• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

DRINKING ALCOHOL?

SpiritualMadMan

New Member
I guess any attempt at moderation and the middle ground is a *very* vain attempt?

Larry,

Thank you for your educational respite. Though it appeared to be somewhat argumentative and angry.

Now, what is your point?

I asked if there was a *real* Wine Maker on-board. Did I not?

And, would you please comment on the meaning of this verse:
Jer 48:11 Moab hath been at ease from his youth, and he hath settled on his lees, and hath not been emptied from vessel to vessel, neither hath he gone into captivity: therefore his taste remained in him, and his scent is not changed.
This sure seems to say that, in a Biblical sense, settling on one's lees is not a good thing.

And, the imagery clearly comes from the wine-making of *that* day.

So, either God's Word is in error, or 'our' interpretation is in error, or there is a difference in the yeasts and grapes between the two geographical areas.

Probably the latter.

And, I did say that:
The actual injunction is to be not 'drunk'. It does not say we should be soured face always serious people. We *are* allowed to be merry.

But, we have to let our moderation be made known to all men.

In this respect, we meet up with the two-edged sword of Christian Liberty...

Is it possible in most circles to have a glass of wine or {a} single beer and not be thought of as condoning *all* that goes along with that 'product' group.

I think not.
Smoky, I liked your contrast between the 'Wine of Blessing' and the 'Wine of Cursing'. Very Interesting.
 

CalvinG

New Member
I'm enjoying this post. Because, though I am a Baptist, I have had only one problem with the denomination: they don't use wine (as Jesus did) in communion.

When did this practice start? If we are trying to use the early, pre-Romanized church as an example, why do we change this practice of the early church?

I've heard the argument that some people can't have alcohol or they will go back to being alcoholics. Maybe. But what must be a practice for them does not have to be a practice for the rest of us. And I would say that folks without alcohol problems constitute a clear majority within the Baptist denomination.

Why change a practice outlined in Scripture? (I would love to try to talk the Baptist denomination back into using wine with communion. But I'm sure better people than me have tried and failed.)

Someone quoted,
Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!
To me, this Scriptural passage seems to be saying that it is wrong to get someone drunk for the purpose of looking upon their nakedness. That seems to me the only interpretation which gives meaning to every word of the sentence of Scripture. The previously proffered interpretation appears to ignore or render irrelevant the words, "that thou mayes look on their nakedness!" So interpreted, the miracle of changing water into real, alcoholic wine, would not be contrary to Scripture in any respect.

I'm thinking of copying this into the Baptist forum to see what our Baptist seminarians think about this.

Blessings,
CalvinG
 

Smoky

Member
My goodness, we can't even agree on the millenia-old meaning of the term "the lees". Please see my post above for quotes from various winemakers using the term in the present day usage. The meaning hasn't changed over time.
"Wine on the lees" is a mistranslation made by Anglican tranlslators of the KJV. I guess you've heard the old expression "where you have four Episcopalians you'l always have a fifth". They wanted it to be alcoholic wine.
 

Smoky

Member
To me, this Scriptural passage seems to be saying that it is wrong to get someone drunk for the purpose of looking upon their nakedness
I hope you understand in saying this that you're also saying that it's OK to get others drunk. I'd rather be judged for looking on nakedness than getting others drunk.
 

LarryN

New Member
SMM:

No offense intended, I'm not feeling angry about anything. By the way, I have no personal interest in this topic; there's no wine in my home; and I've always lived a *dry* lifestyle.

Not being a wine expert myself, =), I decided to provide the next-best thing I could think of: Quotes from some actual winemakers.

What's my take on the verse you mention? Just as we can learn from the wine producer's quotes themselves- being "on the lees" for too long is a bad thing. Just as you alluded to in an earlier post, occasionally the impurities have to be "racked" off- being "on the lees" for too long or indefinitely will result in spoilage.
A common, analogous phrase used today might be "to not rest on one's laurels". The "vessel to vessel" reference is to the process in winemaking of racking off the impurities; in our lives it may mean to not become stagnant. Read the verse with the lens of Moab not resting on his laurels (becoming set in his ways). Might this not be what it refers to? If I had a good commentary handy I'd see what it might have to say.
 

LarryN

New Member
Smoky,

Hey, we agree on the fact that no manmade translation of God's Holy Word is without errors. I'm not a KJVO-er either.
 

LarryN

New Member
Originally posted by Smoky:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> My goodness, we can't even agree on the millenia-old meaning of the term "the lees". Please see my post above for quotes from various winemakers using the term in the present day usage. The meaning hasn't changed over time.

"Wine on the lees" is a mistranslation made by Anglican tranlslators of the KJV. I guess you've heard the old expression "where you have four Episcopalians you'l always have a fifth". They wanted it to be alcoholic wine. </font>[/QUOTE]Smoky, forgive me for pointing out that you seem to be contradicting your previous statements.
A few posts ago you said that "the lees" wasn't the by-product of fermentation, but instead was the filtering process.
You now have conceded my point that "the lees" indicates alcoholic content, but attribute its inclusion in the verse to the bias of the Anglican translators.

You can't have it both ways.
 

SpiritualMadMan

New Member
Commentaries, anyone?
Barnes:
Jer 48:11 -
Moab from the time it conquered the Emims Deu_2:9-10, and so became a nation, had retained quiet possession of its land, and enjoyed comparative prosperity. From the Moabite Stone we gather that King Mesha, after the death of Ahab threw off the yoke of Israel; nor except for a short time under Jeroboam II was Israel able to bring the Moabites back into subjection. They gradually drove the Reubenites back, and recovered most of the territory taken from the Amorites by Moses, and which originally had belonged to them.
He hath settled on his lees - Good wine was thought to be the better for being left to stand upon its sediment Isa_25:6, and in all cases its flavor was rendered thereby stronger (marginal reference). “By being emptied from vessel to vessel” it became vapid and tasteless. So a nation by going into captivity is rendered tame and feeble. By his taste is meant the flavor of the wine, and so Moab’s national character.
Not what I expected! But, that's what study and being a Berean is all about.


Clarke:
Moab hath been at ease - The metaphor here is taken from the mode of preserving wines. They let them rest upon their lees for a considerable time, as this improves them both in strength and flavour; and when this is sufficiently done, they rack, or pour them off into other vessels. Moab had been very little molested by war since he was a nation; he had never gone out of his own land. Though some had been carried away by Shalmaneser forty years before this, he has had neither wars nor captivity.
Therefore his taste remained in him - Still carrying on the allusion to the curing of wines; by resting long upon the lees, the taste and smell are both improved. See the note on Isa_25:6.
Geneva Translators Notes:
Jer 48:11 - Moab hath been at ease from his youth, and he hath settled on his lees, and hath not been (i) emptied from vessel to vessel, neither hath he gone into captivity: therefore his taste remained in him, and his scent is not changed.

(i) Has not been removed as the Jews have, but have lived at ease, and as a wine that feeds itself on his lees.
Gill:
Jer 48:11 - Moab hath been at ease from his youth,.... Lived in great peace and prosperity from the time they became a kingdom; being very little disturbed with wars by their neighbours, or very rarely; so that they were in very prosperous and flourishing circumstances, which occasioned that pride and haughtiness they were notorious for. This is an emblem of unregenerate men; who, though sinners from their birth, and liable to the curse of the law, subject to the stroke of death, and must come to judgment; yet stupid and quite at ease, having no sight of sin, nor feeling of the burden of its guilt, nor grief or trouble for it; no sense of danger, or fear of hell; but in the utmost security: all which arise from ignorance, hardness of heart, profaneness, and infidelity; thoughtlessness about their immortal souls; putting the evil day far from them; and being under the influence of Satan, who keeps his goods in peace:

and he hath settled on his lees; a metaphor taken from wine; which, the longer it remains on the lees, the better body it has, and the richer and stronger it is; and denotes the great tranquillity of the Moabites; the riches they were possessed of, and in which they trusted. The Targum renders it,

"quiet in their substance;''

herein they were an emblem of unconverted sinners, who are settled and hardened in the corruptions of their nature; and not at all disturbed at the evil of sin; the wrath of God; his judgments on men; the last and awful judgment; or at the terrors of hell; and likewise of such who trust in their own righteousness, and depend upon that for salvation:

and hath not been emptied from vessel to vessel; like wine that has never been racked off from the vessel or vessels it was first put into: they were never removed from place to place, but always continued in their land; in which they were an emblem of such who have never seen their own emptiness, and their want of the grace of God, and have never been emptied of sin, nor of self-righteousness:

neither hath he gone into captivity; this explains in proper words the metaphor in the preceding clause: the Moabites had never been carried captive out of their own land into others; an emblem of such who have never seen their captive state to sin and Satan; or ever brought to complain of it, or become the captives of Christ;

therefore his taste remained in him, and his scent is not changed; his wealth, riches, and prosperity, continued without any change and alteration; and also his sins and vices, idolatry, pride, luxury, and which were the cause of his ruin; and for that reason are here mentioned; an emblem of unregenerate men, whose taste is vitiated by sin, and continues as it was originally; they relish sin, and disrelish everything that is good; and savour the things that be of man, and not the things of God; and so are in a most dangerous condition.
Wesleys:
Jer 48:11 - At ease - The Moabites ever since they began to be a people, have been a quiet people. Settled - Like a cask of wine, that has not been racked but has continued in the same state. Not emptied - A metaphor of wine which is drawn out from vessel to vessel, when it is drawn off the lees. It is expounded by the next words. Therefore - And this is the reason why they retain their old sins, pride, presumption, and luxury.
JFB:
Jer 48:11 - settled on . . . lees--(See on Isa_25:6; Zep_1:12). As wine left to settle on its own lees retains its flavor and strength (which it would lose by being poured from one vessel into another), so Moab, owing to its never having been dislodged from its settlements, retains its pride of strength unimpaired.

emptied from vessel, &c.--To make it fit for use, it used to be filtered from vessel to vessel.

scent--retaining the image: the bouquet or perfume of the wine.
Quotes courtsey of e-Sword available for FREE download at www.e-sword.net

Wouldn't it be nice if all these guys could agree? :eek:
 

Smoky

Member
A few posts ago you said that "the lees" wasn't the by-product of fermentation, but instead was the filtering process.
You now have conceded my point that "the lees" indicates alcoholic content, but attribute its inclusion in the verse to the bias of the Anglican translators.
No, I apologize for that. I meant to say that "the lees well refined" refers to a filtering process. The word for "well refined" is
zaqaq , zaw-kak'; a primitive root; to strain, (figurative) extract, clarify :- fine, pour down, purge, purify, refine. In other words, the seperation of the vintage produce (shemer)from the juice was a process to prevent fermentation by separating the albumen and seeds, the things that cause fermentation, from the juice. When making grape juice you do it right away so it won't ferment. I appreciate the research you did to show how to make good wine, but this was not a case of making good wine. It was a case of making good grape juice.
 

No Deceit

New Member
"I'm enjoying this post. Because, though I am a Baptist, I have had only one problem with the denomination: they don't use wine (as Jesus did) in communion."

Calvin, this should trouble you.

Matthew 15:9
And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."

Smoky I have yet to hear your explaination of the verse I provided about giving strong drink to him who is perishing.

In His love,
al soto
A True Church
 

Smoky

Member
Larry, I still think the KJV translation of "wine on the lees" is a wrong translation. "On the lees" causes you to think of the process of making wine, but that's not necesarrily what is implied in the original Greek. I wasn't trying to correct the translation, I was just trying to say what I believe "wine on the lees well refined" means in the original. In fairness to the KJV, the verse is also mistranslated in modern versions that say "well aged wine". There is just a bias that exists in Bible translators that really think it refers to alcoholic wine. I just don't believe it does, because, to me, it would place too many controdictions in the bible.
 

Smoky

Member
Smoky I have yet to hear your explaination of the verse I provided about giving strong drink to him who is perishing.
I believe you can give strong drink or any other drug to someone perishing, if indicated. It was OK when it was written, but there are better things today! I believe "perishing" refers to someone on their death bed, not a lost condition spiritually. I strongly disagree that you give strong drink to someone who is suffering from being spiritually bereft. The idea is sick. If that's what you mean by it, it's no better than doing it to uncover nekadness.
 

No Deceit

New Member
Smoky, you are wrong.

Question: Where is the verse/vereses that prohibit, calls sin, the consumption of alcohol?

al
 

CalvinG

New Member
In fact, No Deceit, Scripture reveals that the Apostle Paul tells Timothy, who is a minister, that he should drink wine. Surprise, surprise, that medical science has revealed positive health effects to moderate alcohol consumption!! It's only been in Scripture for nearly two mellinia.

I do not advocate getting anyone else drunk for any purpose. But there is a middle ground. Plenty of people, such as myself, are capable of moderate alcohol consumption. And nowhere in Scripture is this indicated to be a sin.

It makes me wonder about the entire temperance movement and what on earth prompted that in this country. It certainly wasn't Scripture.

Someone once told me that the wine of Jesus' miracle represents joy. I don't think this makes it any less "wine."

I still wonder what social mores lead the Baptist denomination to reject the use of wine in the Lord's Supper. If the Reform is an attempt to get closer to the practices of the early Church, why do we not defer to the Christians during the time of the Apostles with respect to this practice? As I understand it, it wasn't even possible to regularly have unfermented grape juice during those times.

Blessings,
CalvinG
 

No Deceit

New Member
Well Calvin, the reason I started this thread was to make a point-there are many false teachers and many follow them (2 Peter 2:1). This is just one doctrine among many that is taught as truth. The doctrines of men, which are not of Christ.

Don't touch, don't eat, these are doctrines of men, among many others. Please visit our web site and you will understand our point of view.

In His love,
al soto
A True Church

PS. Another thread I started is "Did God cause 9-11-01" (under this same section: Other Religions/Doctrines) which exposes another falacity being taught out there. Yes, I believe God caused it.
 

Clint Kritzer

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by No Deceit:
"I'm enjoying this post. Because, though I am a Baptist, I have had only one problem with the denomination: they don't use wine (as Jesus did) in communion."

Calvin, this should trouble you.

Matthew 15:9
And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."

Perhaps you would care to reconcile why this should be "troubling" when abstinence from alcohol is commended in the Scriptures.

Leviticus 10:9 - abstinence commanded to the Levitical priests - 9"Drink no wine or strong drink, you or your sons with you, when you go into the tent of meeting, lest you die. It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations.

Numbers 6:3 - abstinence part of the nazarite vow - he shall separate himself from wine and strong drink. He shall drink no vinegar made from wine or strong drink and shall not drink any juice of grapes or eat grapes, fresh or dried.

Deuteronomy 29:6 - abstinence used as part of the purification of the Jews in the wilderness - 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.

Jeremiah 35:6 - The Rechabites commended for generations of abstinence - But they answered, "We will drink no wine, for Jonadab the son of Rechab, our father, commanded us, 'You shall not drink wine, neither you nor your sons forever.

Luke 1:15 - John the Baptist an abstainer by command of the angel - for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.

Romans 14:21 - abstinence commended by Paul - It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.


You are correct, moderate drinking is not condemned by the Scriptures, but neither is abstinence. You have taken your position too far to the other side to remain within your own parameters of avoiding "the doctrines of men."
 

CalvinG

New Member
Clint,

I noticed that you had to dig awfully hard to find that Scriptural references to not partaking of alcohol.

Can we agree that Jesus drank wine with alcohol content? And that he did this during the Last Supper? You would do differently?

Regarding your quotes, Lev 10:9 refers to a particular place and time when the Levitical priests were not to drink wine: "when you go into the tent of meeting." This is not a general commandment for the Levites not to drink. And it would appear to be superceded by Jesus' saying to have the Lord's Supper in rememberence of Him.

Numbers 6:3 Hmmm...Baptists are going to have a hard time defending having grape juice rather than wine during Communion. Because it seems to equally forbid grape juice, which is what is used.
"any juice of grapes, fresh or dried."

Purification of the Jews in the wilderness: Seems that God was profiding them with mana and quail during that time. That seems a bit different from today. And wine was probably just one other thing that wasn't availaible (along with a variety of other foods) but which they had occasionally enjoyed in Egypt.

Jeremiah 35:6 I'm not a Rechabite, at least not that I know of. Are you? I think the admonition not to get drunk with wine is adequate. There may be some folks who can't have alcohol at all, but that does not mean that everyone's practice needs to change just because some people, who are generally capable of self identifying, might relapse if they had a drink.

Luke 1:15. This command was given at the command of an angel, as you concede. It applied to one person, not to mankind generally. Come to think of it, didn't John the Baptist eat locusts, too? Any chance of the Baptist denomination's adopting that practice? I hope not!

Matt 3:4: "John's clothes were made of camel's hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey."

Rom 14:21 This passage does not commend vegetarianism any more than it commends abstinence in my opinion. It seems to be focused on avoiding doing things which will "cause your brother to stumble."

Timothy had to be told to have "a little wine" with his meals. Why do you think Paul told him that? One may reason that Timothy didn't drink or at least didn't drink enough wine to suit Paul. Could it be that Paul wanted to avoid making abstinence a tradition?

I will be interested in your responses.

Blessings,
CalvinG
 

No Deceit

New Member
The argument was not made that we should drink, nor did I deny there are those who are not to drink, and finally if there is a weak brother of course this would be a time not to drink.

The argument made is this: To teach that drinking alcohol is sin, unrighteous, against God, is heresy and false teaching. Don't make me say what I have not said.

In His love,
al soto
 
Top