Written by one who doesn’t drink due to health concerns, God Gave Wine provides a non-biased approach to the issue. What does the Bible really say about alcoholic drink? Contrary to the popular opinion of many American evangelical Christians, the Bible does not expressly forbid the drinking of alcoholic drinks, such as wine or “strong drink”. Rather, it forbids in no uncertain terms, the abuse of alcohol.
Drunkenness is never viewed as a disease, instead it is incumbent on men not to become drunk with wine. Drunkenness is a sin worthy of eternal damnation. It is expressly forbidden and counseled against. Yet the moderate enjoyment of wine is not only allowed, but encouraged.
Kenneth Gentry deals with each relevant passage exegetically and fairly. He traces the Biblical meanings of the words employed for “wine” and other alcoholic drinks. He reveals the circular reasoning behind the two wine theory, that the Bible has two kinds of wine in view (alcoholic, and non-alcoholic) even as it employs only one term. The same wine the Bible warns can lead to drunkenness, is the wine the Bible praises as a gift from God for man’s enjoyment.
As Christians, we should all care most about what God says on any given issue. Arguments from wisdom and expediency are important, but the express teaching of God’s Word is final. Gentry explores the many arguments from principle that Christians use to avoid completely anything alcoholic. He finds these arguments wanting, after a verse by verse study of Romans 14.
If you care about the truth, and if you care about Scripture, you should pick up this book and read it. The traditions of godly men of old are important, but God’s Word is more so. Historically, the avoidance of all alcoholic drink is relatively new, and today is primarily restricted to American Christians. When you see what Scripture has to say, Itself, on this topic, you will at least have more leniency in your views concerning this important issue.
As one who was converted (through a study of Scripture) to the moderate use of God-given wine, I can testify that many Christians drink with joy to the glory of God. Drinking does not make one more apt to sin, nor does it reveal that one has worldly desires. No matter how you conclude on this topic, it would be to your credit to interact with and at least consider what Kenneth Gentry says in this helpful, carefully written, concise book on wine.
Anyone interested in studying this issue out further, can peruse my previous articles on the subject listed Amazon.com or direct from Oakdown Books.
Thanks for the recommendation…Amazon is out of the book and the used books are overpriced…
You want to do a book exchange?
Seth,
I would, however my sister wants to read it right now, and its a good book to have on hand.
I just posted some links in an update to the post above, where you can order the book at a more reasonable price (around $13).
Sorry.
Bob
Bob,
The article is needed by many fellowships. It is good that you have recommended this book. Isn’t it wonderful to be free to be a Biblical
Christian?(!) (Please note my new email address.)
Joe V.
That 2-pack is definitely worth it. Both are great books. God Gave Wine is the more serious (though both are serious), while Drinking with Calvin and Luther is a fun read.
I agree that the Bible never declares wine or beer to be off limits to Christians. It boggles my mind when preachers will ignore the plain meaning of Matt 9:17, Mark 2:22, and Luke 5:37-38. The religious leaders would never have accused Jesus of being a drunkard (luke 7a:34) if Jesus never drank wine.
However, there is plenty of cause for Christians to abstain for the sake of others. I speak from experience, in that I have relatives who are alcoholics, and who cannot, on their own, limit their intake. Romans 14:21 would indicate that one who loves a brother with this problem would abstain in that person’s presence. Of course, per verse 22, one is free to partake if the possiblity of harming someone else’s faith or conscience is not an issue. Moderation is key as is self denial.
Prodigal,
You are very correct that there are plenty of times where abstinence is best. But those times are usually of limited duration and of a specific nature. I’m against the notion that we should not drink at all due to the ever present possibility that we may inadvertantly offend someone or seem to have a wrong testimony with some nonbeliever. That idea would violate what Rom. 14 actually does teach.
Thanks, Dave and Joe, for the kind words as well. That Drinking with Calvin and Luther book does sound interesting.
Blessings,
Bob
Proverbs 23:29-35 explicitly and directly prohibits the drinking of alcoholic beverage.
Proverbs 23:29 Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaining? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? 30 Those who tarry long over wine; those who go to try mixed wine. 31 Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly. 32 In the end it bites like a serpent and stings like an adder. 33 Your eyes will see strange things, and your heart utter perverse things. 34 You will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, like one who lies on the top of a mast. 35 “They struck me,” you will say, “but I was not hurt; they beat me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake? I must have another drink.”
Kent, only an individual who presupposes your position to be correct would fail to see the obvious, that that passage speaks of drunkenness.
Why would God “explicitly and directly” prohibit that which he has “explicitly and directly” given “to gladden the heart of man” (Psalm 104), and “explicitly and directly” allowed to be purchased with the tithe, if the individual desires, on “wine or strong drink” (Deuteronomy 14)? And why would Jesus, who certainly knew of your alleged prohibition (being its author), drink — and even make (John 2) — wine himself? Why, of all things, would he choose wine to represent his blood, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me” (the Gospels, 1 Corinthians 11)?
The passage in question clearly forbids drunkenness. It is poetry, too. Is the exhortation not to look at wine directed to those who would be drunk? Is it directed to those in the act of drinking who are reaching for yet another glass? Or is it directed to all?
One must adopt the two-wine theory to conclude the passage forbids looking (and hence drinking) at alcoholic wine. The same Solomon who wrote these verses, wrote that Wisdom had mingled her wine and invites us to drink (Prov. 9:5). He also praised wine in Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon.
Modern grape juice was not available until Thomas Welch invented it using Louis Pasteur’s new pasteurization process in the 1860s.
The two-wine theory smacks of circular reasoning to me. God praises a substance (that must be non-alcoholic) and then he warns against the intemperate use of the same substance (the warnings indicate its alcoholic drink). Elsewhere, Scripture teaches that prohibitions have no power to curb the flesh. It teaches everything created by God (and yes, alcohol happens naturally), is good and to be received with thanksgiving.
The proponents of this relatively modern theory (dating back to temperance days, primarily) also seem to be unaware of basic facts concerning alcohol. As with other God-created joys, alcoholic drinks do not force anyone into sin. Sin happens upon the sinful abuse of the substance. Over-eating, and the abuse of sex are clear parallels. Sex is good, but should be enjoyed within God-given and God-ordained bounds (marriage only). Same with wine, which is compared with love in Song of Solomon. No created substance is inherently evil. Wine doesn’t make anyone get drunk. Even where the taste of alcohol creates an urge for more, there is a choice involved.
Beyond these considerations, think of Rom. 14. The drinking of wine is explicitly mentioned. The weak position is the abstinence from it. Are we to conclude that grape juice is in view? Some avoided it while others didn’t? Isn’t it more natural to conclude that the same argument we are having now was in view then? And the strong position was that alcohol was fine. Also in 1 Cor. 10-11, we have a clear case of drunkenness in the church at the Lord’s Supper. Why didn’t Paul castigate them for using alcoholic wine? He said to take their wine with them home and drink it there if they wouldn’t be unified in the church and drink together. I don’t think he wanted them to get drunk, he seems to have called them out on that, but he doesn’t jump to setting up no-drinking-wine rules.
For these considerations, plus the excellent linguistic treatment in the book I recommend above, I do not see any universal condemnation of alcoholic drink in Scripture.
Anyone interested in the two-wine theory, can hear Brandenburg teach on it in a free download available at his site (click on the link). I listened to it but wasn’t convinced. It seemed to me that he was wanting to make the passage be an actual condemnation of alcoholic drinking outright. And at the end he’s like, “see, you didn’t think this was there, but it actually is…. an explicit condemnation of alcohol in the Scripture”. That’s how it came across to me. Some of the points were strained.
I do know he’s not alone in that view. But this book and others refute it. Pick up most any lexicon or read any article on wine in a good Bible Dictionary. The consensus is that the terms used in the Bible were mostly used for alcoholic drinks. Granted the wine’s alcohol content was probably half that of today or less (similar to today’s beer), but still it could get one drunk.
For the record, I’ve never been drunk, and I don’t plan to. But I have enjoyed a good wine, and received such as a gift from God.
“It seemed to me that he was wanting to make the passage be an actual condemnation of alcoholic drinking outright.” I don’t make the passage into anything. It is what it is. It prohibits alcohol. V. 31 is very clear. The rest of the passage backs up that it is speaking about an alcoholic version of yayin.
We have a passage that clearly prohibits something. I show grammatically, historically, and linguistically that it is alcohol that is prohibited. The Hebrew yayin is determined by the context. I show that clearly as well—very clearly. Freshly pressed grape juice is not fermented.
Since Scripture doesn’t contradict itself, the yayin that makes the heard glad cannot be alcoholic.
One thing that you can see with alcoholic drink in Proverbs 23:34-35 is that someone drunk doesn’t even know when he is drunk. You can say you haven’t been drunk from drinking your alcohol, but that passage says that the nature of alcohol is that it is deceives a person. It literally says that we can’t trust the opinion of the person who is drinking the alcohol.
So you see, Bob, you’re in denial — and your opinion can’t be trusted anyway. Winebibber.
The claim that “good” wine is non-alcoholic just gets a big yawn from me. Seriously, what a load of extrabiblically-contrived presuppositional nonsense.
“Since Scripture doesn’t contradict itself,” what, exactly, is the “strong drink” of Deuteronomy 14?
David,
You have a way with words that encourages interaction, especially “nonsense.” Bob used “I’ve never been drunk” as some kind of argument for his position, I guess one that you appreciated. I gave a counter that actually came from the text.
We can differentiate Proverbs 23:31 from Psalm 104:15 by the fact that the former has a descriptive for yayin that takes up the rest of the verse and the latter has no such descriptive. We know that not all yayin is alcoholic. Could you please explain to me how that yayin is alcoholic in Isaiah 16:10? You will look like you care more about what the Bible says if you do it in a way that isn’t insulting.
Shekar is drink made from other fruits besides the grape. It can be alcoholic, but isn’t always. Shakar came from shekar and not vice-versa. We should not assume that shekar is always a drink from which someone could get drunk. It’s an non-linguistic explanation. Shakar and shekar work just like the Greek methuo came from methu.
When we have clear prohibition of alcohol in Proverbs 23:31, we shouldn’t go to a reference, Deut 14:26, and assume that it teaches the drinking of alcohol. There wasn’t a word for alcohol in the Greek and Hebrew language of the Bible. There wasn’t a word for alcohol in the English language until the 15th century. Whether it is alcoholic is always determined by the context and the descriptors. If Deut 14:26 is alcohol and this was to be tithed for the purpose of a celebration, there would have been a lot of alcohol drunk from the tithe of a rich man. On top of that, the verse works against your position because it uses both yayin and shekar. If those are both always alcoholic, you would essentially be saying alcohol and alcohol. Placing them side by side covered the whole of beverages—grape variety and then others. The history of shekar is that it is a drink that comes from other substances, most notably the date palm and honey.
Kent said: “One thing that you can see with alcoholic drink in Proverbs 23:34-35 is that someone drunk doesn’t even know when he is drunk.”
I beg to differ. Where does this passage tell us the person didn’t know he was drunk? His judgment has certainly been clouded, and he has become numb to his surroundings. This is quite typical for one in a drunken state. I know. I’ve been there. But there’s no indication that he’s unaware of the fact that he’s intoxicated. When I have been drunk, I’ve been 100% aware it. People may sometimes deny that they’ve had too much to drink, but they know if they’re drunk.
Kent, calling your arguments “nonsense” is in no way insulting. Its just straight talk that grown men ought to be able to take without taking offense. I don’t think calling your position “nonsense” is nearly insulting than saying Bob couldn’t know if he was drunk (which, by the way, was a tangential statement — he didn’t use it as an argument for anything). So I will continue to call nonsense, “nonsense,” but since you continue to build your arguments upon your extra-biblical presuppositions, I won’t bother to do so here.
And Steve is right. While a a drunk’s judgment is definitely impaired, he generally knows he’s drunk. In fact, he knows he’s getting drunk when he only begins to drink too much.
That’s my last word here. If you care, my full treatment of this is here. But since I completely ignore the “wine back then was Welch’s” argument, which is frankly laughable, I don’t expect you’ll be impressed.
David,
I understand your not answering the questions here. The Isaiah 16:10 is unanswerable for you and it is from the Bible, which isn’t as effective, it seems, as saying something is “laughable” or “nonsense” to you. Differing than you, I’m actually open minded on this subject. If I thought that alcohol was permitted or even encouraged, which is your position, I would willingly and gladly take it. I see a prohibition of alcohol in Proverbs 23:31 and it is in light of the danger of alcoholic beverage that you see in the entire context of Proverbs 23:29-35.
In one of my previous comments, I forgot to add the link to my post on Thomas Welch and the invention of modern grape juice. Here is my post on that topic: Welch’s Grape Juice, Worldly Wisdom, and Wine.
Regarding, Is. 16:10, Gentry addresses that verse in this book. I don’t have my copy handy (I’ve loaned it out, already). But Is. 16 is poetry. There are other examples of this kind of poetic expression in Scripture. Basically it’s like saying no one will grind out any bread from the flour mills anymore. We all know that bread is several steps removed from flour, but the flour is all about bread. Bread is the finished product. Same thing with wine. No one will tread out wine from the winepresses anymore. Again, the first step is the treading out of the grape pulp, but the finished product is the wine.
Lexically, yayin, almost invariably refers to an alcoholic drink. You yourself admit that English, Greek, Hebrew and other languages didn’t have words for strictly alcoholic drinks. I wonder why? Could it be that no one thought of a grape-made drink as anything other than alcoholic? Alcohol so naturally results from such fruit based drinks in the climate of Bible times, that it is hard to envision non-alcoholic versions of the drink. Again, Welch invented his drink in the 1860s. There was a word for non-alcoholic product of the grape — trux. That word wasn’t employed.
The history of the church stands against you in this, too. Alcoholic drinks were used and still are by godly people from the time of the Bible. The preponderance of Biblical evidence, as discussed in Gentry’s work, stands against the two-wine theory. That theory, again, came out of the temperance movement when people had to find support for a total prohibition from the pages of Scripture. As I argue in the post above, that movement was not birthed from studying Scripture, but was birthed by worldy wisdom — the idea that liquor itself was responsible for societal ills, and that alcoholism is a disease, not a sin. Educate man, and keep him from that “devil’s drink” and you can reform him and make society better. The premises that temperance is built on are faulty and the movement failed.
OK, I never should have said that was my last word, because I can’t resist answering.
Kent, you are half right: I am not open minded. My mind is entirely closed to every doctrine that ignores the plain words of Scripture and originates in the traditions of men. However, I am completely open to the entire testimony of Scripture on this and any other topic, which you seem not to be.
I didn’t answer Isaiah 16:10 because there is nothing in it to answer; it has nothing to do with this discussion.
To be consistent, I can’t let the last two comments stand. Gage’s was more off topic, the comment before his was a little over the top. While I may agree with the sentiments expressed, we should try to stick to the topic at hand. We can’t discount people outright because of various views they hold. I want to be fair and keep the comments above board as much as possible.
Please understand.
Thanks,
Bob
PS To be clear I did delete two comments here. You are welcome to comment again, but lets not just lob potshots around. To be fair I have to be consistent no matter which way those shots are aimed….
That’s fine Bob…your blog…just wanted David to know what he was up against…since I have been scrutinized pretty heavily by Kent in the passed and believe him to be “a little over the top”
David,
A thirst and hunger for righteousness must come from Scripture, so the one who thirsts for righteousness will respect Scripture. I read your articles at your blog. They didn’t deal at all with what I’ve shown. You essentially assume that “wine” equals alcohol and we’re supposed to bow to that level of exegesis. You don’t seem to understand open-mindedness either, because to be open, you must be willing to believe. For you to dismiss Isaiah 16:10 so quickly without an answer is tell-tale.
Bob,
In the poetry, wine is still wine and treading the grapes is still treading the grapes. Young in his commentary on Isaiah writes: “In the fields lay great rocks which had been hewn out as vats for trampling the grapes. But there was no one to tread the grapes so that the wine would flow from the upper vat into the lower.” The text speaks of juice just pressed from grapes as “wine.” That cannot be alcoholic wine; therefore, “wine” must be judged by its context to understand whether it is alcoholic or not. Such a descriptive is added in Proverbs 23:31 to prohibit everyone from even looking at alcoholic beverage.
You essentially assume that “wine” equals alcohol …
Correct.
And that really is my last word.
Seth, thanks, but I’ve observed Kent in other places, and I knew what I was getting into and how little it would accomplish. And yet, I jumped in anyway — go figure.
Thanks for the review. The book sounds similar to the one by
Williamson, Wine in the Bible and Church.
Is Gentry still with the theonomy movement, or has he too defected to the Federal Vision?
You can tell that you are out of the fundamentalist movement when you adopt a more biblical view of drinking. It took me a long time.
Anyone want to debate smoking?
Hey Randy,
No idea about Gentry and theonomy or FV. Too many worms around here to bother with smoking….
Fermentation started just hours after the wine was pressed. The whole wine pressing event was all about making wine (alcoholic wine).
Again, if you saw someone in a kitchen with their hands in a bowl of flour, you’d ask, “What have you got there?” “Bread!” “We’re making bread.” Same thing with the winepress. “What are you doing?” “Making wine” “We’re pressing wine, here”.
Again, if you drank it right then it’d be fresh, but beyond that it would ferment and become alcoholic.
The preponderance of evidence, historically, linguistically, is totally in the favor of viewing yayin as alcoholic virtually every time it is used.
If one can assume that “wine” always means “alcohol,” then the descriptive is ridiculously redundant in Proverbs 23:31. “Look not at alcohol when it is alcoholic.”
The context and poetic structure of the passage give the verse the meaning that we should not look on wine and place ourselves near it when we are liable to get drunk or be deceived by it. We can’t let it entice us into sin.
It is not something we can take for granted that your view of “when it is red” means “when it is alcoholic”. Look not on the alcoholic wine, when it looks real good. Don’t go to it even when you know how pleasant it is to the mouth and how easily it goes down. Don’t do this when you are drunk, getting drunk, or liable to become drunk. The passage speaks as a whole to dissuade us from drunkenness. It does not condemn the use of alcohol outright. Prov. 31:5-6 advocates its use.
One can’t lift Prov 23 out and make it the definitive rule irrespective of the rest of Scripture’s teaching on the subject. Scripture will harmonize, but the way it does so is much more clear and simple to take if you view Scripture as condemning the abuse of wine but not its use. To adopt a two-wine theory contradicts common sense, the laws of grammar and all the dictionaries and lexicons, as well as the history of interpretation and the history of the church.
Total abstinence from alcoholic beverages is totally a world system idea design to get more work out of people. This is what the temperance movement was all about. (Check out history.) I believe modernists in the church were “duped” into bringing the movement in from the world. After all, if eating the fruit from the tree in the midst of the garden is wrong, then if one does not even touch it at all this will surely keep them safer. (Did Eve add to the Word of God and succumb to temptation?) If drinking wine might get one drunk, a new rule, added by man, will surely be better than God’s Word – don’t even touch the stuff! Hmmm.
Joe V.
Perhaps Proverbs 23:31 is not particularly about wine or alcohol. From Matthew Henry “But look not thou upon it. 1. “Be not ruled by sense, but by reason and religion. Covet not that which pleases the eye, in hopes that it will please the taste; but let thy serious thoughts correct the errors of thy senses and convince thee that that which seems delightful is really hurtful, and resolve against it accordingly. Let not the heart walk after the eye, for it is a deceitful guide.” 2. “Be not too bold with the charms of this or any other sin; look not, lest thou lust, lest thou take the forbidden fruit.” Note Those that would be kept from any sin must keep themselves from all the occasions and beginnings of it, and be afraid of coming within the reach of its allurements, lest they be overcome by them.”
Joe V.
We can make anything mean anything we want when we say “look not” means something other than “look not.” When we don’t have to confine ourselves to the actual language of the verse, we can make it mean anything we want. And then Joe says that “wine” is not actually wine in the passage, but symbolic of sin. And no one takes issue with that interpretation, you know, as long as you get to keep drinking it, it’s a valid interpretation.
So Bob, how do the context and poetic structure of the verse tell us that we are not to look at it when we are liable to get drunk and be deceived by it? What exactly in the Hebrew poetry says that “look not at something” actually means, “it’s OK to drink unless there is a particular temptation to get drunk by drinking it”? I really do want to know.
Bob, it isn’t my view that “when it is red” means alcoholic. Since you listened to my message on it, then you know that I gave several linguistic and actual contextual points to show that it meant “when it is alcoholic”—the Talmud, the Septuagint, etc. There was no word for alcoholic, so the description was given.
Your view doesn’t make sense at all—don’t look at it when it looks really good? It clashes with your view that the stuff is good; is great! How could we not look at it when it is such fantastic stuff? From both the external and the internal context, we see that it was alcoholic. We see what occurs when someone drinks alcohol, so based upon that understanding, don’t even look at it. You twist the plain meaning of words.
You do the same thing with Isaiah 16:10 saying that it is talking about making an alcoholic beverage, when it is obvious that juice freshly trampled is also yayin. That is incredible.
You use “two wine” in a pejorative way as if there were two different products. It’s the same product. One is intoxicating and the other is not. We all know that the juice of grapes will ferment, but that is not t assume that it become intoxicating within a short period of time. There is also a whole lot that I didn’t deal with in my message with the mixing of the juice with water for purification.
Bob, thanks for this post. I have read Gentry’s book and it is done very well and he makes his case. I encourage all to get it and read.
Thanks Les, I appreciate the link.
Re: Prov. 23 again…
For those who are drunks, “look not on wine” is appropriate. I believe the context and nature of the passage in Proverbs is conveying this. The immediately preceding verse mentions those who tarry long over the wine. And it says “look thou” or “look you” not on the wine.
We can either use this text to force us to change the natural exegesis and understanding of several other passages, or we can in light of those other passages understand this one to be counseling against drunkenness. Given Prov. 31:5-6 are in the same book, it would seem we’d have to see this passage this way.
Also the verse iself seems to be pointing out the pleasure in the drink. It goes down smoothly (which is what the KJV phrase “moveth itself aright” means). It looks pleasing (ie it is red and it sparkles). Many others are with me in not seeing the phrases after “wine” in this verse as distinguishing the wine as an alcoholic type of wine. Again “wine” suffices to show that the drink was alcoholic.
Brandenburg,
Joe did not say the passage was not about wine. Joe said perhaps the subject addressed in this section of Porverbs is more about keeping away from sin. Matthew Henry has commented, which I gave you. Beginning with verse 20, this Proverb is telling one to stay away from the company of those that put too much emphasis on the carnal life – eating and drinking and both to excess. After having there fill of wine they continue to drink more, same with eating. The passages describe the temptations to be resisted.
Joe V.
Bob, I think you are right on here. As Robert Rayburn said,
I really haven’t been following this line too close, but several things come to mind here…There definitely are groups of people who are told to abstain from wine…Nazirites and the Rechabites … The latter were commended for not only adhering to the injunction of abstinence, but for passing it down the family line, receiving a blessing thereby.
In the Nazirite class they are told to abstain from all products of the vine…No grapes…no raisins…no stuffed grape leaves…that struck me a few years ago when I was studying Samson…Oh, and don’t forget to grow out your hair…*: )
Les,
Robert’s wrong on one point: “In Gen. 40:11 we read of drinking the juice that had just been pressed from the grapes, but that juice is never called “wine†in the Bible.”
It is called wine in Is. 16:10 and another passage in Jeremiah. Gentry explains these as poetic expressions, and brings other Biblical poetic examples to bear on these cases.
But there are places where it is clear that alcoholic wine is in view and it is favorably mentioned.
Nancy,
In both cases the abstinence is voluntary not compulsory. And with the Nazarite vow, it is temporary.
Thanks all for the interaction.
Nancy.
I have done some study on the Nazirite vow and have taught on it. The purpose for us today on the vow is not to adhere to it, but to look to it and see the grace found in the cross.
The three things that the Nazirite could not do was:
1. Drink wine or eat grapes/raisens
2. Cut their hair
3. Touch a dead body
They did this to show their devotion to the Lord.
I don’t want to go into my entire sermon on this, but the purpose that we in the NT age look to the Nazirite vow is NOT to copy it, but to look to it and find that Christ has fulfilled the Nazirite Vow. We don’t do these things to get close to God, but we now look to Christ.
And yes, if we want to take any part of this vow and require it for today, then we must take the whole vow…not cutting hair, not eating grapes, and not even touching any type of dead body.
What I find interesting for the support of the abstinance and the nazirite vow is that many focus only on wine and they miss the purpose of how this vow is profitable for us today (2 Tim 3:16,17) and that is, again, to point to the grace found in Christ, not works.
Bob, I don’t have my Hebrew OT with me here but I am sure you are correct. I read the passages in the ESV and I can only conclude that Rayburn was referring to it as being pressed out for drinking immediately, where the Is. passage would make sense in its context. i.e. it was being pressed out to be drunk in the usual sense of wine (allowed to ferment). In other words, if I was a wine maker and said I was going to make some wine, I could rightly say that as I was making wine as I pressed out the “juice.”
Anyway…
I have several friends who I believe are “growing christians” who seem pretty wise and perceptive when it comes to things , who smoke pot. I used to demonize these people in my mind when I was isolated from them and had no friends who participated in that type of behavior but now that I am having to converse and reason from scripture with them it makes it harder for me to discredit them right off the bat. the only problem they see is that it is “legal” yet. But i guess i am making this post to say that I believe we need to handle things with much grace and not be so quick to automatically assume that there couldn’t possibly be a better and “more right” way to view a certain situation or issue. there are some things that are revealed….plain and simple: Jesus is God; Gave his righteousness and took my sin and penalty. But things involving “holiness” and how to be a Christian in a strange,dark, and complex world (i.e. what it means to not be worldly) is kinda a different animal. that’s why grace, and patience seems like something that is mentioned so much in reference to dealing with other christians. we need to be carefull before being so sure of ourselves about “secondary” things. it’s pretty dangerous.
Wes you bring up some good points. On this particular issue, from what I’ve heard pot affects your mind directly and makes you lose control and sense. It more directly alters consciousness than does alcohol enjoyed in moderation. Also Rom. 13, 1 Pet. 2 and other passages emphasize our duty to submit to the laws of the land, and this applies both with how we drink alcohol and how we do or do not use pot. I’ve never tried pot, and don’t plan on it, just for the record. Still care is required in dealing with people on this issue, but i hope they would have a heart to hear what Scriptural principles would apply to their situation. Again the command against drunkenness is stated because of the problem of losing control (Eph. 5:18), so with pot causing the same thing (loss of control), it would seem that would apply here.
Bob,
It is interesting that Kent started his own post on wine on his What is Truth blog. He stopped talking to you on the 5th and started his own on the 7th. I posted over there that I was curious about 1 Timothy 3:8 which references deacons to not drink “much wine” and asked if it was telling them to drink much grape juice. It will be interesting to see his response.
Gary,
That’s a year ago. 8/5/08.
I have seen what he’s been posting about. I frankly don’t go over to his blog much, because I find it isn’t helpful to me. We’ve debated all the issues at length on my blog, and he’s never budged an inch.
I can easily lose focus if I pay too much attention on him. I need to do my thing and focus on my walk with God, etc.
My arguments for drinking wine haven’t been dealt with reasonably yet. Don Johnson is bringing up reasonable points that aren’t dealt with.
My biggest issue is the “merry heart” idea is Scripturally connected with the alcoholic properties of wine. We are to drink wine with a merry heart, Scripture describes wine as that which gladdens the heart, and merry hearts are connected contextually with drunken fools. Nabal’s heart was merry with wine. So what are we to think of wine making a heart merry? Obviously it has to do with the alcoholic properties. An excess of the merriness associated with wine produces drunkenness. Being glad about a harvest and about refreshment of thirst is not what Scripture is talking about with “a merry heart”. You can wish it away if you want, as Brandenburg does, but that doesn’t cut it. It’s not handling Scripture well.
I’m for people who don’t drink. There are many good reasons not to, especially in our day and age. But I can’t dismiss the drink flippantly when Scripture goes out of its way to praise it, specifically noting its pleasure-inducing effects.
Thanks for dropping by,
In Christ,
Bob