I’ve already argued extensively that the Bible condones the moderate use of alcohol. In my recent review of Kenneth Gentry’s God Gave Wine, there was a bit of a debate in the comments. I had loaned out my copy of Gentry’s book, and recently got it back, and so I wanted to advance a few more arguments. So I thought I’d share them here.
I’m going to treat the two main lines of reasoning separately. This post will focus on the two-wine theory.
A common way to harmonize the seemingly contradictory Biblical statements concerning wine, is to employ the two wine theory. This is the idea that there are two kinds of wine, alcoholic and non-alcoholic. Wherever the Bible commends wine, it refers to the latter, and wherever it forbids or warns against it, the former sense is in view. Now it should be quite apparent from the start that this approach employs circular reasoning and begs the question.
Lexical Consensus
Against this view is the nearly unanimous testimony of the lexicons, dictionaries, encyclopedias and historians that the terms for wine (yayin in Hebrew, and oinos in Greek) refer to a clearly alcoholic substance. Gentry qutoes a couple lexicons and the TWOT as unequivocally stating that yayin is alcoholic. Strong’s Concordance Dictionary notes: “yayin; from an unused root meaning to effervesce; wine (as fermented); by implication intoxication; — banqueting, wine, wine (-bibber).” Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament (edited by Merril Unger and William White Jr., and part of Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary states: “Yayin… is the usual Hebrew word for fermented grape…. [It] clearly represents an intoxicating beverage.” The article for “wine” in the revised ISBE (edited by Geoffrey Bromiley) states “Both yayin and tirosh are fermented grape juice with alcoholic content; hence both are able to cause intoxication (cf. Hos. 4:11) and are to be distinguished from ‘must’ or unfermented grape juice.”
Gentry alludes to a quote by Merrill Unger. From Unger’s Dictionary, I’d like to share a couple quotes.
In most of the passages in the Bible where yayin is used (83 out of 138), it certainly means fermented grape juice; and in the remainder it may fairly be presumed to do so…. The intoxicating quality of yayin, is confirmed by rabbinical testimony…. although usually intoxicating, it was not only permitted to be imbibed, but was also used for sacred purposes and was spoken of as a blessing (Gen. 49:11-12; Deut. 14:24-26; Ex. 29:40; Lev. 23:13; Num. 15:5). Some, indeed, have argued from these passages that yayin could not always have been alcoholic. But this is begging the question and that in defiance of the facts. Although invariably fermented, it was not always inebriating, and in most instances, doubtless, was but slightly alcoholic, like the vin ordinaire of France. (The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, by Merrill Unger, edited by R.K. Harrison, Moody Press, 1988 )[note: vin ordinaire is ordinary table wine as opposed to fortified wine with an even higher alcoholic content.]
Gentry quotes several prohibitionist writers admitting the lexical consensus as a problem for their position. Robert Teachout is representative: “Unfortunately Bible scholars have been equally misled by public opinion”. Gentry points out the obvious: “But when you search out all the scholars and find them unanimously differing with your opinion, who is really mistaken?” (Gentry, 35)
Origins of the Two-Wine Theory
Gentry provides a quote on the origins of the two-wine theory, from a Christian encyclopedic entry in 1887.
In fact, the theory of two kinds of wine — the one fermented and intoxicating and unlawful, and the other unfermented, unintoxicating, and lawful — is a modern hypothesis, devised during the present century, and has no foundation in the Bible, or in Hebrew or classical antiquity. (“Wine” by Dunlop Moore, A Religious Encyclopedia of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal and Practical Theology, edited by Philip Schaff [Chicago: Funk and Wagnalls, 1887] — quoted by Gentry, pg. 44).
The facts indicate this idea is new, and dates back to the prohibition era. This alone should say something to the biased nature of this idea.
Isaiah 16:10 an Attempt at Biblical Support
In an attempt to find Biblical support, some prohibitionists point to Isaiah 16:10 as an example of yayin being used to refer to clearly non-alcoholic wine. In this passage, and a couple similar ones, yayin is described as being treaded out in the presses.
Therefore I weep with the weeping of Jazer for the vine of Sibmah; I drench you with my tears, O Heshbon and Elealeh; for over your summer fruit and your harvest the shout has ceased. And joy and gladness are taken away from the fruitful field, and in the vineyards no songs are sung, no cheers are raised; no treader treads out wine in the presses; I have put an end to the shouting. (Is. 16:9-10)
Since the product of treading out wine is must, or grape pulp, ultimately squeezed to grape juice, yayin must refer to non-intoxicating juice as well as to the later fully fermented kind. At least that is how the argument runs. On the basis of basically this passage alone, prohibitionist writer and scholar Stephen Reynolds claims: “This is enough to establish the fact that yayin in the Bible need not be alcoholic.” (Gentry, 42).
Before in the comments of my review post, I mentioned an argument by Gentry regarding the poetic nature of Is. 16. Here I’d like to provide some extended quotes from Gentry’s book God Gave Wine:
The poetic license so common in Hebrew poetry will allow the freshly expressed yayin here to be alcoholic, just as it may speak of wine itself as being a “brawler” (rather than the one who actually drinks the wine, Prov. 20:1). A common literary device is prolepsis. Prolepsis is the anachronistic representing of something as existing before its proper or historical time. Prolepsis looks to the end result anticipated in the proleptic observation. The Scripture is filled with examples of prolepsis, several of which directly parallel Isaiah 16:10. For instance, in Judges 9:13 “wine” (Heb. tirosh, a liquid drink processed from grapes) is spoken of as on the “vine,” just as figs exist on the tree (Judg. 9:10-12). But, of course, grapes appear as a solid fruit on the vine — though tirosh is the ultimate liquid drink produced from the grapes. In Isaiah 65:8 we find “new wine” (Heb. tirosh) “in the cluster.” Jeremiah 40:10 speaks of “gathering in wine” (Heb. tirosh) as if the liquid drink itself were in the field on the vine. The Old Testament has a word for grapes, as literal fruit on the vine: enab (Gen. 40:10-11; Lev. 25:5; Num. 6:3-4). Rather than use enab, however, the Old Testament writers chose the poetic, figurative use of the word tirosh in these passages…. And just as biblical writers can say that tirosh (a liquid product) is found in “cluster” (the solid fruit, Is. 65:8), so can they declare that yayin (fermented wine) is “treaded out” from grapes (Is. 16:10). Obviously, tirosh is in the cluster in that it is the product to be derived from the grape.
Gentry also notes how Stephen Reynolds allows for such poetic use in other passages in his book, but does not allow for it in Isaiah 16. Clearly in a poetic context as this section of Isaiah (Isaiah is filled with poetry), we could expect such a poetic allusion. Coupled with the clearly alcoholic nature of yayin elsewhere in Scripture and attested to by the lexicons, we should understand Isaiah 16:10 to be using this poetic allusion.
Wine and Joy
But besides the possibility of prolepsis, there are other indications that argue for this understanding. The passage clearly focuses on wine and vineyards, and it also stresses joy. In Scripture there is a link between the finished product of yayin — wine, and joy. Consider the following passages regarding wine’s joy-giving qualities. Again in the context of the harvest, the ultimate product of wine, and its joy would be in view.
You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man’s heart. (Ps. 104:14-15)
Bread is made for laughter, and wine gladdens life, and money answers everything. (Eccl. 10:19)
Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do. (Eccl. 9:7)
But the vine said to them, ‘Shall I leave my wine that cheers God and men and go hold sway over the trees?’ (Judges 9:13)
Then Absalom commanded his servants, “Mark when Amnon’s heart is merry with wine, and when I say to you, ‘Strike Amnon,’ then kill him. Do not fear; have I not commanded you? Be courageous and be valiant.” (2 Samuel 13:28 )
And Abigail came to Nabal, and behold, he was holding a feast in his house, like the feast of a king. And Nabal’s heart was merry within him, for he was very drunk. So she told him nothing at all until the morning light. In the morning, when the wine had gone out of Nabal, his wife told him these things, and his heart died within him, and he became as a stone. (1 Sam. 25:36)
On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha and Abagtha, Zethar and Carkas, the seven eunuchs who served in the presence of King Ahasuerus, (Esther 1:10)
The LORD of hosts will protect them, and they shall devour, and tread down the sling stones, and they shall drink and roar as if drunk with wine, and be full like a bowl, drenched like the corners of the altar. (Zechariah 9:15)
Then Ephraim shall become like a mighty warrior, and their hearts shall be glad as with wine. Their children shall see it and be glad; their hearts shall rejoice in the LORD. (Zechariah 10:7)
This is just a few texts on wine bringing joy. You can see a fuller post covering this topic here. No other beverage is singled out as one which produces joy. And the very nature of alcoholic wine clearly is such that we can understand what is being talked of here. Wine, well before it makes one drunk, is very pleasurable and lifts your spirits, giving one joy. Feasting and wine are interconnected. In Biblical Hebrew the very word for “feasting” literally means “drinking”. ISBE’s article on wine states “a “˜feast’ is literally a “˜drinking’ (Heb. misthe, Gen. 21:8; Jdg. 14:10; 1 S. 25:36; 2 S. 3:20)”.
In case anyone doubts that the alcoholic warming of the spirits is in view with the idea of wine gladdening the heart, look again at the last five passages. They clearly link this joy with alcoholic properties. Yet this spirit-gladdening effect, is something God has given as a gift to be enjoyed.
So once again, back to the passage at hand, the gladdening nature of wine (which we’ve shown Scripturally as referring to alcoholic properties of the fermented wine) is emphasized in the passage. That joy is going to be removed. And one last connection is Zechariah 9’s mention of a shouting associated with drunkenness, and the shouting mentioned in Isaiah 16. The shouting will stop. Drunkenness was a fact of what happened with that drink. Scripture warns against drunkenness, but it often speaks knowingly or comparatively of how a drunken person acts.
So with all of this evidence, there is a strong likelihood that Isaiah 16:10 is not teaching us that there is an exception to the normal rule that yayin refers to alcoholic wine. Rather it is referring to the wine that Scripture everywhere else indicates is alcoholic.
Three Final Points
There are three final points which sound the death knell for the two-wine theory.
First, there are a few passages which speak clearly of alcoholic wine in one verse, and a few verses later wine is referred to in a positive light. Nothing indicates we should assume that the wine was different in the case of the alcoholic variety and the variety which is praised. In 1 Sam. 1:14, Eli tells Hannah to “put your wine away from [her]”. But in vs. 24, Hannah brings wine with her on her trip back to Shiloh. Nothing indicates that the wine Hannah brought would be different than the wine Eli thought she was drinking earlier. In 1 Sam. 25:18, Abigail serves wine for David and his men, then later in verses 36-37 Nabal is drunk with wine. Nothing in the context would lead us to think the drink David and his men received was different from that which made Nabal drunk. The difference of course is Nabal immoderately drank the wine, whereas David and his men didn’t. Joel 1:5, 10 is another similar passage.
Second, Scripture clearly praises alcoholic wine. Isaiah 25:6 is definitely referring to alcoholic wine when it indicates that such wine will characterize the blessings of Christ’s future kingdom: “And in this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all people a feast of choice pieces, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of well-refined wines on the lees. (NKJV) “. “Wines on the lees” is translated in most modern versions as “well-aged wine”.
Third, Nehemiah when describing what supplies were given to him as Judean governor, mentions all kinds of wines. Nothing indicates that he did not partake of them. And the context is one of approval, as he is writing inspired Scripture. Here is the passage: “Now what was prepared at my expense for each day was one ox and six choice sheep and birds, and every ten days all kinds of wine in abundance. Yet for all this I did not demand the food allowance of the governor, because the service was too heavy on this people.” (Neh. 5:18 ) So if there is two kinds of wine, this passage indicates Nehemiah partook of both.
This really does seal the deal with regards to the two-wine theory. It doesn’t stand the test of history, it doesn’t line up with the lexical consensus, and more importantly, it doesn’t jive with Scripture.
Bob, very good post. I can see what you were talking about on this passage, and I think you are right on.
Thanks, Les. The more I study it the clearer it all becomes. The two wine theory is just plain bogus.
Great rejoinder to the criticism your earlier post received from what appear to be close-minded individuals. Unfortunately, I run into the same thing regarding the clear examples of what God considers “obeying the gospel”.
The logic behind the two wine theory makes as much sense as saying “God gave us sex for the explicit purpose of producing offspring and no pleasure should be taken in the act, because the Bible also tells us to mortify our bodies and ‘make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires’.”
To quote Paul “All things are lawful to me, but not all things are profitable…”. God expects us to use good judgment and not to become rule makers, going “beyond what is written”.
Thank you! Three weekends ago I learned of “Biblical wine” meaning, of course, non alcoholic wine. I had never heard of it before. I am glad to see your Scriptural argument.
Joe V.
Very few words have one meaning in Scripture, which shows the pejorative use of “two wine” by alcohol lovers. It is simply a rhetorical device, that is all. We don’t have the “two spirit” position, even though pneuma can be the human spirit and the Holy Spirit. It amazes me the ends that alcohol imbibers will take to protext the use of their addictive drug.
Joe, I’ve got some news for you. I’ve never heard the “one meaning” position for “wine” until I recently have been hearing it from young men who like to toss down a few.
I don’t concede at all to the whole “lexicon” and “history” position. I do believe that we have had men taking Bob’s position for awhile, originating with the beginnings of Roman Catholicism. The best position is ad fontes, that is, “to the sources,” the Bible our sole authority for faith and practice. This predisposition to start with cherry-picked authors will lead astray.
I’ve looked up oinos in my mammoth Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the NT, which will give the entire history of the use of a word, and it mentions nothing about alcoholic content. It is the product of the vine, the grape. That’s how it reads. That sounds like one wine too, that is, until the second law of thermodynamics starts taking over, or perhaps better, the harmful effects of the curse.
I also looked up yayin in the mammoth Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Yayin doesn’t appear until p. 59 in vol. 6, and low and behold, on p. 61, it reads: “The resulting grape juice was poured into earthenware pots or wineskins made form skins of goats or lambs.” TDOT calls it “grape juice.”
I guess I’m done with my study. I’ve looked at the most thorough word studies.
Well, you look at the multiple meanings of HALOT, the predominant OT Lexicon and it has as one of its meanings, “something fermented from wine.” I thought all wine was fermented or it wasn’t wine? I guess not. It doesn’t actually say anything about alcohol in any place in its definition.
I’m not surprised that you could find some that make it always “alcoholic.” That shows what is often the nature of lexicons and word books.
You say that the idea of “wine” being non-alcoholic came out of the prohibition. The 1759 Nathan Bailey’s New Universal English Dictionary of Words and of Arts and Sciences offers the following definition for “wine”: “Natural wine is such as it comes from the grape, without any mixture or sophistication. Adulterated wine is that wherein some drug is added to give it strength, fineness, flavor, briskness, or some other qualification.” Boom. That idea is now gone. Benjamin Marin’s Lingua Britannica Reformata or A New English Dictionary, published in 1748, defines “wine” as follows: “1. the juice of the grape. 2. a liquor extracted from other fruits besides the grape. 3. the vapours of wine, as wine disturbs his reason.” You can stop giving your revisionist history view now.
Lexicons go to historical usages of the word to get their definitions. Here are some historical references: Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) in his book Metereologica clearly refers to “grape juice” or “must” (gleukos), as one of the kinds of wine : “For some kinds of wine [oinos], for example must [gleukos], solidify when boiled.” Proclus, the Platonic philosopher, who lived in the fifth century, in his annotation to Hesiod’s Works and Days, has a note on line 611 where he explains how the grapes were first exposed to the sun for ten days, then to the shade for ten days and finally “they treaded them and squeezed out the wine [oinon].” Several Greek papyri, discussed by Robert Teachout, “The Use of ‘Wine’ in the Old Testament” (Ph.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979), indicates that oinos could refer to unfermented grape juice. A rather clear example is a papyrus from A.D. 137 which contains this statement: “They paid to the one who had earned his wages pure, fresh wine [oinon] from the vat.” It is interesting that the translators of the Septuagint used oinos to translate the Hebrew word for grape juice (tirosh).
An amazing prohibitionist invention they had in those ancient writings!
What about yayin? We have this from the Talmud. 1) From the treatise Baba Bathra 97a, where Rabbi Hiyya discusses whether freshly pressed wine could be used for the kiddush, the ceremony to welcome a religious festival such as the Sabbath, he says: “Since the wine [yayin] from the press is acceptable for libations bedi’abad, it is acceptable for Kiddush lekatheillah.” 2) The Halakot Gedalot, the earliest Jewish compendium of the Talmud, reads: “One may press out a cluster of grapes and pronounce the Kiddush over the juice, since the juice of the grape is considered wine [yayin] in connection with the laws of the Nazirite.”
I think the obvious point with only one meaning to yayin or oinos is the strange contradictions there would be all over Scripture. Yayin is a mocker in Prov. 20:1. It doesn’t say, Yayin in moderation is a mocker. Hosea 7:5 calls it poisonous (in the Hebrew). These are very strange if you don’t have more than one understanding of yayin.
You’ve got all sorts of trouble with your “contextual” view of Proverbs 23:31 if you look at the grammar. No command is given to the plural drunkards and winebibbers. The prohibition is in the singular. Verse 20 of this chapter is actually tell-tale. There he tells one person among a group of winebibbers not to be among them. The prohibition is in the singular. Then you work your way down to v. 31 and we have another plural drunkards and you get another singular prohibition.
Gentry’s idea of “prolepsis” in Isaiah 16:10 is ridiculous. His Prov 20:1 and Isaiah 16:10 don’t even parallel. Prov 20:1 is a clear prolepsis and Is 16:10 is clearly talking about the immediate product of treading grapes. It doesn’t read like prolepsis at all. His interpretation comes across like a desire to read something into the text that isn’t there.
Bob calls this point of view “begging the question.” That is laughable. It is not question begging to propose that certain words in the Bible have more than one meaning. If it were, everyone translating Scripture is guilty. He also calls it circular reasoning. There is no presupposition that there is more than one meaning. We’ve shown that in the text with several different means:
1) A kind of wine was forbidden to be looked at, but a certain kind.
2) A kind of wine was obviously not alcoholic because it came straight from the grapes.
3) If there isn’t more than one understanding of these words, then Scripture contradicts itself, and it won’t.
And there is more.
The question begging is on Bob’s part.
Concerning your two “final points” that are actually three final points, they only seem so rock solid to an alcohol lover. Eli thought she was drunk. That doesn’t assume she had alcoholic beverage. Nothing in the David, Abigail, Nabal passage would have us assume that they were drinking the same substance, unless you are question begging. Nabal easily could have his own stash of hard stuff because of the problem person that he was. Your third argument is funny, because it shows you are arguing a strawman. I’ve never said there were “two wines.” You are arguing that. I think there were all kinds of grapes and all kinds of flavors.
There are many other good arguments against alcohol, including its addictiveness, its destructiveness, and many others. The distilled beverages today are even stronger than the fermented beverages of that day. I call on all the alcohol drinkers here to stop out of obedience to God.
To start with, “all kinds of wine in abundance” most naturally refers to all kinds of wine. Since you claim there is fermented and non-fermented kinds, then Nehemiah is clearly partaking of fermented wine while he pens Scripture, presumably.
Next, I noticed you skipped over the list of verses connecting wine to joy. Notice how Ecclesiastes exhorts us to drink our wine with a merry heart, and the phrase “merry heart” is used clearly in several places to refer to someone drunk or close to it. So if we take your method of letting the context teach us what kind of wine is in view, which kind is Ecclesiastes counseling us to partake of?
Also you skip over the joy and drunken shouting tie-ins to Isaiah 16. And if Prov. 20 is prolepsis and Is. 16 isn’t, what about the tirosh examples? Aren’t they clearly prolepsis and clearly parallel to Is. 16?
Sticking with Scripture, alcoholic yayin is praised, Isaiah 25. I thought we were listening to Scripture here?
Wait, your view of Scripture is the only one that passes muster. So you can call on us all to obey your view.
Prov. 20 says whoever is deceived by wine is not wise. Not the one who prudently and moderately enjoys it as a gift from God. Scripture definitely says do not be drunk with wine, but it does not forbid the moderate enjoyment of it. In a context which surely assumes alcohol, Paul requires of pastors not to be given or addicted to wine, and deacons not to be addicted to much wine. That isn’t prohibitionist terminology. From what we know of alcoholic wine in those days, its a good bet the alcoholic content was at least equivalent to today’s beer. So Paul is counseling pastors not to be addicted to beer, and you deacons, don’t give yourselves to alot of beer.
I will deal more with Prov. 23 in a later post.
Now, granted, you did take issue with a lot I did say, and you did counteract that. But I’m pointing out what you didn’t deal with first. Okay then, now on to your points. I don’t have access to Kittel’s and TDOT, so I take your word on it. Of course, its mroe than just lexicons, but the history of the day. And those discussing the drink back then overwhelmingly support my view. It would be hard to preserve the grape pulp/juice and keep it from fermenting. After 10 days lying in the sun, which is how it sometimes was done, per your quote above, fermentation was already beginning.
Now I found this interesting:
You can take your boom back. The second sentence means, wine that is mixed or fortified, like port or sherry, today. Fortifying wine is enhancing its alcoholic output. This is the mixed wine, the drunks seek in Prov. 23. “Natural wine, such as it comes from the grape”, in context with the second sentance, indicates the alcoholic product of the grape. Maybe we can’t press too closely, because “such as it comes” is kind of vague. But in context this quote proves my view just fine. The other definition from the mid 18th century you provide contrasts “liquor from other fruits” with the “juice of the grape”. Remember, grape juice which wouldn’t ferment naturally hadn’t been invented yet for another 100 years. We need to be careful about reading our understanding of history back into the sources.
Gentry in the book sites Talmudic proofs for the view that yayin is alcoholic wine. The second point sure sounds like a Rabbinic way to let juice pass for yayin. The idea is techinically, it counts as yayin. Also Talmudic Hebrew is hundreds of years after Biblical Hebrew. And the cultures adapt over time, so in Jesus’ day, diluted wine was common. In the OT, diluted wine is only frowned on as something inferior. There is no evidence that in OT days diluted wine was normal. In Jesus’ day, wine was a table beverage in some cultures, in OT days for Jews, wine was reserved for special occasions.
Prov. 20 and Hos. 7 are not hard to understand. They jive with the rest of Scripture. Alcohol can’t make anyone sin. But it can deceive you into sinning. The same statements could be made of sex. Using the substance according to God’s plan is right. Abusing it is wrong. Such abuse is bad.
It’s clear we won’t see eye-to-eye. But the majority of scholarly opinion is behind me. The majority of the practice of the majority of the Church for the majority of history backs me as well. As does Scriptures plain unadulterated meaning.
I skipped the verses on joy with wine because they don’t mean much to me. When Israel went to the Promised Land, there were giant grapes there. Lots of grapes meant food, refreshment, tasty drink, God’s provision—joy. Because of your alcohol predisposition, you think joy means, a little tipsy.
I don’t know why shouting has to be “drunken shouting.” Again, it doesn’t say drunken shouting. I don’t see “drunken” in there. It sounds like the happiness of a great harvest to me.
Reynolds writes about Isaiah 25:6 and says, “Shemer (plural shemarim) normally means dregs or lees and appears elsewhere as an unappetizing substance that settles in the bottom of a liquid. Shemarim is never presented in a favorable light except here. In Psalm 75:9, the wicked must drink it as punishment. In Jeremiah 48:11 and Zephaniah 1:12 the word by a figure of speech is associated with men who deserve punishment. It does not support the unity and harmony of the Bible to leap to the conclusion that the meaning “wine on the lees” is attached to this word in Isaiah 25:6 where it appears twice, being used of a delectable substance God will give to all people. (You) can find this translation in the NIV but it is only a bad guess. The KJV translates it wine on the lees, but the word for wine does not occur, only the word normally translated as “lees.” It is certain that we must dig deeper than either the KJV, the NIV or other translations. If we cannot determine the precise meanings we should be content to translate it simply beverages and in the second occurrence of the word beverages purged of yeast. The words purged of yeast are derived grammatically and philologically. It is interesting that Martin Luther translates this verse as to be “without yeast,” a brilliant insight.”
Proverbs 20 says that “wine is a mocker.” The wine itself is a mocker. Sure the person himself becomes this in a prolepsis, but it doesn’t discount what the verse says about the substance. Later when you compare it to sex—that is incredible. Sex is never said to be a mocker or poison.
Do you understand that Kittels and TDOT are telling the history of the word? I also gave you the best lexicon, HALOT. That’s what those types of books do, Bob. I recognize Gentry might argue differently, but he’s Mr. Alcohol.
I could have included many more definitions if you wanted me to keep going, also well before prohibition. The ones I gave still prove the point. The one you say doesn’t erase your prohibition-start theory actually does very clearly. It just looks bad when you can’t see that.
Bob, nobody said that yayin couldn’t be fermented wine. I agree that Talmud shows that. That’s not our point here, though, is it. It can be unfermented or fermented. Whether it was alcoholic, I’d have to see that.
I call again on all believers to cease from the addictive drug of alcohol.
Your going to find alcohol loving scholars on your side. You’ll find Catholics on your side. You’ll find reformed Catholics on your side. You won’t find historic Baptists on your side. You won’t find separate Baptists on your side. You won’t find Shubal Stearns on your side. When you say “church,” your view of “church” means Catholic, so I’m not surprised that you think you are in a majority. The remnant, the Godly, the smaller number goes my way.
So a heart “merry with wine” is just incidental and not at all connected to the property of yayin? In several passages the merriness is clearly in the context of alcoholic yayin. So when Eccl. says drink your wine with a merry heart, comparing Scripture with Scripture, we should think of alcoholic yayin as in view.
The treatment by Reynolds of Is. 25:6 as well as numerous other passages is highly suspect. When I pick up Gentry’s book again, he lists several quotes of the “I know this translation is innovative…” variety.
Even if I can concede that yayin can sometimes be used in an abnormal way to refer to juice not wine, that doesn’t prove your point. You are asking us to have people hunting in the context of the Scripture passage every time the word wine is used, to try to figure out what God’s talking about. Basically everyone needs to do the linguistical rewrite you did with shekar to make it not mean liquor in Deut. 14:26. The KJV used “strong drink”, and they knew what that meant.
Scripture clearly condones the temperate use of liquor. All the passages that can be construed to forbid any use of liquor, in fact are directly dealing with a prohibition of drunkenness. Drunkenness is the thing to be avoided. Prov. 31:5-6 encourages the use of wine in certain contexts. And that very explicitly.
You say all the Baptists down through the ages would side with you. J. R. Graves, the notable landmarkist of the 1800s, defended the use of fermented wine in communion. A survey of church history will make it clear that unfermented communion wine was a novelty. Many denominations never did come around to using it. There are many Baptists today who refuse to even take communion if it is not fermented wine. Since you make the claim, can you produce one pre-prohibition era, Baptist or Puritan even, who advocated total abstinence from alcohol?
Other than Shubal Stearns, I should say. I guess you did provide one name. Was he Baptist?
I found this site linked over at Thirsty Theo. This is a very interesting topic to me.
In the 1970’s Baptist type church I was a part of –any alcohol-any movie -most TV-and any kind of smoking was just plain outright sin.
Young believers today have moved a very long way from that position.
As I have studied these issues and looked at the Bible alone, I have come to the following conclusion:
Our bodies(as believers) are the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit and belong to the Lord. Anything we do to harm our body is sin. That would certainly include gluttony and overeating and becoming fat–which I hear very little about in most of these discussions.
It would seem to me that the Scripture teaches that Drunkenness is the issue which is sin, not drinking wine.
Paul says this in 1 Cor 6:12-13
“All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be enslaved by anything.” ESV
My only concern is that as you young believers chose liberty over legalism you will not be enslaved to anything including your liberty, and that the Glory of God would be your only passion.
You bring up some very good points, Victoria. Thanks for weighing in.
I suppose I could add that in Rom. 14 the debate centered on the drinking of wine. There’s little to suggest that some had scruples with unfermented grape juice, so its strongly probable that fermented wine was in view. Paul makes it a non-issue, because the Kingdom of God is bigger than questions of eating and drinking. He tells believers to accept one another despite their positions in this matter.
In Colossians we also find pertinent instruction that touches on this debate:
Of course, this should not be mainly about liberty. We need to avoid sin and drunkenness is sin. For me, its about lining myself up with what Scripture teaches on this subject. Not twisting it to fit my particular traditional view. If God approves of the drink, but warns of its abuse, then who am I to disapprove of it, and stay away from any use of it?
Again, thanks for chiming in, God bless.
Bob
Okay, I have a little bit of time, and I think providing Gentry’s quotes from Stephen Reynolds is important. My quotes come from pgs. 35 and 36 of Gentry’s book. First he provides a few quotes from Reynolds’ book The Biblical Approach to Alcohol:
Then he discusses Reynold’s interpretation which Brandenburg quoted above. The translation of “lees” in Isaiah 25.
So, there you have it. Rather than accept the clear Scriptural commendation of clearly alcoholic wine in Isaiah 25, people like Reynolds will come up with innovative translations of the Hebrew to try to circumvent the clear meaning.
Many products like Ny-Quil, mouthwash, and almost all sugar free foods contain small amounts of alcohol. If alcohol is wrong then I presume any amount would be a sin.
I call on Christians everywhere to cease from the addictive drug of alcohol in all its forms!
Kent,
With all respect due you, your arguments fall as flat as an open beer that has been sitting around all day.
Bob has not only correct scripture interpretation on his side, but history as well.
Last, your statement,
is quite offensive. The obvious import of your sentence is that we who enjoy God’s good gift of drink are not part of God’s people and surely are not godly.
You are perhaps right about the “smaller number” going your way, though.
Deuteronomy 14:22-26 is very clear:
I’m a young, new Christian and I have been trying to figure out what to believe regarding drinking alcohol. “Who’s report do you believe” There seems to be so many positions and opposing views. Even within the jewish belief there is a schism between alcohol and non-alcohol with the sedar meal. Liberal jews drink yeast containing wine with the sedar, and conservatives drink grape juice. The lexicons and Bible dictionaries define opposite definitions. Through my frustration I decided to base my position on how many scriptures in the Bible presented wine in a good light compared to the scriptures where the connations were negative. Thus, I make a stand against alcohol consumption because more scriptures discuss the negative effects. And honestly, we can look at our culture and see more negative effects of alcohol than positive. Now, I’m wondering what stand the church will take when pot is legalized? Will Christians condone it because there is no difference between alcohol and pot.
Daphne,
For starters, counting verses and pitting them against each other, as in 41 verses say X and 25 say Y, so I’ll go with X is never a good idea. For example, if you advocate this kind of technique, you are basically saying that the Bible says both X and Y, even though you assume X does not equal Y. Then you have the Bible saying contradictory things and that is not the way to understand Scripture.
In my view, understanding X to be warning against the excessive use (or rather the abuse) of alcohol in no way contradicts Y the praise of a moderate use of alcohol. In fact, you may have your numbers wrong. There may well be more verses that condone drinking than not. Check out my post “Wine to Gladden the Heart of Man: Thoughts on God’s Good Gift of Wine” for many verses advocating moderate consumption of alcohol.
Alcohol and pot are two different substances that operate differently. The Bible says drunkenness is to be avoided because you lose control of your mental faculties, this would be a reason to avoid pot totally (except for medicinal use in rare cases).
Thanks for dropping by.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
I notice in your post that, “Bread is made for laughter, and wine gladdens life, and money answers everything. (Eccl. 10:19)â€
So, according to your view, is bread alcoholic? After all, how else could it produce laughter?
I agree that some references to “wine†and “merry†refer to intoxicating wine, but obviously not all.
Hope you’ll read “The Biblical Approach to Alcohol†by Stephen Reynolds and “Alcohol Today†by Peter Lumpkins. Rather than just reading about them in a pro-alcohol book.
Daphne, if you’re still out there, the answer is easy. Stay away from beverage alcohol, marijuana, and all the recreational use of hard, dangerous, mind altering drugs. God tells us to be sober (1 Thessalonians 5:6-8; 1 Peter 5:8).
David R. Brumbelow
David,
I agree that not all references refer to intoxicating wine. But with the connection I’ve noted elsewhere between wine and joy, it fits with the bigger picture. Reynolds tries to single-handedly overturn the weight of the lexical evidence, on not too big credentials either. Lumpkins seems to have an axe to grind, although I wouldn’t mind reading his book. Given that prior to the temperance movement, total abstention wasn’t even considered practical or advocated by the Church, I am already wary of the Johnny-come lately, new American doctrine of total abstinence being mandated in Scripture.
Bob,
Of course Stephen Reynolds and Peter Lumpkins have an axe to grind. They are against beverage alcohol and believe the Bible teaches such. Do you think Gentry (Mr. Alcohol) doesn’t have an axe to grind? Do you believe he is completely objective?
By the way, Reynolds had a Ph.D. from Princeton University and was a scholar in biblical and oriental languages. You can take selected quotes from anyone’s book, as done with Reynolds above, and make them look foolish. Again, it would help to read these books, rather than read about them.
Another good author on this subject is Robert Teachout, both his DTS doctoral dissertation, “The Use of Wine in the Old Testament,†and his book, “Wine, The Biblical Imperative: Total Abstinence.†Teachout’s book, “Wine†can be ordered from him at: 22544 West Road, Apt. #204, Woodhaven, MI 48183. $10 postpaid. The other two can be found at amazon.
Have you noticed in Judges 9:13 the vine speaks of “my†wine that cheers God and man? A vine does not have fermented wine. It has, and produces unfermented wine, or grape juice. Apparently holy God was cheered, not by a drug, but by fresh new wine. The kind that even Pharaoh enjoyed (Genesis 40:11).
Do you feel the same way about slavery? After all, the church really did not wake up to the issue until the 17 and 1800s. About the same time many in the church woke up to the devastation caused by alcohol. Also, there have been believers (and unbelievers) who practiced abstinence throughout the last 2,000 years, though often in the minority. The minority is often right.
I hope you will seriously consider the implications of your recommending a hard, dangerous drug for moderate recreational use. People are going to be hurt from that advice. Whether or not you believe the Bible directly speaks against this, biblical teaching in no way endorses it. On this issue, you may have left the fundamentalist position and gone to the far opposite extreme.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
I don’t believe total abstinence is the best way of combating the evils of alcohol abuse. I don’t see that in Scripture, or in Church History. I see it as part of a secularist idea that all man needs is education and to be kept from the “evil drink” which turns an innocent man into a devil. Reform without the work of the Spirit is what was behind much of the temperance movement, in my opinion.
Thanks for sharing some resources, I’ve shared many of those on my side before.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob Hayton