Could Jesus be Jesus and a Southern Baptist?
At their annual convention Southern Baptists passed a resolution that urges complete abstinence from alcoholic beverages. Some of the reasoning for such a stance includes confirmed research “that alcohol use leads to physical, mental, and emotional damage”, the destruction of families through alcohol use, the addictive nature of alcohol, and the current trend of religious leaders advocating moderate drinking based upon “a misinterpretation of the doctrine of ‘our freedom in Christ’”.
The SBC went all out and expressed “total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages” while also advocating “Southern Baptist to be actively involved in educating students and adults concerning the destructive nature of alcoholic beverages.” Finally, they resolved that “organizations and ministries to treat alcohol-related problems from a biblical perspective and promote abstinence and encourage local churches to begin and/or support such biblically-based ministry.”
Biblically based ministry?
In reading this you would almost think that someone could be converted if they would just stop drinking. Is this really the mission that the SBC wants to pursue: the opposing of the production, advertisement and distribution of alcohol? Is this the main thing? Better yet, is this even biblical?
Immediately my mind thinks of the Savior and the first public miracle that he conducted….He made wine!! And it is not like he made a bottle or two, but he made an excessive amount of wine!
John chapter two tells us that: “there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each” ok..so that is a conservative 120 gallons of wine. There are generally 25 fluid ounces in a bottle of wine. This means that if Jesus made bottled wine he would have made over 600 bottles of wine for this wedding!! This is a lot of wine for a wedding in any culture!
There are a couple of interesting points in the story, 1) the wedding party had already been drinking (cf. John 2.10), and so then Jesus was meeting the crowds desire for more wine. and 2) Jesus wanted to make sure there was a legitimate 120 gallons in those pots: John 2:7 Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” So they filled them up to the brim.
Jesus did not seem too ashamed of an association with wine; perhaps he would have acted differently if he had access to the piles of medical research currently at the fingertips of the SBC.
Some say that this was not real wine citing historical evidence that the wine was watered down. This would seem to have been a pretty good answer to the ultra-pietistic religious hypocrites that accused Jesus of being a drunk because he drank wine. In Luke 7 we read of Jesus interacting with these guys saying:
Luke 7:33-35 33 “For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon!’ 34 “The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ 35 “Yet wisdom is vindicated by all her children.”
Did you notice that one phrase in there: “The Son of Man has come eating and drinking”. Jesus drank. Jesus had a reputation for drinking.
Danny Akin (a man I respect greatly and truly appreciate), the president of Southeastern Baptist Seminary in Wake Forest, NC, recently wrote that he would demand abstinence from alcohol for all church leadership.
Could Jesus be a leader in a Southern Baptist Church? Could he go to a Southern Baptist Seminary?
Does the Bible teach that Alcohol is bad?
It seems to me from a normal reading of the Bible that a distinction is made between alcohol and the abuse of alcohol. Drunkenness is a sin, it has always been a sin (Eph. 5.18; Rom. 13.13; Gal. 5.19, 21; 1 Cor. 6.10; Prov. 23.20).
But does sinful abuse impugn a good gift of God?
Alcohol, specifically wine, in the Bible is a gift of God to be enjoyed:
Psalm 104:14-15 14 He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, And vegetation for the labor of man, So that he may bring forth food from the earth, 15 And wine which makes man’s heart glad, So that he may make his face glisten with oil, And food which sustains man’s heart.
Ecclesiastes 9:7-9 7 Go then, eat your bread in happiness and drink your wine with a cheerful heart; for God has already approved your works. 8 Let your clothes be white all the time, and let not oil be lacking on your head. 9 Enjoy life with the woman whom you love all the days of your fleeting life which He has given to you under the sun; for this is your reward in life and in your toil in which you have labored under the sun.
Alcohol also seems to be associated with divine favor, even a special blessing:
Deuteronomy 7:13 13 “He will love you and bless you and multiply you; He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, your grain and your new wine and your oil, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock, in the land which He swore to your forefathers to give you.
Deuteronomy 11:13-14 13 “It shall come about, if you listen obediently to my commandments which I am commanding you today, to love the LORD your God and to serve Him with all your heart and all your soul, 14 that He will give the rain for your land in its season, the early and late rain, that you may gather in your grain and your new wine and your oil.
Proverbs 3:9-10 9 Honor the LORD from your wealth And from the first of all your produce; 10 So your barns will be filled with plenty And your vats will overflow with new wine.
(now I’ve heard this used in a Baptist church for a text on tithing, but never with the blessing of verse 10…8-D)
In reading the SBC statement and Dr. Akin’s article it seems that the frustration over the admittedly horrific and devastating effects of the sin of drunkenness is overshadowing the divine design in giving us a good gift to be enjoyed.
Akin anticipates objection and attempts to diffuse the arguments asserting that we should also elimate food and sex to prevent glutteny and lust. “There is however a significant difference. We must eat to live. We must engage in sex to procreate. Alcohol is not a necessity for life or good living.”
I don’t think there is a significant difference. Food comes from God and is not only to be consumed but also enjoyed and received with thankfulness, with recognition that it is a gracious God who has provided food for his creation, even good tasting food. Sex is not just for procreation. This would be a Catholic viewpoint; Dr. Akin could have quoted Pope Benedict for support on this one. Sex is for procreation, but it is also for enjoyment!! With a quick run through The Song of Solomon it appears that biblical sex is to be enjoyed. What has God made that is not to be enjoyed? Not abused, but enjoyed?
I get nervous anytime anyone starts advocating abstaining from foods or drinks considering the solemn warning of 1 Tim 4:
1 Timothy 4:1-5 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.
In conclusion Danny Akin tips his hat to legalism saying that he is not being legalistic. But a passing reference and a personal denial is just not enough. They are advocating abstinence from something that God has not!! And the support for doing so does not come from the Bible but from tradition, research, tragedy and personal experience. Legalism is making yourself more narrow than what the Scripture says. While Danny Akin says that he would not prevent membership if someone drank only leadership it still smacks of the same problem that Jesus was dealing with when he answered the religious leaders of his day in Luke 7.
Akin writes, “I am in total agreement with my spiritual hero Adrian Rogers who said, “Moderation is not the cure for the liquor problem. Moderation is the cause of the liquor problem. Becoming an alcoholic does not begin with the last drink, it always begins with the first. Just leave it alone.”
No sir, moderation is not the problem…sin is the problem. And the answer is not moderation…but salvation. There are no Christian alcoholics, but there are Christians who used to be drunks!! We should stop preaching sanctification to the world and start preaching the gospel. Abstinence will not reform anyone. Instead, people need to be converted, learn self-control and enjoy the good gifts of God, whether it is sex, food, a Sam Adams or a glass of Shiraz all to the glory of God, even thanking Jesus who suffered, bled, cried, and guzzled and satisfied the wrath of God in the place of sinners like me.
Possibly Related posts:
- How to increase your blog’s traffic
- A “Paige” out of the Pharisee’s book…more SBC Jedi Mind Tricks
- Biblical Perspective on Alcohol (resource)
- Southern Baptists, Emergent Church, and Mark Driscoll
- Reformed Christmas Calendar
19 Responses to “Could Jesus be Jesus and a Southern Baptist?”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to Updates
Sponsors
About
Twitter Updates
- What Christ-Centered Preaching Endeavors to Do.... http://bit.ly/cWjFTx
- May God forbid that Jesus ever be so familiar that he is no longer fascinating.
- The Church History ABC's http://is.gd/eRlnb
Recent Comments
- Erik on The Church History ABC’s
- Jim on The Church History ABC’s
- Coffee, Steam and Vapors of Life « A Clay Jar Speaks on Don’t Waste Your Coffee
- Tweets that mention What Christ-Centered Preaching Endeavors to Do- Erik Raymond -- Topsy.com on What Christ-Centered Preaching Endeavors to Do
- Beau on Evangelical Polygamy: The Conservative Honeymoon with Glenn Beck
Recommended Products
Random Posts
Most Read Articles
Tags
Archives
Powered by Wordpress | Design by ElegantThemes | All Content © Erik Raymond 2006-2010 
Erik Raymond's Blog by Erik Raymond is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at www.IrishCalvinist.com.
Preach it brother!!!
I love it…salvation is the answer to all this!! If we say, “Look what I have done…I have abstained from that which is evil…I am holy and godly and good.” We add our contribution to what God has wholely done!!
One question, brother. Is it a requirement, then, to use wine for communion? I have used the nonalcoholic version and people have noticed and wonder why. I use the NA because I did not feel it necessary to use the wine. I actually prefer grape juice that we used to use due to it tasting better. I am actually not offended by the use of wine for communion because I understand that this sacrament is a heart issue between an individual and The Lord God who made the heavens and the earth!!
I even had someone say that, “It is required to use wine for communion.” Then why do we offer NA? For the weaker brother…but is it necessary to use wine?
Please reply and correct any wrong thinking.
Love you brother!
“In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following.” –Paul’s enouragement to Timothy on this issue (1 Tim 4:6). Thanks for following his example!
It has always bugged me that people try to portray Jesus’ miracle at Cana in an unmiraculous way. Wine is the product of fermentation and fermentation takes time. Holding the position that Jesus made grape Kool-aid makes Him to be nothing more than an entertainer performing party tricks. Perhaps, they too believe that Jesus walked on ice on the Sea of Galilee.
“Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” 1 Corinthians 10:31.
Mike,
“Is it a requirement, then, to use wine for communion?”
The Scripture tells us to proclaim the Lord’s death through the Lord’s Supper. This is to be done with a cup and bread. The question is what goes in the cup? And how do we decide what goes in the cup? Jesus celebrated Passover with his disciples, so he therefore had red wine in his cup and used unleavened bread. So that is why we use wine and bread.
Now, do you have to use wine? Does the Scripture command Christians to use wine? No. So why do people use grape juice? This is an interesting question. Why did believers ever stop using wine? Until Dr Welch came along wine was the standard. Welch’s Methodist methods became the standard though in promoting his prohibitionist view thimble by thimble. This is probably the most disappointing thing, because Christians today act like Jesus sat at the last supper with a thimble of grape juice…he did not. Welch started this whole thing and we are swimming against the recent historical current that is prevailing in churchianity.
(this is becoming a post in itself 8-D….)
So what of the issue of taste? Could we just have a Diet Coke and an Asiago Baegel from Panera? Well it is obviously not about the taste but the sacrament of proclaimation. We just want to be as biblical as we can. So Jesus drank wine so we offer the wine.
Why the non-alcoholic wine in the purple cups? Just trying to be accommodating while still offering “wine”. Frequently children take the NA or some who are allergic to alcohol.
I will probably post something on the weaker brother. But I do not believe that the weaker brother has anything to do with communion.
If someone says as you reference: “It (wine) is required to use wine for communion.” I would ask them where it says that in the Bible. Communion is commanded not wine, but we use wine because Jesus did and we want to be like him.
Hope this helps. I think I’ll write some more on this in the near future (not next week, preaching 2x). In the meantime, let me know if you have anything further or this was in anyway unclear.
Cheers,
erik
Erik,
Great post dude. I had not heard of Shiraz until a conversation with Chris I. Delicious!! We still get treated as “tainted” Christians by some of our brothers and sisters who are still affiliated with the SBC. Some had actually been in attendance for the Wine or Welchs message. We gave them the Romans 14 message and the second portion of the W or W message but to my knowledge they have not listened to it. What a shame.
I continue to visit your blog and I am amazed at your insight. God gifted. (Ref: Ephesians 1:8) You have inspired me to begin posting to my blog again. I have been absent from it since April.
Blessings
Perhaps you heard this one………
Why don’t Baptists make love standing up? They don’t want people to think they are dancing.
Great post Erik…
The problem with lies (alcohol is evil) is that you need to tell other lies to float it (the numerous exegetical goofiness to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture).
Sox rallying in the 11th!
Oh……..
yeah, it is pretty sad if your rules mean that Jesus couldn’t pastor your church.
ooops. Sox fell short.
Just saw the communion issue. We offer both in our services. 1. Jesus used it. 2. Our confession (WCF) says it. When guys come for ordination, I ask if they take any exceptions, but no one mentions this. Sometimes I playfully ask if they advocate the use of wine, and they just don’t get it. Happens to me alot
Overall I agree with you Erik. SBC and others do border on legalism with this one (and some cross over into legalism). (As an aside, we need to hate this tendency to legalism in our own lives and also our tendencies to anti-nomianism (which is the opposite of legalism)).
A thought…alcohol itself is never referred to as a blessing, but the wine is. So, what is the blessing, the juice or the alcohol, or something else in the wine? I think scripture is silent on what makes the wine a blessing. In the absence of scripture on this one, I would look to medicine, which would point to the juice as the blessing. This is not saying that alcohol is bad, just that it is not necessarily the blessing referred to by scripture. While some may think this to be an unimportant point, it is important because we certainly ought not refuse the blessings of God. If alcohol were a blessing that God offered, I would be in sin to refuse His blessings. Instead I believe that it fits best with scripture (since John the baptist didn’t drink alcohol) to say that the wine is a blessing due to the juice, not the alcohol.
That being said, I generally advocate abstinence from alcohol, not because it is sinful in and of itself but because it could truly be said of all of us that we are “weak brothers” and therefore must be very careful with such things. Jesus was able to drink without sinning because He was not weak in faith! We however are weak in faith so if we do choose not to completely abstain, we must be very cautious. I have personally witnessed some believers who point at the legalism of some on this issue but then stumble themselves into drunkeness. I prefer to openly acknowledge my weakness, admit that I am still prone to sin, and abstain completely rather than take a risk with allowing my weakness to encounter more temptation than I am able to endure. This, of course, done with the utmost care to avoid the sinful temptation to engage in legalism instead of drunkeness, and is followed up with a scriptural drive towards sanctification. We must guard against our liberty to drink alcohol becoming an excuse to drink too much as I have seen happen to believers at times.
Oh, the lengths to which a Christian must go to strive against sin…to the point of bloodshed as Hebrews 12:4 puts it. The whole thought process just reminds me how weak I still am, and how great God is!
p.s. why do Christians warn so much about legalism but so little about anti-nomianism? We need to be killing both as both are sinful!
Jim,
It would be difficult to separate the alcoholic content of wine from the wine or the grapes. Besides I would understand the gladness that comes from the wine to be directly attributed to the alcoholic content of it, wouldn’t you?
“He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, And vegetation for the labor of man, So that he may bring forth food from the earth, 15 And wine which makes man’s heart glad,” (Ps. 104.14-15)
If you advocate abstinence from alcohol based upon the weak brother argument, perhaps you would fall into this category, but according to Romans 14-15 this is not all Christians. And in fact, the intimation here is that we should all be growing stronger, the weak in faith to the strong.
If you advocate, promote, or require abstinence from others for the purposes of spiritual growth (such as the SBC) then you are crossing the line from personal preference to legalism. The Bible does not say that Christians must or should abstain from alcohol. So in legalism advocates for abstinence take their own personal convictions (which are fine to have in light of Rom.14-15) and then evaluate others and their convictions based their own personal preferences. This is the danger and why I am so up in arms about the SBC.
Christians should be able to drink without sinning because they should be able to drink without getting drunk. You bring up the weaker brother which will be a subject of a later post, but a very pertinent issue here. But the SBC is not even making everyone the weaker brother they are totally impuging wine or alcohol because people abuse it, and this is a Jedi Mind Trick.
As far as the antinomianism point, that was not the focus of this post, but I did reference that under no circumstances is a Christian to be drunk…it has been and always will be sinful.
I strive for the biblical balance here regarding your p.s._preaching the Lordship of Jesus Christ as well as the liberty in Jesus Christ. One does not contradict the other and the blurring of one or the other undermines the very cross of the Savior.
Thanks Jim.
In general I was very appreciative of your entry, but you should clarify that salvation does not mean an immediate cessation for alcoholism or any other kind of addiction. Addictions do take time to overcome, and I think we set people up to be disappointed or feel like failures if they are not immediately “healed.”
Reformed said: you should clarify that salvation does not mean an immediate cessation for alcoholism or any other kind of addiction.
Are you saying there is such a think as a Christian alcoholic?
It is an interesting consideration. As I read the Bible I see things as sins rather than addictions. Christians who were previously drunks as unbelievers are to quit being drunks as Christians because they now have power to defeat sin and not be a slave to it (Rom. 6.19).
Perhaps I am missing what you are saying. At any rate it is an important consideration. Thank you for your encouragement.
Erik–
Let me start by saying about a year ago I would have asked the same thing. I don’t suppose that I am better or smarter than you…it just is a tipic I have been investigatinf. I happen to be married to an MDiv/Counseling student so my thoughts on the topic have changed in the last year as I took classes and read from classic reformers and respectable authors on the topic.
I don’t know you, but I think that you are a pastor…from what I am reading. How many times have Christians struggling with one sin or another come into your office? I am saying that there are Christian alcoholics, just as there are Christians struggling with other sins (pornography, jealousy, gluttony, lying, even sexual immorality). In general I agree with you that through Christ we are freed from sin, but we still live in a fallen world, and as those not on the other side of heaven there is a struggle against sin (Romans 7). I think it is the struggle that is evidence of their salvation and the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the person. Obviously I don’t believe that being a Christian gives one the freedom to sin, or to keep on sinning, our goal is to be conformed to the image of Christ and to glorify God, but for all of us it is a process that takes time. We are always dependent upon the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit in our lives. If we no longer struggled with sin after being “saved” then we would have no need for the atoning work of Christ afterwards, but both of our lives attest to the fact that this is not the case.
I just fear that we miss the opportunity to continue to preach the Gospel, the Good News of Christ’s work and our need of it, to the people in the pews because we are afraid of the sticky reality of sin still there. But if we ignore that reality, then Satan has a foothold, and we forget the enormity of Christ gift to us. Paul recognized that the people in the churches that he wrote to still struggled. Among them he knew there were unbelievers, but for the most part the people he addressed, who were struggling with sin, were people he believed made up the invisible church. I really did like what you said, that was just one point I thought maybe should be clarified. I am interested in your thoughts on this subject though, and do not want you to think that I am trying to pick on you. Thanks for letting me respond.
Let me clarify, a Christian can be a struggling alcoholic or recovering alcoholic, but not a practicing alcoholic. If he ever stops struggling, then he probably is not a Christian…sorry for taking up so much space (and the typos).
Reformed- If you read what has been posted on this site you’ll find that much of it deals with dependence upon Christ and his crosswork, through the power of the Holy Spirit to live holy lives to the glory of the Father. I urge readers (as well as myself!!) to daily struggle and war with the flesh to put it to death, pursuing holiness. Of course I believe there is sin in the lives of believers, however, the difference between believers and unbelievers is that believers repent of sin because his seed dwells within us (1 Jn. 3.9).
My main issue with your comment was the word ‘addiction’. I find this to be a secular psychological term that comes from counseling at a completely opposite direction than Biblical counseling. I do not believe there are alcoholics…but there are drunks. Terms like ‘addiction’ tend to mitigate human responsibility and relagate the problem to something medical rather than spiritual.
So if someone comes into my office and says they are an alcoholic, I would not say, “Christian’s are not alcoholics…get out of my office!!” But instead, I would explain to them the sin of drunkeness, and that the Bible forbids it. And like any other sin, it comes down to self-worship, through an undervaluing of Christ, his will and glory. The supremacy of Christ must be seen and loved, then the Christian will stop getting drunk, because he loves Christ.
So to restate, my issue is not so much with your logic, but your terms (i.e. addictions & alcoholism).
I appreciate your assessment. I think that we would disagree because of our counseling approaches. I don’t think that the word addiction goes in the “completely opposite direction of Biblical counseling” per se, but “Biblical counseling” as in the neuthetic approach. I have been studying the Incarnational model of counseling that tries not to reduce the Bible to a simple book of formulas to apply to our lives, and which also tries to recognize the deeper issues that cause us to sin. If we simply approach sin as a behavior, then we skim the surface of that sin. The word “addiction” is not being applied as an excuse for the person sinning, but used to recognize the depth of the struggle. If someone is a Christian they should desire to be more like Christ, and by the power of the Spirit’s work in their life they should become more like Him, but it is a process. God doesn’t want us to just “fix” each other, but to be dependent upon Him, and to develop deep, transparent relationships with eachother. On this side of heaven people may not have all of their problems solved, and so we can’t just approach them like animals that need rewards and conditions to change, but like image-bearers. God has a higher view of His people. God was patient with Israel in offering them repentance before sending His Son, and that Son already paid for those sins on the cross. Obviously that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t repent and struggle, but it doesn’t always mean that repentance, trying, and struggling will be enough. We need to depend upon God. Telling sometone who comes to your office and says that they are an “alcoholic,” “look I get that you are upset and trying because you wouldn’t be here otherwise, but just try harder” will not be enough. I totally agree with you that we need to keep pointing to Christ and showing them Who He is, but we also need to be willing to be gracious, humble, and prayerful. Paul did not have the thorn removed from His side. I do see that you stress dependence upon Christ and the Holy Spirit, it was only included so that you knew that I did too. I really have appreciated your entries, if you didn’t believe that you would not have written this entry in the first place. Still (using a term you may not agree with) I do believe there will be recovering/struggling alcoholics who are Christians. The struggling is a fruit of their faith, and the work of the Spirit. We must be patient and gracious in their struggles, and humble because we also have on-going sin in our own lives. I trully agree with you that we need to continually share the Gospel with that person and all those we minister to because that is our hope.
My concern was the idea that salvation will mean that the “sin” problem (or really any problem) would be solved by looking at Christ. But “there is a false assumption in counseling that if someone comes to you, you solve their problems. God’s goal is not to solve you problems, but to use your problems to bring you to Him. You don’t get to use Him to solve your problems. The sin problem has ultimately been solved by Christ, but putting off the sin nature will be an on-going struggle. Your eyes may open more and more to the depths of your depravity and sin. Our idea of a “solution” may be different. Remember the paralyzed man who they bring to Jesus, and Jesus says, “your sins are forgiven.” The friends probably did not bring him there to have his sins forgiven, but to be healed physically. He was healed physically too, but often God doesn’t heal what we think is the big problem. Cancer doesn’t always go away. People will come to your office for relief, but you will have to switch their understanding so we are dependent upon Him, and offer that different goal.”
All of this to say, thank you for your blog and the opportunity to discuss such topics.
Is Drinking Alcoholic Beverages Right or Wrong?
We believe what we want to believe. We are now in the throes of postmodernism, humanism to the max, and a spiritual coup d’etat that re-arranges the worldview concerning the subject of dinking. As believers are now morphing past the point of diversity on the subject to condoning and, in some cases, pushing other believers to imbibe, I cannot remain silent. Therefore, allow me to share some insights that may help you make one the most important decisions in your life, i.e. to drink or not drink.
1. In defining wine, dual definitions have existed, until recently.
Should you consult most modern English dictionaries, the definition of wine immediately goes to that which is fermented, in other words, of the alcoholic nature. Have you ever studied our history of the English definitions? For example, in 1955 Funk and Wagnall’s New “Standard” Dictionary of the English Language defines wine as follows: “1. The fermented juice of the grape: in loose language the juice of the grape whether fermented or not.” Forty-six years ago loose language allowed that it may or may not be fermented. In the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary defines the word “must” as “new wine- wine pressed from the grape but not fermented.” Benjamin Marin’s Lingua Britannica Reformata or A New English Dictionary, published in 1748, defines “wine” as follows: “1. The juice of the grape. 2. A liquor extracted from other fruits besides the grape.” In this old English definition fermentation is not even mentioned.
The Old Testament word “yayin” and the New Testament word “oinos” as well as the Latin word “vinum” clearly and historically bear two usages the fermented and non-fermented use of that which is classically translated wine. Referring to the Greek “oinos,” Aristotle, in his book Meteorologica, refers to grape juice as one of the kinds of wine. He speaks of it as a sweet beverage (glukus) which “though called wine (oinos), it has not the effect of wine, for it does not taste like wine, for it does not intoxicate like ordinary wine.”
2. Safeguards were in practice to prevent drunkenness.
It is known, from ancient sources, that there were ways of preserving juice, thus preventing fermentation. The ancient Roman statesman, Cato, said: “If you wish to have “must” [grape-juice] all year, put grape-juice in an amphora and seal the cork with pitch; sink it in a fishpond. After 30 days take it out. It will be grape-juice for a whole year” (De Agri Cultura CXX). Because the ability to keep things preserved has been perfected in modern times, the ancient Christians did have a method whereby they would not even accidentally become inebriated. The godly, aged women were warned: “.that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things” (Titus 2:3). Lest they indulge in a beverage that was not perfectly preserved, they are commanded not to give themselves to much wine. In Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Chicago: Moody, 1980, Vol. I, p. 376, it says in reference to wine of Bible days: “not fortified with extra alcohol. Concentrated alcohol was only known in the Middle Ages when the Arabs invented distillation (‘alcohol’ is an Arabic word) so what is now called liquor or strong drink (i.e., whiskey, gin, etc.) and the twenty per cent fortified wines were unknown in Bible times. The strength of natural wines is limited by two factors. The percentage of alcohol will be half of the percentage of the sugar in the juice. And if the alcoholic content is much above 10 or 11 percent, the yeast cells are killed and fermentation ceases. Probably ancient wines were 7-10 per cent . . .to avoid the sin of drunkenness, mingling of wine with water was practiced. This dilution was specified by the rabbis in NT times for the wine customary at Passover.”
3. There are passages, which illustrate that God falls on the side of total abstinence.
Proverbs 20:1 says, “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.” In Proverbs 23:29-31 God declares that those who drink will have sorrows, contentions, wounds, redness of eyes, temptations for adultery and fornication, and a disorientation that causes distortion of judgment (this has surfaced horrendously in modern car wrecks, due to drunk driving). To make it even more plain and simple, God’s Word says in Proverbs 23:31, “Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.” When the wine or juice of the grape begins to ferment, God says, don’t even look at it, to avoid even the very temptation.
One of the strongest arguments comes in the first miracle that Jesus performed, i.e., turning the water into wine. Many who fall on the other side of this argument will often use it to defend drinking alcohol. Herein is a mistake in not knowing your Bible manners and customs. The customs of many of the ancient feasts was to pull out the best, good, or sweet, which are fresh, wines at the beginning of a feast. This was to insure that the women and especially children would not be partaking of the “hard stuff.” As the feast continued and the children retired, then the ladies, the alcoholic drinks would surface. But when at the wedding feast, Jesus turned the water into wine, we hear this comment from the ruler of the feast: “…Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now” (John 2:10). The ruler was amazed that the beverage that Jesus brought forth was the same as that which is used at the beginning, non-alcoholic juice.
Without going into too much detail, think of this, would our Lord use that which is rotten, which basically is exactly what alcohol is, to symbolize His spotless blood? If the bread was unleavened for the Lord’s Supper, so also would the beverage. “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28). “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things…But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” (I Peter 1:18, 19).
3. There is a practicality to total abstinence, in protecting your testimony.
In almost forty years of trying to be a soul-winner, I have yet to meet my first unconverted person who has been offended by my stance on not drinking. On the other hand there are those who are not Christians, as well as a great many Christians who are offended by people who call themselves Christians and drink. To win his brethren, Paul was even willing to do without certain foods: “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend” (I Corinthians 8:13). Paul never took the attitude, I don’t care what others think, I’ll do as I please. “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God” (I Corinthians 10:31, 32). By the way, a good question to ask ourselves before we partake in any activity should be, “May I do this for the glory of God?”
4. There is the doctrine of progressive illumination that should be considered.
As we learn the Bible, we do so progressively, “But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little…” (Isaiah 28:13). Over the years of Bible learning we not only have one, but multiple lifetimes of Bible teachers. As we look at prophecy, Lewis Sperry Chafer and C.I. Schofield in light of current events with the line upon line of Bible learning knew more of eschatology than Luther, Calvin or Zwingli. To use the argument that some church fathers did not see the problems of alcohol is to ignore progressive illumination. Many of the reformers were just coming out of the Catholic Church, they were just getting a grip on justification, and many things were yet to be learned. By inspiration Daniel said, at “…the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased” (Daniel 12:4). In every field knowledge has increased. Because many of my Victorian preachers whom I admire used tobacco, I shall not ignore the warnings of what we do know about tobacco because my old heroes had feet of clay. And I shall not limit smoking to only half a pack. No, it is all wrong. I shall not put down those in the church of ancient days that did not foresee problems. And I shall not in turn be a social drinker; I shall be a total abstainer! Be as Spurgeon who upon discovery that drinking was bringing England down, he not only stopped drinking wine, he donned the blue ribbon of the Temperance League and fought against alcohol by drink (from Lewis Drummond’s Spurgeon, Prince of Preachers, pp. 438-440). He was progressively illuminated.
In closing I plead with my brothers and sisters in Christ: “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing…” (II Corinthians 6:17)!
- Pastor Pope -
Johnny,
So was Jesus a ‘post-modernist’ then? Remember, he came “eating and drinking” (Mat. 11.19). Wine in the Bible is clearly alcoholic, as noted by a drunk Noah and Paul’s command to not be drunk with…wine. As much as I try to keep my kids from the overindulgence of sugar, I hardly believe this is what Paul had in mind. You have got to do something with the saints and the Savior who enjoyed (and made wine) even with the potential for abuse. It seems your decision is to redefine both wine and them. This is sad. Although, I do find it ironic that your name is pope, in light of your message there is a striking resemblance to the restrictions of Rome for the sake of sanctification. But remember Paul calls such folks false teachers who promote the doctrine of demons (1 Tim. 4.1-8).
erik
If you would like to try to follow the train of thought of most Christians who advocate abstinence, the best paradigm I have seen is to compare their thought patterns with those who advocate gun control. It is murderers who kill people, not guns. It is drunkards that violate God’s will, not alcohol itself. I do not see a clear way in Scripture against a moderate position of abstinence, but I have yet to see any clear proof from Scripture that the alcohol is immoral in and of itself. Only if the alcohol is inherently immoral is it wrong to partake regardless of circumstantial considerations.
It is not what goes into a man…