Is drinking wine wrong biblicly? I don't believe it because Noah drank wine, and so did Jesus. I know that the bible tells us not to be drunk, but does it say not to drink wine? I've heard people say "you shouldn't drink alcohol because it is bad for you and you are suppose to look after your body because it is a temple for the Holy Spirit." I think if that was true then one shouldn't breath smog in cities, or eat fast food, or step into the sun because you'll get skin cancer, etc. Jesus even taught not to worry of these things in Matthew 6:25. Another place in scripture is Matthew 11:18-19 when Jesus tells about the people calling Him a drunkard. If all He was drinking was grape juice then why would it be a problem? Another point I thought of was that if Jesus is our example of how to live and He drank wine, then how could it be wrong with out making Jesus out to be hipocritical. I do believe that being drunk is wrong because in this state you are lead to sin quite easily, but I don't believe having the odd glass of wine should be looked down apon. I know the destructive effects alcohol can have on people, but it is up to us to know better and control our actions because we are responsible for everything that we do. Noone can make you do anything, even God has given us free will to choose what is right and wrong. By controlling what someone is exposed to, people take that choice away for something they see as "right". How can we force upon others what we think is right, when everyone has the duty to decide what they think is right and wrong in God's eyes. After all if we tell someone not to drink because we think it is wrong are we not adding to God's will?
Do you have any material or thoughts on this question?
thanks!
is social drinking wrong?
Moderator: grand_puba
is social drinking wrong?
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?
Who is "email"?
Many people call this the question of "social drinking", or maybe just "moderate drinking". The question is not one of whether someone can get drunk, but it is a question of whether one can drink moderate amounts, maybe only on social occasions. Since we cannot find a strict "Thou shalt not drink alcohol", or "Thou shalt drink alcohol" for this question, we will have to examine the related passages and draw a conclusion based off of principles, wisdom, and examples.
I believe we are agreed that drinking to the point of drunkenness is clearly condemned (Galatians 5:19-21; I Peter 4:3-5; Romans 13:13; Luke 21:33-36); however, I also believe the Scriptures condemn moderate drinking. Now that you know my position, let us examine your argument about Jesus and Noah drinking alcoholic wine:
Regarding Noah, please notice that he not only drank moderate amounts, but he became so drunk that he passed out! Now, if Noah's example approves drinking moderately, then it also approves getting excessively drunk! There's an old saying that says, "What proves too much, proves nothing." Since Noah's example violates clear teaching of the New Testament on drunkenness (Galatians 5:19-21; I Peter 4:3-5), then it cannot be considered a supportive example. In fact, it shows how bad drinking can be. Did Noah set out to get drunk? I imagine not, but look what happened after drinking in the privacy of his own home:
Now, about Jesus drinking wine, it is important to understand that wine in the Bible does not always refer to alcoholic wine. Often it refers to fresh grape juice. We have to look at the context to determine which is under consideration. The following is somewhat laborious, but for a clear example of this point, please consider the following passages:
Now, back to the New Testament and the topic of Jesus drinking: Can you find anything in the context of Jesus turning water into wine that suggests it was intoxicating? As we are thinking on this, let's look at some other passages that should help soften our prejudices, before we examine the account of Jesus turning water into wine:
Drinking alcohol is extremely unwise. King Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, advised that we stay far away from alcohol:
Now, you might be thinking these verses address being "drunk", not "moderate drinking" or "social drinking". While I could argue there is great danger expressed by these verses, and I could reference the command to stay far away from similar evils (II Timothy 2:22; I Timothy 6:11), and I could mention that we are to stay far away from things that may be innocent but lead to sin (Romans 13:14), instead please closely examine the following passage in I Peter:
Finally, please consider Paul's command to Timothy:
Their drinking water was not as clean as our water today, so a little bit of wine mixed with water would help to kill the bacteria in the water. This would remedy Timothy's upset stomach and other "infirmities" that were associated with unhealthy drinking water. That being said, again consider, "Why did Paul have to command Timothy to take a little wine for medicine?" Every Scripture has a purpose, so God expected us to get something from this passage (II Timothy 3:16-17), but what?
Now getting back to Jesus drinking wine: It is important that we understand that ancient wine was very different form our modern wine in one significant aspect: The alcoholic content was greatly reduced. It was dramatically lower for multiple reasons, some technological. Regardless of the reason, common "hard" wine was only about 1%-2% alcoholic, versus the much higher 15%-25% that we have today. Even at that time, one was considered a barbarian that drank this "hard" wine without mixing it with water. The common wine they drank was cut down many times, such that you would have to drink gallons to become drunk. Or, you would have to drink it straight, which would still be much less potent than modern wine.
What kind of wine do you think they drank at this wedding feast, where Jesus turned water into wine? Do we see people getting intoxicated? The people had "well drunk". In fact, they drank all the wine. Yet, there is no record of intoxication Moreover, they were still able to distinguish the good-tasting wine that Jesus created and appreciate it (John 2:1-10). How could people have "well drunk", even drank "all the wine", and not be intoxicated? The only reasonable answer is that the alcoholic content was dramatically lower and was not sufficient to affect one's senses or mental state!
Christians are to be sober, serious people. This does not mean that they cannot laugh or have a good time, but they should be characterized by a clearness of mind. They should never participate in something that causes them to lose sight of who they are, Whom they serve, or where they are going (I Thessalonians 5:6-8; I Peter 1:13-15; 5:8).
In conclusion, I would argue against moderate drinking for these reasons:
I believe we are agreed that drinking to the point of drunkenness is clearly condemned (Galatians 5:19-21; I Peter 4:3-5; Romans 13:13; Luke 21:33-36); however, I also believe the Scriptures condemn moderate drinking. Now that you know my position, let us examine your argument about Jesus and Noah drinking alcoholic wine:
Regarding Noah, please notice that he not only drank moderate amounts, but he became so drunk that he passed out! Now, if Noah's example approves drinking moderately, then it also approves getting excessively drunk! There's an old saying that says, "What proves too much, proves nothing." Since Noah's example violates clear teaching of the New Testament on drunkenness (Galatians 5:19-21; I Peter 4:3-5), then it cannot be considered a supportive example. In fact, it shows how bad drinking can be. Did Noah set out to get drunk? I imagine not, but look what happened after drinking in the privacy of his own home:
It is not clear to me if Ham committed some heinous sexual act (consider "Noah awoke and knew what his son had done to him"), or if Ham just gazed and mocked at his father. Either way, I don't think this is something that I would like to see repeated in my family. Instead of proving the nobility and innocence of drinking, this example shows the dangers, folly, and ruin that comes from drinking, even if conducted by good, moderate men in the privacy of their own homes!Moses by the Holy Spirit wrote:"And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard. Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside."
"But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness."
"So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him. Then he said: 'Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brethren.'" (Genesis 9:20-25)
Now, about Jesus drinking wine, it is important to understand that wine in the Bible does not always refer to alcoholic wine. Often it refers to fresh grape juice. We have to look at the context to determine which is under consideration. The following is somewhat laborious, but for a clear example of this point, please consider the following passages:
- In Leviticus 23:10-14, the Israelites were commanded to offer wine as part of their "firstfruit" offering. In fact, they were commanded not to eat or drink anything from the new harvest, until they had offered this sacrifice. How much time is required to turn grape juice into alcoholic wine, fit for a sacrifice to the Lord? If "wine", as found in this passage, does not refer to fresh grape juice, the Israelites would have been required to wait an unreasonable amount of time before enjoying any of their harvest.
- Levites were commanded to eat part of the sacrifices, including the wine, after they were offered to the Lord (Deuteronomy 12:17-18). However, the Levites were not to consume any intoxicating drink (Leviticus 10:9). So, how did they drink the wine without consuming intoxicating drink? Clearly, wine does not always refer to alcoholic grape juice.
- Aalthough not necessary to understand the truth, examining the Hebrew words yields a little more information: The above passage in Leviticus 10 uses the common Hebrew word for wine, yayin, while the word in Deuteronomy 12 clearly uses a Hebrew word, tiyrowsh, which means "new, fresh grape juice". This might be used to explain how the Levites were able to drink "wine" (Deuteronomy 12:17 tiyrowsh, fresh grape juice), but not drink "wine" (Leviticus 10:9 yayin, wine). However, if you look closely, you will see that back in Leviticus 23, the word for wine is also yayin. Because the same sacrifice is referenced in Leviticus 23:13 and Deuteronomy 12:17, we learn that two different Hebrew words can be used for the same thing. Since the word for wine is used interchangeably with the word for fresh grape juice, we know that "wine" can sometime refer to fresh grape juice.
Now, back to the New Testament and the topic of Jesus drinking: Can you find anything in the context of Jesus turning water into wine that suggests it was intoxicating? As we are thinking on this, let's look at some other passages that should help soften our prejudices, before we examine the account of Jesus turning water into wine:
Drinking alcohol is extremely unwise. King Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, advised that we stay far away from alcohol:
Even if one does not sin in becoming moderately intoxicated, even if one somehow manages to keep his mouth shut, while avoiding saying foolish, damaging words, he is still in danger of sinning through "dissipation":Solomon by the Holy Spirit wrote:"Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise." (Proverbs 20:1)
"Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaints? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? Those who linger long at the wine, Those who go in search of mixed wine. Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it swirls around smoothly; At the last it bites like a serpent, And stings like a viper. Your eyes will see strange things, And your heart will utter perverse things." (Proverbs 23:29-33)
Like the one who went and buried his talent in the ground, if we waste exorbitant time on any earthly pleasure, then we are squandering the most precious gift that God has given us. This will leave us empty handed to meet the Lord on the day that He returns to judge His servants (Matthew 25:14-46). I already have too much trouble redeeming the precious time that I have been given (Ephesians 5:14-18). I do not need an additional "monkey on my back", or some "ball and chain" slowing me down any more. If we want to serve the Lord, then we should lay aside these burdens, so that we can run with all of the might that God has given us (Hebrews 12:1-2).Paul by the Holy Ghost wrote:"And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ," (Ephesians 5:18-20)
Now, you might be thinking these verses address being "drunk", not "moderate drinking" or "social drinking". While I could argue there is great danger expressed by these verses, and I could reference the command to stay far away from similar evils (II Timothy 2:22; I Timothy 6:11), and I could mention that we are to stay far away from things that may be innocent but lead to sin (Romans 13:14), instead please closely examine the following passage in I Peter:
Please notice that three different kinds of drinking are prohibited: drunkenness, wild drinking parties, and social drinking parties. While the first two words clearly relate to excess of wine, the last word has reference to a slightly more moderated form of drinking. It is a party where people are not drunk, but they have been affected by alcohol.Peter by inspiration wrote:"For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles -- when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries. In regard to these, they think it strange that you do not run with them in the same flood of dissipation, speaking evil of you." (I Peter 4:3-4)
Finally, please consider Paul's command to Timothy:
Please notice that the occasion for drinking wine was for medicinal purposes. If drinking was a frequent and regular part of the Christian's life, then why did Paul have to command Timothy to drink a little wine? Why did he not chastise Timothy for unnecessarily avoiding wine altogether and binding what was not bound? Instead, Paul directed Timothy to drink a little wine, which he was not previously doing. Why?Paul by the Holy Ghost wrote:"No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach's sake and your frequent infirmities." (I Timothy 5:23)
Their drinking water was not as clean as our water today, so a little bit of wine mixed with water would help to kill the bacteria in the water. This would remedy Timothy's upset stomach and other "infirmities" that were associated with unhealthy drinking water. That being said, again consider, "Why did Paul have to command Timothy to take a little wine for medicine?" Every Scripture has a purpose, so God expected us to get something from this passage (II Timothy 3:16-17), but what?
Now getting back to Jesus drinking wine: It is important that we understand that ancient wine was very different form our modern wine in one significant aspect: The alcoholic content was greatly reduced. It was dramatically lower for multiple reasons, some technological. Regardless of the reason, common "hard" wine was only about 1%-2% alcoholic, versus the much higher 15%-25% that we have today. Even at that time, one was considered a barbarian that drank this "hard" wine without mixing it with water. The common wine they drank was cut down many times, such that you would have to drink gallons to become drunk. Or, you would have to drink it straight, which would still be much less potent than modern wine.
What kind of wine do you think they drank at this wedding feast, where Jesus turned water into wine? Do we see people getting intoxicated? The people had "well drunk". In fact, they drank all the wine. Yet, there is no record of intoxication Moreover, they were still able to distinguish the good-tasting wine that Jesus created and appreciate it (John 2:1-10). How could people have "well drunk", even drank "all the wine", and not be intoxicated? The only reasonable answer is that the alcoholic content was dramatically lower and was not sufficient to affect one's senses or mental state!
Christians are to be sober, serious people. This does not mean that they cannot laugh or have a good time, but they should be characterized by a clearness of mind. They should never participate in something that causes them to lose sight of who they are, Whom they serve, or where they are going (I Thessalonians 5:6-8; I Peter 1:13-15; 5:8).
In conclusion, I would argue against moderate drinking for these reasons:
- It is difficult to control, and can easily, unnoticably lead to the sin of drunkenness (Romans 13:11-14; Ephesians 5:14-18).
- It is difficult to control, and may lead to our ruin (Proverbs 20:1; 23:29-33).
- It is difficult to control, and may lead to us squandering our precious time and talents (Ephesians 5:18; Matthew 25:14-46).
- Social drinking parties, although not culminating in excessive drink, are strictly condemned in Scripture (I Peter 4:3-4).
- In spite of arguments that Jesus drank wine, the evidence suggests Jesus did not drink alcoholic wine (John 2:1-10).
- Timothy had to be commanded to drink a "little wine", and only then it was for "his stomach's sake" (I Timothy 5:23). Why did he have to be commanded, if it was such a common practice?
- Christians are to be characterized by a sober mind (Thessalonians 5:6-8), focused on their mission and the lost souls that are at stake.
I thank you for your comments and ideas towards this subject. It has a been interesting to read your points. One final question was in Mark 2:22, and Luke 5:37, talk about new wine in old wine skins. Being that pasturization didn't come around until around 1877, the climate in those days would ferment grape juice in about 20 minuites from being pressed. Thats why old skins with new wine in them would burst, because of the expanding liquid. Knowing that grapes only flourish around the globe in the temperature bands between 20 and 50 degrees Latitude north or south of the equator, shows that grapes only grow in places with seasonal weather. So then the drink that Jesus and his disiples drank " of the fruit of the vine" on pass over before Jesus' crucifixion (Matt 26:29, Mark 14:25, Luke 22:18) on good friday in April, would have contained alcohol because there was no way that grapes being approximately 5 months old would not ferment in Israels climate, without pasturization. Don't get me wrong I believe fully that one should be drunk, but I see nothing wrong with someone having a drink as long as it doesn't tempt them to sin. I know that it has ruined a lot of peoples lives, but so has guns and war because Jesus told us to love everyone (John 15:12) yet there is no movement to stop killing or war , but there is to stop people from drinking. It's like all other sins before God people are presented with the right and wrong path to take. Just because many take the wrong path doesn't give someone the right to dictate what someone should do or not do.
My last point is if Jesus didn't drink wine then why did the Jews call him a wine bibber, or a drunkard if all He was drinking was non-alcoholic wine? If He was drinking grape juice then what was the problem?
My last point is if Jesus didn't drink wine then why did the Jews call him a wine bibber, or a drunkard if all He was drinking was non-alcoholic wine? If He was drinking grape juice then what was the problem?
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?
Who is "email"?
I have enjoyed getting to know you through your answers and questions. I feel like as though we have built a kind of friendship based on our honesty and mutual spiritual concerns. Based on this relationship, I would like to ask you a straightforward question: On what does your faith rest? On what are you basing this decision? In the clear light of Scripture? Why are you turning to facts that are not substantiated by Scripture? I have no problem with looking to outside history to better explain the context of Scriptural facts, but I am concerned when a case is mostly based in external history, despite the disparaging comments of Scripture. I fear your prejudices are clouding your judgment. How sure are you that Jesus drank alcoholic, intoxicating wine during that Last Supper?
Please consider these verses:
Also, I believe you are mistaken concerning the fermenting process. It is my understanding that fresh grape juice, which is left alone, does not form wine. Although a process similar to fermentation has begun, it is actually forming nasty, vinegar-like, soured wine. It is rotting - not forming wine. If you leave a bottle of Welch's grape juice alone for a long time, you won't have wine. You will have an unpalatable drink - soured wine. Enjoyable wine requires special care. It won't occur without deliberate intervention. Also, I believe you are mistaken about the processes that were available during those days to preserve grape juice. If you would like to continue this discussion on the physics of wine-making, we can do that, but is that really the basis upon which you want your faith to stand? Is this the kind of answer you would feel confident in using to justify your actions on Judgment Day?
My argument regarding Jesus was not that Jesus did not drink wine with alcoholic content, but my argument was that, if there was any alcohol present, it was too low to pose any danger of intoxication. Just because grape juice begins to ferment within 20 minutes of storing, does not necessitate that has become intoxicating. (Not to mention that is actually souring, not fermenting.) I am not concerned with the consumption of alcohol, as much as I am concerned with its intoxicating effects. I take cough-medicine, which has alcohol, but it has never altered my mental state. Even if Jesus consumed wine, it would not compare with the alcoholic content of modern wines of today.
Again, please put my previous points in the balances of decision, and honestly ask yourself, in which direction does the scale tip? In what direction does God's Word point us?
It is difficult to control, and may lead to the sin of drunkenness (Romans 13:11-14; Ephesians 5:14-18). It is difficult to control, and may lead to our ruin (Proverbs 20:1; 23:29-33). It is difficult to control, and may lead to us squandering our precious time and talents (Ephesians 5:18; Matthew 25:14-46). Social drinking parties, although not culminating in excessive drink, are condemned (I Peter 4:3-4). Popular arguments not withstanding, the Bible evidence suggests Jesus did not drink alcoholic wine (John 2:1-10; Exodus 12:11-13:10). Timothy had to be commanded to drink a "little wine", and only then it was for "his stomach's sake" (I Timothy 5:23). Christians are to be characterized by a sober mind (I Thessalonians 5:6-8), focused on their mission and the lost souls that are at stake. Does this sound like God is for consumption of intoxicating alcohol, or against?
Please consider these verses:
I do not know a lot about wine, the geographies in which grapes flourish, nor their seasonal growing periods. However, I am fairly confident that some form of yeast is required to make all wine of significant alcoholic content. Since yeast is leaven, how could Jesus have partaken in a leavened drink, defying God's law of the Passover?Moses by the Holy Spirit wrote:"And thus you shall eat it: with a belt on your waist, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. So you shall eat it in haste. It is the LORD's Passover. ... Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses. For whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel. ... For seven days no leaven shall be found in your houses, since whoever eats what is leavened, that same person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a stranger or a native of the land. You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your dwellings you shall eat unleavened bread. ... Unleavened bread shall be eaten seven days. And no leavened bread shall be seen among you, nor shall leaven be seen among you in all your quarters." (Exodus 12:11-13:10)
Also, I believe you are mistaken concerning the fermenting process. It is my understanding that fresh grape juice, which is left alone, does not form wine. Although a process similar to fermentation has begun, it is actually forming nasty, vinegar-like, soured wine. It is rotting - not forming wine. If you leave a bottle of Welch's grape juice alone for a long time, you won't have wine. You will have an unpalatable drink - soured wine. Enjoyable wine requires special care. It won't occur without deliberate intervention. Also, I believe you are mistaken about the processes that were available during those days to preserve grape juice. If you would like to continue this discussion on the physics of wine-making, we can do that, but is that really the basis upon which you want your faith to stand? Is this the kind of answer you would feel confident in using to justify your actions on Judgment Day?
My argument regarding Jesus was not that Jesus did not drink wine with alcoholic content, but my argument was that, if there was any alcohol present, it was too low to pose any danger of intoxication. Just because grape juice begins to ferment within 20 minutes of storing, does not necessitate that has become intoxicating. (Not to mention that is actually souring, not fermenting.) I am not concerned with the consumption of alcohol, as much as I am concerned with its intoxicating effects. I take cough-medicine, which has alcohol, but it has never altered my mental state. Even if Jesus consumed wine, it would not compare with the alcoholic content of modern wines of today.
Again, please put my previous points in the balances of decision, and honestly ask yourself, in which direction does the scale tip? In what direction does God's Word point us?
It is difficult to control, and may lead to the sin of drunkenness (Romans 13:11-14; Ephesians 5:14-18). It is difficult to control, and may lead to our ruin (Proverbs 20:1; 23:29-33). It is difficult to control, and may lead to us squandering our precious time and talents (Ephesians 5:18; Matthew 25:14-46). Social drinking parties, although not culminating in excessive drink, are condemned (I Peter 4:3-4). Popular arguments not withstanding, the Bible evidence suggests Jesus did not drink alcoholic wine (John 2:1-10; Exodus 12:11-13:10). Timothy had to be commanded to drink a "little wine", and only then it was for "his stomach's sake" (I Timothy 5:23). Christians are to be characterized by a sober mind (I Thessalonians 5:6-8), focused on their mission and the lost souls that are at stake. Does this sound like God is for consumption of intoxicating alcohol, or against?
I believe that the above emails do a good job of addressing what the Old Testament has to say about alcohol and drunkenness as well as some common misconceptions of "wine" in the bible. For reference, see these two notes from preceding correspondence:
Suppose that I told you of a company that produces a drug that results in thousands of deaths via auto accidents, disease, and was a major contributor to suicide and murder. This drug is a major factor in divorce, crime, and juvenile delinquency. This drug is highly addictive, costs the country billions of dollars in treatment, worker inefficiency, and healthcare. Not only is this drug legal; it is favorably marketed by hiding its real nature, and markets to the young.
Some questions I believe we should ask ourselves about this drug;
Now to the bible.
One thing about alcohol abuse is that it isn’t a new problem. Alcohol abuse is as old as mankind. A few examples of note are the following:
The argument that is generally made is something along the lines of "So long as I don’t get drunk I can … have a beer at the hunting camp with my buddies; take a drink at the club with a few friends; have a rum and coke at the office party. After all it no different than taking Nyquil or having whiskey/honey/lemon juice for a cold."
The following is what I believe is some of the strongest points to be made when discussing social drinking. I also believe it is very important to look at all points together and not get tied up into looking at each one individually.
Note: The previous email correspondence addresses the definition of "wine" in the bible, which was sent you. If you would like to look further into that subject, I will be more than happy to do so. Now to the arguments.
Is the reason medicinal value? It can not be denied that Paul encouraged Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach’s sake (I Timothy 5: 23). In fact this advice is still commonly given by modern day doctors.
I can not say that taking alcohol for your hearts health is a sin. It just simply isn’t in the bible. What I can say is that modern medicine has come a long way. I would suggest that we examine all medicinal possibilities before we decide to purchase what can be such a destructive drug. Alcohol can be purchased over the web these days, making it easier to protect ones influence as it removes the need to go to a public grocery store to purchase one’s "medicine."
In addition, to compare Nyquil and a 16 oz. can of beer is a bit silly, I believe. Can one reasonably say that they limit themselves to two teaspoons of beer or wine?
I believe the real reason that people drink is that they like the emotional and social effects, which I believe we have shown to be ungodly.
When discussing social drinking one thing that I believe is very important is to look at some accepted truths about alcohol.m273p15c wrote:Solomon by the Holy Spirit wrote: "Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaints? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? Those who linger long at the wine, Those who go in search of mixed wine. Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it swirls around smoothly; At the last it bites like a serpent, And stings like a viper. Your eyes will see strange things, And your heart will utter perverse things." (Proverbs 23:29-33)
Levites along with the rest of the Israelites, who brought the offerings, were commanded to eat part of the sacrifices, including the wine, after they were offered to the Lord (Deuteronomy 12:17-18). However, the Levites were not to drink any intoxicating drink (Leviticus 10:9). So, how did they drink the wine without drinking intoxicating drink? Clearly, wine does not always refer to the alcoholic variety
Suppose that I told you of a company that produces a drug that results in thousands of deaths via auto accidents, disease, and was a major contributor to suicide and murder. This drug is a major factor in divorce, crime, and juvenile delinquency. This drug is highly addictive, costs the country billions of dollars in treatment, worker inefficiency, and healthcare. Not only is this drug legal; it is favorably marketed by hiding its real nature, and markets to the young.
Some questions I believe we should ask ourselves about this drug;
- "Why would anyone take the drug?"
- "Why is it legal?"
- "Why do consumer advocacy groups recall and ban certain products that have been hazardous in only a handful of cases, when alcohol has wreaked even more destruction in our society than any other drug or product, yet it is legal, acceptable and encouraged?"
- "Why defend it or support it?"
Now to the bible.
One thing about alcohol abuse is that it isn’t a new problem. Alcohol abuse is as old as mankind. A few examples of note are the following:
- Noah – Brought a curse on his son via drunkenness (Gen 9)
- Lot – Bore sons incestuously to his daughters under affects of alcohol (Gen 19)
- Nabal – In a drunken stupor when saved from the foolishness of Abigail (I Sam 25)
- Elah – Killed by Zimri while drunk (I Kings 16)
- Ben Hadad – Defeated while drunk (I Kings 20)
- Belshazzar – Abused God’s utensils during a drunken party (Dan 5)
- Ahasuerus – Attempts to expose Vashti while drunk (Esth 1)
The argument that is generally made is something along the lines of "So long as I don’t get drunk I can … have a beer at the hunting camp with my buddies; take a drink at the club with a few friends; have a rum and coke at the office party. After all it no different than taking Nyquil or having whiskey/honey/lemon juice for a cold."
The following is what I believe is some of the strongest points to be made when discussing social drinking. I also believe it is very important to look at all points together and not get tied up into looking at each one individually.
Note: The previous email correspondence addresses the definition of "wine" in the bible, which was sent you. If you would like to look further into that subject, I will be more than happy to do so. Now to the arguments.
- Any purchase of alcoholic products supports an industry that is wholly deadly, debilitating and destructive to society.
- There is no redeeming value to society in the liquor industry.
- If Jesus were asked "has man’s misuse of your product been good or bad for man?"
- No one can accurately define "drunk"
- While I do not have the reference material at hand, it has been demonstrated that the ingestion of alcohol affects the brain within a matter of seconds, not minutes
- A very small amount impairs judgement, even before it is perceived.
- How much is drunk? .1? .08?
- Would you want your airplane pilot or cab driver to get behind the wheel after a "couple of beers"? How about your surgeon grab a scalpel after "just one drink"?
- Alcohol robs Christians of the very thing we are commanded to posses: mental, emotional and physical self control.
- It impairs judgement, frees inhibitions, and makes us oblivious to our own actions.
- The fruits of the Spirit are found in Gal 5: 22-23
- Alcohol undermines love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control
- "Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise." (Proverbs 20:1)
- Christians are to bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor 10:5)
- We need our full spiritual and mental faculties operating at peak efficiency to do this. Alcohol diminishes the ability to resist the devil, flee fornication and fight temptation
- Willfully placing oneself under the influence of a highly addictive drug can easily constitute idolatry.
- Any reason that ignores the destructive nature of alcohol for recreational use can only be an allegiance to the evil of this world
- "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful; all things are lawful for me, but all things do not edify" (I Cor 10: 23)
- I do not believe any Christian can sensibly argue that the it is edifying in any way to drink alcohol. Participation in such an evil, even "moderately," is foreign to the pure lives God calls us to lead.
- Would it help or edify others for me to buy beer? If a preacher or elder were to be seen at the grocery store buying beer, would it not hurt his influence?
- What about the influential affect on children?
- To argue the moderate consumption of alcohol is to argue it is O.K. to sell it for moderate use. Would we be comfortable selling it in our restaurant with a max of 2 or 3 beers?
- Any argument used for recreational use of alcohol can be used for the use of other drugs like marijuana, cocaine, etc.
- Objection: Those are illegal and that would be a crime
- Answer: This is an arbitrary distinction. If man legalizes the other drugs, would you advocate their use?
Is the reason medicinal value? It can not be denied that Paul encouraged Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach’s sake (I Timothy 5: 23). In fact this advice is still commonly given by modern day doctors.
I can not say that taking alcohol for your hearts health is a sin. It just simply isn’t in the bible. What I can say is that modern medicine has come a long way. I would suggest that we examine all medicinal possibilities before we decide to purchase what can be such a destructive drug. Alcohol can be purchased over the web these days, making it easier to protect ones influence as it removes the need to go to a public grocery store to purchase one’s "medicine."
In addition, to compare Nyquil and a 16 oz. can of beer is a bit silly, I believe. Can one reasonably say that they limit themselves to two teaspoons of beer or wine?
I believe the real reason that people drink is that they like the emotional and social effects, which I believe we have shown to be ungodly.
According to Deuteronomy 14:26 the Israelites were allowed to drink "wine" and I might add "strong drink".
Blessings
Marc
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
Blessings
Marc
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
let's consider the whole Bible...
For reference, here is the mentioned passage:Marc wrote:According to Deuteronomy 14:26 the Israelites were allowed to drink "wine" and I might add "strong drink".
Moses by inspiration wrote:And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine (yayin) or similar drink (shekar), for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household. (Deuteronomy 14:26)
- "Was it really intoxicating?" - To be fair, most other versions translate shekar in this passage as "strong drink" or "intoxicating dring". The NKJ seems to be the only one to translate it, "similar drink". However, there is some clue in that. Before we turn a blind eye to everything else in the Bible written about shekar, let us see what the scholars tell us about this word:
shekar - noun common masculine singular absolute
2388.0 (shakar) I, be drunk, intoxicated
(2388a) (shekar) strong drink.
This verb is used nineteen times in the OT, twelve of which are in the prophetic books. In the Qal stem (ten times) the verb is intransitive, "be drunk." In the Piel and Hiphil stems (four times each) it is transitive, "make drunk."
With very few exceptions shakar and its derivatives are used in a highly unfavorable and negative context. But the few passages where the root is used in an acceptable sense should be observed. Genesis 43:34, Joseph's brothers with Joseph in Egypt, says literally "they drank and 'became drunk' with him" (KJV "were merry with him"). The emphasis is on conviviality, not drinking to the point of drunkenness. Second, "strong drink" was to be used in the drink offering (Num 28:7) which of course was not drunk, but poured out as a libation. Third, the annual tithe to be paid to the Lord, the owner of the soil, might involve strong drink (Deut 14:26). Fourth, shekar could be used as a stimulant; Prov 31:6, "Give strong drink unto him that is about to perish" (and cf. Mt 27:34; Mk 15:23 at the cross; however the AV of Mt 27:34 say Jesus refused the vinegar, but the better texts call it wine. He accepted the (dilute) vinegar later, Mt 27:48). Fifth, Song 5:1. Thus of almost sixty uses of the root shekar, only five refer to something good and acceptable.
Several instances of intoxication, caused by shekar, are noted in Scripture: (1) Gen 9:20-27, Noah; (2) 1Sam 25:36, Nabal; (3) 2Sam 13:28-29, Amnon; (4) 1Kings 16:9, Elah; (5) 1Kings 20:16, Ben-hadad 1. Of special interest are those passages which indicate that God sends drunkenness upon people. So, Jer 13:13 says, "I am going to fill with drunkenness (kings, prophets, and priests), " or Isa 63:6, "I will make them drunk in my fury." The idea is that drunkenness indicates helplessness. Thus, God says to his people (Isa 49:26), "I will make your oppressors eat their flesh and they shall be drunk with their own blood." Here, "to be drunk" means "to be helpless, " "I will reduce your oppressors to a state of total helplessness." Cf. Jer 25:27; Jer 51:39, 57.
shekar. Strong drink, beer. Most likely not "liquor" for there is no evidence of distilled liquor in ancient times. It denotes not just barley beer but any alcoholic beverage prepared from either grain or fruit. In all but two of its twenty-three uses in the OT (Num 28:7; Psa 69:12 [H 13]) it appears in connection with yayin "wine" usually following it, once preceding it (Prov 31:6).
shikkœr. Drunkard. Either literally: 1Sam 1:13; 1Sam 25:36; 1Kings 16:9; 1Kings 20:16; Prov 26:9, or figuratively: Isa 19:14; Isa 24:20; Jer 23:9; Psa 107:27. shikk¹rôn. Drunkenness. Only in Jer 13:13; Ezek 23:33; Ezek 39:19. V.P.H.
0193.0 B. (b®) (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament)William Patton wrote:"SHAKAR (sometimes written shechar, shekar) signifies 'sweet drink' expressed from fruits other than the grape, and drunk in anunfermented or fermented state. It occurs in the O.T. twenty-three times." - Bible Commentary, p. 418. Kitto's Cyclopaedia says: "Shakar is a generic term, including palm-wine and other saccharine bevarages, except those prepared from the vine." It is in this article defined "sweet drink."
Dr. F. R. Lees, page xxxii. of his Preliminary Dissertation to the Bible Commentary, says shakar, "saccharine drink," is related to the word for sugar in all the Indo-Germanic and Semitic languages, and is still applied throughout the East, from India to Abyssinia, to the palm sap, the shaggery made from it, to the date juice and syrup, as well as to tsugar and to the fermented palm-wine. It has by usage grown into a generic term for "drinks," including fresh juices and inebriating liquors other than those coming from the grape. (Bible Wines by William Patton, Star Bible Publications, Fort Worth, TX. orig. 1871)
The word shekar, here translated "strong drink", appears to be much like the word yayin. It can reference a spectrum of juices, ranging from new musts with little to no intoxicating affect, all the way up to fermented juices with maximum intoxicating potential. Therefore, just as in every usage of yayin, one must prove that its context refers to drunkeness and intoxication, if he wishes to use the passage to authorize the intoxicating consumption of beverages.Jim McGuiggan wrote:The word "shekhar" means "sweet" and the from that, drunk by drinking what is sweet (Young, Lees) (We get our word sugar from it.) As we've seen, the word "drunk" doesn't always mean intoxicated. Well now, what is "shekhar?" It is a drink made from fruits other than the grape! To this agrees the Interpreter's Bible Dictionary the I.S.B.E (with a little reluctance); the revised single volume "Hastings's Bible Dictionary The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible says "in the early period" it also included wine.
All agree "shekhar" was always intoxicating. This may be correct. Moses Stuart believes it was a generic term which applied to both intoxicating and unintoxicating. This is the position of Lees and Richie.
"Palm" wine is well known of course and so is "date" wine. ... (The Bible, The Saint, and the Liquor Industry by Jim McGuiggan, International Biblical Resources, Inc., Lubbock, TX, 1977. pp.105-106) - Consider the whole Bible. - It is dangerous to take one passage and justify a controversial practice. Don't misunderstand me. The Scriptures have the power and veracity to uphold the most controversial of beliefs on a single word; however, one better have all their facts straight before resting their entire case on a single word.
That being said, what else does the Bible have to say about shakar?
Does this sound like God approves of one consuming shakar? I would be very reluctant to base my position on one verse, which may or may not refer to actually intoxicating drink - especially considering that it is condemned in virtually every other verse.God through His holy prophets wrote:- Genesis 9:21 Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent.
- Genesis 43:34 Then he took servings to them from before him, but Benjamin's serving was five times as much as any of theirs. So they drank and were merry with him. (1 of 5 possibly positive references)
- Leviticus 10:9 "Do not drink wine or intoxicating drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the tabernacle of meeting, lest you die. It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations,
- Numbers 6:3 'he shall separate himself from wine and similar drink; he shall drink neither vinegar made from wine nor vinegar made from similar drink; neither shall he drink any grape juice, nor eat fresh grapes or raisins.
- Numbers 28:7 'And its drink offering shall be one-fourth of a hin for each lamb; in a holy place you shall pour out the drink to the LORD as an offering. (2 of 5 possibly positive references - but it is not consumed)
- Deuteronomy 14:26 "And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household. (3 of 5 possibly positive references)
- Deuteronomy 29:6 "You have not eaten bread, nor have you drunk wine or similar drink, that you may know that I am the LORD your God. (4 of 5 possibly positive references)
- Deuteronomy 32:42 I will make My arrows drunk with blood, And My sword shall devour flesh, With the blood of the slain and the captives, From the heads of the leaders of the enemy." '
- Judges 13:4 "Now therefore, please be careful not to drink wine or similar drink, and not to eat anything unclean.
- Judges 13:7 "And He said to me, 'Behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. Now drink no wine or similar drink, nor eat anything unclean, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death.' "
- Judges 13:14 "She may not eat anything that comes from the vine, nor may she drink wine or similar drink, nor eat anything unclean. All that I commanded her let her observe."
- 1 Samuel 1:14 So Eli said to her, "How long will you be drunk? Put your wine away from you!"
- 1 Samuel 1:15 And Hannah answered and said, "No, my lord, I am a woman of sorrowful spirit. I have drunk neither wine nor intoxicating drink, but have poured out my soul before the LORD.
- 2 Samuel 11:13 Now when David called him, he ate and drank before him; and he made him drunk. And at evening he went out to lie on his bed with the servants of his lord, but he did not go down to his house.
- Psalm 69:12 Those who sit in the gate speak against me, And I am the song of the drunkards.
- Proverbs 20:1 Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise.
- Proverbs 31:4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, It is not for kings to drink wine, Nor for princes intoxicating drink;
- Proverbs 31:6 Give strong drink to him who is perishing, And wine to those who are bitter of heart.
- Song of Solomon 5:1 I have come to my garden, my sister, my spouse; I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk. (TO HIS FRIENDS) Eat, O friends! Drink, yes, drink deeply, O beloved ones! THE SHULAMITE (5 of 5 possibly positive referecnes)
- Isaiah 5:11 Woe to those who rise early in the morning, That they may follow intoxicating drink; Who continue until night, till wine inflames them!
- Isaiah 5:22 Woe to men mighty at drinking wine, Woe to men valiant for mixing intoxicating drink,
- Isaiah 24:9 They shall not drink wine with a song; Strong drink is bitter to those who drink it.
- Isaiah 28:7 But they also have erred through wine, And through intoxicating drink are out of the way; The priest and the prophet have erred through intoxicating drink, They are swallowed up by wine, They are out of the way through intoxicating drink; They err in vision, they stumble in judgment.
- Isaiah 29:9 Pause and wonder! Blind yourselves and be blind! They are drunk, but not with wine; They stagger, but not with intoxicating drink.
- Isaiah 49:26 I will feed those who oppress you with their own flesh, And they shall be drunk with their own blood as with sweet wine. All flesh shall know That I, the LORD, am your Savior, And your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob."
- Isaiah 51:21 Therefore please hear this, you afflicted, And drunk but not with wine.
- Isaiah 56:12 "Come," one says, "I will bring wine, And we will fill ourselves with intoxicating drink; Tomorrow will be as today, And much more abundant."
- Isaiah 63:6 I have trodden down the peoples in My anger, Made them drunk in My fury, And brought down their strength to the earth."
- Jeremiah 25:27 " Therefore you shall say to them, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: "Drink, be drunk, and vomit! Fall and rise no more, because of the sword which I will send among you." '
- Jeremiah 48:26 " Make him drunk, Because he exalted himself against the LORD. Moab shall wallow in his vomit, And he shall also be in derision.
- Jeremiah 51:7 Babylon was a golden cup in the LORD's hand, That made all the earth drunk. The nations drank her wine; Therefore the nations are deranged.
- Jeremiah 51:39 In their excitement I will prepare their feasts; I will make them drunk, That they may rejoice, And sleep a perpetual sleep And not awake," says the LORD.
- Jeremiah 51:57 "And I will make drunk Her princes and wise men, Her governors, her deputies, and her mighty men. And they shall sleep a perpetual sleep And not awake," says the King, Whose name is the LORD of hosts.
- Lamentations 4:21 Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom, You who dwell in the land of Uz! The cup shall also pass over to you And you shall become drunk and make yourself naked.
- Micah 2:11 If a man should walk in a false spirit And speak a lie, saying, 'I will prophesy to you of wine and drink,' Even he would be the prattler of this people.
- Nahum 3:11 You also will be drunk; You will be hidden; You also will seek refuge from the enemy.
- Habakkuk 2:15 " Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbor, Pressing him to your bottle, Even to make him drunk, That you may look on his nakedness!
- Haggai 1:6 "You have sown much, and bring in little; You eat, but do not have enough; You drink, but you are not filled with drink; You clothe yourselves, but no one is warm; And he who earns wages, Earns wages to put into a bag with holes."
- Who said they "drank" the wine? - Upon closer inspection of the verse, it is difficult to prove that they actually drank the wine. In fact, it is highly unlikely.
The whole point of this paragraph in Deuteronomy is to offer authorization for Jews, who might have lived far way from God's sanctuary, to not bring sacrificial animals from their own herds, but to sell them in their hometowns, bring the money on their pilgrimage, and buy sacrifices in the place of God's sanctuary. This greatly facilitated the travelling for Jews living in far away cities. Please consider these points gleaned from examining the cited passage in its context:Moses by inspiration wrote:"You shall truly tithe all the increase of your grain that the field produces year by year. And you shall eat before the LORD your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine (tirosh) and your oil, of the firstborn of your herds and your flocks, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always.
"But if the journey is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, or if the place where the LORD your God chooses to put His name is too far from you, when the LORD your God has blessed you, then you shall exchange it for money, take the money in your hand, and go to the place which the LORD your God chooses. And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household.
"You shall not forsake the Levite who is within your gates, for he has no part nor inheritance with you. At the end of every third year you shall bring out the tithe of your produce of that year and store it up within your gates. And the Levite, because he has no portion nor inheritance with you, and the stranger and the fatherless and the widow who are within your gates, may come and eat and be satisfied, that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do. (Deuteronomy 14:22-29)
- The original type of wine, intended to be consumed in this religious feast was "new wine", or tirosh, which is always translated "new wine", or fresh wine. This helps to nail down the type of wine being considered by yayin and shekar which may both refer to either new wine or fermented wine.
- The text says in Deuteronomy 14:26 that they were to eat the food before the Lord. Could it be the purchased, strong drink, if it was indeed intoxicating, was intended to be poured out as a "drink offering", never consumed? The same word, shekar, is used in this way to describe the sacrifical drink offering in Numbers 28:7. Considering this was a religious feast, it seems a strong possibility.
- Levites were to partake in this religious feast, and yet they were to have no part with intoxicating drinks (Leviticus 10:9), as previously noted.
- Weigh it in the balances - Any time a controversial topic is left without a clear "thou shalt not" or "thou shalt", we must put everything together, which is made available to us in Scripture. Consequently, there may be 1 or 2 outlying, ambiguous passages that may possibly lend some credence to the less likely position. However, if we have hundreds of passages that speak negatively on a subject, with only 1 or 2 possibly in favor, and that in the Old Covenant, then the conclusion seems clear.
When this passage can be made to harmonize with the hundreds against drinking, why would one choose to interpret this passage "out of line" with all the others, ignore all the others, and base his case on this one?
Alcohol
Sheker was definately intoxicating. Etymologically it is derived from "shakhar" - "to be or become drunk" (Genesis 9:21; Isaiah 29:9; Jeremiah 25:27). Compare this with "drunkard" (shikker) and "drunkeness" (shikkaron). Isaiah warns of its excess because of its stupefying effects in Isaiah 28:7-8.
Moreover, the same word for "wine" that the Lord Jesus turned water into in John 2:9 is the same Greek word Paul warns us about in Ephesians 5:18 not to be drunk with.
Marc
Moreover, the same word for "wine" that the Lord Jesus turned water into in John 2:9 is the same Greek word Paul warns us about in Ephesians 5:18 not to be drunk with.
Marc
Re: Alcohol
Do you believe that the same word is always used in the same way? Can a word have more than one connotation definition? If a word can have more than one meaning, how would a person be able to determine which definition to apply to each usage?Marc wrote:Sheker was definately intoxicating. Etymologically it is derived from "shakhar" - "to be or become drunk" (Genesis 9:21; Isaiah 29:9; Jeremiah 25:27). Compare this with "drunkard" (shikker) and "drunkeness" (shikkaron). Isaiah warns of its excess because of its stupefying effects in Isaiah 28:7-8.
Moreover, the same word for "wine" that the Lord Jesus turned water into in John 2:9 is the same Greek word Paul warns us about in Ephesians 5:18 not to be drunk with.
The Hebrew words as posted above are very clear as to what they mean. The definitions are to be or become drunk and drunkeness.
Why is it that we readily accept the meaning of wine in Ephesians 5:18 but then turn around and insist that it can't be the same thing in John 2:9? I don't know. There would have to be terribly strong evidence to prove otherwise and not just because a person simply doesn't want to believe that it can't refer to the same thing. Given this evidence then a Christian is at liberty to drink alcohol.
Why is it that we readily accept the meaning of wine in Ephesians 5:18 but then turn around and insist that it can't be the same thing in John 2:9? I don't know. There would have to be terribly strong evidence to prove otherwise and not just because a person simply doesn't want to believe that it can't refer to the same thing. Given this evidence then a Christian is at liberty to drink alcohol.
Yes a word can have more than one meaning. But the meaning of these Hebrew words as used in the Bible are to be or become drunk and drunkenness.
In 1 Timothy 3:3, 8 and Titus 1:7; 2:3 Paul writes that certain people should not be "addicted" or "enslaved" to wine. Why would this be a concern if it was something like mere grape juice?
Even though I believe the wine in Ephesians 5:18 is the same kind of wine spoken of in John 2:9 (there is nothing in either text to dictate otherwise) if one insists they are not they can not conclusivelly prove they are not. Therefore it falls under the realms of Christian liberty.
In 1 Timothy 3:3, 8 and Titus 1:7; 2:3 Paul writes that certain people should not be "addicted" or "enslaved" to wine. Why would this be a concern if it was something like mere grape juice?
Even though I believe the wine in Ephesians 5:18 is the same kind of wine spoken of in John 2:9 (there is nothing in either text to dictate otherwise) if one insists they are not they can not conclusivelly prove they are not. Therefore it falls under the realms of Christian liberty.
please excuse me for taking exception
Please excuse me if I take exception to your post. It seems to me that you did not answer the last half of my question; and moreover, you are assuming the thing to be proven.
If a word can have more than one definition, how can one ascertain to the exact definition to be applied in any given usage?
I disagree with your assertion that these words (shekar and yayin) have universal meanings throughout Scripture, and I believe that can be proven. However, as a call to consistency on both our parts, it would be good to first establish how one generally identifies the specific connotation for a word, which has multiple possible definitions.
If a word can have more than one definition, how can one ascertain to the exact definition to be applied in any given usage?
I disagree with your assertion that these words (shekar and yayin) have universal meanings throughout Scripture, and I believe that can be proven. However, as a call to consistency on both our parts, it would be good to first establish how one generally identifies the specific connotation for a word, which has multiple possible definitions.
I have looked up the words in Blue Letter Bible and they mean to be or become drunk and drunkenness. I didn't see any alternative meaning. I have given good evidence as to what they mean. I haven't seen anything that contradicts this. If you are going to state that an activity is sinful and wrong then it is incumbent on you to prove this. In relation to this, you can not prove that the wine in Ephesians 5:18 and John 2:9 are not identicle. Thus it falls under Christian liberty.
Why would Paul warn these people not be addicted to wine if it was mere grape juice?
I will say this though that after reading through the posts a question was asked why would Paul have to "command" Timothy to drink wine if it wasn't a normal practice for him to do so already. The answer is Timothy was still considered to be a youth (1 Timothy 4:12). And according to the societal norms it was customary for the youth not to engage in wine drinking.
Why would Paul warn these people not be addicted to wine if it was mere grape juice?
I will say this though that after reading through the posts a question was asked why would Paul have to "command" Timothy to drink wine if it wasn't a normal practice for him to do so already. The answer is Timothy was still considered to be a youth (1 Timothy 4:12). And according to the societal norms it was customary for the youth not to engage in wine drinking.
enough...
It seems to me that you have still avoided answering my question, "What is the basis for determining if a word can have more than one meaning?" Although you have quoted one reference to the meaning of shekar, you have primarily asserted your position again, while ignoring the primary arguments raised in previous posts.
Additionally, I believe the following passages clearly condemn the consumption of any judgment-altering drug for non-medicinal purposes:
Sobriety is an essential part of any Christian wearing his spiritual armor. Without soberness, the Christian willingly loosens his armor, opening himself up to an ever vigilant lion, drooling for a chink in our armor. Additionally, soberness is commanded in several other passages (Romans 12:3; I Thessalonians 5:6-8; Titus 2:2-12).
As long as one proposes consumption of any drug which does not affect our “sobriety”, then I would have no problem accepting it under Christian liberty. However, we have no liberty where the Scriptures have clearly advised, condemned, and mandated. Therefore, if modern wine affects our sobriety, it is strictly condemned under the positive commandment to maintain sobriety.
As one last side thought, it seems very foolish to advise “moderation” for controlling our level of consuming a dangerously addictive and intoxicating drug. With what faculty will you gauge your level of drunkenness to determine if you have had too much to drink, when one of the primary things impaired by the drinking is your judgment and ability to assess that you have had too much to drink? That’s like driving a car with a speedometer that works fine, except when you are speeding through hairpin turns. It is broke when you need it most! Come to think of it, drinking has often proved to be way too much like this…
I must confess that I am greatly discouraged by the level of dismissal that has been evidenced in these responses. Unless a new argument is raised or some indication of objectivity is demonstrated, I will here conclude my remarks on this thread. Please do not consider this a summary, because much more was said in previous posts regarding addiction, moral support, and influence; however, this should be enough, unless someone has already made up their mind beyond question.
I did not recognize the “Blue Letter Bible” as being any kind of reputable authority; however, after poking around on their web-site, I was able to determine that they claim to use Thayer’s Greek Lexicon. Now the interesting thing to me, which well correlates with our discussion was this quote from their web-site on how to use lexicons in general:Marc wrote:I have looked up the words in Blue Letter Bible and they mean to be or become drunk and drunkenness. I didn't see any alternative meaning. I have given good evidence as to what they mean. I haven't seen anything that contradicts this.
Apparently the source that you quoted recognized the reality that even a most trusted lexicographer may blur the distinction between lexicography and commentary, infusing his own beliefs into his work. Therefore, let us do “be on guard”, just as your source recommended. Let us do as all good students and lexicogrpahers do, examine each word in its context.The Blue Letter Bible wrote:The Blue Letter Bible staff has completed the task of displaying Thayer's Greek Lexicon. Praise God! We are currently preparing images of a Hebrew Lexicon as well!
This version of Thayer's Lexicon was prepared by the Blue Letter Bible staff, from a public domain copy. Thayer's work was derived (translated, revised, and enlarged) in the 1880's from Grimm's Lexicon of 1868. The Blue Letter Bible staff is using the corrected edition of 1889. Thayer's additions to Grimm's work are generally marked with a set of brackets [...].
Caution: According to Baker's modern copyright edition, Thayer was apparently NOT doctrinally sound in all areas, particularly in the area of the trinity, and so the user must be on guard. We would be appreciative of any actual examples of doctrinal error, so they can be marked with "caution" tags. (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/ ... ml#Thayers)
Please open your eyes and reread the previous posts. Regarding the Old Testament usage of shekar:Marc wrote: I have given good evidence as to what they mean. I haven't seen anything that contradicts this.
- Multiple textual authorities were quoted that give evidence to the fact that the Hebrew shekar had multiple definitions. It could refer to new juice as well as fermented juice, just as yayin clearly could refer to both, except yayin referred to grape must, while date, palm, and other musts were the basis of shekar. Again, please reread previous posts.
- The context of Deuteronomy contains multiple contextual markers, indicating that the drink did not have to be intoxicating; moreover, it was likely fresh juice:
- It was to be drunk as a substitute for a “new wine” tithe (Deuteronomy 14:26)
- As part of a religious feast, held in the place of the sanctuary, it was to be shared with the Levite, who was not to consume any intoxicating drink while in the service of the Lord (Deuteronomy 14:22-29; Leviticus 10:9)
- Maybe it was not even consumed? Maybe it was poured out as a drink offering? (Leviticus 10:9)
- If 50 verses condemn some deed and 1 verse may support it, why would you rest your entire belief on the one possibly ambiguous, dismissing the 50 clear passages? Please count and report how many passages may possibly support the consumption of shekar versus the number of Old Testament passages that discourage, if not condemn its consumption? See previous posts for all usages of shekar...
- How would you show that Deuteronomy 14:26 necessarily indicates the intoxicating form of shekar? And how would you show that they necessarily consumed it?
- One verse is wrong, challenging either the accuracy of God or the Scriptures.
- The verses do not contradict, because the word is used in two different senses. Either the words vary in level of consumption or degree of toxicity (alcohol content).
- The people were “well drunk”, even to the point of consuming all the wine. Yet, where are the drunkards?
- Would Jesus have promoted the clear sin of drunkenness by creating more intoxicating wine to add to their drunkenness?
- They were still able to distinguish between the fact that Jesus newly created wine was far superior to the original wine. However, everybody who has ever attended a drinking party knows that people often save the cheap stuff for last, because most people cannot tell the difference. They are too drunk to distinguish. But, yet these people could still tell the difference. Why?
Additionally, I believe the following passages clearly condemn the consumption of any judgment-altering drug for non-medicinal purposes:
Not only does this passage positively command sobriety but it strictly condemns 3 varying levels of drinking: a little, too much, and way too much.Peter by inspiration wrote:Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance; but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, "Be holy, for I am holy. (I Peter 1:13-16)
Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh for the lusts of men, but for the will of God. For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles -- when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries. (I Peter 4:1-4)
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. (I Peter 5:8)
Sobriety is an essential part of any Christian wearing his spiritual armor. Without soberness, the Christian willingly loosens his armor, opening himself up to an ever vigilant lion, drooling for a chink in our armor. Additionally, soberness is commanded in several other passages (Romans 12:3; I Thessalonians 5:6-8; Titus 2:2-12).
As long as one proposes consumption of any drug which does not affect our “sobriety”, then I would have no problem accepting it under Christian liberty. However, we have no liberty where the Scriptures have clearly advised, condemned, and mandated. Therefore, if modern wine affects our sobriety, it is strictly condemned under the positive commandment to maintain sobriety.
As one last side thought, it seems very foolish to advise “moderation” for controlling our level of consuming a dangerously addictive and intoxicating drug. With what faculty will you gauge your level of drunkenness to determine if you have had too much to drink, when one of the primary things impaired by the drinking is your judgment and ability to assess that you have had too much to drink? That’s like driving a car with a speedometer that works fine, except when you are speeding through hairpin turns. It is broke when you need it most! Come to think of it, drinking has often proved to be way too much like this…
This does not pose a problem, because it has already been advocated that the word can refer to fresh juice or fermented juice.Marc wrote:Why would Paul warn these people not be addicted to wine if it was mere grape juice?
Please do not mistake Timothy as a mere child. Please recall that Paul left him alone in Ephesus to preach the gospel so that the church may withstand false teachers, appoint elders, appoint deacons, rebuke the politically minded, warn the wealth seekers, etc (I Timothy 1:2-ff). Does that sound like Timothy was a child? Remember, Paul was 60 years old at the writing of I Timothy, when he described Timothy as a "youth". Maybe you have read too much into Timothy’s “youthfulness”…Marc wrote:I will say this though that after reading through the posts a question was asked why would Paul have to "command" Timothy to drink wine if it wasn't a normal practice for him to do so already. The answer is Timothy was still considered to be a youth (1 Timothy 4:12). And according to the societal norms it was customary for the youth not to engage in wine drinking.
I must confess that I am greatly discouraged by the level of dismissal that has been evidenced in these responses. Unless a new argument is raised or some indication of objectivity is demonstrated, I will here conclude my remarks on this thread. Please do not consider this a summary, because much more was said in previous posts regarding addiction, moral support, and influence; however, this should be enough, unless someone has already made up their mind beyond question.
Since sheker may have various meanings we cannot tell for sure if it means that it is alcoholic. But the original post asked "Is drinking wine wrong biblically"? Since you can not be sure of it's meaning you can not be sure that it is wrong and therefore it falls under Christian liberty. You wrote "If Ephesians 5:18 condemsn wine..." but it doesn't condemn wine. Read the text. It condemns being drunk with wine. That and many other passages that condemn being drunk with wine I have no problem with. Furthermore, it is irrelevant if they never drank sheker as used in Deuteronomy 14:26. That fact that they were allowed to proves they could do it without sinning. Finally, in terms of Thayer, he did not write the lexicon for the OT but he did for the New. Interestingly when they write that Thayer was not doctrinally sound in all areas and in particular the Trinity they do not list and specific examples. No, nor have I seen one. If there is I'd certainly like to see it. It is disputed if Thayer was a Trinitarian. I have read both pro and con but I will say this, when he gives the definition of "theotes" (Strong's # 2320) in Colossians 2:9 as "the state of being God" it demonstrates to me that "if" he was not a Trinitarian he still gave us an accurate definition of the word.
Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to...drink (Colossians 2:16).
Marc
Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to...drink (Colossians 2:16).
Marc
This is terrible reasoning. Just because a person does not understand something does not release him from its command. That's like the person who dismisses the entire Bible saying, "No one can understand it!". The point still stands the vast majority of Old Testament usages of shekar speak negatively of it. The few positive references could easily be explained by examining the context.Marc wrote:Since sheker may have various meanings we cannot tell for sure if it means that it is alcoholic. But the original post asked "Is drinking wine wrong biblically"? Since you can not be sure of it's meaning you can not be sure that it is wrong and therefore it falls under Christian liberty.
We are manifesting our heart when we quickly jump to "Christian liberty", when the vast number of passages are negative, and the few positive are shaky at best. Open minded people must refrain from jumping to the desired conclusion, when someone throws a small amount of dust into the air.
That is correct, but I understood you to originally claim that Ephesians 5:18 and John 2 were in conflict. I was working off of your reasoning.Marc wrote:You wrote "If Ephesians 5:18 condemsn wine..." but it doesn't condemn wine. Read the text. It condemns being drunk with wine. That and many other passages that condemn being drunk with wine I have no problem with.
My apologies for the misunderstanding. My original answer was not to point to Ephesians 5:18. I believe that previously referenced passages in I Peter, command sobriety and condemn three different levels of drinking. Therefore, I believe the primary reasoning still stands:Marc previously wrote:In relation to this, you can not prove that the wine in Ephesians 5:18 and John 2:9 are not identicle. Thus it falls under Christian liberty.
- No positive New Testament command, inference, or example in consuming intoxicating drink.
- Sobriety is commanded (I Peter 1:13-16; 5:8). Therefore, all mind-altering drugs must be avoided.
- Dissipation is condemned (Ephesians 5:18; Matthew 25:14-30). Therefore, all life-wasting, mind-altering drugs must be avoided.
- Addiction is condemned (I Corinthians 6:12). Therefore, all addictive substances must be avoided.
- Multiple levels of intoxicating consumption are condemned from social drinking parties to wild revelries (I Peter 4:1-4). Therefore, all forms of recreational and social drinking are condemned.
Again, you are ignoring everything thus said and asserting the thing to be proven. Please answer previous arguments that shekar as used in Deuteronomy 14:26 refers to fresh wine as opposed to intoxicating wine.Marc wrote:Furthermore, it is irrelevant if they never drank sheker as used in Deuteronomy 14:26. That fact that they were allowed to proves they could do it without sinning.
Although interesting, this is not relevant to the topic at hand. The point is not whether Thayer wrote the OT lexicon, but the point was that a human wrote the lexicon; and therefore, he may have inadvertently injected his prejudiced beliefs on occasion, per your own reference. Regardless of the lexicographer, we must look at each word in its context, because uninspired humans make mistakes.Marc wrote:Finally, in terms of Thayer, he did not write the lexicon for the OT but he did for the New. Interestingly when they write that Thayer was not doctrinally sound in all areas and in particular the Trinity they do not list and specific examples. No, nor have I seen one. If there is I'd certainly like to see it.
Ok - This sounds nice, but this is a terrible misuse of this passage. This passage clearly relates to the abolishment of the Old Testament, ceremonial customs, which relate to fleshly ordinances (Colossians 2:14-17). Also, please notice that Paul qualifies this "drink" as all being a "commandment of men", which offer no defense against the "indulgence of the flesh" (Colossians 2:22-23). I don't think I Peter 4:1-4 qualifies as a "commandment of man". Furthermore, sobriety is one of the best shields against "indulgence of the flesh".Marc wrote: Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to...drink (Colossians 2:16).
...
Admittedly, I will never be able to produce a New Testament passage that says, "Thou shalt not drink any intoxicating beverage greater than X% alcoholic content". However, where is the passage that explicitly condemns wife-beating? Where is the passage that vilifies child molestation? There is no "thou shalt not", but clearly these deplorable acts are heinous sin. What Bible passage would you use to condemn these? ... God does not always illuminate every issue with a "Thou shalt" or a "Thou shalt not". However, that does not mean He has not spoken on such a topic and expressed His will...
Last edited by m273p15c on Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Molesting children is doing physical harm to them and would thus be wrong. Again you can not prove that drinking alcoholic beverages is evil. The Scripture warns against its overindulgence not its consumption. Furthermore in terms of Timothy it has been answered. He was still a youth. Yes a young man but still a youthful one not considered old enough to be a drinker of alcoholic beverages. It has also been established that we just simply don't know if sheker was intoxicating in Deuteronomy 14:26. You must assume it isn't to justify telling other people not to drink. But that's just what it is - an assumption. My use of Colossians 2:16 is not a misuses of the passage. Paul is saying that all foods as well as drinks are now to be enjoyed and no one has the right to restrict its usage.
"as a man thinketh in his heart..."
Yes. I agree with the first part of the statement. The key however is that you could not identify a "Thou shalt not" to condemn such things. You used other commands, such as "loving your neighbor" and "no fornication" to condemn child-molestation, just as "loving your wife as yourself" condemns wife-beating. In a very similar way, the commands for sobriety, addiction avoidance, dissipation avoidance, and not placing a stumbling block before our brethren, all eliminate the acceptance of intoxicating beverage consumption. Furthermore, the Scriptures explicitly condemn recreational and social drinking in I Peter 4:1-4. I do not understand how you can continue to ignore these passages and assert their absence.Marc wrote:Molesting children is doing physical harm to them and would thus be wrong. Again you can not prove that drinking alcoholic beverages is evil. The Scripture warns against its overindulgence not its consumption.
Based on what? You are telling me that Timothy was old enough to be left responsible as a gospel preacher to a growing congregation, which was wrestling with false teachers and appointing elders, but he wasn't old enough to drink "a little wine" without Paul's command? What societal norm ever suggested such a thing? Timothy was approximately 30 years old by the writing of I Timothy. How old did a person have to be?! Where are your sources for this assertion?Marc wrote:Furthermore in terms of Timothy it has been answered. He was still a youth. Yes a young man but still a youthful one not considered old enough to be a drinker of alcoholic beverages.
No. You have asserted this, but you have failed to establish it. Moreover, several contextual indicators have been presented, which point towards fresh juice, not fermented. Furthermore, if 1 passage is out of line with 50, which is the greater presumption? To bring 1 inline with 49, or 49 inline with 1? Even if I didn't have the contextual evidence, I would be feel both content and safe to follow the overwhelming number of passages that speak negatively of shekar, rather than ignore the other 49 and stick to a single ambiguous passage.Marc wrote:It has also been established that we just simply don't know if sheker was intoxicating in Deuteronomy 14:26. You must assume it isn't to justify telling other people not to drink. But that's just what it is - an assumption.
First, you did not justify the contextual use of this passage. Is I Peter 4:1-4 a "commandment of men" or of God (Colossians 2:22)? Does avoiding mind-altering drugs provide a defense against the "indulgence of the flesh" (Colossians 2:23)? The things released in Colossians 2:16 were "commandments of men" and provided "no defense against the indulgence of the flesh". Intoxicating drink satisfies neither of these contextual requirements, so how can this passage be rightfully applied to this situation?Marc wrote:My use of Colossians 2:16 is not a misuses of the passage. Paul is saying that all foods as well as drinks are now to be enjoyed and no one has the right to restrict its usage.
Second, let us follow your reason to the extreme and test its consistency: If a person was following down drunk, would you judge that he should not take another drink? Would taking another drink be wrong for him? If such reasoning is not even consistent with itself, how can it possibly be consistent with inerrant Scripture?
Third, the sin is not inherent in the drink. The drink is nothing more than a medium to consume a mind-altering drug. If that is not the reason for its consumption, then why do people drink it? They could have easily chosen another drink that tastes good, if not similar, and yet without alcoholic content. But, yet people choose wine and beer! Why? What is it that people really like about wine and beer? The taste!? Please...
The consumption of this drug reduces sobriety, initiates dissipation, feeds addiction, and poses a stumbling block for weaker brethren - not to mention again, that it was specifically forbidden in I Peter 4:1-4. As long as your wine does not violate any of these Scriptural principles and commands, I would not have any problem with it.
.....
I guess someone could limit himself to a very small amount of the intoxicant without feeling its effects. But, why? What are you trying to do? Why are you trying to get as close as possible to the edge of the cliff without slipping off? That is like the person who wanted to know how much of his house could he burn up without losing control and burning it all down. Or, somebody wanting to know how much dynamite he or she can explode in their house without destroying it. Why would you want to play with such things? Sooner or later, you are going lose control.
As further illustration of this principle, Paul told Timothy to "Flee youthful lusts" (II Timothy 2:22). If a married man flirts with another married woman, has either committed fornication? No. However, if he keeps coming back, flirting with danger over and over again, then what is wrong with his heart?! We are revealing our hearts by playing with this fire...
Although I think He could, I imagine that God will not have to condemn anyone over "social drinking" on Judgment day, because such people will too frequently be guilty of drunkenness. I know they feel guilty whenever they cross over that line, wherever it is, and repent and try not to do it again. But yet, they keep setting themselves up for it. They keep providing themselves an "opportunity to sin" (Romans 13:11-14). Why? One can say that this is not about "drunkenness". He may profess that it is only about drinking a little, but I don't believe it. One's desire to get as close as possible to sin without falling into it is a foolish front. Accidentally falling into sin, and repeating the set up, manifests the true heart.
1 Peter 4:1-4 does not forbid drinking wine but it's overindulgence as it's use of drunkeness and what occurs because of it.
You write that Timothy was approximately 30 years old by the writing of Timothy. What do you base this on? Paul calls him a youth and that is what the Greek word means - a youth or youthful age. In terms of not being able to drink wine at such a young age even up to 30 see the commentary by Adam Clarke at studylight.org
I have asserted that we simply don't know if it was intoxicating so you have no biblical right to deny its usage. One passage is not out of line with 50. Those condemn its overindulgence.
When Noah was drunk with wine was that fermented? Of course it was but according to you in the other cases it does not mean fermented. How very convenient.
You write that Timothy was approximately 30 years old by the writing of Timothy. What do you base this on? Paul calls him a youth and that is what the Greek word means - a youth or youthful age. In terms of not being able to drink wine at such a young age even up to 30 see the commentary by Adam Clarke at studylight.org
I have asserted that we simply don't know if it was intoxicating so you have no biblical right to deny its usage. One passage is not out of line with 50. Those condemn its overindulgence.
When Noah was drunk with wine was that fermented? Of course it was but according to you in the other cases it does not mean fermented. How very convenient.
majoring in minors, while overlooking the main point
Admittedly, overindulgence is clearly condemned in this passage. However, the last word, "banqueting", or "drinking parties", refers to something less than indulgence. It may certainly include indulgence and lead to it, but per Barne's Notes, Eastman's Dictionary, and Holdman's Word Dictionary, it would have included more social forms of drinking, which may not have included indulgence. I believe this is consistent with my very first point, if not a rewording it.Marc wrote:1 Peter 4:1-4 does not forbid drinking wine but it's overindulgence as it's use of drunkeness and what occurs because of it.
That being said, after doing some more research, I found some contrary references, which suggest the word may have had an indulgent connotation (ISBE, Thayer), although still diminished compared to the first two words. I do not want to engage in an argument between authorities and sources; moreover, I do not believe it is necessary. In fact, I think it would be confusing and distracting. For the sake of argument, I do not want to waste time on anything than the most compelling arguments. Therefore, I would like to spend no more time on this argument. Please understand, that I believe this verse to still be insightful, and I will be glad to continue using it; however, for the purpose of this debate, I think we will be better served by focusing on more fundamental arguments.
I believe that it is generally recognized that Timothy was at least 30 years old by this writing. Therefore, multiple references could be quoted, but since you mentioned Adam Clarke, let us examine his wording in context:Marc wrote:You write that Timothy was approximately 30 years old by the writing of Timothy. What do you base this on? Paul calls him a youth and that is what the Greek word means - a youth or youthful age. In terms of not being able to drink wine at such a young age even up to 30 see the commentary by Adam Clarke at studylight.org ... at 1 Timothy 5:23.
When I raised this question in my very first post, I used it as a "prejudice breaker". It is not a necessarily compelling argument in and of itself, but in conjunction with other supportive texts, it asks a very difficult question for those predisposed to consume "moderate" levels of alcohol.Adam Clark, on I Timothy 5:23, wrote:From Athenaeus we learn that the Greeks often mingled their wine with water; sometimes one part of wine to two of water; three parts of water to one of wine; and at other times three parts of water to two of wine. See his Deipnosophistae, lib. ix. "Among the Locrians, if any one was found to have drunk unmixed wine, unless prescribed by a physician, he was punished with death; the laws of Zaleucus so requiring. And among the Romans, no servant, nor free woman, ουτετωνελευθερωνοιεφηβοιμεχρι τριακονταετων, nor youths of quality, drank any wine till they were thirty years of age." Deipnosoph., lib. x. c. 7, p. 429. And it was a maxim among all, that continued water-drinking injured the stomach. Thus Libanius, Epist. 1578. πεπτωκεκαι ημινοστομαχοςταιςσυνεχεσινυδροποσιαις. "Our stomach is weakened by continual water-drinking."
From 1 Timothy 4:12, we learn that Timothy was a young man; but as among the Greeks and Roman the state of youth or adolescence was extended to thirty years, and no respectable young men were permitted to drink wine before that time; allowing that Timothy was about twenty when Paul had him circumcised, which was, according to Calmet, in the year of our Lord 51, and that this epistle was written about A. D. 64 or 65, then Timothy must have been about thirty-five when he received this epistle; and as that was on the borders of adolescence, and as the Scripture generally calls that youth that is not old age, Timothy might be treated as a young man by St. Paul, as in the above text, and might still feel himself under the custom of his country relative to drinking wine, (for his father was a Greek, Acts 16:1,) and, through the influence of his Christian profession, still continue to abstain from wine, drinking water only; which must have been very prejudicial to him, his weak state of health considered, the delicacy of his stomach, and the excess of his ecclesiastical labours.
I would like to get to the heart of the matter, so I intend to answer your questions to vindicate the usefulness of the question, and then I want to focus on what I believe to be the core issue:
- My first estimate was conservative to preserve integrity. Clarke puts Timothy at about 35. If you check other commentators and Bible historians, you should find similar data. This easily exceeds the supposed 30 year age limit. Therefore, your argument is not applicable.
- Timothy's youth is referenced in regard to lusts and credibility associated with his age, in contrast with Paul's age and the age of candidate "elders". There is nothing in the book to associate his age with a drinking limit. Therefore, your argument is unsupported by the context.
- Incidentally, if you are correct in your use of Colossians 2:16, then why would Timothy be concerned about societal norms, which are "traditions of men" and of no defense against "the indulgence of the flesh"? Especially, considering this so called "societal norm" was arranged by Plato per the doctrines of the pagan god, Bacchus!?
- Moreover, Paul does not correct his over-zealousness. He does not call him a radical. He does not say that, "You are past 30 and should have been drinking 5 years ago." Instead, he commands him to "take a little wine" for medicinal purposes. Why just a little, if he was free to consume more? And, why did he have to have a reason, if none was necessary ("for your stomach's sake")? ... BTW, Exactly how much alcohol are you advocating?
You have this completely backwards! It makes no sense. You originally used the passage to support consumption of intoxicating drink. If you admit that you cannot prove it was intoxicating, then you cannot use it to support your position that intoxicating dring was approved. I never used it to support my position!Marc wrote:I have asserted that we simply don't know if it was intoxicating so you have no biblical right to deny its usage.
This assertion is just not true. Not only are most references to shekar negative, but many clearly condemn it:Marc wrote:One passage is not out of line with 50. Those condemn its overindulgence.
- Leviticus 10:9 "Do not drink wine or intoxicating drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the tabernacle of meeting, lest you die. It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations,
- Proverbs 20:1 Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise.
- Proverbs 31:4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, It is not for kings to drink wine, Nor for princes intoxicating drink;
- Proverbs 31:6 Give strong drink to him who is perishing, And wine to those who are bitter of heart.
This is not only provocative, but it is a rehash. If you do not think the context supports multiple definitions, beyond what you have already stated, then please state so now without mocking what you cannot answer. ...Marc wrote:When Noah was drunk with wine was that fermented? Of course it was but according to you in the other cases it does not mean fermented. How very convenient.
The Primary Problem with Moderate Drinking:
As I stated in the first posts up through recent posts, the principle problems with alcoholic consumption are, in order of arguable significance, a violation or defamation of:
- sobriety
- stewardship (contrast with dissipation)
- addiction avoidance ("self control" and "not brought under the power of any")
- influence over weaker brother / giving unbelievers opportunity to blaspheme and mock
- avoid setup for convenient sin (Romans 13:14)
Also, as stated previously, I guess a person could consume just a little alcohol and not violate #1 or #3. He may even be able to hide his consumption so as not to influence a weaker brother, causing him to sin, avoiding #4. However, can he avoid #2 and #5? How does a person know that he will not become an alcoholic? How will he moderate his drinking, as his judgment becomes increasingly impaired? Remember, alcohol deadens the very judgment you must to use to moderate further consumption.
Ultimately, the issue is sobriety. Alcohol is a drug that impairs one's spiritual and moral judgment. Our adversary is too dangerous, our work is to important, and our stewardship too heavy to consume a drug, which loosens the straps on our spiritual armor, if even for a moment.
Why do people drink wine and beer? For the taste? For their health? Not hardly. People seek the release and liberty that the drug provides. If that is not the reason, then why do they flock to it?
Still think you can moderate drinking alcohol in the privacy of your own home without bad things happening? Ask Noah how that turned out for him.
You cite Leviticus 10:9; Proverbs 20:1; 31:4, 6 as negative uses of sheker. Again I say how very convenient. All of a sudden it does refer to intoxicating drink here but when it is used in Deuteronomy 14:26 then it does not refer to intoxicating drink. One or the other. You are picking and choosing what it means based on your already held beliefs. Let the text speak for itself rather than pouring meaning into the text.
Leviticus 10:9 says they were not to drink it upon entering the tabernacle. That's all it says. It doesn't say they could not drink it at other times.
Proverbs 20:1 says whoever is intoxicated by it is not wise (NASB 1977). The footnote says it literally means "errs". I have no problem with that. Don't drink to the point of drunkeness.
Proverbs 31:4 refers to kings and rulers. I am neither.
Proverbs 31:6 says it should be given to certain persons but it doesn't say it should not be given to others.
Marc
Leviticus 10:9 says they were not to drink it upon entering the tabernacle. That's all it says. It doesn't say they could not drink it at other times.
Proverbs 20:1 says whoever is intoxicated by it is not wise (NASB 1977). The footnote says it literally means "errs". I have no problem with that. Don't drink to the point of drunkeness.
Proverbs 31:4 refers to kings and rulers. I am neither.
Proverbs 31:6 says it should be given to certain persons but it doesn't say it should not be given to others.
Marc
the bottom line
Again, I believe we are focusing on the tangential issues, while overlooking the fundamental issues. At the risk of losing focus and detracting from the real questions...
Regarding the other passages, it must refer to intoxication; otherwise, we have 2 Bible passages in contradiction! God would not approve of one thing in one place, and then disapprove of the exact same thing somewhere else. He would not call it wisdom in one place and foolishness in another. It is not a matter of convenience, rather it is a matter of necessity; otherwise, we challenge the consistency and integrity of the Bible. Plus, many of the other negative passages mention intoxicating effects. For example, it is real hard to get drunk off of fresh juice. Again, the context illuminates the utilized connotation.
Keep in mind, that at the end of the day, I am going to look to the New Testament for ultimate authority. The Old Testament is good for admonition, example, commentary, and explanation, but not final authority. (More on this in another thread if you like...). Therefore, I am ultimately going to look to the principles presented in the previous posts, which are expressed in the New Testament. Support from the Old Testament is helpful, but not necessary.
Proverbs 31:4, 6 are part of the same context. The king is advised to leave intoxicating drinks to others, but it is not for him. It is to relegated to the dying, etc., but it is not for people in power, "Lest they drink and forget the law, And pervert the justice of all the afflicted." (Proverbs 31:5). As a Christian are you not in a position of influence and power as a spiritual priest and king? Are you not a "light set on a hill"? Are the consequences not the same for you as for the king and priest? Can you not do tremendous damage in the consumption of intoxicating drinks?
Why were kings and priests not to consume these drinks? Was it not to avoid committing sin (Leviticus 10:9; Proverbs 31:4-5)? Given the fact that modern wine is many times stronger than ancient inebriants, is this danger not even more disconcerting for today? Again, this speaks to oft repeated concerns over sobriety, influence, addiction, and stewardship.
I think we may be finally done with this thread.
This has been said many times already, but the context in Deuteronomy 14:26 points to fresh wine. To ignore these indicators is to "pour meaning into the text" and ignore what the text says. If you have questions or comments regarding these indicators, I would be glad to hear them. Please see previous posts for more details.Marc wrote:You cite Leviticus 10:9; Proverbs 20:1; 31:4, 6 as negative uses of sheker. Again I say how very convenient. All of a sudden it does refer to intoxicating drink here but when it is used in Deuteronomy 14:26 then it does not refer to intoxicating drink. One or the other. You are picking and choosing what it means based on your already held beliefs. Let the text speak for itself rather than pouring meaning into the text.
Regarding the other passages, it must refer to intoxication; otherwise, we have 2 Bible passages in contradiction! God would not approve of one thing in one place, and then disapprove of the exact same thing somewhere else. He would not call it wisdom in one place and foolishness in another. It is not a matter of convenience, rather it is a matter of necessity; otherwise, we challenge the consistency and integrity of the Bible. Plus, many of the other negative passages mention intoxicating effects. For example, it is real hard to get drunk off of fresh juice. Again, the context illuminates the utilized connotation.
Keep in mind, that at the end of the day, I am going to look to the New Testament for ultimate authority. The Old Testament is good for admonition, example, commentary, and explanation, but not final authority. (More on this in another thread if you like...). Therefore, I am ultimately going to look to the principles presented in the previous posts, which are expressed in the New Testament. Support from the Old Testament is helpful, but not necessary.
All Christians are priests and kings and are always on duty (see previous note for more details). Besides NASB and NASV, all other versions render this "led astray", or similar (KJV, NKJ, ASV, NIV, NIB, RSV, NRS, YLT, LXE, NAB, NLT). Besides, the point is that wine and strong drink contain these things. They are inseparable. You may plan on moderation, but you will not end up there. This is the way of all mind-altering drugs.Marc wrote:Leviticus 10:9 says they were not to drink it upon entering the tabernacle. That's all it says. It doesn't say they could not drink it at other times.
Proverbs 20:1 says whoever is intoxicated by it is not wise (NASB 1977). The footnote says it literally means "errs". I have no problem with that. Don't drink to the point of drunkeness.
Proverbs 31:4 refers to kings and rulers. I am neither.
Proverbs 31:6 says it should be given to certain persons but it doesn't say it should not be given to others.
Proverbs 31:4, 6 are part of the same context. The king is advised to leave intoxicating drinks to others, but it is not for him. It is to relegated to the dying, etc., but it is not for people in power, "Lest they drink and forget the law, And pervert the justice of all the afflicted." (Proverbs 31:5). As a Christian are you not in a position of influence and power as a spiritual priest and king? Are you not a "light set on a hill"? Are the consequences not the same for you as for the king and priest? Can you not do tremendous damage in the consumption of intoxicating drinks?
Why were kings and priests not to consume these drinks? Was it not to avoid committing sin (Leviticus 10:9; Proverbs 31:4-5)? Given the fact that modern wine is many times stronger than ancient inebriants, is this danger not even more disconcerting for today? Again, this speaks to oft repeated concerns over sobriety, influence, addiction, and stewardship.
Ha-ha! I thought this pretty well summed it up - the heart of the matter at last.Marc wrote:Hey man, I gave good evidence that drinking alcohol is fine. The Bible simply warns against its abuse just like practically everything else. Plus the fact I just want my beer!
I think we may be finally done with this thread.When you see peoples motivation in why "They want their beer" you begin to see why it is not good thing to tell the world, because we are to set examples not stumbling blocks.
Why would someone want to alter their mind if God gave it to you the way it is.
Drinking is most of the time self ambition, its about how you feel, after a few, this is not being led by the Spirit.
Why would someone want to alter their mind if God gave it to you the way it is.
Drinking is most of the time self ambition, its about how you feel, after a few, this is not being led by the Spirit.