If you are a pastor or church leader read this

[evangelist6589]

I have heard pastors, church leaders, and school officials use Numbers 6:3 to aide their defense of teetolism and total absence from alcohol and wine. No doubt some of you do the same in your sermons and Sunday schools. However if you had read the whole chapter in context you would have come across verse 20 which gives the Nazarite permission to drink wine later on. I have read this in both ESV and NIV 84 so not sure what the other translations say. I say all this because when I was at BJU I heard Numbers 6 mentioned in chapels and class as a defense to the teetotalist argument which I can't find in the scripture, because the scripture does not forbid the drinking of wine.

 

[PreachTony]

And the point of this is what? Are you saying pastors should not warn against the potential evils of drinking? Even though the Bible allows for it does not necessarily mean we should do it. The Bible makes allowance for slavery, but we don't do that any longer.

If you're solely upset about people essentially using Numbers 6:3 as a proof-text against drinking, then you've got an uphill battle, because a lot of people use a lot of different texts to justify a lot of different things. If you convert everyone to your way of thinking on this one, do you simply move on to the next one?

 

[Baptist Believer]

I say all this because when I was at BJU I have heard Numbers 6 mentioned in chapels and class as a defense to the teetotalist argument which I can't find in the scripture.

The Nazirite position for abstaining from alcohol is a complete distortion and misuse of scripture. However, it is very popular because apparently few people, including those who claim this argument, seem to read and comprehend the plain wording of Numbers 6. A couple of things about the Nazirite vow:

1.) Must not drink wine or strong drink (v.3)
2.) Must not eat grapes or eat or drink anything produced from grapes including vinegar, grape juice (no communion!), raisins, grape seeds or skins. (v.3-4)
3.) Must not cut their hair and let their hair grow long. (v.5)
4.) Must not go near anyone who is dying, including close family members, and if anyone dies suddenly around you, you must restart the vow - including shaving your head - and making sacrifices. (v.6-12)
5.) Must go to the Tabernacle (which does not exist anymore) to offer sacrifices once your vow is over. (v.13-17)
6.) Must shave your head at the end of the vow and the hair be given as an offering. (v.18-20)

If you are going to be a Nazirite (an Old Testament vow, not commanded or encouraged since Christ has come), you have to do at least the bare minimum described in this passage (v.21), not pick and choose what is convenient for you.

It is strange that a lot of persons who preach that "Christians are supposed to be perpetual Nazirites" allegedly have a high view of scripture ("inerrantists") but grossly twist and misuse what is clearly there and add things to it, such as the idea that Christians are supposed to be Nazirites.

 

[PreachTony]

If you are going to be a Nazirite (an Old Testament vow, not commanded or encouraged since Christ has come), you have to do at least the bare minimum described in this passage (v.21), not pick and choose what is convenient for you.

At the risk of already derailing this thread... Just curious, BB, but what do you think of this verse in light of your comment bolded above? I've often heard this as pertaining to Paul taking the Nazirite vow.

And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.

 

[Baptist Believer]

At the risk of already derailing this thread... Just curious, BB, but what do you think of this verse in light of your comment bolded above? I've often heard this as pertaining to Paul taking the Nazirite vow.

I think Paul had likely taken the Nazirite vow. But you don't read about Paul commanding or encouraging others to do it - especially non-Jewish believers.

Is it wrong to take the vow? Not at all. But if you are going to call it the "Nazirite vow," you need to do it the scriptural way, not just abstain from fermented beverages.

 

[PreachTony]

I think Paul had likely taken the Nazirite vow. But you don't read about Paul commanding or encouraging others to do it - especially non-Jewish believers.

Is it wrong to take the vow? Not at all. But if you are going to call it the "Nazirite vow," you need to do it the scriptural way, not just abstain from fermented beverages.

Excellent point...though as you noted, one cannot literally perform the Nazirite vow any longer. The Tabernacle no longer exists and the necessity of sacrifice was eliminated by Christ. The Nazirite vow comes from the Hebrew word nazir, meaning "separated or consecrated."

Consider what Peter wrote:

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Going by what Peter wrote, we could argue that all Christians are called to be a separated and consecrated people; a holy priesthood serving under Christ our High Priest.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Going by what Peter wrote, we could argue that all Christians are called to be a separated and consecrated people; a holy priesthood serving under Christ our High Priest.

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean taking the Nazirite vow, eating Kosher, or following the Mosaic Law.

 

[PreachTony]

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean taking the Nazirite vow, eating Kosher, or following the Mosaic Law.

Exactly. We are no longer separated under the Law, but are instead separated under Grace.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Exactly. We are no longer separated under the Law, but are instead separated under Grace.

Yes, and what distinguishes us from everyone else is the manifestation of the fruit (singular) of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) and our love for one another (John 13:35).

 

[blessedwife318]

I have been to a bunch of churches that are against drinking and I have never heard them use Numbers 6:3 to proof text. If anything they use a systematic approach going through Proverbs, and the history of wine in Biblical days and contrasted with wine and other drinks today. And then going into stats on the risk of becoming an alcoholic and then ending with being a stumbling block to a brother. Now I am not a teetotaler but I see no need to attack them. I respect their convictions and would never want to be a stumbling block to them. I think its interesting how Evan has switched sides on this issue many times and his Cerm website still has him talking about the dangers of alcohol. I have to wonder what brought this thread up and with the history of the poster my guess is he got called out for drinking around a teetoler and instead of living out Rom 14 he is trying to justify himself. He is not showing love to the weaker brother which reveals a lot about him.

Now I know he won't see this since I'm on ignore but I just wanted to point out the misrepresentation of the arguments that teetolers make.

 

[PreachTony]

I have been to a bunch of churches that are against drinking and I have never heard them use Numbers 6:3 to proof text. If anything they use a systematic approach going through Proverbs, and the history of wine in Biblical days and contrasted with wine and other drinks today. And then going into stats on the risk of becoming an alcoholic and then ending with being a stumbling block to a brother. Now I am not a teetotaler but I see no need to attack them. I respect their convictions and would never want to be a stumbling block to them. I think its interesting how Evan has switched sides on this issue many times and his Cerm website still has him talking about the dangers of alcohol. I have to wonder what brought this thread up and with the history of the poster my guess is he got called out for drinking around a teetoler and instead of living out Rom 14 he is trying to justify himself. He is not showing love to the weaker brother which reveals a lot about him.

Now I know he won't see this since I'm on ignore but I just wanted to point out the misrepresentation of the arguments that teetolers make.

I'm not on ignore, so I don't know if this will mean he can see your post or not. I don't use the Ignore function, so I'm really at a loss (and too lazy to check out the FAQ).:smilewinkgrin:

 

[blessedwife318]

I'm not on ignore, so I don't know if this will mean he can see your post or not. I don't use the Ignore function, so I'm really at a loss (and too lazy to check out the FAQ).:smilewinkgrin:

If you are not on ignore he will see any thing you quote so he will see it now. Although I don't expect him to acknowledge it. Thanks for quoting it though

 

[blackbird]

And the point of this is what? Are you saying pastors should not warn against the potential evils of drinking? Even though the Bible allows for it does not necessarily mean we should do it. The Bible makes allowance for slavery, but we don't do that any longer.

If you're solely upset about people essentially using Numbers 6:3 as a proof-text against drinking, then you've got an uphill battle, because a lot of people use a lot of different texts to justify a lot of different things. If you convert everyone to your way of thinking on this one, do you simply move on to the next one?

Alcohol is a mind inhibiter----not a mind inhancer!!

I've seen the effects in all different ways

I choose to remain a teetotaler for the remainder of my lfe

 

[evangelist6589]

And the point of this is what? Are you saying pastors should not warn against the potential evils of drinking? Even though the Bible allows for it does not necessarily mean we should do it. The Bible makes allowance for slavery, but we don't do that any longer.



If you're solely upset about people essentially using Numbers 6:3 as a proof-text against drinking, then you've got an uphill battle, because a lot of people use a lot of different texts to justify a lot of different things. If you convert everyone to your way of thinking on this one, do you simply move on to the next one?

But in many places in the OT wine is viewed as a blessing from God. Slavery is not. I am not saying we need to warn against drinking I am simply arguing against teetotalism and those that apply one standard to everyone. Many need to completely abstain from alcohol but not everyone has the temptation. Myself and my parents for example have never been drunk, yet drink on occasion sometimes. What's wrong with that? If we are not a stilumbling block and never have been drunk there is no sin. But not in the mind of the teetolist!

 

[evangelist6589]

I'm not on ignore, so I don't know if this will mean he can see your post or not. I don't use the Ignore function, so I'm really at a loss (and too lazy to check out the FAQ).:smilewinkgrin:

I have heard numbers used at BJU. Another comment is that it is possible I have changed my views on some issues overtime. When I wrote that article I was IFB ARMINIAN but no longer so my views have changed.

I modified it and clearly said I am not a teetolist and so therefore my warnings against alcohol is valid for alcohol is dangerous and can lead astray! However I do not agree with the teetotalism position.

 

[evangelist6589]

Alcohol is a mind inhibiter----not a mind inhancer!!

I've seen the effects in all different ways

I choose to remain a teetotaler for the remainder of my lfe

Alcohol can be dangerous. However this is not to say that teetotalism is correct for some can drink and not sin. I disagree with those that preach their conviction on others for alcohol is a area of discernment.

 

[blessedwife318]

Myself and my parents for example have never been drunk, yet drink on occasion sometimes.!

One horrible morning I got so drunk on the stuff that my mind was completely fried, which made it very difficult to focus and reason.

link

So which statement is true?

Also why the sudden interest in attacking the weaker brother for their convictions? That is not following Romans 14 very well.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I have been to a bunch of churches that are against drinking and I have never heard them use Numbers 6:3 to proof text.

I can name three pastors that have used the "Nazarite" argument from the pulpit. However, none of them have actually taken the congregation to Numbers 6 since that would reveal their argument is false.

It is a real thing, even if you haven't run across it.

 

[PreachTony]

Myself and my parents for example have never been drunk, yet drink on occasion sometimes.!

One horrible morning I got so drunk on the stuff that my mind was completely fried, which made it very difficult to focus and reason.

link

So which statement is true?

Also why the sudden interest in attacking the weaker brother for their convictions? That is not following Romans 14 very well.

Quoted for clarification from OP... just in case blessedwife is still on his ignore list...

 

[blessedwife318]

I can name three pastors that have used the "Nazarite" argument from the pulpit. However, none of them have actually taken the congregation to Numbers 6 since that would reveal their argument is false.

It is a real thing, even if you haven't run across it.

I don't deny that its a real thing. There is a lot of crazy stuff out there and people proof text all the time. But I do take issue with the OP presenting this like its the only argument that people that abstain from Alcohol have when it is clear that he knows there are other arguments as he himself has made those other arguments on his own web page. I do not like deception and that is what he is doing by acting like this is the only argument they use.