Hippocrates, Athenaeus, and others spoke of how some wine would intoxicate, and some would not.
If the English word “wine” never refers to nonalcoholic wine, why do liquor stores have a “Nonalcoholic Wine” aisle? Why does the Oxford Companion to Wine refer to nonalcoholic wine?
While not all Jews, there are many accounts of Jews ancient and modern using unfermented wine in Passover and other ceremonies.
Many Bible scholars have pointed out that the word for wine (oinos) in John 2 could refer to either alcoholic or nonalcoholic wine. The immediate and entire context of the Bible strongly suggests it is referring to nonalcoholic wine. Peter Lumpkins’ book brings this out.
The Bible directly (and indirectly) condemns alcohol. While they had no word for alcohol, Proverbs 23 describes the effects of alcoholic wine in detail, and says not to even look at it. Proverbs 20:1 directly calls wine itself a mocker. 1 Thessalonians 5:6-8 (and elsewhere) says to be sober (nepho). Nepho literally means “wineless.”
One of the big weaknesses of saying the Bible endorsed alcohol consumption is that it would then endorse any other use of legal dangerous drugs for recreational purposes. Is it permissible for a Christian to go to a country where marijuana and cocaine are legal and moderately enjoy them? If you disagree, then why is alcohol, a hard drug, permissible, but these other drugs are not?
David R. Brumbelow
Nicotine is also a dangerous, highly addictive drug, but Southern Baptists have been enthusiastic partakers of that particular drug for a long, long time.
The problem with appealing to scholars and prooftexts (“new wine” must necessarily be non-alcoholic) is that at this point there are many people on both sides of the issue that are convinced of their position and then are more apt to accept less than convincing arguments and even speculation as proof of their position.
I appreciate that Chris listed and then exegeted his Biblical passages instead of just saying “Jesus made water into wine, so it’s okay.” I wish some of those disagreeing with Chris’ position would try the same approach.
To be consistent, you really have to take the two-wine view. That is, not every instance of “wine” in the Bible means alcoholic wine (see Isa. 64:8).
Pastor Brandenburg argues well for the prohibitionist’s view in his five part series which begins with the link below
http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2009/08/debate-over-prohibition-of-alcoholic.html
Links to parts 2-5 are on the side bar.
Blessings