Author: fundyreformed

Proverbs 23 And a Universal Prohibition of Alcohol

~ fundyreformed ~ 33 Comments

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.

Iraqi Oil and the War

~ fundyreformed ~ 13 Comments

This is another rare political post  from me, but I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to speak out about something.

While I think the Iraqi war was mishandled in many ways, and the post-war plan was ineffective, I agree with the decision to invade Iraq. It wasn’t about one president’s desire to complete what his father started. It wasn’t about making some excuse to invade Iraq. It was dealing with the facts at hand: Iraq acted like it had weapons of mass destruction, and they sure seemed like they would use them, and had even pledged to aid terrorists who would.

Of all the leftist  insinuations as to the secret motive behind America’s (I mean Bush’s) actions, perhaps the lowest  was the  claim that we invaded Iraq to get a share in its oil. I never bought that for a minute, but it sure sounds bad. It makes us look bad. But the argument is false. How many billions have we spent on the war and the restoration of the country?

Anyway, here is some fresh proof to counteract that charge.

The soaring price of oil will leave the Iraqi government with a cumulative budget surplus of as much as $79 billion by year’s end, according to an analysis by the U.S. Government Accountability Office released Thursday. The unspent windfall… appears likely to put an uncomfortable new focus on the approximately $48 billion in U.S. taxpayer money devoted to rebuilding Iraq since the American-led invasion. (source — Minneapolis Star Tribune 8/6/08, “Iraq amasses billions in oil profits while U.S. pays for rebuilding” by James Glanz of the New York Times)

Yep, that’s Iraqi money, not US money. And yep, we are forking out the money to help the citizens of Iraq. It’s not easy, but its right. We have to finish the job.

Isaiah 16:10 and the Two-Wine Theory

~ fundyreformed ~ 26 Comments

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.