Does the Bible teach a Christian Must abstain from all alcohol?

[JonC]

@JonC,
Pasteurized grape juice, wine is not, fresh or not.

I agree. Pasteurized juice is not wine.

However, I never mentioned pasteurized juice. I was talking about wine in the Bible, not the process Pasteur invented in the 19th century. The wine continued the fermentation process in wineskins.

 

[Salty]

to keep this thread on OP - I started a new thread: Wine vs grape juice -

 

[PreacherBruce]

I haven't read many of the responses but I submit my conviction on this topic in the attached PDF file which is the result of fasting, prayer, and study. I hope it's a blessing.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

Know that many do uphold must never taste any once saved, but is that a cultural norm more than stated directly in the Bible as strict prohibition?

"Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright." (Proverbs 23:31)

Scripture commands that we not even look at alcohol, so it makes no sense for us to drink it either. Wine in Scripture refers to either fermented or unfermented grape juice. Alcohol is ungodly, and is always portrayed as such.

 

[JesusFan]

Ancient Beers (grain) and Wines (fruit) ran a wide range of alcohol content from modern Beer/Wine at the high end to very watered down mixtures with strange additives for flavor. It was the Water/Soda/Sport Drink of its day.

Jesus was able to supernaturally turn water into Gold medal real wine in seconds, which normally would have needed much more time to do "naturally"

 

[JesusFan]

"Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright." (Proverbs 23:31)

Scripture commands that we not even look at alcohol, so it makes no sense for us to drink it either. Wine in Scripture refers to either fermented or unfermented grape juice. Alcohol is ungodly, and is always portrayed as such.

Nothing in and by itself is evil and sinful to partake of, its just is it beneficial or harmful to us?

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

Nothing in and by itself is evil and sinful to partake of, its just is it beneficial or harmful to us?

That's simply not true. There are things that are sinful. For example, fornication is sinful. Lying is sinful. Etc. Alcohol itself is wicked, according to the Scripture above.

 

[JonC]

"Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright." (Proverbs 23:31)

Scripture commands that we not even look at alcohol, so it makes no sense for us to drink it either. Wine in Scripture refers to either fermented or unfermented grape juice. Alcohol is ungodly, and is always portrayed as such.

I think you may need to read the entire thing. It is speaking against drunkedness.
For example, don't gaze at a beautiful woman speaks against lust. Doesn't mean not to even look at her.

Wine contained alcohol (which is why new wine would burst old wine skins, why Elizabeth defended herself by noting the time, why the best was served first, snd even why wine is used as a reference to the Holy Spirit).

I agree we shouldn't drink. But I think we have to be faithful to Scripture and saying wine in the Bible was without alcohol is a quick defence that is not faithful to Scripture and the reason words were chosen as symbols. There is a reason deacons were not to be people given to much wine.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

I think you may need to read the entire thing. It is speaking against drunkedness.
For example, don't gaze at a beautiful woman speaks against lust. Doesn't mean not to even look at her.

Wine contained alcohol (which is why new wine would burst old wine skins, why Elizabeth defended herself by noting the time, why the best was served first, snd even why wine is used as a reference to the Holy Spirit).

I agree we shouldn't drink. But I think we have to be faithful to Scripture and saying wine in the Bibke was without alcohol is a quick defence that is not faithful to Scripture and the reason words were chosen as symbols.

The prohibition is not overruled by the reason for it. The prohibition is to not even look at alcohol, because if you do, you will be deceived by it. The passage is clear that looking at alcohol (just looking at it) will (not might, not could, but WILL) make you look upon women whom you ought not. The passage plainly states this.

Proverbs 23:31-35
"Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. Thine eyes SHALL behold strange women, and thine heart SHALL utter perverse things. Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast. They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not: when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again."

This is echoed by Paul when he says that evil communications CORRUPT good manners (1 Corinthians 15:33). What we look at affects us, and thus the Lord commands not to even set your eyes upon sin (Psalm 101:3, Ephesians 5:11), such as alcohol.

 

[JonC]

The prohibition is not overruled by the reason for it. The prohibition is to not even look at alcohol, because if you do, you will be deceived by it. The passage is clear that looking at alcohol (just looking at it) will (not might, not could, but WILL) make you look upon women whom you ought not. The passage plainly states this.

Proverbs 23:31-35
"Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. Thine eyes SHALL behold strange women, and thine heart SHALL utter perverse things. Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast. They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not: when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again."

This is echoed by Paul when he says that evil communications CORRUPT good manners (1 Corinthians 15:33). What we look at affects us, and thus the Lord commands not to even set your eyes upon sin (Psalm 101:3, Ephesians 5:11), such as alcohol.

The problem is Scripture does not prohibit alcohol.
Yes, we do not set our eyes on alcohol, or on the flesh for that matter.
But several passages tell us that wine, while warned of overindulgence and drunkedness, was not prohibited.

You may believe that deacons are not to be given to much non-alcoholic grape juice, that somehow grape juice put in old grape juice skins would magically cause the old ones to burst, etc. And that is fine.

The problem, however, is this also means that you are unable to grasp many symbols used in the Bible and cannot understand several sayings. By molding Scripture to your preferences you prevent yourself from understanding parts of Scripture.

In Scripture wine is associated with blessing. It is associated with joy. It is used as a symbol for the Spirit. This is due to the effect of wine (not to the point of being drunk, but the effect of the alcohol in wine).

Wine was used as a medicine and as a component of medicine because of the alcohol. A little was (and is) good for the stomach.

But Scripture warns against drunkedness. It also warns against the temptation of overindulgence .

In the Bible wine was produced and once the fermentation started new wine was stored in wine skins to mature. The gasses produced expanded the skins. Old wine skins would be stiff. If you fermented new wine in old wineskins the wineskins would burst because of the fermentation process.

Several 1st century Jewish wineries have also been discovered. So we know from history and Scrioture that wine in the Bible contained alcohol.

And yes, it was common to dilute the wine with water.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

The problem is Scripture does not prohibit alcohol.
Yes, we do not set our eyes on alcohol, or on the flesh for that matter.
But several passages tell us that wine, while warned of overindulgence and drunkedness, was not prohibited.

You may believe that deacons are not to be given to much non-alcoholic grape juice, that somehow grape juice put in old grape juice skins would magically cause the old ones to burst, etc. And that is fine.

The problem, however, is this also means that you are unable to grasp many symbols used in the Bible and cannot understand several sayings. By molding Scripture to your preferences you prevent yourself from understanding parts of Scripture.

I've come to understand Scripture more clearly after studying the use of wine. I disagree with the statement that I am somehow preventing myself from understanding the Bible.

In Scripture wine is associated with blessing. It is associated with joy. It is used as a symbol for the Spirit. This is due to the effect of wine (not to the point of being drunk, but the effect of the alcohol in wine).

It seems to me that the wine referred to as a blessing is grape juice, not some wine that defiles (as the book of Daniel puts it). A blessing does not defile you. Consider the warnings about alcohol in Scripture; it's not a blessing!

Wine was used as a medicine and as a component of medicine because of the alcohol. A little was (and is) good for the stomach.

There is some benefit by virtue of it being from grapes. Grape juice has at least as many, if not more, health benefits than alcohol, and without the risk of causing cancers like alcohol does. Science has found that there is no safe limit of alcohol, that it is all bad, but we have stories of people curing cancer by eating grapes. Talk about a powerful medicine! Get yourself some grapes, and avoid alcohol, which God forbids.

But Scripture warns against drunkedness. It also warns against the temptation of overindulgence .

Drunkenness is, as I have put it, a threefold sin. Sin in looking at, sin in drinking, and sin in insobriety. When viewed this way, passages against drunkenness are not contrary to the notion that alcohol is sinful to be drunk, only that it refers to the threefold nature of alcohol's sin.

In the Bible wine was produced and once the fermentation started new wine was stored in wine skins to mature. The gasses produced expanded the skins. Old wine skins would be stiff. If you fermented new wine in old wineskins the wineskins would burst because of the fermentation process.

I don't have anything to say about this because what you are attempting to say makes no sense to me, so I won't entertain such notions. Also, the Bible says bottles, not "wineskins."

 

[JonC]

I've come to understand Scripture more clearly after studying the use of wine. I disagree with the statement that I am somehow preventing myself from understanding the Bible.

It seems to me that the wine referred to as a blessing is grape juice, not some wine that defiles (as the book of Daniel puts it). A blessing does not defile you. Consider the warnings about alcohol in Scripture; it's not a blessing!


There is some benefit by virtue of it being from grapes. Grape juice has at least as many, if not more, health benefits than alcohol, and without the risk of causing cancers like alcohol does. Science has found that there is no safe limit of alcohol, that it is all bad, but we have stories of people curing cancer by eating grapes. Talk about a powerful medicine! Get yourself some grapes, and avoid alcohol, which God forbids.


Drunkenness is, as I have put it, a threefold sin. Sin in looking at, sin in drinking, and sin in insobriety. When viewed this way, passages against drunkenness are not contrary to the notion that alcohol is sinful to be drunk, only that it refers to the threefold nature of alcohol's sin.


I don't have anything to say about this because what you are attempting to say makes no sense to me, so I won't entertain such notions. Also, the Bible says bottles, not "wineskins."

Yes, the word ἀσκός (skin) can be translated "leather bottle". I think "wineskins" better because that is what they were. But if you want to be exact, the word is "skin".

The problem with using just "bottle" is that corrupts the passage.
I agree that drunkenness is a sin. So is gluttony and adultery.

The problem with your reasoning is evident in your post. You changed Scripture. Had you said "bottle made of skin" or just "skin" rather than "bottle" then it could be said that you interpreted the word.

But as it stands you changed Scripture to suit your belief.

Why do you believe ministers were called upon to not drink much non-alcoholic juice?

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

Yes, the word ἀσκός (skin) can be translated "leather bottle". I think "wineskins" better because that is what they were. But if you want to be exact, the word is "skin".

The problem with using just "bottle" is that corrupts the passage.
I agree that drunkenness is a sin. So is gluttony and adultery.

The problem with your reasoning is evident in your post. You changed Scripture. Had you said "bottle made of skin" or just "skin" rather than "bottle" then it could be said that you interpreted the word.

But as it stands you changed Scripture to suit your belief.

"And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved." (Luke 5:37-38)

Why do you believe ministers were called upon to not drink much non-alcoholic juice?

That's not for me to decide. God said so, and thus it must be. When it comes to the Bible, I'm quite simple: If God said it, it may not make sense to me now (or possibly ever), but God is always right, so I just have to obey. And also, it says not GIVEN to wine. He's not to give himself over to grape juice.

 

[JonC]

"And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved." (Luke 5:37-38)


That's not for me to decide. God said so, and thus it must be. When it comes to the Bible, I'm quite simple: If God said it, it may not make sense to me now (or possibly ever), but God is always right, so I just have to obey. And also, it says not GIVEN to wine. He's not to give himself over to grape juice.

This is what I mean by you bending Scripture to your liking.

Ministers not drinking much wine escapes you...you chalk it up to mystery. But those who study Scripture understand.

The word is ἀσκός. It does not mean "bottles". It means "skins". The reason "wineskins" is used instead of "skins" is for clarity. But a more literal translation would be that you do not out new wine in old skins.

You are changing Scripture. That is a sin.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

This is what I mean by you bending Scripture to your liking.

Ministers not drinking much wine escapes you...you chalk it up to mystery. But those who study Scripture understand.

The word is ἀσκός. It does not mean "bottles". It means "skins". The reason "wineskins" is used instead of "skins" is for clarity. But a more literal translation would be that you do not out new wine in old skins.

You are changing Scripture. That is a sin.

I'm going to trust the KJV translators on this one. I'm not changing anything, merely looking at what is written and understanding it based on what is said elsewhere. If the Bible has already said that you're not even to look at alcohol (therefore looking at alcohol is a sin), then the Bible cannot be permitting bishops or deacons to drink it.

Using this as my basis, I do "chalk it up to mystery" because at least currently, I do not understand exactly why God placed that there. But He is the one in charge, not me.

And I should not be accused of changing Scripture, because simply the Bible says bottles. That's not me, that's the Bible. You're the one sinning by bringing a false accusation against me.

 

[JonC]

I'm going to trust the KJV translators on this one. I'm not changing anything, merely looking at what is written and understanding it based on what is said elsewhere. If the Bible has already said that you're not even to look at alcohol (therefore looking at alcohol is a sin), then the Bible cannot be permitting bishops or deacons to drink it.

Using this as my basis, I do "chalk it up to mystery" because at least currently, I do not understand exactly why God placed that there. But He is the one in charge, not me.

And I should not be accused of changing Scripture, because simply the Bible says bottles. That's not me, that's the Bible. You're the one sinning by bringing a false accusation against me.

I understand. Per your understanding the KJV translators made a mistake (the word is literally "skins", you are forgetting wine, juice, and water was not kept in bottles in the 1st century).

But this is false. In the 16th century wine was kept in leather bottles (typically made of sheep or goat skins). Prior to being sold they were kept in wooden barrels, and when a customer obtained new wine the wine would be put in bottles made of skin. The glass prior was used for perfumes and medicines but was too thin for juice or wine (a glass that would not come about until coal glass furnaces were invented).

This is the problem with using the KJV for many today. You assumed the 16th century bottle was a bottle as we would us today. The KJV predates glass wine bottles.

So while the KJV is perfectly adequate for its time the antiquated language can cause confusion to modern people, especially if they neglect studying Scripture.


You DID change Scripture. Here is why:

1. The actual word is "skins"
2. The KJV uses "bottles" which were at the time made of animal skins
3. You are denying what the Greek word means AND what "bottles" in the KJV means and are exchanging the word in Scripture for a more modern invention.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

I understand. Per your understanding the KJV translators made a mistake (the word is literally "skins", you are forgetting wine, juice, and water was not kept in bottles in the 1st century).

But this is false. In the 16th century wine was kept in leather bottles (typically made of sheep or goat skins). Prior to being sold they were kept in wooden barrels, and when a customer obtained new wine the wine would be put in bottles made of skin. The glass prior was used for perfumes and medicines but was too thin for juice or wine (a glass that would not come about until coal glass furnaces were invented).

This is the problem with using the KJV for many today. You assumed the 16th century bottle was a bottle as we would us today. The KJV predates glass wine bottles.

So while the KJV is perfectly adequate for its time the antiquated language can cause confusion to modern people, especially if they neglect studying Scripture.


You DID change Scripture. Here is why:

1. The actual word is "skins"
2. The KJV uses "bottles" which were at the time made of animal skins
3. You are denying what the Greek word means AND what "bottles" in the KJV means and are exchanging the word in Scripture for a more modern invention.

Okay, Mark Ward. Now it's a sin to read the KJV. Give me a break.

If this is how you are going to argue, I want no part in it. "You're sinning!" "No, you're sinning!" "Nuh uh, it's YOU who are sinning!"

How foolish.

There's nothing in Scripture, no matter how much you try and twist it, that supports drinking alcohol. It is always placed in a bad light, and even considered sinful to LOOK at. Merely looking at alcohol is sinful. A lot of Christians don't get this, which is why they watch sports with alcohol everywhere, they watch movies and TV shows with alcohol in them — this is a great evil.

 

[David Lamb]

Okay, Mark Ward. Now it's a sin to read the KJV. Give me a break.

If this is how you are going to argue, I want no part in it. "You're sinning!" "No, you're sinning!" "Nuh uh, it's YOU who are sinning!"

How foolish.

There's nothing in Scripture, no matter how much you try and twist it, that supports drinking alcohol. It is always placed in a bad light, and even considered sinful to LOOK at. Merely looking at alcohol is sinful. A lot of Christians don't get this, which is why they watch sports with alcohol everywhere, they watch movies and TV shows with alcohol in them — this is a great evil.

Who is Mark Ward? You were replying to a post from JonC, who, incidentally, didn't say that it was a sin to read the KJV.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

Who is Mark Ward? You were replying to a post from JonC, who, incidentally, didn't say that it was a sin to read the KJV.

Perhaps you ought to reread his message. The argument being used was the same as Mark Ward's.

 

[David Lamb]

Perhaps you ought to reread his message. The argument being used was the same as Mark Ward's.

Sorry, but I have been all the way through the messages in this thread, and I cannot find a single post from somebody called Mark Ward.