Is this true that Jesus drank alcoholic wine as the lyrics, “Cause I heard Jesus, He drank wine”? Some question this. What kind of wine did Jesus drink? Did Jesus drink intoxicating amounts of wine?
The Definition of Biblical Wine
The word “wine” in the Bible is not always alcoholic or equivalent to modern wine. The Bible uses one Greek word for “wine” and “grape juice” which could mean alcoholic wine of varying amounts or non-alcoholic grape juice (1 Tim 3:8; Titus 2:3). The Hebrew word for “wine” is yayin and the Greek is oinos (MT; LXX). Biblical “wine” is grape juice that may or may not have fermented. However, the wine of today has considerably more alcohol than wine in the first century because of modified yeast. The Bible includes a number of examples of unfermented “wine”:
- “Wine” is the blood of the grape (Gen 49:11–12, Heb. yayin, Gr. oinos LXX; Deut 32:14, Heb. chemer; Gr. oinos LXX).
- The vineyard is the place of “red wine” (Isa 27:2, Heb. chemer).
- “Wine” refers to the grape juice from the grapes of the field (Deut 11:14; 2 Chr 31:5, Heb. tirosh; Gr. oinos LXX; Jer 40:10, 12, Heb. yayin; Gr. oinos LXX).
- Scripture describes “wine” that is in the grape (Isa 65:8, Heb. tirosh).
- The grape juice of the wine-press is “wine” (Prov 3:10, Heb. tirosh; Gr. oinos LXX; Isa 16:10; Jer 48:33, Heb. yayin; Gr. oinos LXX).
These references reveal that the word “wine” in Hebrew and Greek often refers to non-alcoholic grape juice in the Bible. Linguistics requires that one begin with the generic meaning and then determine other specific meanings of a word by its context and, or use.
In reading the Old Testament, Bible translations represent six different Hebrew words “wine” for which one word excludes alcohol. This word is asis meaning “sweet grape juice” or “new grape juice.” The word has no reference to alcohol, yet translators have interpreted it as “wine” to avoid interpreting the contexts with nuances and ambiguity. Therefore, the word “wine” does not necessarily mean alcoholic wine in the Bible.
The Bible does not appear to contain one positive statement about intoxicating wine or any such drink. The Bible does include positive words about generic “wine” that is grape juice (Gen 14:18; Num 15:5–10; Deut 14:26; Ps 104:15; Isa 55:1; Amos 9:14; John 2:1–11; 1 Tim 5:23). References to “strong drink” or “liquor” in the Bible refer to cider in biblical translations of sikera, σικερα, according to Danker and Gingrich’s Greek lexicon (cf. Deut 14:26; Luke 1:15; Wycliffe’s Bible).
Ancient Wine and Today’s Wine
In the Bible, alcoholic wine is not like wine today. The sugar of grape juice can only ferment to 3 or 4% alcohol with wild yeast — airborne yeast. For grape juice to exceed 4% alcohol, then the winemaker must add yeast. The yeast added to ancient wines produced between 4–11% alcohol. Alcohol kills these yeast cells and prevents levels of alcohol from exceeding ~10%. Today, wines average 12–20% alcohol due to modern fermentation by adding sulfur dioxide and Saccharomyces (a cultured GMO yeast) to a late harvest of ripened grapes with higher fructose (Winemaker Magazine, Wines & Vines, UC Davis, International Biblical Encyclopedia, “Alcohol in the Church,” Bible Wine). Today’s wine is not like biblical wine in regards to alcoholic content. Due to the later invention of distilling, strong drinks like liquor exceed 20% alcohol for which today’s wine is coming close to matching.
When reading the word “wine” in the Bible, the word may simply refer to grape juice or intoxicating wine not exceeding ~10% alcohol. The reader must interpret the word “wine” within its context to determine if it is alcoholic. However, biblical wine is certainly not like wine today.
Because of the use of the word “wine” in English Bibles, many presume that Jesus drank alcoholic wine. Jesus did not drink modern wine. The methods for fermenting highly-alcoholic wine had not yet been invented. Jesus’s opponents did accuse Him of being a “wine-drinker” from the Greek oinopoteis, because He came freely eating and also drinking grape juice unlike John the Baptist who restricted his eating and drinking (Matt 11:18–19; Luke 7:33–34). These antagonists appear to accuse Jesus of drinking alcoholic wine. However, when the reader considers the wedding that Jesus attended in Cana and Jesus’s institution of the Lord’s Supper, then His drinking of wine is not what many have presumed.
Water to Wine
What about Jesus turning water into wine? Upon reading John 2:1–11 in most English translations, many took the text as stating that Jesus turned water into intoxicating wine at the wedding in Cana, a small town in Galilee (John 2). These scriptures infer that the wedding guests “have well drunk” a large amount of oinos wine. The Greek word translated as “well drunk” is methuo meaning literally to fill or make full, and many times the word means “drunk” depending on the context. Translators correctly render methuo as “drunk” in contexts referring to drunkenness by drinking intoxicating wine or filling oneself with wine (Gingrich and Danker’s lexicon). John’s reference to the guests having “drunk well” and becoming full also implies that the wedding feast was relatively short especially if one takes this word in John 2:10 to mean that the guests were “drunk.”
In this case, Jesus either made more alcoholic wine for those who were drunk or He made more grape juice for those who would have their fill. Which is plausible: that Jesus created intoxicating wine for those who were drunk or that He made fresh “new wine,” grape juice, for those who had drunk well of the previous supply? If one interprets this passage as Jesus making alcoholic wine, then Jesus created more intoxicating wine for those who were already drunk or filled. If one perceives that the wedding guests were simply full of non-alcoholic wine, then Jesus made “new wine” with minimal to no alcohol.
Furthermore, “good wine” was limited late in winter and just before Passover when the wine had aged throughout the year (John 2:13). Jesus providing more aged and intoxicating wine would not have been an apparent miraculous sign. Jesus provided them with “good wine.” Was it “good wine” as though received from the grape press? The making of new wine would magnify Jesus’s sign because this was just before the Passover and before the first harvest of grapes. Therefore, Jesus’s production of fresh grape juice would have been an evident miraculous wonder of God.
The master of the feast depicted the situation that which the guests had filled themselves with wine from the meaning of “filled” of the Greek word methuo in John 2:9–10. A wedding feast may last a day and sometimes more (Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah). John depicted that many would have drunk well of the wine so the guests were full as implied by the Greek word methuo. Being filled with wine tells that this drinking of the wedding feast occurred in a short amount of time within a few hours. The guests would immediately drink the wine that Jesus made. If Jesus made alcoholic wine, Jesus would have made more intoxicating wine amounting to between 120 to 180 gallons of additional alcoholic wine. What would happen if three hundred guests “have well drunk” and then drank an additional 150 gallons of alcoholic wine? Jesus would have given each guest an additional 64 ounces of alcoholic wine. The average person would have drunk another 6–12 drinks of alcoholic wine if there were 300 guests. However, the abundance was part of the miracle like the 12 baskets of bread left over from feeding the 5,000. Maybe the wine was not meant to be consumed immediately.
Even considering a wedding party of a thousand guests who have well drunk, each person would have consumed about 19 ounces of wine. Presuming that this wine contained 10% alcohol because the scenario includes fermented wine and the guests drank it all in one day, Jesus would have aided a thousand people in binge drinking having intoxicated the guests with three additional drinks who were already intoxicated as indicated by the Greek methuo for having “well drunk.” For each guest to have had simply two more drinks, then the wedding would have had at least 1,600 attendees. Despite the number in attendance, Jesus would have presumably contributed a considerable amount of alcohol to those who were already filled with wine. For those proposing that Jesus made highly intoxicating wine like today’s wine, 16–24 ounces would intoxicate anyone at an alcoholic level of 12–15% according to the CDC. Either today’s intoxicating wine or first-century fermented wine appears to be an absurdity at this wedding.
To assume that Jesus made alcoholic wine is to assume that after everyone had drunk all the other wine, then Jesus made more intoxicating wine for all of those who had their fill. The scenario of Jesus producing alcoholic wine appears implausible and uncharacteristic of biblical commands to refrain from drunkenness. If Jesus did make a great amount of fermented wine, He would have aided the sin of drunkenness and excessive drinking and would have participated in a drinking party, which are all condemned by His disciple and apostle Peter in the Scriptures (1 Pet 4:3).
Wine and the Lord’s Supper
Did Jesus use alcoholic wine in the Lord’s Supper? What kind of wine would someone drink at a feast where yeast was thrown out? Many have assumed that Jesus drank wine because many churches have made alcoholic wine a part of the “Eucharist,” the Lord’s Supper. Did Jesus use highly alcoholic wine when He instituted the Lord’s Supper? First, the Scriptures never use the word “wine” in any of the four accounts of Jesus instituting the Lord’s Supper. Jesus mentioned the specific content of the cup containing “the fruit of the grapevine.” The passages about the Lord’s Supper make no reference to alcoholic wine. The Greek word for “wine” is never used in Scripture to describe any part of the Lord’s Supper.
Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper during the Passover Feast. What kind of wine did the Jews use during Passover? Jesus used unleavened bread in the Passover because this is also the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Israel threw out all leaven by God’s command including the leavened bread (Exod 13:6–7). The throwing out of the yeast implies that Israel removed the grape juice fermented by the leavening of yeast. Fermented wine was not likely a part of the Passover taught by Moses. Furthermore, Jesus referred to the contents of the cup as “fruit of the grapevine” in the Lord’s Supper indicating minimal to no fermentation even from wild yeast. The intent of the cup of the Lord was not to intoxicate.
What about those who got drunk by drinking the Lord’s Supper? Getting drunk by bringing intoxicating wine to the Lord’s Supper does not mean that Jesus gave the disciples alcoholic wine in the Lord’s Supper. First Corinthians 11:21–22 depicts, “Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk [methuo]” (ESV). This passage also uses the Greek word methuo, which can mean drunk or filled (cf. John 2:10). Some ate the Lord’s Supper as a meal so that they were filled and those who drank were also filled not necessarily drunk. However, Paul could have been correcting such intoxication as well. If one assumes that these Christians became drunk in the assembly using the grape juice for the Lord’s Supper, then they must also presume that those drinking brought enough intoxicating wine to get drunk and intended to use such for the Lord’s Supper. The use of alcoholic wine implies that some of these Christians brought intoxicating wine for the church to drink together for the Lord’s Supper. They would also have decided to drink and get drunk from that wine in assembly rather than wait for others. Whether the wine was alcoholic or not, 1 Corinthians 11 neither condones alcoholic wine for the Lord’s Supper nor suggests that Jesus used alcoholic wine for His disciples to commune with Christ in remembrance of His sacrificial blood.
Warnings about Wine
Jesus warned against drunkenness and filling oneself with intoxicating drinks that trap people in this life (Luke 21:34). The Bible warns those who do drink, linger, and look at the cup (Prov 23:29–35; Rom 14:17–22). Christians can and should warn others about alcohol.
The apostle Paul revealed that those who continue in drunkenness will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9–11; Gal 5:19–21). The Greek word translated “drunkenness” literally means “filling oneself” in Scripture (Eph 5:18–19; cf. Rom 13:13). Christ’s Spirit in Galatians 5:19–21 teaches that such “drunkenness” is a “work of the flesh” and “those who are doing such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” Galatians 5 also condemned “wild parties” or “revelries” where any of the lists of sins like drunkenness would constitute a party as sinful and carnal. Paul also revealed in 1 Corinthians 6:10 that drunkards “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” Drunkenness and filling one’s body with intoxicants is a sin.
Filling oneself with alcohol is evil and compromises the sobriety of the Christian conscience and one’s heart (cf. Rom 2:14–15; 1 John 3:19–21). Christ’s words and those of His apostles and prophets urge all to avoid drunkenness, and so Christians should do likewise and warn others of drunkenness. Peter warned, “For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Nations want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness [lit. excessive drinking], orgies, drinking parties [lit. drinkings], and lawless idolatry” (1 Pet 4:3). The word for “drunkenness” in 1 Peter 4:3 is not the usual word for drunkenness, but the Greek word is oinophlugia made of two words oinos meaning “wine” and phlugia is “to do something in excess.” Excessive drinking is a sin. Furthermore, “drinking parties” is translated from the Greek word potos, which literally denotes occasions that people gather for the purpose of drinking.
The apostle Paul commanded Christians to remain sober and make no provision to become drunk on any level (1 Thess 5:8). Christ had no part with drunkenness and drinking parties, so His followers must not. According to Romans 14, Christians should not condemn their brother over a drink; although, every Christian has the scriptural example and the foresight to warn against its use and against looking at the cup (Prov 23:29–35; Rom 14:17–22). Solomon warned by the wisdom of God.
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. (Prov 23:31–33)
Therefore, “Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise” (Prov 20:1). The assertions of positive statements about drinking alcohol in the Bible are private interpretations.
Conclusion
The wine that Jesus drank was not intoxicating. Alcoholic wine is not characteristic of Jesus or any godly behavior in the Bible. Jesus neither encouraged drunkenness nor drank intoxicating wine. No one can rightly reference Jesus to justify excessive drinking, drunkenness, and drinking events. The Bible neither promotes nor supports the drinking of intoxicants. God’s grace compels Christians no longer to continue in any excessive drinking of alcohol because they have been forgiven.
Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires. (Rom 13:13–14)
Bibliography
- Jeff Chorniak. “Wild Yeast: The Pros and Cons of Spontaneous Fermentation.” Winemakers Magazine. 2005. <http://winemakermag.com/758-wild-yeast-the-pros-and-cons-of-spontaneous-fermentation>.
- Jean L. Jacobson. “Upsides of Wild Fermentation.” Wine & Vines, 2012. <http://www.winesandvines.com/template.cfm?section=features&content=98687>.
- “Marking Red Table Wine.” University of California Davis, 2016. <http://wineserver.ucdavis.edu/pdf/HWM3.pdf>.
- James Orr, M.A., D.D. “Wine; Wine Press.” International Bible Encyclopedia, 1915. <http://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/isb/view.cgi?n=9116>.
- “Alcohol in the Church.” 2016. <http://www.abidingplace.org/features/alcohol-in-the-church.html>.
- Kyle Pope. “Bible Wine.” Olsen Park church of Christ, 2013. <http://www.olsenpark.com/Sermons13/BibleWine.html>.
- Alfred Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1883. <https://www.ccel.org/ccel/edersheim/lifetimes>.
Related posts:
“Reconsider the Biblical Concept of Drunkenness“
The Breath of God 
Scott, thank you for this thoughtful and fascinating article! I have a question about some data. In an informative paragraph you wrote, “In the Bible, alcoholic wine is not like wine today. The sugar of grape juice can only ferment to 3 or 4% alcohol with wild yeast. For grape juice to exceed 4% alcohol, then the winemaker must add yeast. The yeast added to ancient wines produced between 4–10% alcohol. Alcohol kills these yeast cells and prevents levels of alcohol from exceeding 10%…”
I perused the links you provided (though perhaps too casually) and I couldn’t find the specific info about wild yeast yielding only 3-4% ABV and the ancient wines, wine yeast added, were 4-10% and couldn’t exceed 10%. Could you show me the link/area where this data is recorded? I’m preaching this Sunday about alcohol and, if I can see the source, it would really help inform my sermon. Blessings!
Not sure where you want to go with your sermon, but I would be careful with some of the conclusions Scott has reached. I respect his blog, and enjoy the exchanges I have seen.
The alcohol content is a red herring argument. It makes no difference how much the alcohol level is or is not. The facts are that a) the Bible does not condemn the drinking of wine, b) the Bible even allows for the drinking of wine and c) drunkenness is the sin.
Arguing from a “prevention argument” (If you don’t drink, you won’t have to worry about getting drunk) is about as good as the “If you don’t use pain pills after extensive surgery, you won’t become an addict.”
As with food, I believe Paul’s argument is the best – do everything in moderation – as a Biblical answer…
Rudy,
Good to see you back on this blog.
How about dropping me a line at gmeier@reachbeyond.org.
It would be nice to be able to communicate with you privately.
Also have some info. I would like to send you.
GREAT response to Larry.
To change the subject about a critical upcoming election. We need lots of united Christian Prayers. Please forward this message to Scott for me Rudy..
On 10/17/2016, 4:17 PM, wrote:
Dear Child of GOD, Scott:
You are a preacher, who is making a difference in the world and GOD needs you, as a Remnant Faithful Prayer Warrior to lead others to GOD’s WILL. Please unite everyone in prayer,to pray the “Holy Rosary”, the most powerful weapon, against the devil. We do not worship Her, we venerate Her for saying “Yes” to the Angel Gabriel, so we can have our Savior, Jesus. Remember Mary is Jesus’s beloved Mother, who raised Him and suffered at the cross with JESUS. Spread the truth, for the Glory of GOD. You know how to inspire people to pray, I don’t.
All Christians must unite in prayer for the next critical election, which could change our great nation for the evil “One World Order”, if the wrong person is elected. We must fight the good fight together for GOD and our country. Scott, I don’t want to suffer. Not on my watch, if the evil one gets rid of GOD’s laws, because of who might be in the Presidential Office, such as Hillary*. (see her statement below). We must turn back to GOD and REPENT. The important issues are to vote for Pro-Life, Liberty, Religious Freedom, keep our country safe from ISIS, who hate us, and to keep our Constitution the way our forefathers wrote them. “One nation under GOD”. We must pray for Mr. Trump to forget his big ego and stick with the important issues to win the Debate.
We are receiving messages from an apparition site in OHIO since about 1985. Please read the latest messages at http://www.holylove.org from heaven about the upcoming election. God loves us, that is why he wants to save His children from punishment. With God all things are possible and we do need HIS help. Please check these messages and pray to the Holy Spirit for council. GOD BLESS YOU.
*Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton says unborn babies have no constitutional right to life – even up until their due date after nine months of pregnancy.
In the medical animation video below, former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino shows what happens to a baby at 25 weeks of development when a woman decides to abort him or her, as Clinton and her supporters at Planned Parenthood continually say is that woman’s “constitutional right”:
As Levatino describes, at 25 weeks, an unborn baby is almost fully developed and could survive outside the womb. Therefore, the abortionist will first kill the baby in utero by injecting him or her with digoxin or potassium chloride, substances that cause cardiac arrest, and then induce the mother’s labor to deliver her baby stillborn. The process occurs over several days.
In April, Clinton responded to The View co-host Paula Faris when asked about her comments that an unborn child has no constitutional rights:
Planned Parenthood and its political allies – such as Clinton and most members of the Democrat Party – claim abortion is a woman’s right up until the baby’s due date, and they consistently fight state and federal restrictions on late-term abortions. Although some states have restricted late-term abortions, pro-life organization Live Action observes all states allow abortion into the ninth month for certain exceptions, and eight states allow abortion until birth for any reason (Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington State).
“While the abortion industry claims that late-term abortions are an insignificant number of abortions and they’re only done because of a disability the baby has or to protect the life of the mother, the evidence says just the opposite,” says Lila Rose, Live Action’s president and founder.
Noting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) report in 2012 that 1.3 percent of abortions were committed at 21 weeks’ gestation and later, Rose adds, “With nearly one million abortions annually in the U.S., abortionists are killing close to 13,000 children every year who are often fully developed and can survive outside the womb.”
Research published by the Guttmacher Institute also finds that most late-term abortions were not done for medical reasons – as the abortion lobby often states. Fetal abnormalities “make up a small minority” of late-term abortions, and those for saving the life of the mother are even less.
According to the study:
“The abortion industry denies the science of fetal development and continues to advocate for aborting fully developed, viable children who can feel the pain of the abortionist’s needle that’s used to kill them,” Rose asserts.
Read More Stories About:
Abortion, Big Government, Hillary Clinton, abortion as “women’s healthcare”, abortion industry, Democrat Party abortion lobby, Dr. Anthony Levatino, late-term abortions,Planned Parenthood, third trimester abortion
report this ad
Thank you, and GOD BLESS AMERICA.
Ms. McHugh, by responding to my note, Scott will see your message. And for what it’s worth? As a Republican I cannot vote for Mr. Trump (Or Clinton, for that matter). As someone active in the local committee, I can unfortunately not speak out against the nominee in public. But in personal conversations, I make it clear that someone like Trump should NOT be supported by people who take their faith seriously.
The primaries are over. I like Pence as a leader and I pray for him, Trump, Clinton, Kaine, and I still pray for Obama. I pray for truth and repentance. This election is revealing of the American people and voters who elected Trump and Clinton.
God, help us.
Anita, Thank you for the encouragement. We must pray to our heavenly Father about this election. I am pro-life from my heart. We need to pray against this evil.
Holy Father,
Help this nation to wake up and repent from such great evil like abortion. God, bless us to know Your Word and proclaim the Gospel no matter the cost. Father, we need every providential blessing through this election and the years ahead. In the name of Christ, Amen.
Am I right to understand that by “stumble our brothers and sisters” you mean “cause our brothers and sisters to stumble?”
Hi Larry:
The 3–4% alcohol is here:
http://winemakermag.com/758-wild-yeast-the-pros-and-cons-of-spontaneous-fermentation
Here is 3–4% from wild yeasts:
http://www.winesandvines.com/template.cfm?section=features&content=98687
The 10% is implied here: “Alcohol in the Church.” http://www.abidingplace.org/features/alcohol-in-the-church.html
This secondary source records 12%:
http://www.olsenpark.com/Sermons13/BibleWine.html
Also:
“There are many genera of yeast. Each yeast species may exist as many different strains. In winemaking, one of the most important characteristics of yeast is its ability to completely ferment all the sugar in grape juice and tolerate high levels of alcohol (anywhere from 8–18%). High alcohol (usually 12% or more in wine) gives wine its longevity, body and other positive features. Without good alcohol, wine dies quickly. The species of yeast considered most desirable for total alcoholic fermentation is Saccharomyces cerevisiae.” http://winemakermag.com/758-wild-yeast-the-pros-and-cons-of-spontaneous-fermentation
However, this article appears to limit fermentation at 8–11% for wild yeast.
So I read through your source for the “implied” 10%, and must say that I am not really impressed. Not your fault, I know.
The statement from the “Abstract”, “We will show in this paper that every story regarding the use of alcohol beginning with Noah resulted in shame, curses and debauchery….” is already disproved by a simple look at the Deuteronomy 14 passage.
So, not EVERY story regarding the use of alcohol results in “shame, curses, and debauchery.
He also reaches an interesting conclusion about Nadab and Abihu. – that they were drunk when the entered the tent of the Lord. Not quite sure where the author has to go for that conclusion.
I guess it is another “inference.”
it seems to me that there is no right or wrong argument, because quantifiably, there is absolutely NO way to determine individually whether we are ‘drunk’ or not. agreed? drunkenness is indeed a sin, but at what point (assuming it’s your blood alcohol content level being considered) are we stamped ‘DRUNK’? the answer is that it is impossible to make that determination, and as such, two full glasses of 8% wine will do absolutely nothing for me, whereas opposed to you, you are released from your inhibitions and quite frankly are in no position to function because of your obvious impaired judgment. in the end, it is our motivation. god knows our heart, our intentions. if you take that cup to your lips in anticipation of that warm fuzzy buzz you will get, then who’s to determine if you are indeed caught up in sin? no one. no one that is, other than god himself. personally, i am quite sickened by the american culture’s glorification of the necessity of using alcohol to have a good time in social settings. i can not be a good steward of god’s money by filling the pockets of the alcoholic beverage industry. people in our society have really become brainwashed in my opinion. it’s not that most are addicted to alcohol, but it has become a habit to have a brew or a glass of wine while out at the restaurant dinner table. it’s soooooooooooo trendy now to go the craft microbreweries for a taste testing. no thanks, i can leave it.
And here we go again! The issue at hand was not an approval/disapproval of drinking a glass of wine/beer/whatever. The issue at hand was/is: How does one approach and use the Scriptures? “We” are very good at showing others how wrong the Scriptures are applied to defend a certain doctrine (like infant baptism, to name but one).
But to honestly admit that “we,” too, have our issues with the use of Scripture is where the rubber meets the road. Are “we” courageous enough to admit that yes, “we, too” misapply Scripture at times, to prove a specific point?
Allow me to mention but two (obvious) ones:
1. “Acts 20:7 teaches that we have to celebrate the Lord’s Supper every Sunday”
2. “1 Corinthians 16:1, 2 teach that we have to have a collection on every first day of the week.”
These are but two examples where “we” have severe credibility issues, in making the text say something that is not supported by those passages!
The Bible does not speak against the use of alcoholic beverages. In fact, God sees it as a blessing to give “oil and wine,” and as a curse to withhold “oil and wine.”
He’s unhappy when we are careless in our use of that blessing, no one doubts that!
to answer your question…quite simply the correct approach to scripture is to have scripture interpret itself, and in cases where there is no definitive interpretation, then personal interpretation is valid. i say in this case, there are enough unknown variables to place doubt on either side, so let’s go with personal interpretation. both sides can be right! i personally believe that the king james bible butchers quite a bit of original text both greek and hebrew. specifically not in transliteration, but translation. this is one of my stumbling blocks in biblical scholarly study. there is still much debate whether jesus and the apostle paul mainly quoted from the septuagint, which itself was a ‘second hand’ translation of the original hebrew text. either way, if you want a truly dynamic bible reading, try ‘THE MESSAGE’ or ‘THE VOICE’. blessings~!
Good start. So when Scripture makes it clear that a) drinking wine is acceptable to God and that b) drunkennes is not, discussion should be over.
And as far as translations go, really? The Message???
Having grown up in Western Europe with education in four languages and having studied Greek in school here, I’m flabbergasted you make such a recommendation.
“Story told in my own words” is what Peterson wrote. And he makes it clear it should not be seen as anything more than that.
Of course there are some weaknesses in each translation out there. It always will be the work of humans. But we can get as close as possible!
Rudy said: “So when Scripture makes it clear that a) drinking wine is acceptable to God and that b) drunkennes is not, discussion should be over.”
Life is so often more complex than that. What about kids, pregnant women, Asians and First Nation people whose genes give them a predilection toward easy drunkenness, addictive personalities, for which alcohol is no end of tempests. 15% of the population cannot handle alcohol well or at all. What about those 1 billion people Rudy? Yet, for you it’s as simple as “discussion should be over.”
Fortunately, the Scripture instructs us that our support of weaker brothers, sisters, children, addictive persons, and those with genetic predelictions should be a very important consideration, and in fact one that we sacrifice our own freedom for. Clearly, Jesus sacrificed everything for us – we should be willing to sacrifice for others – for the weaker other. Romans 14, 15:1
And that should be the end, or rather the beginning, of things….
Bruce, exaggerating numbers does you case no good. 14% of the world population does not struggle with addiction.
Back the the original.
It is exactly the “end,” Bruce. In so many other ways we accept that, “God said it, and that is the end of it.”
The next question (Romans 14) is how do we put this into practice? Mishandling the Bible is not the way to do that!
I preach regularly. I teach three Bible classes a week. I write at least one 500 page bulletin article a month. And seldom does the topic of alcohol come up in those discussions. When people ask, I answer from Scripture, and put the responsibility of behavior at the feet of those asking he question.
Romans 14 is not limited to the use/abuse of alcohol. Some members are convinced we are bound to tithing. What do you do then? In order not to hurt the weaker brother, do you tithe? Fast? Don’t work on Sundays? Your attitude re Romans 14 demands that of you!
Or do you use common sense, and place these things within their Biblical context, and allow people to make their own decision on how to apply these things in their life?
Rudy: “Bruce, exaggerating numbers does you case no good. 14% of the world population does not struggle with addiction.”
Bruce: Not what I said Rudy. I said 15% can’t handle alcohol well, or at all. That is alcoholics and problem drinkers. This is backed up by studies in both North America and Europe.
Rudy: “The next question (Romans 14) is how do we put this into practice? Mishandling the Bible is not the way to do that!…And seldom does the topic of alcohol come up in those discussions.”
Bruce: How, pray tell!, am I mishandling the Bible Rudy? As to why the topic of alcohol doesn’t come up, clearly you’re not touching the 15%. I am, every month, weekly, sometimes more often. What good is our preaching and teaching to those struggling if we’re not willing to sacrificially love them?
Rudy: “Romans 14 is not limited to the use/abuse of alcohol.”
Bruce: Of course. But it certainly includes that area of behavior. As to your testing me with the Romans 14 Scriptures, yes, we are called to a higher calling, and we are to live our lives out first for the Lord, and as a blessing to others. In all kinds of ways, including being good examples of tithing, loving our spouses and children, etc,, etc, etc. No one ever said being a Christian was easy – it demands all of us! But it is the best way – as Paul said, “I will show you a better way” – Love.
Common sense – practical? How about not drinking carelessly, and having careless drinking fellowships like a good portion of evangelicals seem want to do these days? Since the studies show 15% struggle with alcohol – that would make perfect, practical common sense – don’t ya think?
Blessings!
Bruce
“Common sense – practical? How about not drinking carelessly, and having careless drinking fellowships like a good portion of evangelicals seem want to do these days? Since the studies show 15% struggle with alcohol – that would make perfect, practical common sense – don’t ya think?”
I am not an Evangelical, Bruce. I cannot account for what they do, and why they do things.
I have argued time and again against “careless drinking,” Bruce.
thou hast suffer little children….blah blah blah. makes no sense at all in our modern american culture. we owe peterson a HUGE favor for his paraphrase. let’s cut to the chase. who really cares about the alcohol argument anyway? what people really want to is what the bible says, or more importantly doesn’t say about smoking weed? #garyjohnson2016….somebody gonna lay that pharmakia verse on me? If It’s Not Jesus, It’s Skubalon ~
KJV IS ARCHAIC. I know that. Being Dutch, we too, have our own version similar to the KJV. Never said anything about needing the KJV.
but paraphrases are but a watered down version of the text. Of any document, for that matter.
I think you hit on why you struggle with this matter.
Acts 20:7 is not as much about command but of the apostolic example and best way. Apostolic precedents define commands. This is how we know that baptism in Jesus’s name is in water by illustrating examples.
No, we know about baptism etc because it is a COMMAND.
There is no such thing in Acts, and Corinthians cannot be used to construe a command for having a weekly collection to pay salaries, mortgages and such.
It is to provide help for needy saints – which we also sort of do, and missions – which we do less and less.
On average, 85% goes into material things…
Show what is baptism in Jesus’s name without a biblical example.
You are mixing processes, Scott. There is a direct command to baptize people. The meaning o the word is to “immerse.” Problem solved.
But the only “frequency statement” about the Lord’s Supper, for example, is “…as often as you do this…” I can make an historical case that early Christians celebrated the Supper weekly – but to say that Acts 20 TEACHES such, is stretching the text. Apart from that, how about 20:11??
Paul has told believers that he is collecting money for a SPECIFIC purpose: Needy saints in Jerusalem. He gives them a heads up: Start saving, so that you don’t have to scrimp when I get there.
So, even if you want to make that in to a command, than be consistent, and use the collected funds for needy saints! Again, less than 15 cents of EACH dollar raised goes to “benevolence” in the average congregation of the churches of Christ!
Personally, I am against paid preachers. All for paid missions (But I can find that as an example!). I am against sinking more and more money into real estate – remember, we are supposed to be a PILGRIM people, and laying down roots so deep by tying ourself to multi million dollar meeting places.
Having said that, each congregation has their own responsibility with these decisions. For a group who has prided ourselves on not having a clergy/laity concept, we have come a long way in that direction!
Executive minister
Administrative minister
Managing minister
Preaching minister
Pulpit minister
Outreach minister
Youth minister
Campus minister
Worship minister
Involvement minister
Jail minister
Senior minister
Associate minister
Salaries ranging from 50-150 thousand dollars! “Without a degree, no need to apply…” “Benefits commensurate with experience…”
And to think that the explosion in church growth was not because of all of these “ministers with a M.S. preferred…” but by the Master’s men, and they fire burning in those who heard the Word, and preached it wherever they went.
If we want to follow Biblical examples, let’s start with eliminating all these paid positions, sell all the multi-million dollar plants and worry about what we should be doing and WHO should be doing the doing!
BTW, another example of where we are headed: “A Muscle and a Shovel” is now used as a “tool” to teach how to teach others – while we have Christians who have little or no knowledge of the Bible, but can quote whole sections of books like that…
So yes, I believe in the simplicity of the Biblical text, and with increasing sadness I notice how much further and further we seem to drift away from applying those simple truths in our daily lives…
You did not answer the question about baptism. Baptism in Jesus’s name is defined by examples. That is how examples are authoritative. Baptism meaning immersion does not tell you if the immersion is spiritual, Holy Spirit, in water, or some other claim to baptism. You must keep God’s commands in the midst of biblical narratives.
Congregations paid their evangelists in the Scriptures and they did own buildings (1 Cor 9; Jas 2:2; cf. Acts 18). One hundred percent of our contributions goes to evangelism, missions, and benevolence local and abroad. That does include supporting our evangelists.
I guess Matthew 28 has escaped your attention. We baptize in Jesus name because he commanded us. We see EXAMPLES of people following that command.
Having read through the references you sent, I did not see any buildings owned by congregations, nor did I see any preachers supported.
I see missionaries (like Paul etc) receiving support, but not always.
Located preachers as in vogue today were unknowns in the early church.
As were the many, many paid positions as we have these days.
Evangelism was not practiced to believers, inside the meeting places, but outside, among the non-believers. All the “preaching” in the New Testament took place outside.
You are dodging. Matt 28 does not say how. You must rely on examples to show that immersion is in water.
James 2:2 says that these churches met in synagogues. Look who was converted at Corinth (Acts 18). Did they have a synagogue — a building for meeting? They did not meet in houses in Corinth (1 Cor 11:22). The church at Troas met in an upper room and not in the home below (Acts 20:6–8).
All preaching was not outside. See Luke 4 & Acts 20.
Paul sought to evangelize to the church in Rome. See Romans 1:14–17. In fact, “evangelizing” in Greek is not just teaching the lost. Paul taught the churches (1 Cor 4:17; 7:17).
That is all off the top of my head. I do not have time to write you a thesis.
Rudy, you have been conned and the Bible commands you not to be deceived. See my article on the house-church movement.
Farewell brother. I mean this all with love.
The synagogues were owned by the Jews, not the Christians. Preaching WAS outside the church, to the unbelievers. I happen to have done THAT thesis.
I’m not advocating house churches, I’m advocating a consistent approach to scripture.
I find your response re “water” extremely weak, Scott.
And you have not even touched Acts 20 and 1 Cor 16.
I find examples interesting. But have never found a good explanation when they become authority.
i am confused about the current baptism discussion ? what’s the heart of the argument? i’ll throw this in the mix. more accurately, the phrase ‘in the name of’ really SHOULD HAVE BEEN correctly interpreted as ‘by the authority of’. go figure?
Interpreted, yes. Translated, no. The five languages which I am familiar with all have a similar expression, and the “interpretation” or “application” is exactly the same. Acting on behalf of…
The baptism conversation was a red herring tossed in by Scott.
Rudy,
I must admit I admire your tenacity in dialoguing with people who are obviously spouting things in which they are mainly clueless. I would think you would grow weary of those on this thread who don’t understand Scripture, change the focus when they are incapable of discussing the subject at hand (why the discussion of Baptism, for instance?), use one verse in the entire Bible on which to build a doctrine, use Scripture out of context, us paraphrases of the Bible to defend a position, use Scripture verses to explain a point that have no relationship to the subject being addressed (Scott is particularly good at that), mishandling the Bible and in general letting their opinions & biases influence and drive their faulty scholarship.
Now to some specifics to complement the Biblical scholarship and truths you have been trying to inculcate into their minds, without much success, I might add.
One contributor blithely proffered this amazing statement: “if you want a truly dynamic Bible reading, try ’THE MESSAGE’ or ‘THE VOICE’”. Those are paraphrases, for crying out loud. Yes, according to the definition of the word “translate”, a paraphrase is a translation. However, as you correctly pointed out, paraphrases more properly fit into the category of “to put it another way”, they are no more than a man’s attempt to make the Bible more clear. John Piper stated it succinctly when he said: If you use a paraphrase for your regular Bible reading and for study, “you’re basically reading a commentary and depending on it and calling it the Word of God”.
Even dynamic equivalence translations are problematic. The translators of these Bibles have no compunction about changing words. Anyone serious about Biblical scholarship will us an essential literal (also called formal equivalence) Bible. These are word-for-word or sentence-for-sentence translations from the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts. Essentially literal translations are considered to be the most accurate and are less likely to reflect the interpretative opinions of the translator or be influenced by current culture. This type of translation goes out of its way to preserve the literal words found in the inspired texts. By sticking close to what Biblical writers actually wrote they are preserving Scripture’s full interpretive potential, theological precision, literary qualities, dignity and beauty.
All this to say Rudy, that if anyone wants to be involved in a serious Biblical discussion, paraphrases and dynamic equivalence translations just don’t cut the mustard. The KJV is so inferior that it can’t even be included in this discussion.
Scott keeps talking about baptism in Jesus’ name. What this has to do with the discussion of drinking alcoholic beverages is beyond me. However, he doesn’t seem to realize that baptism is not only in the name of Jesus but also in the name of the Father and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19) as well.
Your response to Scott on July 8 at 1:50 was so “right on”. I had to read it over again because I thought it was something I had written. Christians are pathetic in their response to the Great Commission, which is the whole purpose of the Christian Church.
They give $46.15 a year per person to foreign missions. Individual churches are just as bad. As you said, only 15% of an average churches budget goes to “benevolence”. That means that something less than that amount goes to foreign missions. The rest of a churches budget is squandered on salaries (which are un-Scriptural), building maintenance (also un-Scriptural) and many other superfluous activities designed to entertain the members. How can Christian Churches justify using God’s resources for something other than it’s whole purpose for existence…the Great Commission.
Concerning buildings. Here’s another of Scott’s tricks. He says that Christians in Biblical times had their own buildings and uses 1 Cor. 9, Jas 2:2, and Acts 18 to support this position. 1 Cor. says zilch about Christians having their own building, James 2:2 is about Christians assembling without mention of any type of building, and Acts. 18 tells how Paul reasoned with the Jews in the synagogue. Even Biblical neophytes know that the Temple and synagogues were Jewish places of worship, not Christian.
Christians of every stripe build Taj Majals for their own comfort and entertainment without caring about the 4.245 billion non-Christians in the rest of the world. As tens of millions of church members sit in their luxurious pews each Sunday listening to their pastor pontificate about the need for everyone to “love their neighbors as themselves” (Mark 12:31), 40,000 people are dying in India alone that day and every other day, never having heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They are condemning these people to hell because of their insatiable appetite to build buildings. Buildings are not Scriptural and as you said, if we want to follow Biblical examples, of which Scott is so fond of, “lets sell all the multi-million dollar plants”.
Rudy, you said “personally, I am against paid preachers”. As you have iterated in these posts, personal opinions don’t count. The Bible is quite clear there are two paid positions within the Church, preachers (1 Cor. 9:14, Luke 10:7, Matt. 10: 7,10) ) and teachers ( 1 Tim.5:17,18). Today we find churches paying organists, youth pastors, choir directors, custodians, lawnmowers, secretaries and others, all flagrant misallocations of God’s funds. Again, you said it succinctly, “let’s start by eliminating all these paid positions”.
Upon reading your memo of July 8, 4:20 pm, you state you “didn’t see any preachers supported“. As I explained above, you are wrong in that assertion. However, you really are not wrong. We need to remember that the Bible treats preaching, proclaiming and teaching in different ways. Preach and proclaim are used interchangeably in the Bible. The Greek root word for preach is Euanggeleezoh which means to evangelize…preach the gospel. As you wrote, and I paraphrase: “preaching in the New Testament and today always is directed to those who were and are not believers”. Yes, there is no such thing as preaching to a gathering of believers. Therefore, preachers (evangelists, missionaries) are to receive support.
Scott’s response to this is that “all preaching was not outside” and tells us to check Luke 4 and Acts 20. As can be expected, there is nothing in either of these chapters that support his flaccid proclamation. There is absolutely, positively not one word of anyone preaching to a group of Christians in either Luke or Acts.
It should be understood that teaching is not preaching or proclaiming. Teaching is from the Greek root word didaskalos which has no relationship to the root Greek word for preaching. Preaching is announcing the good news while teaching compliments preaching in that after a person is “saved” teaching imparts the meaning of salvation. Whereas the message preached is the message announced, the message taught is the message explained, clarified and applied. The purpose of preaching is conversion, the purpose of teaching is equipping and building up the saints for service and good works (The Great Commission). Scott does not understand this distinction as evident by this statement: “In fact, “evangelizing” in Greek is not just teaching the lost. Paul taught the churches (1 Cor. 4:17, 7:17)”.
When all is said in done, Rudy, you have summarized perfectly the state of Christianity today, caused by the kind of people involved in this thread who are guilty of all the misuses of Scripture iterated in the first paragraph of this tome: “With increasing sadness I notice how much further and further we seem to drift away from applying those simple (Biblical) truths in our daily lives…”.
PS. Have a glass of wine on me this evening.
ok, just so you know, I did not mean to ignore your post. Spent the weekend with my youngest granddaughter, which, admittedly, was more enjoyable than posting…
The two preaching words, EUGELIZO and KERUX are used in “outside settings only. In Acts 20 the word DIALOGUE is used, and in othe rplaces within the body gathering we see DIDACHE used. In Mark, the English translations have Jesus “preaching” in the synagogue, where the Green uses LALO, to speak.
Paul’s extended stay in Corinth, in the school of Tyrannus, was a time where he taught – but one does not know what and who was taught. We do know (Scott) that the believers met at Chloe’s house, for example.
Proclaimers, heralds, good news bringers are those with the message of the cross to those who have never heard that message. I cannot help it, but those are the contexts of those words.
The assembly passages (1 Corinthians 14, Hebrews 10, 1 Timothy 2) does not know that “preaching” words, however. Nor do we see a single headliner (i.e. The Preacher), but, especially in 1 Corinthians, when you get together, EACH of you. In the early records (See “Early Christians Speak,” by Ferguson) we still do not see The Preacher.
In his book “Pagan Christianity,” Frank Viola gives a fairly complete survey of the development of the role of The Preacher as we know it today.
And before anyone starts casting rocks, I worked with churches in the Netherlands for about 20 years, supported as a missionary, so I am not speaking from an outsider point of view!
About 20 years ago, I ended up moving to the U.S., due to family circumstances. I have been attending a local congregation for the past years, and about 6 years ago, The Preacher retired. the elders asked me to do some research on what the Biblical model of The Preacher included, and the only conclusion I could come was: There is no Biblical Model of what we, today, practice. There is no Biblical example of The Preacher.
What we have done mostly since that time, is a “shared pulpit,” elders who are much more involved in the lives of the members, more members involved in the teaching of the different classes, members who are much more comfortable now with the elders as their spiritual leaders,rather than looking at The Preacher.
Since these is no salary need, we have greatly expanded both our benevolence and mission budgets, the building (a functional structure, rather than an edifice) is completely paid for, ,and we can respond much better to unexpected needs.
The congregation is growing – the same way it has since I have been here (relates not to my activities, but to my awareness) – through the outreach and teaching of the individual members.
Now, should a congregation decide to hire The Preacher, there is not much i can say about that. I strongly believe in the autonomy of the local congregation. Some of my best friends fill the role of The Preacher.
We can argue this as a tradition, no problem there. But to say that there is Biblical support or example, that is incorrect. Both Scripture and history tell us different.
Exactly. There is no such thing as a “preacher” in Christian gatherings.
Thanks, Rudy.
I like this one:
On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine — the best of meats and the finest of wines . . . He will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears from all faces; He will remove his people’s disgrace from all the earth. The LORD has spoken.” (Isaiah 25:6,8)
I like it also. It’s one of the finest verses showing how highly God values the use of wine by his people…Christians.
“Is Drinking a Sin in the Bible?”
“From this perspective, many perceive a place for moderate drinking of alcohol. However, “The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him” (Prov 18:17). The whole case for advocating moderate drinking stands or falls by the definition of biblical wine.”
Actually, I think it stands/falls before we even get to that point. It stands/falls with our approach to Scripture. If we take Scripture the way it is written, and look at it without our culturally, historically and doctrinal colored glasses, only then can we build a case to stand/fall.
When we approach Scripture honestly, we stand a much better chance to accurately read and interpret.
No, its not a sin if you drink responsibly. Yes, I believe Jesus changed water into wine, because that is what is in the Bible. Jesus also gave bread and wine at the last supper. HE gives us HIS precious body and blood. We eat and drink Jesus’s body, blood, soul and divinity.(Transubstantiation) Praise the Lord forever. We all must pray more, fast and unite against evil. Pray for truth, HOLY LOVE and peace. We all are GOD’s children and HE loves us with an everlasting love.
Gary Meier,
This is a response to your earlier reply.
I’ve not worked in a vineyard – but neither have I worked in a marijuana garden. This proves nothing about scripture, and it doesn’t tell me whether the Bible authorizes a Christian to recreationally imbibe a drink that will cause one to lose their sobriety (1 Thess. 5:6-8; 1 Pet. 4:3, 7).
I have had friends that owned vineyards, however, so I am familiar with the process. Left alone, grapes either rot (like any other fruit) or they become raisins.
Your assertion that grapes can ferment into a fruit with the ability to get someone drunk is laughable. The cluster must be pressed into juice, and if it is not placed in an AIRTIGHT environment, the non-intoxicating juice will NOT become “wine”, but turn to vinegar instead.
Arguments over the “wine” being fermented or not is a smokescreen. All wine (grape juice and intoxicating wine) is fermented to some degree – the issue is, does this grape beverage have the power to intoxicate?
So the context will indicate whether the “wine” is intoxicating in nature or not. In accordance with the reasoning above, the wine in Isa. 65:8 is most definitely referring to grape juice, or non-intoxicating wine.
As for the rest of your reply, I insist these things be dealt with straightforwardly before proceeding with anything else.
I loved the article on the kind of wine Jesus drank. I too believe it was not fermented enough to amount to anything “buzz worthy”. You have to look at God/Jesus
s character from the BIG picture. The bible is clear on God being Holy, righteous, etc... That means Jesus is as well. John is matter of fact that Jesus and the Father are one, along with the Holy Spirit. It actually makes me sick for people to try and humanize Jesus to the point that He loses some of His holiness. A student of the word of God [which can be anybody] will quickly see that drinking alcohol would NOT be something a Holy God could do. Picturing the Holy Father just chillin with a cocktail is pretty sick. That isnt who He is, and its very clear as you study the bible as a whole and learn our Creators character. We want drinking alcohol to be okay, so we look for anything we can to make it okay…when its always looked at negatively if taken in proper context. I did this as well for awhile. Never again! I know God doesnt want me to compromise the clear mind that He gave me. It may not send you to hell, but it is so unwise and a real disservice to the kingdom of God.Thanks a bunch for the article. Didn
t even look at the year it was published. It just doesnt matter. : []Thank you, Angela.
As a good Bible student, with 40 years practice, allow me to help you understand a bit more about the Bible. Looking at the BIG picture, one would look at all the references to alcohol (and the %% does not matter – drunk is drunk, whether it takes a lot of wine or a little) and strong drink, Deuteronomy 14 has to be taken into consideration.
As a good Bible student (still with 40 years of experience) allow me to suggest you re-read John’s Gospel, and see how and where the oneness of Father and Son is described – where in the same context Jesus speaks of His followers – that THEY [followers] may be one with the Father JUST as I am with the Father…
Attributing characteristics of Deity to Jesus while he was on EARTH negates the Gospel of John.
Rudy, are you denying the Deity of Christ while in human form (on earth), or just what are you saying?
I’m not denying that, John, Paul and the writer to the Hebrews do. And Jesus himself, of course.
Angela,
What kind of scholarship is this? Will you please read the Bible without coloring everything you say about it with your opinions. It really doesn’t make any difference what you believe about the wine Jesus drank. The Bible, the culture of the day, the process of wine making, all strongly teach that the wine was abundantly “buzz worthy”. It contained sufficient alcohol that people easily got drunk.
Are you actually reading Holy Scripture? Please don’t show your ignorance by such statements as: “A student of the Word of God will quickly see that drinking alcohol would NOT be something a Holy God would do”. Our Holy God says that wine is a blessing from him to us (Deut. 11:14), we will be made radiant from God’s gift of wine to us (Jer. 31:12), it is something extremely good and compares with food, oil and bread as necessities of life (Psalm 104:14,15), we will all thrive and flourish when we eat God’s gift of grain and drink his gift of wine (Zech. 9:17) and, there is nothing better for a person than that he should eat and drink wine because this is a gift of God and a good and proper thing to do (Ecc. 2:24, 3:13, 5:18, 9:7). That’s God’s message to us about wine.
Jesus drank wine (Matt. 11:18,19, Luke 7:34,35), made wine (John 2:1-11) and served wine (Matt. 26:27-29, 1 Cor. 11:25). Our Holy God would not only drink alcohol himself, but encourages Christians to join him around the table (Deut. 14:26) in doing so. You have condemned God, himself, with your statement “Picturing the Holy Father just chillin with a cocktail is pretty sick”. Where do you get this stuff?
What is this all about? “We want drinking alcohol to be OK, so we look for anything to make it okay”. Nobody wants drinking alcohol to be Okay and looks for anything to make it okay. Alcohol is okay because God tells us it’s OK. (refer to all Scriptural references above).
I noticed your entire post was devoid of Scripture and full of your personal biases, opinions, conjecture and just plain ignorance of the facts, thus rendering everything you said just a mass of feckless words.
Angela
Are you telling us here that alcohol is evil?the contradiction inside is that, people misuse it by excessive consumption.For Jesus in particular to consume alcohol does not implies the holiness of God is been destroyed.Jesus was the human form of God,just imagine that God visit us and refuse to eat and drink with us,how does it look like?What we need to understand here is that, it should be done decently.Jesus may have just tested it,not that he was an alcohol consumer.I got your point of view,”Jesus is God and you don’t find it normal for God to consume alcohol.Read Luke7:34,Jesus as a human being in the world,must have also live a normal life but with lot of abstainance e.g.alcohol,sexual immorality etc……
Is it true to say, we are missing the whole point, about the water being changed into wine? It was Jesus’s first Miracle, which started HIS ministry for our Salvation. Mary, His Mother (woman) the New Eve, was part of this, by telling Jesus they were out of wine. When they celebrated Weddings, they partied for days back in those ancient days. When the head waiter tasted the wine, he said it was the best he ever tasted. Jesus miraculously made the wine. With GOD all things are possible. Aren’t all of Jesus’s miracles good???
Yes, Anita, all of Jesus’ miracles are extremely good.
Thanks for an excellent post.
Interesting that there is another “rudolf” in the conversation.
How about that! Which one has the reddest nose?
Watch it!
No matter your position on this matter. Consider:
“It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles” (Rom 14:21).
“So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves” (Rom 14:19–22).
So, when my weaker brother is not around, I DO have the freedom to eat, drink – with moderation. In the privacy of my own home, in the public space of a restaurant…
But that was not the reason why I posted the article about addiction…
The article I posted yesterday was published as part of research done by the Common Sense Media group. What it shows is that the same “brain parts” light up with the use of technology as with drugs etc. This shows that the same consequences can develop from an over use of technology/social media. The same receptors “light up” as when drugs or other substances are involved.
Addiction is a very broad spectrum, and we need to be careful not to be staring blindly at but one “product,” wearing blinders for others.
The most interesting study, btw, was done showing how addicted we are to clothing… Same receptors, same brain sections… :-)
Rudy, you wrote, “When Scripture speaks of buying wine and/or strong drink for the first time, it is after the commandment about drunkenness is given.”
a) What specific scripture is this and b) how would this prove anything about restricting the use other mind altering drugs, since they are not specifically mentioned in this alleged context, and these other drugs also cause lack of sobriety?
“Now, if you want to use the instruction for Timothy as a rule, you will want me to believe that the elders and deacons were also having medical issues.”
This is your assertion, not mine; thus, it is yours to prove. How does 1 Tim. 5:23 prove all elders and deacons were having medical issues, when only Timothy was specified as having the problem?
Hm, YOU are the one that made the medical exception, not me.
And I never made the connection to drugs, you did.
My argument has been about wine and/or string drink.
I’ve already dealt with your gluttony argument in a previous post: “There is nothing logical about classifying caffeine, nicotine or obesity in the same category as alcohol, and you know it. Caffeine, and other drugs of such like, do not impair judgment.” Neither does obesity impair judgment. But that is a side issue.
You wrote, “As far as the use of “drugs” are concerned, it seems the same goes: There were they are used for a specif purpose (i.e. healing processes – which limitation BTW is NOT given to the use of wine and/or strong drink!) then I can take the prescribed drugs for their intended purpose – but not be gluttonous with them, or “drink” (i.e. high – filled to overflowing).”
What specific scripture are you reasoning from to limit the use of certain drugs to their intended purpose (a healing process), but not the drug alcohol (strong drink or intoxicating wine)? 1 Tim. 5:23 specifies the use of a little intoxicating wine, and here it is for a medical purpose.
Simple: When Scripture speaks of buying wine and/or strong drink for the first time, it is after the commandment about drunkenness is given.
Now, if you want to use the instruction for Timothy as a rule, you will want me to believe that the elders and deacons were also having medical issues. They are expected not to be abusers of wine.
Rudy said: “They (elders) are expected not to be abusers of wine.”
And they are expected to follow the Word regarding weaker brothers and sisters (and children), which according to Paul meant, ‘whatever you believe about these things [these freedoms] keep between yourself and God.’ (Romans 14:22), and ‘We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves.’ (Romans 15:1). Yes, following Scriptural precepts, and living quiet lives – all requirements of being elders, and mature believers. Where do we find weaker brothers and sisters? According to statistics – about 15% of the population are problem drinkers and alcoholics, and how many kids are we around where you should be super careful about the model we set?
yet again, Bruce, different topic! I learned that my language, although not foul, was something my oldest son picked up. He and i used to go get my mom for church on Sunday mornings, about a 45 minute drive each way. Sometimes the Sunday drivers were out in droves. At times, I would comment on their driving habits, and use words like fool and idiot.
Until my 4 year old started repeating those words in response to some of my comments… I have never used them again. In any circumstance.
I can read Brown’s “Da Vinci Code.” Would I recommend that to some of the people in the congregation? Definitely not!
I can read Martin Luther’s works without issues. Would I recommend that to some people in the congregation? Definitely not.
The “weaker brother” covers a lot more ground than those struggling with addictive issues.
I agree Rudy. BTW, thanks for sharing from your childhood! I recall being taken to church by my then single Mom, and at you know 12-13, sitting up in the warm balcony, which despite the preacher’s best exogesis of Philippians, was an impossible place to resist nodding off. At some point, I started to listen more. And yes, my Mom was strict about our language, and was a very good model of that. Yes, you’re right that Romans 14 and 15:1 need to be broadly applied to many common sense areas, but because alcohol abuse has such far reaching ramifications in so many areas, and 8s often quickly deadly, and often slow motion suicide, it must certainly be a focus, as Scripture clearly warns. Scripture also warns against gluttony, idolatry, greed and lust, etc., and all these areas of behavior also have far reaching consequences.
I do not agree that discussing a Christian’s behavior and attitude toward drinking is somehow unrelated to the topic of what wine Jesus drank. Modern wine and hard drink fermentation have make booze today way more dangerous than in Jesus times on earth, and requires that much more caution (not less!) for true disciples.
Drunk is drunk. It does not matter how quick or slow I get there. That’s why the conversation on alcohol content makes no sense!
If I drink one glass fast, or five glasses slow, the outcome is the same v
For those of you who worry about wine… From a report by… I will tell you after you have read this!!
How Does Addiction Rewire the Brain?
Let’s use a hypothetical teenager named Sue to examine how addiction rewires the brain.
1. First, Sue interacts with a “rewarding stimulus.” A rewarding stimulus is something that stimulates, or kicks into action, the brain’s “reward pathway.” Rewarding stimuli include natural rewards such as food, water, and sex. They also include synthetic, more harmful
addictive substances, such as cocaine, heroin, and amphetamines. Sue could interact with a rewarding stimulus by ingesting it (such as drinking alcohol), although sometimes just looking at something that reminds Sue of a reward is enough to cause a reaction
(Brookshire, 2013).
2. When the reward pathway (the “mesolimbic dopaminergic pathway”) is stimulated, it triggers the release of dopamine. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter, or a messenger chemical. Dopamine tells the brain to pay attention: Something is about to happen.
3. Sue’s brain heeds dopamine’s message, shifting into a state of wanting, expecting, and desiring pleasure (Adinoff, 2004, p. 5)*. Certain stimuli, such as addictive drugs, can trigger the release of two to 10 times more dopamine than natural rewards (National Institute on Drug
Abuse, 2014). That means that their message comes through that much louder or stronger, flooding the brain with an acute sense of craving. When Sue is in this heightened state, receiving the reward (e.g., drinking alcohol) feels that much more pleasurable (the “reinforcing
effect”). Conversely, not receiving the reward feels that much more disappointing.
4. Over time, the brain adjusts and becomes less sensitive to dopamine, meaning that Sue physically cannot experience as much pleasure as she did before. She’ll need more of the rewarding stimulus (alcohol) to feel the same effect (a phenomenon known as “tolerance”).
Natural rewards may not even register anymore (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2014). Eventually, Sue will need to interact with rewarding stimuli just to feel normal.
5. The brain’s adjustment to dopamine sets off a chain reaction. Tolerance can lead to increased cravings for the rewarding stimulus (Horvath, Misra, Epner, & Cooper, 2015a). Rather than pleasure seeking, Sue may become drug seeking, acting compulsively, despite adverse
consequences, to alleviate the discomfort of craving (a process called “withdrawal”).
6. The reward pathway then hijacks other regions of the brain—specifically, the executive function regions of the brain that are responsible for judgment, decision-making, learning, and memory.
You picked option c. No surprise there.
I’ve already answered that question several times, Rudy. You need to go back and reread what I’ve already written. How about giving a straight answer to the points below?
Again, you’ve affirmed a Christian may drink intoxicating wine socially. If one accepts this premise, then there is no sin:
A) for a Christian to become “half drunk” as long as there is no connection with idols.
B) when anyone only has a couple of drinks and then drives, since “banquetings” only applies at a “prom” and there can be no evidence of a true lack of sobriety.
C) for a Christian to use marijuana, cocaine, LSD, etc. in “moderation”
D) for a drug dealer to sell any combination of the items in “C” to children, other than irrational government laws against them, because the Bible is silent about them.
Once again, you do not seem to read your bible. Your construction is the same as, “You say that you can eat. That makes you guilty of the sin of gluttony.”
Just because the Bible says it is acceptable to drink wine and strong drink does not mean it condones drunkenness. Just as the bible says it’s acceptable to eat, but gluttony is a sin.
Your “logic” leads to the ridiculous: Since eating CAN lead to gluttony, I better not eat.”
I have given you about TEN passages where the Bible condones the use of wine and/or strong drink. There were no limitations (Unless…) other than in the case of vows.
It is so simple.
As far as the use of “drugs” are concerned, it seems the same goes: There were they are used for a specif purpose (i.e. healing processes – which limitation BTW is NOT given to the use of wine and/or strong drink!) then I can take the prescribed drugs for their intended purpose – but not be gluttonous with them, or “drink” (i.e. high – filled to overflowing).
However, where drugs are not prescribed for medical purposes (hence, “abused,”) there is the intended purpose of getting “high.” Which, link drunk, and gluttony, would be sinful behavior.
But again, there are no prescribed circumstances in which the use or wine and/or strong drink are limited,to specific purposes except in the case of the vows.
So, whichever you you want to interpret what i say, you are still not showing any biblical passages stating that the use of wine and/or strong drink is prohibited other than in specific circumstances.
No, Rudy. You are failing to deal with the consequences of your doctrine. You’ve moved the goalposts enough. You can either a) affirm, b) deny or c) continue to evade answering the statements below.
You’ve affirmed a Christian may drink intoxicating wine (or drugs) socially. If one accepts this premise, then there is no sin:
A) for a Christian to become “half drunk” as long as there is no connection with idols.
B) when anyone only has a couple of drinks and then drives, since “banquetings” only applies at a “prom” and there can be no evidence of a true lack of sobriety.
C) for a Christian to use marijuana, cocaine, LSD, etc. in “moderation”
D) for a drug dealer to sell any combination of the items in “C” to children, other than irrational government laws against them, because the Bible is silent about them.
Does the bible allow the use of wine and string drink or not?
Simple yes/no question.
I’ve send ample evidence showing the only possible answer is YES.
YOU say no. Show me even a single passage where there is a “thou shalt not drink wine and or strong drink” that is NOT an exception.
I challenge you, or anyone else, to produce evidence from ANY of the answers I’ve already given where I said the Bible absolutely forbids the use of drugs (strong drink and intoxicating wine included) for any purpose.
What you say I’ve written and what I did write are two very different things.
The moment you refer to the use of wine and/or strong drink as “sin,” you have limited it’s use. You can try to find excuses (like, medicinal) but that is not what Paul wrote. He said, “instead of water…” and did not write, “Normally it’s sin, but since you need it for your health…”
Jesus changing water into wine would have contributed to the opportunity of sinful behavior. Paul limiting the elder and deacon requirements… No matter which way you go, you are stuck with the simple answer to the question, “Is drinking wine and/or strong drink sinful behavior?” It either is, or it is not. There are no exceptions to the concept – except when there is a vow taken to abstain,
It is simply that simple.
I wrote, “…produce evidence from ANY of the answers I’ve already given…” You didn’t do this. Try again.