Featured Wine in the first century

I had tongue firmly in cheek with my question whether the scripture commands deacons to drink, just not much.

But defining "much" is a bit sticky isn't it? Just where is that point when much wine is actually too much?

If we were following Kentucky's law, it would be .08 on the breathalyzer.

But if one thinks an occasional snort is okay, what is the Biblical equivalent of .08?

If one has a drink or two, gets a little mellow, does that come in under the Biblical bar?

Good question, web.

 

I don't know all of what Paul had in mind when he said that deacons were not to be given to "much" wine, but I think it is a safe guess, in light of all the positive scriptures that pertain to strong drink, that it probably meant not to drink it all the time.

Scripture affirms that wine is a gift from God. Scripture says to go out and buy strong drink and rejoice before the Lord.

I do not think it is necessarily a sin to get intoxicated on occasion. It seems to me that the Bible encourages this practice.

What the Bible clearly condemns is being a drunkard. But a drunkard is not necessarily a person who on rare occasions gets drunk just like a glutton is not somebody who over eats three times a year at Thanksgiving, Christmas and Independence Day.

Drunkards and gluttons are people who indulge in the excess of drink and food, not on occasion, but regularly as a lifestyle.

 

I just wanted to point out obvious rational concerns with the intoxicant problem as it relates to the believer.

First, Timothy was instructed by Paul who had Luke traveling with him. Luke being a physician most likely (though admittedly not stated) diagnosed Tim with a stomach ailment that needed a bit of medicinal help.

Therefore, taking such intoxicants under a doctors direction or for health sake (such as cough medicine or swishing "Listerine") is permitted.

Two, there were two times on the cross that Christ said he thirsted. The first He was given water. The second He was given a mixture of water and an intoxicant. As soon as He tasted the second, He spit it out. The principle being that not one micro cellular level of control was to be given over to the intoxicant that He remain the pure Lamb, unspotted by the world. Such would oblige that he have total control over every action of the cross - in mind, body, soul, and spirit.

Third, we are to be examples of Christ. We are to treat our bodies as a living sacrifice, which is considered the merest of reasonable service. It isn't that we are not "permitted" to take an intoxicant, but that the intoxicant has as its basic desire to control the person.

Fourth, the Scriptures speak of the "wine" and the "strong drink" as having a form of "being." It can mock, it can disturb the person's senses to the point that the person will loose control of bodily functions, and become unstable.

Because of number 4 and 5 it is important that the believer in this modern age, where there is no cause (especially in the US) for concern over tainted water, and good Dr. Pepper's are very much available, not attempt to find an "excuse" to engage in drink that has at its very foundational desire to gain control over the person.

One can pretty much find an excuse for any excess or to engage in most any activity. Some will even determine engagement is permitted by suggesting that the Scriptures condone the use of wine, that it is permitted in the present age. Such have that liberty, but as has already been posted, the testimony is marred when viewed by the unbeliever.

If the world considers it a violation of what Christians stand for, how much more guarded should the real believer's be in the matter?

Some will state that we don't hold to the world assigning a standard to the believer. That would be good and correct thinking. The believer should be above reproach, and any cause for reproach from the world should easily be able to be laid at the cause of Christ and not soul/flesh liberty. The believer is not of this world, not conformed to the thinking of this world system, and to be pleasured by the worldly.

It is a shame that believers would even post that occasionally getting drunk is not unscriptural!

It is a shame that believers would even consider supporting by purchase and use the ungodly industry that has at its foundation the destruction and control of the humanity.

It is a shame that believers (especially Baptist) are so far removed from the original stand against liquor, that they would even entertain the thought that drinking an intoxicant was an expression of righteousness.

Certainly, the believer is free to engage, but that doesn't make it right in this modern time when it is so very important that the testimony of the truly righteous be a pure and identifiable with the Christ as possible.

There is one purpose for the intoxicant in this modern age. Give it to a person who has no hope, the terminally ill, those who are on death row and are about to die, and those who have no relationship to Christ and the hope of eternity with Him.

 

Um...respectfully disagree. I have a friend whose mother has been juggling heart medications. They've all had serious side effects. Her doctor just told her that her only option left is to drink 4oz of wine each day. You may have meant a case like hers when you said "a person who has no hope"; but you also lumped that person in with those who have no relationship with Christ.

I respectfully submit that she's following Luke's advice to Timothy.

I also respectfully submit that you pay a little more attention to the label warnings on "modern" medicine. I think a little wine for your stomach's sake is a whole lot safer than kidney failure, heart problems, and even death--all possible results of taking "modern" medications.

 

Don, apparently you missed point one of the post.

I specifically stated that medicinal use was perfectly valid.

Back before modern cardiac medicines and surgery, medicinal use of intoxicants were often prescribed, but in our modern times, it is not often the case.

However, medicinal use is not an "excuse" for regular consumption such as some on this thread have posted and even seemed to encourage.

Your own post of the medicinal 4 once serving once or twice a day, as suggested and/or prescribed by a doctor, is certainly NOT the same as a glass or more at meal time, a Coors refresher or three after lawn care, a case or two on the hunting/fishing trip, and the occasionally getting drunk statement posted earlier. It is such excuse in favor of consumption that this thread has indicated is righteous and God Glorifying of which is in fact a dangerous and purposed misleading.

It matters so little "how much" is consumed. It is that it is consumed at all.

Again, the purpose of the brew master is not to provide a beverage that only quenches the thirst. The purpose is to entice and ensnare so that the consumer consumes and continues unaware even to excess. The purpose of the intoxicant is to intoxicate.

If one is to state they glorify God by giving their heart, mind, soul, and strength to the Lord Jesus Christ, how do they reconcile consuming what is so blatantly desirous to deceive and turn the heart, mind, soul and strength away from righteousness?

 

Might as well jump into the fray:

1) I tend to interpret Paul telling Timothy to drink a little wine occasionally for his frequent illnesses as meaning for his frequent psychosomatic illnesses (iow - "loosen up").

2) There are all sorts of opiates (opioids?) occurring naturally in the body that are fundamental for us to maintain a functional sense of well being on a daily basis (i.e. they were put there by God). An occasional recharge with some man-made substances doesn't seem out of bounds. Of course, actual drug addicts can deplete these substances in the body so they can't generate them on their own.

3) When Christ was accused by the Pharisees of hanging out with drunkards, there had to be at least some truth to it, some basis for them to make that charge.

4) As it says in Proverbs, give strong drink to the poor, but not to Kings, in millennia past, when most people worked sun up to sun down 6 days a week, exposed to the elements, etc, no one could fault them a few adult beverages occasionally, and it is David himself (King David that is) that praises God for "wine which maketh man's heart glad."

5) I submit there's probably a lot of inherent genetic alcoholism among Baptists - that is why our ancestors were receptive to a church that holds generally that drinking alcohol is sinful. So therefore, if your family has been in the Baptist church for generations, now's probably not the time to take up drinking.

Just sort of a layman's take. I'm out.

 

You ole reprobate....:laugh:

I am a teetotaller myself. Not a deacon though.

 

My problem is that alcoholic beverages have no appeal to me. I just don't like the taste. So I get no credit for abstaining.

Oh, there is an exception. When I get a cold, I really knock back the Nyquil.

Sleep like a baby. Is that sleeping it off?

 

Nyquil, Scope, cough syrup, cooking, etc., all introduce alcohol into our systems and largely without our permission or without knowing. I believe it is virtually impossible to be a true teetotaller in our culture. One may chose to not imbibe, but to actually eliminate alcohol is probably a fantasy only. Even a piece of fruit that is just beyond ripe is fair game.

 

From what I have read there was a time when some people cheapened the wine by adding water so when they sold it they could make a greater profit.

 

My parents had been grape growers at one time. If the juice does not make wine it makes vinegar or rots. Grape juice from table grapes tastes like watered down sugar water like the juice when you crush a grape. Juice from wine grapes is sour but those grapes sure make great grape jam.

 

The Greek kapeleuo in 2 Cor. 2:17 ("corrupt" in the KJV) refers to this practice.

 

I may not have time to participate much in this discussion since we're on the road (Texas right now), but so far this is a good discussion of the problem.

I think it is germane that the HCSB (and NIV I understand, though I don't have one with me) translates both the Hebrew and Greek words for "strong drink" as "beer." This is based on the latest scholarship in this area. So modern whiskey, vodka and so forth (even modern "wine," as I understand it) are completely over the top as "strong drink," with a much greater alcohol content than beer, which hovers around 6%. (I know some one will be happy to correct me if I'm wrong. :smilewinkgrin They simply did not have our modern, incredibly potent drinks in Bible times.

 

Seems to be a good article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_in_the_Bible

 

I don't know that they did not have drink as strong as what we have today. Regardless, the strong drink that they DID have was considered a good thing if handled responsibly- that much is clear in Scripture.

 

It is a good article in my opinion.

This line of the article seems especially worthy as it reflects not only what the Bible does ACTUALLY teach concerning intoxicating beverages but also what Christians throughout MOST of the history of the Christian church have believed about it:

 

I think legalism here is far more deadly than alcoholism.

I am against both but I recognize that legalism is the greater evil.

I am afraid that what is pumped out of teetotalism camps is ten thousand times more dangerous than what is pumped out of bar taps in this country.

I like this quote from Theopedia:

"Legalism is a more dangerous disease than alcoholism because it doesn't look like one. Alcoholism makes men fail; legalism helps them succeed in the world. Alcoholism makes men depend on the bottle; legalism makes them self-sufficient, depending on no one. Alcoholism destroys moral resolve; legalism gives it strength. Alcoholics don't feel welcome in church; legalists love to hear their morality extolled in church. Therefore, what we need in this church is not front end regulations to try to keep ourselves pure. We need to preach and pray and believe that "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, neither teetotalism nor social drinking, neither legalism nor alcoholism is of any avail with God, but only a new creation (a new heart)" (Gal. 6:15; 5:6)." -John Piper

Another TREMENDOUS quote rife with truth is this one by G. K. Chesterton:

"Idolatry is committed, not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils; by making men afraid of war or alcohol, or economic law, when they should be afraid of spiritual corruption and cowardice."

Be careful that you call not unclean that which God hath cleansed, teetotler brother.

If God has made it and given it to men as a blessing, you do yourself harm before him by calling it an evil.

 

Very interesting. I have read that the strong drink offering in Numbers 28:7-10, was actually beer. The HCSB does say this; the NIV does not. (I don't have access to a NIV 2011, so it may use the word beer)

http://www.just1word.com/bible/verse/numbers_28:7/en?version=esv

Most domestic beers are around 4.5% to 5% alcohol. Most domestic lite beers are 4% to 4.2%. Budweiser introduced a new "lite" beer, Bud Light Platinum on Super Bowl weekend that is 6.0% alcohol and has 138 calories. So it's strong beer and it's not lite! (As one that does have a beer now and again I am very acutely aware of the percentage of alcohol contained.) I very rarely drink wine but I believe it is in the 12% to 14% range.

I think you make a great point that it's unlikely that they had distilled spirit alcohol in Bible days (vodka, gin, whiskey, etc.) This warrants further investigation, for if strong drink in Bible days meant higher alcohol wine and/or higher alcohol beer, then I'd say the drinking of vodka, rum, etc. is certainly off-limits for Christians.

 

I've seldom seen a more indefensible statement on the BB. Have you ever counseled an alcoholic? Have you ever ministered at a rescue mission and seen the homelessness caused by alcohol? Have you ever known and tried to help the children of an alcoholic?

My grandfather on Dad's side was an alcoholic and used to beat and otherwise abuse Dad regularly. Grandpa died when Dad was 12, after which Dad's two older brothers became alcoholics and beat Dad regularly. The agony caused in our family to this very day because of alcohol is incalculable. Only the miracle of God's love can help those hurt by alcohol.

Alcohol can leave a family penniless and starving. It can kill the drinker with liver disease, leaving children fatherless or motherless. It can cause terrible abuse of children and spouses. It can cause a man to lose his job and become homeless. It can destroy the soul and family in so many ways. Legalism does none of this.