Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaining? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? Those who tarry long over wine; those who go to try mixed wine. Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly. In the end it bites like a serpent and stings like an adder. Your eyes will see strange things, and your heart utter perverse things. You will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, like one who lies on the top of a mast. “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.”
(Prov. 23:29-35)
This post is a second response to some arguments put forth in the comments of my recent review of Kenneth Gentry’s book God Gave Wine: What the Bible Says about Alcohol. It has been alleged that the verse highlighted above, in light of the surrounding verses, serves as an absolute, universal prohibition of drinking fermented wine. If one is not to look at it, he must not drink it. The argument claims “when it is red” refers to the alcoholic properties of fermented wine, some of the effects of which are red eyes, or a red face. As I noted in an earlier post, this view depends on a two-wine theory, that when Scripture refers to wine, the context must help us determine if fermented or non-fermented wine is in view. So Prov. 23:31 clearly denotes the wine as alcoholic, and forbids us to look at (and by implication to drink) alcoholic wine.
The claim that Prov. 23:31 is a universal prohibition of drinking alcohol makes the verse say too much. And I intend here to put forth why this verse should not be taken as a universal prohibition of alcohol.
The Immediate Verse
Looking at the immediate verse at hand, it’s important to note a couple things. First, it does not state “do not drink whine when it is red…”. It says “do not look at wine when it is red…”. To the alcoholic, who is intimately described in these verses, the admonition would be not to consider the pleasant effects of alcohol, its color, sparkle, and the smoothness of the drink as it goes down one’s throat. Don’t look to those, but remember the misery it causes for you, as you don’t know how to stop and when to say “enough”. For the one who is not yet a drunk, we should not look at the pleasing aspects of wine as something which should make us seek more and yet more. We must remember how easily the drink can steal our senses and leave us in the condition of a drunk, so we must be careful in how we drink.
One may think I’m reading into the verse a bit, as I draw out application. However, going from “look not”, to “drink not”, is also reading into the verse. The verse is poetic in nature, and it communicates meaning in relation to the whole section it is in. The clear point of the section is do not become drunk. Avoiding any taste of alcohol, may be one way to avoid drunkenness. It is certainly important for those already given to abusing wine. But for many, total abstinence is not the best way to avoid the drink, rather learning how to enjoy wine in moderation is.
Secondly, the verse itself says “when it is red” not “when it is alcoholic”. I know that redness, a few verses earlier is a sign of the inebriation caused by the drink. But often wine is referred to as “blood”, the “blood of the grape”. In communion it represents blood. Scholars agree that the wine most commonly drunk at that time in Palestine, was red. Furthermore, the rest of the verse parallels the “when it is red” expression and builds on it: “when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly.” If “when it is red” is to delimit this to only fermented wine, how would the additional descriptions strengthen that purpose? They seem rather to just be describing some of the pleasant characteristics of the drink, and its redness is certainly alluring and beautiful. It seems best to read the redness as a pleasant thing about this drink, but of course I don’t hold to the two-wine theory so I believe the drink here is definitely fermented as it always is in Scripture.
Proverbs on Wine
If we backed up and looked at the whole context of Proverbs’ teaching on wine, we’d notice two important things.
1) Proverbs is concerned with drunkenness as a sin which is to be avoided. Drunkenness leads one to poverty (23:20-21), clouds one’s judgment (31:4-5), promotes brawling (20:1), leads to personal injury (23:29) and promotes perverseness (23:33). It certainly should be avoided. Along this line of thinking, note that Proverbs is concerned with drunkenness, not just the drinking of wine. When Lemuel is counselled against drinking (Prov. 31:4-7), the context clearly indicates that the loss of judgment is the point for the admonition. Again for drunkards, they ought not look on the wine. Why? Lest they become deceived again and sin in drunkenness again. Wine is a mocking brawler, and the one deceived by it isn’t wise. Using wine is fine, but letting it use you isn’t. My statements might seem like I’m reading my view into this here, but remember all the points yet to come. Drunkenness is the aim of Proverbs, and indeed of Scripture, as Eph. 5:18 counsels us to not be drunk with wine. It does not say “do not drink wine”.
2) Proverbs does more than just warn against wine. It presents wine as a good thing. In Prov. 3:9-10, one of the blessings of honoring the Lord is “then your barns will be filled with plenty, and your vats will be bursting with wine”. Later when wine is said to be a brawler (20:1), a natural and normal reading should lead us to think the same substance mentioned in 3:9 is warned about in 20:1, since we can abuse it and become drunk by it. That is a simple way of understanding the two passages. Saying a different drink is in view in the two passages is a strained understanding, based on a faulty idea of the word.
In Prov. 9:1-5, the personified Wisdom is seen as mixing her wine, and she counsels us to “Come, eat of my bread and drink of the wine I have mixed”. Mixing wine is always seen in OT Scripture as strengthening the alcoholic level of the drink (see our passage, 23:30) or as mixing in another flavor with the wine. In the Old Testament, water was never mixed with the wine in a favorable way. Watery wine was a bad thing, not a normal thing (see Is. 1:22, and especially Adam Clarke’s commentary on that verse). So fermented wine is clearly in view in Proverbs 9:5. The objection may be that this is just an allegory, a parable — Wisdom doesn’t come to us and offer wine. But how could something that in itself is forbidden, be used in a positive context in such a way as to be enticing us to come and listen to Wisdom?
A final positive use of wine in Proverbs is found in 31:6-7. After Lemuel is counselled against the use of wine, lest he become drunk and dull his senses. The perishing and “those in bitter distress” (ESV) are the ones who are to “drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more”. Tremper Longman in his commentary on Proverbs mentions that these verses could serve to entice Lemuel not to drink, since drink is said to be for the lower classes. Even granting that argument, still the text allows, nay encourages, some to drink. Certainly medicine is in view, but more than that. The drink can be used in a comforting way. Jeremiah 16:7 refers to the “cup of consolation” given to mourners. In conjunction with Prov. 31:7 and Jer. 16:7, ISBE cites Jewish tradition indicating wine was traditionally offered to the bereaved after a funeral at the meal of comforting.
So, looking at the overall teaching of Proverbs, it makes sense to understand Prov 23 as teaching against the error of drunkenness, even as it does not expressly forbid any use of alcoholic drinks.
Universal-Seeming Statements in Proverbs
Another avenue in evaluating this claim takes us to the “universal”-ness of Prov. 23:21. It seems like a definitive prohibition of looking at wine. But Proverbs often offers general maxims and truth statements, rather than universal truths. There are often exceptions with the rules Proverbs declares. This is not to say that no Proverbs teach universal truths, but the genre of the Proverb often leads to a general truth being stated. For instance, Prov. 10:4 says “a determined hand makes rich”. This is generally true, but what about someone inheriting a fortune? Or what about those with determined hands who nevertheless are in debt for circumstances outside their control? Proverbs demands us to appreciate its genre and pay attention to the context when commands are given.
Along these lines, taking an example from Prov. 23 itself is very helpful. Prov. 23:4 states definitively: “Do not toil to acquire wealth; be discerning enough to desist.” But as Gentry observes: “the Lord grants his obedient people ‘the power to make wealth’ (Deut. 8:18 ) and promises economic abundance for covenant faithfulness (Deut. 28:1-14; Gen.13:2; Job 1:1-3). We must understand Proverbs 23:4 contextually. He warns against a wholesale thirst, a driving ambition to gain wealth, which is much like the alcoholic who gives his life over to a wholesale thirst for alcoholic drink.” (p. 96). Prov. 23 offers another example with vs. 9: “Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the good sense of your words.” Elsewhere Proverbs admonishes fools, and even says we should answer a fool (26:5). So clearly this does not universally prohibit speaking in the hearing of fools. Similarly, Prov. 23:31 can be understood contextually to be applicable for those contemplating or taken over by the sin of drunkenness. Nowhere else does Scripture exemplify or make clear that even looking at wine is a sin. It seems best for all the considerations above to not conclude that Prov. 23:31 is a universal declaration forbidding all use of wine.
The Greater Context of Scripture on Wine
Finally, in the larger context of Scripture, wine and other alcoholic drinks are clearly permitted. In my last post on this topic, I show how wine and joy are connected, and the connection is specifically due to the alcoholic nature of the drink. Yet the joy of wine is a God-given gift (Ps. 104:15). Neh. 5:18 shows that all kinds of wine were lawfully enjoyed by Nehemiah. Is. 25:6 puts forth well-aged wine (certainly alcoholic) as a blessing of God. It describes the future kingdom of Christ as an age blessed with an abundance of this wine. Deut. 14:26 uses the term shekar, translated almost universally as “strong drink” (clearly referring to its alcoholic nature), and encourages God-fearing Israelites to drink this with joy before God. Since Scripture permits the lawful, use of wine, and since it clearly forbids its abuse (Eph. 5:18), we must conclude that Prov. 23 cannot be advocating a total abstinence from wine for all people in all times. Instead, it is warning against the misuse of this God-given drink.
One other quick point. Brandenburg brought up in another post that Hosea 7:5 teaches that alcoholic wine is poison. On pages 101-102 in Gentry’s book deals with this. Basically a Hebrew word normally translated “heat” is translated “poison” by Reynolds, against all modern translations. The translation is novel, and the very context emphasizes “heat”, so “heat” is normally accepted as the meaning of the word in that passage.
It seems that you guys are really getting overboard in this rather IMO inappropriate topic…While I would venture to say fundyreformed IS correct…As Christians we really need to count the cost of our actions…You will never be able to convince a member of MADD; a family who has suffered through the loss of a loved one due to inebriated folly (by death or incarceration); abused children; and the list goes on and on, that alcoholic drink is NOT missing the mark of ‘Love Thy Neighbor” even if it is the results of excess and not the drink itself. Alcohol has set the stage for innumerable tragedies…It is the same with guns in the home or gambling/lotteries…the first step is always…just this one thing in moderation isn’t wrong…
If you feel there is nothing wrong with a little wine…this is a personal conviction and an activity that should be kept at home and not in the public forum, so as not to injure a weaker brother…that’s my rant!
Nancy,
This really is it for me on this topic. The discussion under my review post was quite in depth and detailed, and I felt I had to respond appropriately, as charges were being leveled against my beliefs in this. This is a personal belief of mine, and I don’t flaunt my practice before others. I respect your concerns here. Someone posting and saying any drinking at all is sin, often does not generate the same kind of response. People are fine with that legalism, because of the tragedies surrounding those who abuse alcohol. But such legalism deserves to be called out and silenced.
Wisdom is needed, and we should not provoke or directly offend weaker brothers. However, the weaker brother point, has been used to hamper and limit the free speech and actions of others wrongly. In my own home, and on my own blog, I should be able to talk about this without fear of offending a weaker brother who happens to come by.
Again, these posts are not meant to offend anyone. They are a debated topic, and presented as such. And seriously, this is the last post on this topic you’ll see for a while, around here.
Blessings,
Bob Hayton
*: ) I agree that weaker brother rains on everybody’s parade at some time…If they are our regular siblings…we just reach out and bop them when Mom isn’t watching.
Nancy.
I think it is appropriate for the public forum, because the mom from MADD can look at this in a biblical way and read the whole of the conversation…sometimes reading is a lot better than talking about it. Reading requires going through the whole of the thoughts instead of reacting live to a person as they speak. I have found this many a times when I write to a person instead of going up to them in person.
Also, we should not allow a person’s experiences rule our Scriptural authority. If we did this then we couldn’t speak about anything…
imagine other reader’s out there that have had their lives destroyed by money, sex and homosexuality…are we supposed to leave out these as well? Where do we draw the line?
I commend Bob for opening this up for discussion and have enjoyed it very much.
I’m with Nancy.
While I agree that Bob’s position is correct, I think we should devote more time and thought to things that matter a lot more in light of eternity. No one should dis-fellowship a person because of their view pertaining to wine or beer as long as they don’t abuse that liberty. And I’d say that liberty applies to a lot of things. If you can’t specifically rule some behavior or involvement as wrong, based on plain scripture, it becomes opinion. And we will have to account for ourselves in those areas to God. God is the only judge in matters of the heart.
My blog certainly stands for much more than a Christian’s right to drink! If everyone was of the opinion that these matters are personal opinion, that’d be great. Unfortunately, some add rules where Scripture has none, and others judge on the basis of those rules. Anyway, barring further disagreement on this point, this issue will subside and these posts remain to help others who are dealing with the issue of finding out what the Bible says on the matter. I honestly am not trying to gain readers through this whole thing. I’m not stirring up controversy for fun. This started as a simple book review, but the debate grew and I felt I had to address it.
Okay then, when I have some more time, I’ll bump this post with another one! 🙂
Who starts drinking that says, “I want to be a drunk!” Almost every drunk has the conviction of “moderation.” Bob, you are argue this as if God created alcohol. Fermentation, that break down among others, the death and rotting and everything is post-curse. Bob’s argument is that God created alcohol for our enjoyment, not grape juice, but alcohol. It so clashes with everything else we see in Scripture about our minds being altered, the control of the Holy Spirit, etc. that it is inconceivable.
And how unbelievable it is rolls into your dealing with this, Bob. And how extreme you get moves into your labeling this position in your comment #3 to Nancy is that a prohibitionist position is legalism. That stands tell-tale in your approach to this.
I am liable to miss some of the problems with this particular post, because this isn’t a term paper, just a blog comment, but here are some of many.
1) Again, no one normally calls something a “two…theory” when referring to a word being used in more than one way. Normally people call that “looking at a word in its context.” Scripture rebukes and commends the usage of the same word. If you don’t see different usages of the word, then you get contradictions, a lack of harmonization or unity. You also will have alcohol drinkers all over Scripture, because the words are used many times and the Bible would be pushing for the drinking of alcohol. It reminds me of the word “test,” “trial,” and “temptation” in the NT. They are actually all the same, one Greek word, but used sometimes negatively and sometimes positively. We have to judge what it is by the context. No one calls that a theory.
2) The way that you take v. 31, Bob, contradicts your own view. You say that yayin is alcohol every single time and here it gives a description of how great it is, and that is actually bad. You are saying that the verse says, you drunks, don’t look at alcohol when it looks really good. The alternative is: Only look at alcohol when it looks really bad. How could it look bad when God created it, based on your own theory (the gracious one, not the legalistic one, by your own authority)? The assumption is that sometimes it will not look good. If it is good, then shouldn’t it always look good? This is an obvious contradiction of yourself.
3) We are to pray “lead us no into temptation” and “flee youthful lusts,” but in your view, Bob, it is fine to drink a substance that is so tempting that when we drink it, we have to be extremely careful of its addictiveness to us. Of course, as we are drinking it, we are actually losing more of our ability to discern, contradicting the thing we are supposed to do in your opinion.
4) Bob, you say that “look” doesn’t mean “look,” but just “perceive of it differently.” That is inconceivable. When God told Lot and his family not to look at Sodom, He used the same Hebrew word as here and said “look not.” In your interpretation, Lot’s wife was OK looking, just not liking what she saw when she looked. God told not to look because it is such a dangerous substance, we shouldn’t even look at it when we know it is bad, just like we shouldn’t look at nakedness when it shows itself. This is how we fulfill, “lead us not into temptation.” If “look” doesn’t mean “look,” then language has lost its ability to communicate meaning. We aren’t to look, means not to drink because we have a greater, looking, to a lesser, drinking—surely if you aren’t even to look at it, then you are not to drink it. Just like with Lot’s wife was not to look—that didn’t mean she could visit Sodom, as long as she didn’t look at it.
5) Here is the only substance in Scripture that, if you drink it, it results in incredible problems, and we know results in the death of thousands of every year, but God says it is great stuff in God’s view. Go ahead and drink it. You won’t find out if you can handle it until after you may have killed someone, but do the best job you can.
6) You say that the point of the whole section is “don’t get drunk.” It never says that. It shows what happens where alcohol will lead to. What it commands us then is, therefore, don’t look at it.
7) You say that it is talking to drunkards. What I have to assume from that is that “my son” of Proverbs, this particular young man, who we see being addressed in v. 1 of chapter 23 is a drunkard. I already told you that v. 31 is singular, so it isn’t talking to drunkards or a bunch of people who tend to get drunk but an individual. As you read through Proverbs 23, that is what you will get. “My son” is mentioned here in v. 26. He is who is being warned. The context doesn’t back your position at all, if you care.
8 ) I have to say that your saying that the verse says “when it is red” and not “when it is alcoholic” is ridiculous. There wasn’t a word for alcoholic. The description itself means “when it is alcoholic. That’s what the Talmud says. That’s what the Septuagint shows. That’s something we see contextually with the use of the word “red” previously to this in the context. I can hardly comprehend what you wrote as a defense. You seem to be saying that “when it is red” is speaking of it as the blood of a grape, the red blood of a grape. So don’t look at wine when it comes from grapes? That is inane. I’ve already mentioned that when it sparkles is speaking of it when it is “bubbly,” that is, alcoholic. The last part of v. 31 you should contrast with v. 32 to show its deceitfulness. It might go down so smoothly, but it bites like a snake. It is deceptive in that way.
The rest of this I’m not going to deal with because it is biased by your “all alcohol” view. One thing I noticed is your eisogesis on Prov. 20:1. It doesn’t say drunkenness is brawling. It says that wine is a mocker or brawling. The stuff itself is this way.
Nuff said for now.
Kent,
Please check the Hebrew again. Red = Adam = Rosy (Strong’s) This almost seems to indicate that when your cheeks are rosy, similar to the red wine, don’t drink anymore.
We are not under an obligation to use philosophy to determine what is clearly stated in God’s Word. You are using man’s philosophy to determine that it is not ever good to drink anything with alcohol in it.
I will drink with a clear conscience – to the glory of God.
Joe V.
Who can figure what in the world “guns in the home” have to do with wine and drunkenness? I sure can’t.
People kill people–not guns.
People kill people–not wine!
Excellent point, Victoria.
About the two wine theory. I’m not saying words can’t have multiple meanings. The two wine theory is a theory that there were two kinds of wine generally available: fermented and nonfermented. The theory goes like this, if a Jewish person heard an OT text say God gave wine, he would think, “Okay based on the context, wine is good, so that means God gave unfermented wine. Yes, got it. Okay but in this context, bad people were drinking wine, and some were drunk, okay unfermented wine here.” Scholarship says this was not the case. There was one basic kind of wine, fermented.
The question at hand is this: does fermented wine ever get praised by God? Or, is fermented wine, ever acceptable to drink? If we approach the issue from the two-wine theory perspective, we’ll chalk up every favorable mention to nonfermented wine. This is circular reasoning.
Yes, we can take this approach to harmonize Prov. 23:31 with other scriptures. Or we can take a simpler, much simpler approach. We can side with Brandenburg and Stephen Reynolds, and come up with a novel, innovative way of understanding the Hebrew word for “dregs” in Isaiah 25:6. We can say well-aged wine is not the blessing there, good juice is. We can also restrict Neh. 5:18’s “all kinds” of wine to only the nonfermented kinds. We can also ignore the many times wine, joy, and drunkenness are connected, and assume wine and joy are just a coincidence. As in if they had Coke, Coke would bring joy too. So we can let texts like Prov. 104:15 refer to juice only. We can also not see any problem with passages like 1 Tim. 3, where overseers and deacons are told to not be given to [or not be addicted to] wine, or much wine. We can just assume that that is a wierd way of saying don’t drink fermented wine at all, but go ahead and drink grape juice. Or maybe it means don’t have too much grape juice? We could ignore the Biblical passages linking mixed wine to strong alcoholic wine, and just assume Prov. 9:5 refers to juice.
We could do this, or we could understand Proverbs within the setting of the book’s teaching on wine, within the greater context of Scripture’s teaching on wine, and in light of the nature of the genre of Proverbs, and see Prov 23:31 as part of an extended section warning against drunkenness.
It really does come down to this: how we choose to understand Prov. 23:31 in light of Scripture. How we harmonize the positive and negative mentions of wine in Scripture. We can go with a two wine idea, and put all the good mentions as referring to one kind of drink and all the bad mentions as another. Or we can notice how all the bad mentions single out drunkenness as the issue. And we can notice how wine can be abused (like any other gift of God) and how it can be enjoyed in moderation. We can also see how the Bible counsels that strict regulations forbidding to taste things, have no value in restraining the flesh (Col. 2:21-23). This reminds us that no substance or thing is in itself evil, instead our hearts are evil. We are reminded it is not what goes into us which defiles us, but what comes out (Mk. 7:18-23). We are reminded that everything created by God is good and nothing to be refused (for eating) if it is sanctified by prayer (1 Tim. 4:3-5) [and again, fermentation happens naturally, just as much as God is behind chocolate, God is behind wine].
I choose this latter method. It stands the test of history and scholarship. It avoids novel and unique translations. It equally condemns and forbids drunkenness. I also allow you to hold your position, understanding that if one does avoid drink altogether, he does avoid drunkenness which is good.
But as in another post, I do not want to see you insinuating that those who hold to this Biblically sensitive and informed view, are not godly and are probably unsaved — not members of the remnant of God’s people. That is what you’ve insinuated in the past. This, Nancy and others, is why I take the time to deal with this in such detail.
Blessings to all in Jesus,
Bob Hayton
Kent,
You seem to be denying scripture which so clearly gives wine (and many other things) for our enjoyment when used properly.
Clearly the Psalmist attributes the wine to God as a product of God’s good gift of plantlife. It is the same as the bread. So if you declare that we give up the wine for enjoyment we must stop eating bread as well. Of course that is absurd, as is the idea that wine is “bad” and forbidden.
Of course wine fermentation is after the fall–as is fall ood spoilage and raisins, for example (essentially dried and “spoiled” grapes).
This is a matter of liberty and if some do not want to partake, fine. For those of us who enjoy wine, beer or other drink (I prefer single malt scotch) then you other believers should stand down from rebuking us, and rather rejoice that each of us is walking according to conscience.
You are committing the fallacy of oversimplification. We are talking about real time occurrences. We are talking about one wine and that is the juice from grapes. This is clear as you look at places through Scripture. You make it “all alcohol.” Yayin and Oinos is the product of the vine. It could be:
1) Fresh grape juice, freshly treaded, trampled, or squeezed.
2) Older grape juice that has fermented some, non-alcoholic.
3) Even older grape juice that is even more fermented and could contain some alcohol content, not technically alcoholic because you couldn’t get drunk on it.
4) That which is fermented to the degree that alcohol is present in suitable quantities that drunkenness could occur with enough drinking. This is still not distilled liquor.
5) Fermented drink with water added to various degrees of dilution.
That is more like what it is. That would be at least a five or six or seven wine theory to look at realistically. This is why it took some discernment in that day to understand what it was that you were drinking and that there were warnings about moderation. They didn’t come with labels that told you what was the content of the bottle or keg or barrel or pitcher or wineskin. Some fermented grape juice would be of such a low alcoholic content that you would have a bladder problem before you would ever have a inebriation problem.
The type of yayin or oinos that caused drunkenness, of whatever level of intoxication, was what was forbidden. It altered the mind. It was addictive. It lowered the level of discernment. It led to all sorts of sins and ultimately violence and death.
To all others besides Bob,
You talk about your “conscience.” The conscience is a warning device. It holds zero information. You can’t trust your conscience if it is not properly informed by a Scriptural standard. If your conscience does not accuse you or warn you when you are sinning, it is because your conscience has been misinformed. We are not still free to sin when our conscience says nothing to us when we sin. Romans 6:1. You should understand that you are violating Proverbs 23:31, a Scriptural prohibition, when you drink alcohol, among other Scriptural principles as well. Even if you have explained it away with twisted hermeneutics, so that your conscience is silent when you disobey God’s Word, it doesn’t make what you are doing correct.
Victoria,
You should not agree with Bob that you made an excellent point. Your statements were terrible. Alcohol doesn’t parallel with guns or knives at all. To start, I said nothing about guns or knives. When a drunken man, who thought it was fine to drink in moderation, and he beats is wife or children senseless, he doesn’t have to use a gun or a knife. We don’t “come under the influence” of a gun or a knife. Alcohol is a drug that we take that takes away our ability to make wise decisions and many kill others in many various means by doing so. Have you heard about this? About alcohol related deaths in our culture? I think that more than anyone, people who are to be salt and light in the world, people that claim to be Christians, you are most responsible for these alcohol related deaths because you support the alcohol drinkers and alcohol industry in this country.
Les,
I hate to say tat you haven’t been following too closely. I do believe that God has given us wine to enjoy too—non-alcoholic wine. I have no doubt that you are walking according to your conscience. I am calling on you to walk according to Scripture.
Nancy had made the reference to guns. And the drunk is responsible for his actions, he chose to over-drink. Drunkenness is a sin, not a disease.
I have no problem with seeing a few various stages of yayin, but fresh, non-fermented juice, is not one of those stages. Nothing you say contradicts the teaching of Prov.9:2,5, Is. 25:6, Neh. 5:18, Deut. 14:26, etc, which indicate fermented drink is acceptable as long as one uses it in moderation. Prov. 23 points out that the drunk “tarries long” over the wine. He gives himself to it. We can enjoy it without giving ourselves to it.
Further discussion on this point is meaningless, as we aren’t going to convince each other. I join you in condemning drunkenness. The answer for preventing it, however, is not legislation or abstinence. It is self-control. This isn’t a disease its a sin.
Who said it was a disease? I’m serious. Who said that? That’s called arguing a strawman when no one makes a point and you argue against it.
You wrote, “Nothing you say contradicts the teaching of….., which indicate fermented drink is acceptable as long as one uses it in moderation.” I don’t know how you get that. If I say that Proverbs 23:31 prohibits all alcoholic drink, I couldn’t be saying that.
It’s going to be hard to enjoy it when you aren’t even looking at it.
I don’t believe “strong drink” equals “alcoholic drink.” Most presentations of this etymologically say that shekar came from shakar, and I showed how that this isn’t true. We know that the verb came from the noun.
You’ve not answered how that the singular prohibition refers to plural drunkards, unless the “my son” of v. 26 is a drunk? Do you think that? He tells one non-drunk not to look at alcohol because of the way it is with plural people who drink it.
It is not Christians who drink wine or beer that are killing people. It is godless unbelievers who sow to the flesh because they can’t do anything else.
I have lived a long time and I have NEVER heard of a believer who got drunk and killed someone or beat their wife half to death. Where are the statistics for that. Believe me if that were so the media would have a heyday with it.
It sounds like Kent and maybe Nancy would like to see prohibition come back. Prohibition did not do away with drunkenness, it made matters so much worse and helped to produce organized crime in America.
Christians are not to be ruled, mastered, or brought under the control of anything but the Holy Spirit.
Again I appeal to Paul-all things are lawful for me -but I will not be enslaved to anything, except the Triune God!
O let me me addicted to God!
You know Bob, this discussion is really fruitless and probably is a terrible waste of your time.
You can’t enlighten people who do not want to consider the fact that they may be wrong on an interpretation of scripture that they hold. Especially when it is as emotionally charged as this one.
Thanks for the post. I enjoyed reading it while sipping a Cabernet.
Lance
http://www.homeeducateinthesunshinestate.com/blog
Kent,
My brother, I am walking (and drinking, a fine single malt from Islay last night) according to my conscience, informed by scripture. All your protestations to the contrary on the interpretations do not make your view THE view of wine in the bible.
Cheers and SDG!
Please…give it up you guys….Bob, don’t you still own the that giant eraser???…*: )
Jesus turned water into wine. The headwaiter says “wow” this stuff is awesome, why are you serving it now after the “men have drunk freely”? Normally you serve the good wine first (Silver oak/Jordan/Cakebread) and after they have had a few (drunk freely) you break out he cheap wine (JLohr/Liberty School/Simi).
I am suppose to believe that the wine Jesus made was really good grape juice? That interpretation makes absolutely no sense to me for the following reasons:
– I have tasted many kinds of grape juice(well the purple kind and the white kind) and they all taste the same to me. But I can tell you the differences between a good wine and an o.k. one.
-Who drinks more than a glass of the stuff? Try to drink more than a glass of grape juice and it will make you sick.
Additionally, why would the Pharisee’s accuse Jesus of being a winebibber if he didn’t drink? Did the Pharisee’s think that grape juice was bad?
Anyway, just my thoughts.
Seriously Kent, can you not grasp the clear inference Christ made about old and new wineskins? If the “wine” were not fermented in them His point would have been lost on the common people he was speaking to. Grape juice doesn’t expand in a skin unless it IS fermenting!
You say “I don’t believe ‘strong drink’ equals ‘alcoholic drink.'”. Well just what does it represent then???? Number 6:33 covers wine, strong drink AND grape juice, vinegar and raisins!!!
I also have to say this: I’d rather boast that I don’t have to drink at all than boast about what my liberty allows. If you NEED to drink, then you are sinning, per Peter: “They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved.” (2 Peter 2:19 ESV).
I personally draw the line at hard liquor because I mentally associate it with a sinful lifestyle and cigar smoking as do many of my former associates. Hence my conscience would condemn me in that area.
God bless!
Well…OK if you guys insist on continuing this line of conversation…I am forced to confess…I make a really mean Italian Creme Cake that uses the HARD stuff…I do however, use a disguise when entering the questionable establishment for a purchase…The last time I was there…I didn’t bring a big enough bag to stash the bottle and they gave it to me in a plain brown bag with the top all musched up around the neck of the bottle..While the disguise was excellent…the bottle in the bag certainly gave me a definite “under the bridgest ” effect…*: )
Nancy, that cake sounds awesome! Sort of seems like a bit of a waste to use the hard stuff in cooking, but I suppose one can always swig while they cook.
I find no need to “brown bag” good drink at the grocery. Jesus obviously drank in public, since he was accused of being a winebibber.
Cheers and SDG!
Well, yeah…at the grocery…where I live they aren’t allowed to sell anything harder than wine or beer at the grocery…I actually have to enter a questionable establishment under a sign that says LIQUER…*: )
And the conversation keeps on rolling! 🙂
This topic is volatile, and people have strong opinions, that’s for sure. I’m done arguing though.
I did feel out of place my first time in the liquor store. I don’t go often, but I like to sample different varieties of beer, wine, and etc.
Regarding Bill’s comment on John 2, it’s interesting to note the word for “drunk freely” is a word that usually refers to intoxication, drunkenness, or becoming drunk. The guy using the phrase wasn’t specifically saying that was happening in this feast, but he used that word. I don’t think he’d use that if it was Welch’s grape juice.
Oh…I think the signologist were drunk when they printed that sign…
I’m particularly amazed with your writing expertise as well as with the format on your weblog. Is this a paid theme or did you customise it yourself? Both way keep up the good top quality composing, it is unusual to see a good blog enjoy it one today.
I’m late coming into this discussion. I have read Maclean’s Princeton Review articles on Bacchus and Anti-Bacchus. (Several times in fact). I’ve also read Bacchiocchi’s work “Wine in the Bible” and am now checking his references to Pliny, Columella, Cato and Varro. I’m particularly interested in the ancient Roman and Greek witnesses (BA Classics and Classical Civilization, UCSB, 1976).
From what I’ve read so far I must conclude that Bacchiocchi engages in “cherry picking” (fallacy of incomplete evidence), either ignoring evidence that would refute his position, or brushing off difficult passages (Isaiah 25:6) with dumbfounding boldness. I have found a particularly damning statement by Pliny that clearly shows that the unmarked meaning of the term wine (vinum) denotes fermented must.
[Pliny XIV.XI(83)] medium inter dulcia vinumque est quod Graeci aigleucos vocant, hoc est semper mustum. id evenit cura, quoniam fervere prohibetur — sic appellant musti in vina transitum. (midway between the dulcia and wine is what the Greeks call “aigleucos’, this is ‘semper must’. It requires care, since it is not allowed to ferment — so they mark the transition from must into wine.)
Further, wine which is not intoxicating is rare, an oddity.
[Pliny XIV.IV (31)] inerticulam e nigris appellavere, iustius sobriam dicturi, inveterato praecipue commendabilem vino, sed viribus innoxiam, si quidem temulentiam sola non facit. (One of the black grapes has been named the ‘good-for-nothing’, more fairly “the sober”, as the wine it produces is admirable particularly when old, but though strong has no ill effects : in fact this is the only vintage that does not cause intoxication.)
Roman wine, excluding the dulcia (sapa and defrutum) and possibly ‘semper must’, are fermented and intoxicating. This shows no essential difference due to time between English and Latin usage for the unmarked term.
Isaiah 25:6 is problematic for Bacchiocchi (p. 104, “Wine in the Bible”). It’s understandable because it clearly shows the wine mentioned is fermented.
“And in this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined.”
“Lees refers to deposits of dead yeast or residual yeast and other particles that precipitate, or are carried by the action of “fining”, to the bottom of a vat of wine after fermentation and aging.” (Wiki) The ancients considered the lees as the source of strength and potency of wine (See Pliny [XXIII.XXXI]). Modern winemakers leave wine on the lees to increase its complexity and its ability to age. The ancients would filter the lees using a linen sock to lessen the wine’s strength (headiness), but this would not remove the alcohols already produced that were in solution.
Bacchiocchi wants to rewrite this verse to make “wine on the lees [well-refined]” mean “jellies [and syrups]”! Bold!