Tag: fundamentalist

More on Casting Crowns

~ fundyreformed ~ 4 Comments

Click to see this CD on Amazon (and listen to song samples)While we’re on the theme of music, I thought I’d point out a good review of some of Casting Crowns’ songs by my blogging friend Will Dudding.

It made me remember my previous look at the motivations behind Casting Crowns and Mercy Me, which might be a good follow up to Will’s post for you all to check out. Casting Crowns is one of my favorite Christian music groups and I’ve highlighted their great song: Who Am I?, and also their 2nd album Lifesong, and its title song.

As you see the challenging lyrics that Will shares, maybe one fact should encourage you. This group is enormously popular and has sold more than 2.5 million records in a couple short years. This doesn’t count there newest album which came out a few months ago. The first song on that to hit the radio was number 1 on the charts for 19 weeks straight, which gives you the idea of their popularity.

And in this case, I think this shows that Christians (at least the kind that listen to and follow CCM) are hungering for a deeper message and really are trying to grow in the Lord. Granted I wholeheartedly agree with the criticism that much of CCM is shallow and trendy today. But there is a real turn around happening. And Casting Crowns isn’t the only group producing some real soul-searching, deep, faith-building songs.

To check out Casting Crowns more I recommend using Rhapsody.com which allows you 24 free online songs a month. Just search for Casting Crowns and tune in.

Deuteronomy 22:5 — A Positive Interpretation

~ fundyreformed ~ 31 Comments

In the comments of my recent post on the women-wearing-pants controversy, I was challenged to basically prove my position is a legitimate positive interpretation rather than a mere reaction. To boil down the issue, fundamentalists often use Deut. 22:5 to teach that it is wrong for women today to wear pants. My position is that the text teaches that there is to be a designed gender distinction in the way we dress, but that today there are female-designed pants perfectly suitable for women to wear in most situations. (I do think women should wear dresses from time to time, as they are so expressly and beautifully feminine.)

In responding to that charge, I came across the following excellent treatment of the issue from Elmer L. Towns (former Dean of the School of Religion at Liberty University) in the King James Bible Commentary (edited by Edward Hindson, Woodrow Kroll & Jerry Falwell; Thomas Nelson: Nashville, 1983).

Verse 5 has caused divisions and confusion among sincere Christian brethren. Some have used this verse to maintain that women should not wear slacks. The word “pertaineth unto” (Heb keli) in the original language is used elsewhere not only of clothes, but also of decorations or utensils used by the opposite sex. The intent of this law was to maintain the distinction between the sexes. Today, it would apply to any unisex clothing that would cloud the distinction between men and women. The New Testament recognizes such a distinction (1 Cor. 11:3) and maintains that long hair on women was a sign of that distinction (1 Cor. 11:6-14). During the days of Moses, garments (Heb simlah) worn by men and women were similar (robes), so this command was designed to keep a woman from appearing as a man for purposes of licentiousness (to deceive the man). The major difference between male and female robes was their decoration or ornamentation, and not their cut. The principle taught by this passage is that the proper distinction between men and women in all cultures should be maintained. The passage does not teach against slacks per se (or hats, shoes, gloves, etc.–all worn by both sexes), but against men or women wearing any item specifically ornamented for the opposite sex (e.g., a man wearing female slacks, lipstick, etc.). The wearing of slacks by ladies today is not an attempt to deceive men, although some may be immodest and improper in certain situations. The final crieteria are that women look like females, that they are modest (1 Tim 2:9-10), and that their outward appearance reflects their inner character (1 Pet 3:3). ¹

 ¹ Pg. 168. Words in quotation marks are bolded in the original.

I also want to mention another good article on this issue that I came across: “Is It a Sin for a Woman to Wear Pants?” by Craig Hostetler.

Holding on to the Cultural Norms of a Bygone Era: A Look at Fundamentalism's "No-Pants-on-Women" Oddity

~ fundyreformed ~ 51 Comments

Hardly anyone today would consider the wearing of pants by women to be a breach of decency or a sign of rebellion against the God-given roles of manhood & womanhood. This is the 21st century, women have been liberated, and times have certainly changed, haven’t they?

The Fundamentalist Position

Yet for many sincere and well-meaning Christian fundamentalists (& by that term I mean those who both hold to the fundamental doctrines of the faith & practice some form of secondary separation with regard to those doctrines–specifically the fundamentalist Baptist movement represented by Bob Jones University and a host of even more conservative institutions) today’s situation is lamentable. Feminism’s triumph, in their minds, is what is most responsible for the abandoning of a generally common distinct dress styles for men and women. After all, the bathroom signs distinguish the sexes on the basis of pants for men, and today’s abandonment of the long accepted cultural norm of pants for men only can only lead to a sinful unisex culture which promotes all kind of sexual sins and spurns the God-ordained unique roles for men and women.

While rooted in the biblical teaching of male headship/leadership in the home and church, this position finds support in these verses as well:

A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God. (Deu 22:5)

For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man…. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
(1Co 11:7, 14-15)

From these verses comes a doctrine of “designed distinction” between the sexes. And specifically on the warrant of Deut. 22:5, it is deemed a grievous sin to blur the line between the sexes by donning the apparel of the opposite sex.

Now the above careful argument is often not what one finds with the more conservative fundamentalists. Often Deut. 22:5 is quoted with the harsh conclusion that women who wear pants are “sluts”. The position is not carefully taught, but rather enforced, with ushers trained to escort women caught wearing pants out the door! Visitors who carelessly forget to check the dress code, are asked to wear a dress or not come back. If you think I’m exaggerating, I’m not. Such is the sad case in all too many fundamentalist churches. They don’t want to be tolerating abominations to God!

Modern Attempts to Dodge the Force of Deut. 22:5

To get around this exegesis of Deut. 22:5, many modern Christians claim it is ceremonial law (like Deut. 22:10-11 for instance) . Others will stress that transvestism or cross-dressing is primarily in view, or that some practice associated with idolatry is in view, hence the strong “abomination” label. Yet these interpretations on the surface feel like a transparent attempt at dodging the force of the text.

The Historic Position on Deut. 22:5

Older commentators don’t flinch at offering some alternative views while at the same time affirming what Calvin says below:

This decree also commends modesty in general, and in it God anticipates the danger, lest women should harden themselves into forgetfulness of modesty, or men should degenerate into effeminacy unworthy of their nature. Garments are not in themselves of so much importance; but as it is disgraceful for men to become effeminate, and also for women to affect manliness in their dress and gestures, propriety and modesty are prescribed, not only for decency’s sake, but lest one kind of liberty should at length lead to something worse. The words of the heathen poet are very true: “What shame can she, who wears a helmet, show, her sex deserting?” Wherefore, decency in the fashion of the clothes is an excellent preservative of modesty. [from John Calvin’s online commentary here.]

Keil & Delitzsch, the Hebrew experts, are even stronger:

As the property of a neighbour was to be sacred in the estimation of an Israelite, so also the divine distinction of the sexes, which was kept sacred in civil life by the clothing peculiar to each sex, was to be not less but even more sacredly observed. “There shall not be man’s things upon a woman, and a man shall not put on a woman’s clothes.” כְּלִי does not signify clothing merely, nor arms only, but includes every kind of domestic and other utensils (as in Exo_22:6; Lev_11:32; Lev_13:49). The immediate design of this prohibition was not to prevent licentiousness, or to oppose idolatrous practices (the proofs which Spencer has adduced of the existence of such usages among heathen nations are very far-fetched); but to maintain the sanctity of that distinction of the sexes which was established by the creation of man and woman, and in relation to which Israel was not to sin. Every violation or wiping out of this distinction – such even, for example, as the emancipation of a woman – was unnatural, and therefore an abomination in the sight of God. [emphasis added, quoted from E-Sword‘s (free for download) Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament]

Examining the Fundamentalist Position

So why do I allow and encourage my wife and daughters to wear pants? Am I consciously violating Deut. 22:5 and blurring the distinction of the sexes? I don’t believe so. Upon a closer examination of the fundamentalist position, I hope you will agree with me. At the onset here, I should note that more and more modern fundamentalists disagree with this position, and I’m sure there have been exceptions for many years. Also, there are some conservative Baptists who don’t like being dubbed fundamentalists, preferring to be called historic Baptists, and avoid the perceived problems with fundamentalism today. Fine, whatever. Still I object to their position on Deut. 22:5, and most people would call them fundamentalists.

What Scripture Actually Teaches

Now if we accept the “designed distinction” view of Deut. 22:5 (which I do), here is what Scripture actually affirms. 1) The sexes should be distinct. 2) Christians shouldn’t wear garments or ornaments associated with the opposite sex. We could infer from this that we are to maintain culturally appropriate gender distinctions in dress.

Now Deut. 22:5 doesn’t teach that we must have male-specific items and female-specific items, per se, it just assumes that a culture has them. It doesn’t specify what the items look like, nor to what degree they are actually distinct. It just says don’t use the female or male items.

The 1 Cor. 11 passage seems to say there is a certain propriety which makes it “natural” for the sexes to be distinguished in some visible way. It doesn’t specify how long or short, “long” and “short” hair is, necessarily, however. Yet it asserts that women should have long hair, and men shouldn’t. (Again, I agree with this point here.)

The Role of Culture

Now we have this Scriptural teaching and we are to apply it to our present situation. Culture can obviously be immoral, and cultures promoting little or no clothes are obviously errant and should be corrected from a Biblical perspective. Yet culture by definition changes over time.

In Bible days, men and women wore long flowing robes. There were inner and outer robes, and a girdle for both men and women. Only men were said to “gird up their loins”, meaning hike up their robes to do manly actions, like fighting in a battle. But there is no indication that their robes were materially different than women’s robes. Instead it was the fit, decoration, and style of the robes that distinguished them from women’s robes.

In our culture 100 years ago, pants were a distinctly male item, but today men and women both wear pants. Still there are differences in fit, decoration, and style that differentiate male pants from female pants. Although it is true that a unisex pants style is in vogue these days. While 100 years ago wearing pants was a trespass of cultural norms with regard to gender distinction, today that is not necessarily the case.

In viewing culture, we hopefully can agree that the Bible doesn’t set up the culture of the 1800s as the most Godly culture ever. There is no reason to view it as more godly than present culture, necessarily. Each generation had its sins, and surely today’s generation has some awful flagrant ones, but there is no Scriptural justification for inferring from this that all present cultural norms should be abandoned in favor of those from the 1800s.

Consistency

In examining this topic, it appears that the clear cut, simple distinction provided by pants versus a dress is desirable by the fundamentalists. And so they have honed in on this item of clothing particularly for applying Deut. 22:5. But there are a host of items which have changed in their gender-designating function over the years. Stockings and T-Shirts were originally male-only dress items. Today stockings are generally regarded as female-only and T-shirts are used for both sexes. Fundamentalists often have no problem with their teenage or college-age girls wearing the high school or college sports jackets of their boyfriends, but wouldn’t that violate the mandates in Deut. 22:5 too? And what about women’s suits (even with a dress skirt rather than pants)?

Some view questions of consistency with suspicion. “It is just an attempt to dodge Deut. 22:5”, they assume. Yet these questions must be addressed. Just because an item doesn’t appear on a bathroom sign, doesn’t mean it has no gender distinction. And then again, why is a bathroom sign so definitive for culture? Isn’t it just a convenient tool for communicating which bathroom is which? It is not authoritative in any sense (well, unless I’m looking for a bathroom…).

Conclusion

Based on the above examination, I conclude that how one applies Deut. 22:5 is up for grabs. The specific application is not mandated by the text. You may feel that the weight of centuries of gender distinct use of pants warrants no pants on women. That may be important to you, especially as you study history and see that feminism and a desire to break the cultural norms in regard to distinction of the sexes played a big role in the modern use of pants by women. Yet Scripture does not specify that I must conclude like you do in my view of the cultural norms of a bygone era. In today’s world, many a woman doesn’t think twice about putting on a pair of pants, because that is what our culture does. I would encourage such women to dress femininely and maintain modesty in light of Scriptural principles, rather than simply condemning them on the basis of cultural norms of a hundred years ago.

It is fine if you disagree with me, but I am applying Deut. 22:5 and not rejecting Scripture.   And so, fundamentalists and others who insist that only their application of Deut. 22:5 constitutes obedience are really being schismatic. They are needlessly disrupting the unity of the faith, in their defense of their particular application of Scripture to today’s culture. The oddity of the traditional fundamentalist view on women and pants sadly often becomes a disgrace to the name of Christ.

Before I go, if you want to see some debates over this issue, where both sides (mine and the standard fundamentalist position) being defended and advocated, check out the links below.

Anyone else have more links for good discussions on this?

"Wine to Gladden the Heart of Man": Thoughts on God’s Good Gift of Wine

~ fundyreformed ~ 86 Comments

There is an interesting discussion on alcohol going on over at Bob Bixby’s blog, Pensees. It has been mentioned over on Sharper Iron, as well.

I have been meaning to post for some time on this topic, and now seemed like the appropriate time. Some of my research for this article was helped by a cousin-in-law of mine, Nathan Grant. I plan to post an edited version of his own study on this topic in the future.

Okay, you will probably want to go over and read Bixby’s article on the issue, “Drinking Beer and My Right to Read the Bible in The Middle of the Street”, first. Then you can read my response verbatim below.

I hate to post another long comment, but… I think this should be said, in the context of this discussion.Why drink wine?? Good question! I respect your arguments from common sense and Biblical principles. These are not light-weight arguments. Yet I think there is a big Scriptural argument for the use of wine that you are overlooking.Before presenting that argument, let me hasten to say that I can only imagine the sorrow liquor has caused many people and many families. Drunkenness is a sin which Scripture strongly condemns and warns us against. And more than many sins, it can affect innocent bystanders, and unfortunate family members. It should be no laughing matter for such an argument to be raised. The injury and harm alcohol has caused so many deserves no scorn from the eyes of young fundamentalists eager to partake in another activity they deem permissible from Scripture.If I agree so much with your argument, why then would I go on and seek to argue for the use of alcohol? Why not just stay quiet, and agree to disagree privately? I cannot remain quiet, because truthfully I feel the argument I have to present is of such a nature that to disregard it would be to despise God and His Word.

Ps. 104:14-15 presents my argument: “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.” Here the Psalmist praises God for the gift of wine. And he declares that God gave us wine to gladden our hearts. My argument is that Scripture abundantly declares this truth: God gave us wine to bring us joy. I want to present 8 points which combine to make this truth extremely clear. God gave us wine for our joy. [Scriptures are taken from the ESV, unless otherwise indicated.]

1) Wine is a gift of the goodness of God.

Jeremiah 31:12-14 “They shall come and sing aloud on the height of Zion, and they shall be radiant over the goodness of the LORD, over the grain, the wine, and the oil, and over the young of the flock and the herd; their life shall be like a watered garden, and they shall languish no more. Then shall the young women rejoice in the dance, and the young men and the old shall be merry. I will turn their mourning into joy; I will comfort them, and give them gladness for sorrow. I will feast the soul of the priests with abundance, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness, declares the LORD.”

See also Ps. 104:14-15 above. 1 Tim. 4:1-5 applies also, I believe.

2) Wine produces joy–it “gladdens the heart”.

Judges 9:13 “But the vine said to them, ‘Shall I leave my wine that cheers God and men and go hold sway over the trees?'”

Ecclesiastes 10:19 (NASB) “Men prepare a meal for enjoyment, and wine makes life merry, and money is the answer to everything.”

Zechariah 10:7 “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.”

It should be clear that even the intoxicating nature of wine is being praised, here. Wine lifts the spirit and gladdens the heart long before it actually overtakes you and makes one drunk. Wine can be enjoyed and its effects relished without losing control and becoming drunken. Prov. 31:6-7 encourages Lemuel to give wine and strong drink to the sick and the sorrowful of heart. And Jer. 16:7-8 points to a practice of comforting those who are mourning over the death of loved ones with wine and a feast–“the cup of consolation”. Rabbinical literature declares that such was a common practice–particularly in obedience to Prov. 31:6-7.

3) Wine is used in rejoicing before God.

It is also used in offerings and must be tithed on.

Deuteronomy 14:22-26 “You shall tithe all the yield of your seed that comes from the field year by year. And before the LORD your God, in the place that he will choose, to make his name dwell there, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always. And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the LORD your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the LORD your God chooses, to set his name there, then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the LORD your God chooses and spend the money for whatever you desire–oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.”

Isaiah 62:8-9 “The LORD has sworn by his right hand and by his mighty arm: ‘I will not again give your grain to be food for your enemies, and foreigners shall not drink your wine for which you have labored; but those who garner it shall eat it and praise the LORD, and those who gather it shall drink it in the courts of my sanctuary.'”

Deuteronomy 12:17-19 “You may not eat within your towns the tithe of your grain or of your wine or of your oil…but you shall eat them before the LORD your God in the place that the LORD your God will choose….”

Notice that in the Dt. 14 passage above, even strong drink [everyone agrees that this is alcoholic] can be drunken before the Lord with rejoicing! Strong drink is also used as a drink offering in conjunction with certain sacrifices, see Num. 28:7. Wine, of course, is also used for drink offerings, see Ex. 29:40, Num. 15:5, 2 Chron. 31:5, Dt. 8:4.

4) Abundance of wine was a particular blessing from God.

Joel 2:24-26 “The threshing floors shall be full of grain; the vats shall overflow with wine and oil. I will restore to you the years that the swarming locust has eaten, the hopper, the destroyer, and the cutter, my great army, which I sent among you. “You shall eat in plenty and be satisfied, and praise the name of the LORD your God, who has dealt wondrously with you. And my people shall never again be put to shame.”

Joel 3:18 “And in that day the mountains shall drip sweet wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the streambeds of Judah shall flow with water; and a fountain shall come forth from the house of the LORD and water the Valley of Shittim.”

See also Gen. 27:28 (part of Isaac’s blessing for Jacob) and Dt. 7:13.

5) Having no wine was a hardship or a judgment of God.

Amos 5:11 “Therefore because you trample on the poor and you exact taxes of grain from him…you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine.”

Deuteronomy 29:2-6 “And Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: ‘You have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, the great trials that your eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders. But to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear. I have led you forty years in the wilderness. Your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandals have not worn off your feet. You have not eaten bread, and you have not drunk wine or strong drink, that you may know that I am the LORD your God.'”

The above passage has Moses describing the glories of God that the people saw and also stressing that they had endured trials in the wilderness. He speaks of the miraculous provision for them, but also of God’s keeping them from the normal joys of life–eating bread and drinking wine and strong drink. God did all of this so they would know that He was their God, yet they had no spiritual circumcision of heart to appreciate that. The point I am drawing out is that not having wine and strong drink was a hardship, exactly parallel to not having bread. Bread is good, and so is wine and strong drink. (See also Dt. 28:39, Micah 6:15, and Zeph. 1:13)

6) The absence of wine results in the absence of joy.

No wine, no joy.

Isaiah 24:7-11 “The wine mourns, the vine languishes, all the merry-hearted sigh. The mirth of the tambourines is stilled, the noise of the jubilant has ceased, the mirth of the lyre is stilled. No more do they drink wine with singing; strong drink is bitter to those who drink it. The wasted city is broken down; every house is shut up so that none can enter. There is an outcry in the streets for lack of wine; all joy has grown dark; the gladness of the earth is banished.“

Jeremiah 48:33 “Gladness and joy have been taken away from the fruitful land of Moab; I have made the wine cease from the winepresses; no one treads them with shouts of joy; the shouting is not the shout of joy.”

See also Is. 16:10.

7) Drinking wine is singularly festive, joyful, and celebratory.

Ecclesiastes 9:7 “Go, eat your bread in joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do.”

Isaiah 22:13 “And behold, joy and gladness, killing oxen and slaughtering sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine. ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.'”

It goes without saying that wine is associated with times of joy and feasting (Job 1:13, Esther 1, 1 Chron. 12:39ff., Gen. 27:25 [a special occasion–the passing on of the blessing]). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988; edited by Geoffrey Bromiley] points out, “A banquet hall is called a bet misthe hayyayin (lit. ‘house for drinking wine’ Est. 7:8), and a ‘feast’ is literally a ‘drinking’ (Heb. misthe, Gen. 21:8; Jdg. 14:10; 1 S. 25:36; 2 S. 3:20)” (vol. 4, pg. 1070). Further it states, “wine…was an essential part of feasting in the biblical tradition” (pg. 1071).

(Another point, similar to this is that the joys of sexual intimacy and love are compared to the joy produced by wine. See Song of Solomon 1:2-3; 4:10; 7:1-2, 9; 8:2.)

8) Wine will be part of the future feasting in Christ’s kingdom.

Isaiah 25:6-9 “On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken. It will be said on that day, ‘Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us. This is the LORD; we have waited for him; let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation.'”

Jeremiah 31:12-14 “They shall come and sing aloud on the height of Zion, and they shall be radiant over the goodness of the LORD, over the grain, the wine, and the oil, and over the young of the flock and the herd; their life shall be like a watered garden, and they shall languish no more. Then shall the young women rejoice in the dance, and the young men and the old shall be merry. I will turn their mourning into joy; I will comfort them, and give them gladness for sorrow. I will feast the soul of the priests with abundance, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness, declares the LORD.”

Matt. 26:29 “I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

See also Lk. 22:28-30, Mt. 8:11, and Lk. 13:29. It is worthwhile to mention here that from the above verse, it is clear Jesus drank wine. The celebration of the Passover had developed into including 4 cups of wine. From the passage in Luke you see they drank at least two cups of wine (Lk. 22:17 and 20). In Lk. 7:33-34 Jesus himself says that he came “eating and drinking”. Since John the Baptist was specifically said to have abstained from alcoholic drinks (Lk. 1:15), and since Jesus contrasts himself with John in this text, Jesus is saying he came drinking alcoholic drinks. While it is obvious Jesus was no drunkard, the charge of “drunkard” would sound ridiculous if Jesus had been a tee-totaller. Not only did Jesus drink wine, but he was concerned to produce the best kind of wine for those at the wedding feast in Cana (Jn. 2).

Also, the feast of the Lord’s supper looks forward to the feast with Jesus in His kingdom (see the Mt. 26:29 passage above). And it is clear from 1 Cor. 11:21 that the beverage used at the Lord’s table in Corinth could make some drunk. Paul in no way castigates them for using the wrong kind of beverage. He even points out that they could drink in their own houses (v. 22). So it makes Biblical sense to expect that the feast in Christ’s glorious New Kingdom will include alcoholic drinks.

Now I have presented my Biblical argument–that God has given us wine to make our hearts glad. So I say we should glorify God by the wise use and enjoyment of his good gifts to us (see 1 Tim. 4:1-5).

Now some will be hanging onto a weak argument here. They will be trying to convince themselves that wine most often does not mean intoxicating juice of grapes, but rather non-intoxicating juice similar to the Welch’s variety. Yet much evidence exists that this is not correct. Modern grape juice was not really available until the late 1800s when Mr. Welch began marketing his variety. ISBE says, “Both yayin and tiros 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….The ‘new wine’ (Gk. gleukos) of the Pentecost account (Acts 2:13) was the vintage of the recent harvest; the thrust of the taunt requires that it refer to wine that can cause intoxication.” (vol. 4 pg. 1069) The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary [Chicago: Moody Press, 1988; edited by Merrill F. Unger] states, “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 character of yayin in general is plain from Scripture.” Now it is true that ancient wine was not as alcoholic as wine today. Yet it is also clear it could intoxicate. In NT times, wine was a common table beverage (diluted of course). Yet ISBE says, “Wine is not attested as the normal table beverage of OT times. It seems generally to have been reserved for special occasions…” (vol. 4 pg. 1070). More evidence could be cited, I am sure, but I agree with Unger that it is plain that wine was quite able to intoxicate. Yet God says this is good–it gladdens our hearts.

I have two further counter arguments. One counters the argument you (Bob Bixby) have brought up in this post. The other counters another common argument, which has been brought up in the comment thread. I will start with the latter argument.

Should we not refrain from alcohol and wine, strong drink, etc. out of deference to weaker brothers who might stumble? Is not this the point of Rom. 14:21? In a sense I would agree. But the context speaks to situations where you know a brother will be observing you drink in such a way that he may stumble and offend his conscience. If one happens to stumble upon me and find that I am drinking, I could charitably explain my reasoning for doing so. But for me to disregard his conscience and deliberately challenge him or cause him to be offended would be quite another thing. Applying 1 Thess. 5:22 to this case is a false application of that text. It refers to actual cases of evil–avoiding actual evil. Not avoiding what appears to be evil but in fact is neutral or not evil. And it also specifically in context refers to the judging of each prophecy in the setting of a church or Christian gathering.

My second counter argument deals with your argument concerning the great potential harm that alcohol can cause families and individuals. Yes, this is a strong caution and particularly listens to the warnings of Prov. 20:1 and other like passages. However, let me ask something. Is total abstinence the best preventative course for me to pursue with regard to the rearing of my children? Since Scripture does not forbid alcohol, and actually encourages its moderate consumption, how can I in good conscience teach against its use period? Would the argument you propose be received as sufficient from my children? Or could it not be as effective (or more) for me to model the moderate use of wine in front of my children and family? My children would learn by example that wine and liquor is not to be consumed frivolously, but rather to be enjoyed in moderation–always thanking God for the blessing of wine when we partake of it. This also seems to be more in line with being controlled by the Spirit in this dispensation of the new covenant, in my opinion.

Before closing, let me point your attention to two articles on this topic written by a friend of a friend of mine. Alcohol and the Christian, and Alcohol and the Christian Part Deux. In the second article there is an extended discussion which approaches the topic from many perspectives and seeks to apply Biblical principles to the decision whether or not to enjoy God’s gift of wine, this side of heaven. I think you (and your readers) may find the discussion beneficial in thinking through this issue.

UPDATE: Check out two later posts I did on this topic: “Will You Be Having Some Wine?” and “Welch’s Grape Juice, Worldly Wisdom and Wine”.

Recommended Resource: God Gave Wine: What the Bible Says About Alcohol by Kenneth L. Gentry.