Wine in the first century

[Don]

The problem is not that of getting drunk, but of being a drunkard. Eating to much at Thanksgiving does not make you a glutton. Taking a day off to rest and do no work does not make you a sluggard.


I have heard people rant on about how buying and drinking alcohol damages our witness. How much more damage do we do by not rightly handling the Word of God and instead take the easy route of just saying it's bad, when God does not even do that? We ought not draw lines in the sand that God Himself does not draw.

While I agree with you, I refer you to Romans 15:1, and ask you to reconcile your post with the preceeding passages (Romans 14) and the opening verses of Romans 15.

My answer would be, hear their complaints, and teach them--if they're teachable. If they're not, or they can't understand, is where the distinction then lies. Do we continue doing something they count as sin, and thereby potentially cause a desire that could lead to their self-incrimination/destruction?

Of course, my answer to Afghanistan was also "teach them." But no one's really listening to that, either. <grin>

 

[Luke2427]

While I agree with you, I refer you to Romans 15:1, and ask you to reconcile your post with the preceeding passages (Romans 14) and the opening verses of Romans 15.

My answer would be, hear their complaints, and teach them--if they're teachable. If they're not, or they can't understand, is where the distinction then lies. Do we continue doing something they count as sin, and thereby potentially cause a desire that could lead to their self-incrimination/destruction?

Of course, my answer to Afghanistan was also "teach them." But no one's really listening to that, either. <grin>

I agree with you, Brother Don that we ought to be mindful of the weaker brother concerning this issue.

But I regret that teetotalism and prohibitionism in this nation has created so many weaker brothers which other nations do not have to bear.

Certainly, it is true that if one's conscience bothers him about a deed then he should avoid that deed even if that deed is perfectly ok. It becomes sin for him.

What is unfortunate in this culture is that so many have a disturbed conscience about that which should not bother them at all- the moderate and responsible use of alcohol.

 

[John of Japan]

My grandfather died of type II diabetes. Should I hate sugar for what it did to my grandfather?

This is an invalid comparison. Sugar does not cause diabetes. Obesity does.

First of all, 10% is a small percentage. This would be more useful to you if it were 40 or 50%.

10% is an unacceptable risk to me in any case involving life and death. I'm amazed that you think a 10% chance of your child becoming an alcoholic is an acceptable risk. If there was a 10% risk of your child being hit by a car would you let him play in traffic?

But that would make us almost as legalistic as preaching against all recreational usage of alcohol makes us.

Teetotalism is not legalism unless one believes abstaining makes you holy. I do not. I believe abstaining prevents sin and disease.

This is blatantly wrong. Numerous passages support the drinking of alcohol. The church has known this for nearly two thousand years.

Please share with me those numerous verses.

Take away the Proverbs, which are not by nature precepts but general truths with plenty of exceptions, and you have NO sensible scriptural argument.

So you simply ignore the warnings in Proverbs? Are you neo-orthodox, believing that the Bible only becomes the Word of God to you in that existential moment? So you don't heed Proverbs because the existential moment has not arrived and may never arrive?

But of course there are other Scriptues argue against alcohol. You simply haven't studied the issue very well, apparently.

Isa 5:11 Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them!

Isa 5:22 Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:

Need I go on?

 

[Luke2427]

This is an invalid comparison. Sugar does not cause diabetes. Obesity does.

Respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about. Consuming too much SUGAR is what causes diabetes regardless of whether or not one is obese.

Just for the record, my papaw was a big man but not obese.

10% is an unacceptable risk to me in any case involving life and death.

10% is not the risk of death.

And it is not 10% of responisble Christians- it is 10% of all people including people who INTEND to get drunk regularly.

Your stats can be accurate and not applicable at all.

The amazing thing about your stats is that they support social drinking.

NINETY PERCENT of all people who drink do NOT become drunkards- INCLUDING the MILLIONS of people who have every INTENTION of getting drunk on a regular basis.

If NINETY percent of these kinds of people do not become drunkards, then the Christian who drinks responsibly should have no fear of becoming a drunkard.

And since MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of Christians worldwide drink because their countries were never plagued by the backwards doctrine of teetotalism- this is a very good thing.

I'm amazed that you think a 10% chance of your child becoming an alcoholic is an acceptable risk. If there was a 10% risk of your child being hit by a car would you let him play in traffic?

As I pointed out the ten percent is not applicable to responsible Christians.

It is too broad and includes, as far as we know, MOSTLY people who INTEND to get drunk regularly.

What it does NOT consist of is people who INTEND to drink responsibly.

Teetotalism is not legalism unless one believes abstaining makes you holy. I do not. I believe abstaining prevents sin and disease.

Think about what you just said here, John.

Teetotalism prevents sin but it does not make you holy??????

It is legalism John if you define it this way.

If, to a particular person, it is a sin to drink or get drunk and it is holy to avoid sin- then his teetotalism is legalism.

Your stance on teetotalism is probably legalism ad you don't know it.

Please share with me those numerous verses.

You don't know them?

So you simply ignore the warnings in Proverbs? Are you neo-orthodox, believing that the Bible only becomes the Word of God to you in that existential moment? So you don't heed Proverbs because the existential moment has not arrived and may never arrive?

This is insulting, John and you should behave better than this.

What most of us know is that Proverbs are not precepts and you don't develop doctrine, like teetotalism, from them.

Do you NOT know that, John??

But of course there are other Scriptues argue against alcohol. You simply haven't studied the issue very well, apparently.

No there are not and the proof is that the best you can do is provide the following verses that have NOTHING to DO with drinking responsibly.

Isa 5:11 Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them!

Certainly. Anyone addicted to ANYTHING bears a great woe.

This is true for the legalist who is addicted to his self-righteousness as well- perhpas a greater woe is upon him because his soul is rotten.

Isa 5:22 Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:

Once again- OBVIOUSLY this is so. Even ATHEISTS agree with these facts.

The verses you provide do not even in the slightest even REMOTELY condemn drinking alcohol responsibly.

They condemn a lifestyle of drunkenness which every single person on baptistboard, including the most LIBERAL among us is quick to condemn.

You have made absolutely no point with these verses, John. None.

Need I go on?

I think it is obvious that you can't; unless by "go on" you mean to provide other verses that are as COMPLETELY irrelevant to this discussion as the two you provided above.

You, I figure, believe these things for the same reason I believed them- not because they are actually IN the Bible, but because they are positions the people who raised and trained you taught you to believe.

And if you want to hold on to these things because you respect Billy Sunday and John R. Rice- fine. I don't begrudge you that privilege. Both were fine men in their own ways.

But don't go around, like here on baptistboard, and pretend that your traditions of men are the word of God when they CLEARLY are not, John.

That's when your traditions become something darker- that's when they become legalism.

If you preach that Christians ought to abstain from the consumption of alcohol because the consumption of alcohol is a sin when the Bible NO WHERE says this- you are a legalist- plain and simple.

You may not mean to be- but it's what it amounts to. Let's call a spade a spade.

Now if you want to ADVISE people not to drink- that's just fine. If you want to WARN against drunkenness- well that's BIBLICAL.

But you step BEYOND the bounds of Scripture and into DANGEROUS territory when you speak for God when God has not spoken.

When you purport that God says that all recreational drinking is sin- you have just condemned on behalf of the Almighty that which he never gave you permission to condemn on his behalf. This is dangerous.

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."

 

[glfredrick]

I find it interesting that the individual who basically started the Reformation was the owner of a brewery.

"Whenever the devil pesters you, at once seek out the company of friends, drink more, joke and jest, or engage in some form of merriment."

'Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we prohibit
and abolish women? The sun, moon and the stars have been
worshipped; shall we pluck them from the sky? See how much
He has done thru me even though I just prayed and preach,
the Word did it all. If I wanted to, I could have started
a conflagration at Worms. But while I sat still and drank
beer with Philip in Hahnsdorf, God dealt the papacy a
mighty blow'.

“All I have done is to put forth, preach, and write the Word of God. Apart from that I have done nothing. While I have been sleeping or drinking Wittenberg beer, it is the Word that has done great things. I have done nothing. The Word has done and achieved everything.”

Luther commented about his wife, Katherina:

"Doctor, preacher, brewer, pig breeder, and whatever else she may be."

I find it ironic that monks, who were willing for the sake of God to live austere lives in stone rooms in monestaries, were also the brewers of famous liquors. They seemed to find no issue with that practice, though they lived lives that were otherwise sepratist to an extreme that most in the world could never comprehend.


Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
--Benjamin Franklin

No animal ever invented anything as bad as drunkenness - or
as good as drink.
--G.K. Chesterton

At the end of the day, however, I -- like virtually ALL believers -- realize the great Tempter and what HE can do with something of God's bounty, and alcohol is one of his prime tools in the process. We should likely apply the Apostle Paul's admonition as to the weaker brother and stumbling, taking meat intended for idols, etc., into heart before simply placing a yeah or nay on the issue of drinking. But to stipulate that drink is utterly prohibited in Scripture OR in practice in biblical days is to be a liar, for it simply is not so.

 

[Luke2427]

I find it interesting that the individual who basically started the Reformation was the owner of a brewery.







Luther commented about his wife, Katherina:




I find it ironic that monks, who were willing for the sake of God to live austere lives in stone rooms in monestaries, were also the brewers of famous liquors. They seemed to find no issue with that practice, though they lived lives that were otherwise sepratist to an extreme that most in the world could never comprehend.


Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
--Benjamin Franklin

No animal ever invented anything as bad as drunkenness - or
as good as drink.
--G.K. Chesterton

At the end of the day, however, I -- like virtually ALL believers -- realize the great Tempter and what HE can do with something of God's bounty, and alcohol is one of his prime tools in the process. We should likely apply the Apostle Paul's admonition as to the weaker brother and stumbling, taking meat intended for idols, etc., into heart before simply placing a yeah or nay on the issue of drinking. But to stipulate that drink is utterly prohibited in Scripture OR in practice in biblical days is to be a liar, for it simply is not so.

Here, Here!!

Good thoughts and well said, Brother.

A documentary I enjoy called Ultimate Factories featured the Jack Daniels factory in Lynchburg, TN recently. I learned something. Jack Daniels was a real person who got his world famous "recipe" for his liquor from a preacher.

The church would be better off in our society if it would rewind about 150 years on this particular issue- and several others for that matter.

 

[gb93433]

Respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about. Consuming too much SUGAR is what causes diabetes regardless of whether or not one is obese.

That is not true. Many things can cause diabetes. An intake of sugar will cause the pancreas to produce more insulin which is what produces fat producing. That may or may not cause diabetes depending on the person. Some people are born with diabetes. A traumatic event can cause diabetes. Everyone eats sugar in one form or another. It is what the body needs to live. If one exercises hard the body does not insulin at that time. The sugar goes directly to the muscles without the need of insulin. If one eats low carb food then the liver takes over to produce what is needed. They are many other details. Today with the knowledge and other things we have there is no excuse for someone to have problems associated with diabetes.

 

[John of Japan]

Think about what you just said here, John.

Teetotalism prevents sin but it does not make you holy??????

It is legalism John if you define it this way.

If, to a particular person, it is a sin to drink or get drunk and it is holy to avoid sin- then his teetotalism is legalism.

Your stance on teetotalism is probably legalism ad you don't know it.

You are correct. I mis-spoke myself. What I meant to say is that teetotalism prevents temptation.

This is insulting, John and you should behave better than this.

What most of us know is that Proverbs are not precepts and you don't develop doctrine, like teetotalism, from them.

Do you NOT know that, John??

You apparently believe that the rescriptions in Proverbs warning against alcohol have nothing to do with you. That's what I am getting from your posts. You've not exegeted them. (And of course I know that Proverbs are proverbs.)

I think it is obvious that you can't; unless by "go on" you mean to provide other verses that are as COMPLETELY irrelevant to this discussion as the two you provided above.

You, I figure, believe these things for the same reason I believed them- not because they are actually IN the Bible, but because they are positions the people who raised and trained you taught you to believe.

"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?" This is how it always ends up when I debate you. You think you know the hearts of others, but you are clueless about mine. There is much more I could say about the subject (What three OT groups were teetotalers and why?), but I see no reason to go on with this discussion with you. Once again, it is fruitless.

And if you want to hold on to these things because you respect Billy Sunday and John R. Rice- fine. I don't begrudge you that privilege. Both were fine men in their own ways.

Once again you are clueless, trying to read minds. I do not respect Sunday on this issue, not at all. His own son was a drunkard.

But don't go around, like here on baptistboard, and pretend that your traditions of men are the word of God when they CLEARLY are not, John.

That's when your traditions become something darker- that's when they become legalism.

If you preach that Christians ought to abstain from the consumption of alcohol because the consumption of alcohol is a sin when the Bible NO WHERE says this- you are a legalist- plain and simple.

You may not mean to be- but it's what it amounts to. Let's call a spade a spade.

Now if you want to ADVISE people not to drink- that's just fine. If you want to WARN against drunkenness- well that's BIBLICAL.

But you step BEYOND the bounds of Scripture and into DANGEROUS territory when you speak for God when God has not spoken.

"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?" I haven't preached on alcohol in literally decades. Mine is a personal view, not a doctrine. Your vicious assumptions are disgusting.

When you purport that God says that all recreational drinking is sin- you have just condemned on behalf of the Almighty that which he never gave you permission to condemn on his behalf. This is dangerous.

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."

And now you are accusing me of idolatry???? Vicious judging of another man's servant. I'm out of here.

 

[jonathan.borland]

I've never tasted an alcoholic beverage or a tobacco product in my whole life. Just the way I was raised. But remember 1 Cor 8:13. This issue in today's society, regarding brothers or non believers alike, is the meat of Paul's day. I see no benefit and always the potential to harm another's faith or budding faith. Besides, I often wonder about the principles behind warnings and even laws, like no wine EVER for the priests, or the nazarites, those special ones like Samson and John the Baptist who were to be set apart for a special purpose. Are we not now a kingdom of priests? It's like fasting. Imagine a lifetime of fasting from a particular pleasure for the glory of God. That's how I see it, anyway.

 

[glfredrick]

As to the individual conscience... No universal "law" that applies to everyone.

 

[mont974x4]

While I agree with you, I refer you to Romans 15:1, and ask you to reconcile your post with the preceeding passages (Romans 14) and the opening verses of Romans 15.

My answer would be, hear their complaints, and teach them--if they're teachable. If they're not, or they can't understand, is where the distinction then lies. Do we continue doing something they count as sin, and thereby potentially cause a desire that could lead to their self-incrimination/destruction?

Of course, my answer to Afghanistan was also "teach them." But no one's really listening to that, either. <grin>

Of course we should take those teachable moments and make the best of them. I apologize for being unclear. When I talk of not taking the easy way out here I imply that we are to intentionally do the hard work of first fully studying the issue ourselves and then teaching others the truth. At that point they will either remain legalists or they will embrace the truth and freedom we have on the issue. I would not choose to not drink for the sake of the legalist who has been taught but refuses to learn for at that point he is the stumbling block. I would probably not drink anyways, just for the sake of peace. I would choose to not drink for the sake of the brother truly struggling with this issue.

That said, I do enjoy the occasional beer, glass of wine, and other adult beverages. I do so because I am free to do so according to Scripture. I do so because I enjoy the flavor. I do so on the advice of my doctors, although they told me to have a drink every night and I do not do so.


I speak on this knowing full well the impact drunkards, including my own past sinful state, have on a family. As fully as I also know the impact of legalism.

 

[jonathan.borland]

As to the individual conscience... No universal "law" that applies to everyone.

I agree. Gb93433 brought up the point that you could offend someone by not drinking in some cultures. Having lived in Asia for the last 10 years, I agree. But in America, I think the chances are more likely in the reverse, since those who drink casually don't care if you prefer a different beverage, and those who drink to get drunk (almost all who drink where I live in Asia) need to see a living example of one who never drinks to get drunk!

 

[glfredrick]

I'm reminded at how shocked I was once moving from Wisconsin -- the BEER DRINKING capital of the whole USA -- to Kentucky, a place more in line with Bible-belt thinking, and discovering that all the liquor stores in KY had drive-up windows. :laugh:

No one in Wisconsin would ever think twice about going into some establishment to buy beer, etc. (did I mention beer?)

In places where the church and the concept of tee-totalling is more evident, people hide in their cars. Worst thing EVER would be for one deacon to spot another deacon buying alcohol! They would have to split the church to keep their secret!

Another shocker was "dry" counties, cities, etc. In Wisconsin "dry" meant that it was time for another. :laugh:

Note that I am NOT advocating FOR alcohol use in general. I am taking up the argument against the legalism of some views on the subject -- they (in my opinion) being driven more by the rhetoric of the Temperance movement than by the Scriptures.

 

[mont974x4]

I'm reminded at how shocked I was once moving from Wisconsin -- the BEER DRINKING capital of the whole USA -- to Kentucky, a place more in line with Bible-belt thinking, and discovering that all the liquor stores in KY had drive-up windows. :laugh:

No one in Wisconsin would ever think twice about going into some establishment to buy beer, etc. (did I mention beer?)

In places where the church and the concept of tee-totalling is more evident, people hide in their cars. Worst thing EVER would be for one deacon to spot another deacon buying alcohol! They would have to split the church to keep their secret!

Another shocker was "dry" counties, cities, etc. In Wisconsin "dry" meant that it was time for another. :laugh:

Note that I am NOT advocating FOR alcohol use in general. I am taking up the argument against the legalism of some views on the subject -- they (in my opinion) being driven more by the rhetoric of the Temperance movement than by the Scriptures.

I have been stationed in (semi) dry counties in the South. You could not buy alcohol, except on post, on Sundays. So when shopping off post on Saturday we were regularly reminded to "buy Sunday's ration" while you can.

 

[Jerome]

SBTS President Mohler preaching on alcohol, addresses the faulty assumptions, etc. of those on this recent 'booze booster' bandwagon:

SBTS Theology Forum

Jesus turned the water into wine, but the word wine, when you find it, especially in the New Testament, does not mean, what we probably think it means.

We've all seen some of the websites and the weblogs. . . .Let me tell you that I find a great deal of immaturity reflected there. It's all of the sudden like we have a young generation trying to say, "Hey we are so much smarter than our parents, we are so much more mature and more liberated, we can enjoy these things, and now I'm going to recommend my favorite beer and my favorite wine to all of my friends.' And it's, frankly, I think it's sad, immature

 

[jonathan.borland]

I much prefer Hershey's chocolate to the idea of drinking something that smells so nasty!

 

[jonathan.borland]

What's truly intoxicating is the smell of an ice cold Dr. Pepper. Those who live overseas know what I mean. Can I get an amen?

 

[webdog]

Jesus turned the water into wine, but the word wine, when you find it, especially in the New Testament, does not mean, what we probably think it means.

Of course it doesn't We all know intoxication occurs from ingesting too much Welch's...

We've all seen some of the websites and the weblogs. . . .Let me tell you that I find a great deal of immaturity reflected there.

I think based on the above stance that wine is not really wine, the immaturity is not with the younger generation, but the one that has taken man's traditions over Scripture.

It's all of the sudden like we have a young generation trying to say, "Hey we are so much smarter than our parents, we are so much more mature and more liberated, we can enjoy these things, and now I'm going to recommend my favorite beer and my favorite wine to all of my friends.' And it's, frankly, I think it's sad, immature

Garbage. I honestly see the 'new breed' of theologian not just accepting everything they have always been told, and instead dive into Scripture to see what God says. When viewing the 244 references to alcohol in Scripture, it is clear the "immature" view is the one held by Mohler.

Recommending a favorite drink is no different than recommending a favorite burger. Nothing "immature" and "sad" about it.

 

[mont974x4]

Of course it doesn't We all know intoxication occurs from ingesting too much Welch's...
I think based on the above stance that wine is not really wine, the immaturity is not with the younger generation, but the one that has taken man's traditions over Scripture.
Garbage. I honestly see they new breed of theologian not just accepting everything they have always been told, and instead dive into Scripture to see what God says. When viewing the 244 references to alcohol in Scripture, it is clear the "immature" view is the one held by Mohler.

Recommending a favorite drink is no different than recommending a favorite burger. Nothing "immature" and "sad" about it.

Agreed. :thumbs:

 

[glfredrick]

SBTS President Mohler preaching on alcohol, addresses the faulty assumptions, etc. of those on this recent 'booze booster' bandwagon:

SBTS Theology Forum

Mohler and SBTS mandate a 100% compliance among faculty and students.

I tend to agree that he takes the traditional Baptist approach, as does NAMB and other SBC entities.

Not that there are no good reasons for such, there are, nor that there are biblical exceptions, there are (and they know them). But rather the emphasis is the "avoid the appearance of evil" aspect that so far has not made it into this conversation.

I have found that the issue is indeed cultural. I already mentioned that in Wisconsin beer is king. Since returning to the state after a 15 year absence (except for brief trips) I am again immersed in a culture where beer lubricates EVERYTHING. It amazes me what one can get done for beer. Cars fixed, homes repaired, gardens plowed, you name it, the price is a 12 pack -- and not because there HAS to be a price, but because in the culture THAT is the way that one says a meaningful and heartfelt "Thanks!" for something that the neighbor would have done anyway. To be seen in the state without a beer is to be seen as someone who is "snobish" (i.e., probably not from around here, and also someone who thinks that their **** doesn't stink, with references to noses turned up and perhaps an intimation that one is actually from "Ill-n-noise" -- in local parlance, of course). Some from outside might (wrongly) think that the residents are in this for the shock value. They would be wrong. More like coffee in Seattle... Just EXPECTED and NORMAL.

So, as a preacher, who does not wish to cause others to stumble, nor to violate the mandate of my alma matter, the NAMB, and other friends, missionaries, and partners in ministry, I abstain as a matter of course, not because I have to, but because it is easier. Additionally, as one who was a former drunk (not an alcoholic, but one who lived with a beer as constantly as possible as do other residents of the state) I know the difference and why. I understand now the nuances between A drink and drinks. I know why people do drink, and drunkenness has little to do with it (until Friday or Saturday night), and also how a culture can effect one's view on this issue. I believe I have the freedom and the grace to have one if I chose, but chose not.