Strong Drink (Deut. 14:26)

You just answered your own question for the different threads on the same subject. We need to go by scripture and not what we think, or what man tells us, for we know man creates confusion. I would have gladly welcomed the blessing from Isaac. "Therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine", Genesis 27:28. Can we find a Bible in which a Translator will dare change the Word of God, and call "Wine" grape juice?

And from the "corn" for food they found a by-product, that being "Corn whiskey". Deuteronomy tells us God gave His OK for the people to drink both "wine that will make drunk, as well as strong drink that will make drunk. One cannot get drunk on grape juice. That doesn't mean if we wish to have a drink of either one that we have to get drunk. We don't for we know we are not to become drunkards. People can drink, or not drink, and it makes no difference to me if a Christian does or doesn't. It is their business, but those that see it as sin should not continue to try and justify by what ever means necessary, forcing them to judge the brothers and sisters that do drink.

Is what God furnishes bad or good? I see He furnishes good but some make it bad. We don't have to accept every "gift" God gives to us, and wine is a gift to man to make mans heart glad. At least that is what my Bible says.

I really doubt that is what Timothy told Paul. Until people believe His Word, the debate will go on.

 

Of course not, but if one is addicted to one thing, and he preaches against other addictions, he needs to take a lesson from Mat 7:1-5. Any minister who struggles with his own addictions needs to recognize and acknowledge his problem, determine to fight it, and have his congregation hold him accountable. Only then could he preach about addictions without being a hypocrite. I have little respect for the blind leading the blind.

 

If God can forbid certain animals as unclean and then allow them in the same chapter during the annual tithe feast, then I would think He could also otherwise allow wine3196 and strong drink7941 at the same annual event.

 

Reference Please??

From my studies God only accepted certain sacrifices. If the priest offered a sacrifice that was unclean, or the priest himself was unclean, the sacrifice was unaccepted.

 

You and I are in 100% agreement on this issue. There is nothing good under the sun about alcohol, and is beyond me why anyone is pushing the agenda, forget the Bible even. It is called common sense. The Scriptures are quite clear about drunkedness. Why on earth would someone try to justify alcohol by different meanings of greek and hebrew?

To the ones comparing alcoholism to sports obsession, that is up there with the most ludicrious statements in the history of this board.

Here is my reference. Romans 12:1. My body and yours is the temple of the Living God. How about being a sunday school teacher, deacon, dad, husband, witness in the work place, are those enough references for all you moderate drinkers.

 

For those who try to justify drinking by showing the drink offering given to the priest, if you do a study in the Book of Numbers you will find that the drink offering was not drank by the priests, but rather it was poured out by the priest before the Lord as a sweet savour to the Lord.

 

This has nothing to do with burnt sacrifices. I am referring to what people could eat during the annual tithe festivals.

These were the things that were normally forbidden:

However, during the annual tithe feasts, the people could eat both clean and unclean animals (every first, second, fourth, and fifth year out of every seven, the people ate their own tithes):

 

True. However, during the annual tithe feasts, the people were allowed to drink wine and strong drink. The text specifically says that they were to eat their own tithe. Wine and strong drink were among the things listed as "whatsoever thy soul lusteth after." It would be utter disregard for the text to grasp at straws and to say that the wine and strong drink in this passage ("whatsoever thy soul lusteth after") would be used for the drink offerings given to the priests, when it is clearly not.

 

I refuse to consume any alcoholic beverage because I am scared to death of becoming an alcoholic. I despise being addicted to anything, and I refuse to put myself in a position that would make such possible. However, I am not defending drunkenness, I am defending Scripture itself, whether I like alcohol or not.

The Scriptures are quite clear on drunkenness. The Scriptures are also clear that alcohol has its limited minor usages.

Food is not sin. Overeating is sin.
Novacane (for surgery) is not sin. Abuse and getting high is sin.
Coffee is not sin. Addiction to the drug that is caffeine is sin.
Sex is not sin. Fornication and adultery are sin.

Overuse and abuse of anything is sin. Some people like to have their pet peeves about some things while being careless about others. Moderation in everything is important. It is true that virtually no one really needs alcohol. I feel that it is medicinal (as Scripture shows) and should be treated with respect as such. Medicine can easily be abused if not taken properly.

I agree. I would rather lump drunkenness with gluttony as the Scripture does.

I am not a drinker at all. Alcohol is a (natural) drug. Just like any drug, it must be treated with respect and can easily be abused. Just because a doctor prescribes morphine to a patient does not mean that anyone is free to use morphine as he sees fit. The same with alcohol. If one cannot use alcohol properly (as a medicine), then he has no business touching the stuff.

 

Of course when sin knocks at our own front door then it's different. Another man's sin is always worst than our own.

What does it matter the object of our desire (lust) or to what we are in bondage?

HankD

 

Here is a good article on the subject:


http://sbcpastor.blogspot.com/2006/07/paige-patterson-on-alcoholic-beverages.html

 

What else would a baptist preacher say

Anyone that argues for abstinence has to do so out of silence, or has to change the meaning of Scripture to support their notions, as this person did. Jesus made the "best wine". The Lord of Hosts serves the "best wine" (Is. 25:6). Let Scripture interpret Scripture...the "best" is the well aged, ALCOHOLIC wine.

 

Anyone who argues for moderation has to change the meaning of Scripture to support their notions

The Greek word for 'sober' in 4 verses in the Word of God is the word 'nepho' which means 'to abstain from alcohol.

nhjw nepho nay'-fo
of uncertain affinity: to abstain from wine (keep sober), i.e. (figuratively) be discreet:--be sober, watch.

Abstinence is clearly taught in the 4 verses that use this Greek word, 'nepho'.

1 Thessalonians 5:6
1 Thessalonians 5:8
1 Peter 1:13
1 Peter 5:8

Alcohol is forbidden in the life of Christians according to these verses alone out of the New Testament.

 

You are either being ignorant or not completely honest. Look at the first part of the definition: "of uncertain affinity" (or relationship). The word literally denotes "to be ready unhindered." Abstinence from wine is an application of the word wherein its specific connotation is implied through context.

An example of such an expression is Gen 4:1 "And Adam knew3045 Eve his wife." The denotative definition of the word "know" means "to ascertain a fact, or to be acquainted with something." The Hebrew word means exactly this. However, from context, used as a euphemism or figure of speech, a connotative definition of the word means "to engage in intercourse" (i.e. to really get to know someone).

Complete abstinence from alcohol is neither expressed nor implied in every occurrence of nepho. Concordances such as Strong's lists all denotations and connotations wherein a word has been defined in every context throughout the entirety of the text. Each iteration of a word does not carry all the definitions nor the shades from the listing. Your attempt is an appeal to authority through an erroneous case of dictionary games.

1Th 5:6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.

This passage expresses nothing about alcohol. The context clearly shows the use of the word in its purest denotation.

1Th 5:7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.
11Th 5:8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for a helmet, the hope of salvation.

As this verse follows from the previous verses, its context is that of being awake and ready "of the day." Being sober here is a state or condition; not implying an extremity in perpetuity.

1Pe 1:13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

Once again, the context does not reference alcohol in the least. The word is used in its purest denotation and expresses a watchful mind.

1Pe 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

Once again, the context does not reference alcohol in the least. The word is used in its purest denotation and expresses a watchful mind in preparedness for an attacker.

You still have not proven this in the slightest. Your proof texts have no context of alcohol (except 1 Thess 5, but the focus is the same and the emphasis is the contrast between the readiness of day and the ignorance of rest at night). You have done nothing but take a connotation from a Strong's index and misapply it as a denotation to four passages whose contexts prove only the true and simple denotation of the word itself.

If this is all the "proof" you have, then you are struggling. You also have to assume based on your preconceived notions that all clear references to the prescription of wine are non-alcoholic. Your alleged "proof" and assumption begs the question and is based on mere circular argumentation.

Please address my posts dealing with Deuteronomy 12 and 14. Did God allow (at least at certain times) the people of Israel to consume alcoholic beverages?

 

It is true God said 'Go buy whatever your soul lusteth after' in Deuteronomy 14, but if we read further in the Word of God, we find that those who truly wanted to have a relationship with God did not drink the wine or strong drink.

These were the same people God told to buy strong drink in Chapter 14 and yet He affirms that they did not drink it. Why did they not drink wine or strong drink? because they knew as Solomon affirmed later on that wine and strong drink perverts the judgment. They would not be qualified to know God's will for their lives.

 

Hey, if all you theological geniuses feel lead to drink, then by all means drink. Not only is His Blood Spoke My Name correct, one can make an excellent case for abstaining without ever opening Scripture. Its called life experience and common sense.

I do have one question, is it best to drink in moderation before, during or after witnessing? Before or after the kids finish their homework?

 

I don't drink--at all.

He is not.

Completely agree. No problem.

I wouldn't know since I don't drink at all. I haven't really even pushed "drinking in moderation." I mainly argued that alcohol is medicinal and should be treated as such.

I understand and am in perfect harmony with total abstinence. I am, however, against making Scripture say what it doesn't say.

 

Deuteronomy chapters 11-28 are laws that God gave to Moses that they would observe when they enter and take the promised land (Deu 11:31-32; 12:1-3; 19:1-3; 26:1; 27:1-5). The given statements happened after these laws were given, but before the people were to follow them.

Deu 29:5-6 shows God's provision for the nation of Israel while they were in the wilderness:

This passage shows that God sustained the people while they were in the wilderness. He kept their clothes from tearing and He nourished them even though they didn't have the convenience of civilized culinaries. Is there anything wrong with eating bread?

 

Let's see how the four verse line up when using abstain instead of sober in light of Solomon's revealing to his reader that alcohol causes one to forget the law and perverts judgment

1Th 5:6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and abstain from drinking wine.

Yep, works there. if the person abstains from drinking, he is able to watch for the enemy without his judgment being perverted.


11Th 5:8 But let us, who are of the day, abstain from drinking alcohol, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for a helmet, the hope of salvation.

I noticed you contrasted the day and night in verses 7 and 8, but did not contrast the drunkenence and soberness... any particular reason? At any rate, abstain fits just perfect in light of the contrast of drunkenness in verse 7. Day is exact opposite of night, sober is exact opposite of drunken.

1Pe 1:13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, abstain from drinking alcohol, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

Abstain from alcohol if one continues in the verses. Verse 13 is not the end of the thought as it ends with a semicolon, not a period. The thought actually carries on through verse 16. In light of Peter commanding one to 'gird up the loins of one's mind' we have a picture of a soldier who should have his mind clear for quick decisions. If his mind is clouded with alcohol, he cannot be an effective soldier. That is why Peter continues with

1 Peter 1:14 (KJV) As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
1 Peter 1:15 (KJV) But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
1 Peter 1:16 (KJV) Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

Don't cling to that which your flesh lusts for, but be holy in all your walk. A child of God cannot be holy with alcohol on his or her breath.

Abstain from alcohol works perfectly in verse 13 in light of the verses that follow.

The last verse

1 Peter 5:8 (KJV) Abstain from alcohol, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

continues

1 Peter 5:9 (KJV) Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.

How can one effectively resist the devil with that which deceives and perverts the judgment by clouding the mind?

The phrase 'abstain from alcohol' fits perfectly with any of the four verses in light of Solomon's Wisdom and good common sense.

 

This is an argumentum ad consequentum (appeal to consequences/emotions). You are still relying on a dictionary/substitution game. Just because a statement can make logical and grammatical sense through substitution, does not mean that q is a contextual synonym or substitute for p. p may imply q, but q does not necessarily imply p.

Proof by example. Just because the statement through substitution can be true, doesn't mean that the former implies or equals the latter. The text does not say this. The word sober in English and in Greek means "clear-mindedness" or "readiness." Clear-mindedness from alcoholic intoxication is one example of being sober, and its usage by implication must be clear from the context.

Here is the text (which includes your first two sober verses):

Drunken is not contrasted with sober. Drunken is compared with sleep. Night is contrasted with day, and sober is linked with day. To argue about drunkenness from this text would require you to argue that sleep is wrong.

Also, consuming any amount of alcohol does not result in drunkenness.

Once again, this is proof by example and appeal to consequences. Alcohol is not referenced in here, except by your attempt to inject a contextual connotation of the word sober where the context provides no clarity. Just because a soldier would be level-headed by abstaining from alcohol does not mean that the text is actually saying this. You are starting with your own premise and reading it into the text.

Appeal to emotion. You still have not proven that the Bible forbids any alcohol consumption. Even your alleged proof texts at a minimum reference drunkenness. Drunkenness implies intoxication. If I have a cold, and I take 2tsp of Nyquil, am I not "sober"?

Appeal to rhetoric. You are attempting to assume the meaning of a text through outside rhetoric. The verse is still talking about being alert. Also,
1. It does not mention drunkenness.
2. Even if it did, drunkenness does not equal all and any alcohol consumption; only that of being under its power.

You are not proving your original premise that Scripture forbids any and all alcohol consumption by appealing to the consequences of a mind altered by drunkenness, and your "proof" texts do not even adequately provide a case in context with reference to drunkenness. You are sincerely grasping at straws.

Solomon's (actually king Lemuel's) advice was for kings and princes (as opposed to poor [vv.6-7]).

Your "common sense" argument is about the only one that stands.