Hope this helps, folks. For the full article, see this page

HEBREW WORDS TRANSLATED "WINE".

In any study about what the Bible teaches about wine it is necessary to research the original language as there are actually 11 Hebrew words which have been translated by the one English word "wine." Each Hebrew word has a different meaning though all are somehow related to the juice of the grape.

Method of search: After noting the differences in meaning it will still be necessary to make a careful search as words may still change their meaning in context. Especially in reading the King James Bible it is necessary to read with understanding when one wants to clearly perceive the subject of "wine".

Neither will a superficial look at a verse do. any more than a mind set in its ways. I remember once as a young preacher in a country church in Missouri, while I was presenting similar material, my lecture was broken into half way through. Some of the older Sunday School teachers said loudly, "We've heard this kind of thing for 20 years and it never did do any good." And it didn't.

Let us approach this study with a more open mind and "search whether these things be so." Let's begin by noticing all the words in the Hebrew Bible that are translated "wine". Then let us see how the words are used in context to see further what they mean. Let us not draw conclusions simply on the definition.

MEANING OF HEBREW WORDS TRANSLATED "WINE."

The following definitions may be checked in Gesenius, Strong, Tregelles or any other standard Hebrew Lexicon.

These are taken from Strong and Gesenius.

YAYIN :
Means: to effervesce (as fermented) by implication intoxication. - translated wine, banqueting, wine (bibber). Gesenius says it gets its name from a root meaning to effervesce, ferment. It is used 144 times in the O.T. mostly but not always refers to alcoholic wine.

TIYROSH :
(From yarash, to expel) meaning: "must' or fresh grape juice (as just squeezed out) by implication (as it is to become) fermented wine. -- translated new wine, sweet wine. Used 36 times in the O.T. always means fresh grape juice except for Hos. 3:11 by metonomy.(Gesenius)

SHEKAR :
An intoxicant, intensely alcoholic liquor: translated strong drink drunk and, strong wine translated 16 times strong drink, one time wine.

CHEMAR :
from CHemas, to boil, hence ferment, wine (as fermenting) -translated pure, red, wine. Used 7 times as wine including Belshazzar's feast which uses the Aramaic form CHemra' above: for the Hebrew form (CHemer) see Isa. 28:2.

ASIYS :
: from Asas to squeeze out juice. meaning: must or fresh grape juice as just trodden out. -translated juice, new wine, sweet wine, Used 5 times in the O.T. 4 times translated wine.

SHEMER :
preserved settlings of wine on lees. Translated 2 times wine.

YAQEB :
: a winevat into which wine drains or in which grapes are crushed, -translated fats (archaic for vats)-presses-press fat-wine (press) Used I time as wine in Deut. 16:13

MAMSAK :
wine mixed with water or spices translated drink offering -mixed wine. Used 1 time as wine.

SOBE :
potation (i.e. alcoholic liquor) concr. wine; abstr. carousel. -Translated drink, drunken, wine. Used 1 time as wine.

ANAB :
Meaning to bear fruit, a grape, a ripe grape,-wine -Translated I time wine Hos. 3: I meton intox KJV raisin cakes in Revised Version.

GATH :
from a root meaning to tread out grapes- a wine press translated wine 1 time Neh 13: 15

FURTHER ANALYSIS OF HEBREW WORDS TRANSLATED WINE. YAYIN AND TIYROSH IN CONTEXT

A. Out of then 11 words translated "wine" five mean non-alcoholic grape juice.

1. Tiyrosh: fresh juice.
2. Yekeb: fresh wine perhaps bubbly but not intoxicating.
3, Anab: meaning the fruit of the grape, not intoxicating.
4, Asiys: juice just trodden out.
5, Gath: the winepress but by metonomy wine, not fermented.

B: Five of the 11 words refer to intoxicants.

1. Shekar: Strong intoxicant. Num. 28:7.
2. Hemar: fermented red wine Dan 5:1, 2, 4
3. Mamsak: wine mixed with water and spices, intoxicating Prov. 23:30.
4. Sobe: wine of carousel Is. 1:22.
5. Shemar: settlings of wine of what is left among the lees.

C. One of the 11 generally means intoxicating wine but with many contextual exceptions.

1. YAYIN:
Yayin is called yayin from the time it is processed when at first it must correspond to Tiyrosh but also during all stages of fermentation, from the time it is freshly pressed to fermentation it is called yayin. It is really used more like the American word cider than the word "wine", which current English speaking people almost always take to mean an alcoholic drink. Cider is cider when it is fresh pressed and even before, i.e. "cider apples" and when it is peppy enough to be more flavorful but not strong with fermentation. The analogy may differ a little when it turns "hard" though it is still called "cider," (it is hardly a delicious drink as it is quite nasty at that stage.) Thus "cider" is a more apt. comparison of the use of Hebrew word Yayin since it (i.e. cider), describes the juice of the apple at all stages. so does "yayin" the juice of the grape at all stages Therefore it will be found in contexts that are both negative and positive, that is approving and disapproving. It is a mixed blessing and often a curse. (only a person seeking to justify intoxication would see Noah awaking from his wine to curse a portion of his posterity or Lot's drunkenness masking the conception of incestuous bastardy (a poor start for the Ammonites and Moabites) as a good context.

YAYIN AND TIYROSH IN CONTEXT

A. Yayin:

Places in the Bible where Yayin is used where it means non-intoxicating:

1. Is 16:10 "no one treads out wine in the winepresses." It could not possibly be fermented if it is still in the wine press. Here it is only yayin by intent of what it is to become In the winepress it is only juice and could not be fermented.

2. Jeremiah 40: 10 "Harvest the wine and summer fruit and store it in jars."

3. Jer. 40:12 "They harvested abundance of wine and summer fruit." Here the wine is still in the grape i.e. what is harvested and the juice stored in jars is not fermented. When they harvested the abundance it was not yet fermented so only called wine because that is what it would become. As yet it was grape juice. Thus, in some contexts the word refers to non-intoxicating yayin.

4. Jar. 48:33 "stop the flow of wine from the winepresses."

5. Is. 2:12 (probably to be taken the same way), "corn and wine to fail."

In these contexts the word yayin is used of the end product when speaking of both the ripe fruit and that which flows out of the winepress. It is only yayin by metonomy while in actual fact it is grape juice pressed to make yayin. Thus "yayin" does not always refer to alcoholic wine though that is its general meaning.

YAYIN IS SPOKEN OF NEGATIVELY 62 TIMES

The following examples of the use of Yayin are in a negative context, that is, where the word "wine" is spoken of as producing undesirable effects or there are negative prohibitions associated with it. It should here be stated that blessings of wine spoken about in the Bible are never Yayin, always Tiyrosh. With one exception to be later noted.

Yayin:
the word "wine" in each of the following passages is "yayin" in Hebrew:

Noah awoke from his wine, Gen 9:24; Their wine is the poison of dragons, Deut. 32:33; Put away your wine from you, I Sam. 1:14; Amnon's heart was merry with wine, 2 Sa. 13:28; When the wine had gone out of Nabal, 2 Sam. 25:37; The King was merry with wine; Esth. 1:10; The wine of astonishment, Ps. 60:3; Wine of the temptress, Prov. 9:2,5; Wine is a mocker, Prov. 20:1; He that loves wine will not be rich, 21:17; They that tarry long at the wine, 23:30: Look not on the wine when..., 23:31; Not for kings to drink wine, 31:4; Until wine inflame you, Is. 5:11; mighty to drink wine, 5:22; overcome with wine, 28:7; Like a man whom wine hath overcome, Jar. 23:9; made him sick with bottles of wine, Hos. 7:5; Sold a girl for wine, Joel 3:3; drink the wine of the condemned, Amos 2:8; drink wine in bowls, 6:6; The prophet of wine is a people pleaser, Mic. 2:11; Transgress by wine, Hab 2:5; Make a noise as through wine, Zec 9:15.

The point to be driven home here is that yayin is spoken of in negative contexts in a natural way. Tiyrosh, fresh juice, never.- it does not once appear in a negative context (with one exception by metonomy.)

TIYROSH IN CONTEXT

The word "wine" in each of the following is Tiyrosh in Hebrew:

Blessings of.....corn and wine, Gen 27:28; All the best of the wine, Nm. 18:12; (Israel blessed) in a land of corn and wine, Deut. 33:28; Wine which cheers the hearts of God and men, Judges 9: 13; The first fruits of corn and wine, 2Chr.31:5;a land of corn and wine (a blessing), Is.36:17; "I (God) gave her corn and wine," Hos 2:8; (when God blesses the) wine will make the maidens beautiful, Zec. 9: 17; The "tithe of wine" was always Tiyrosh, Deut. 12: 17; 14:23

There were drink offerings of yayin (alcoholic) but these were not drunk by the Priests in the tabernacle as will be seen below. They were poured on the sacrifice or the altar or on the ground. Because the tithe always came from the first fruits of the harvest it is obvious why Tiyrosh was always the tithe. Yayin was not tithed because only the first fruits were tithed and yayin had to be tiyrosh first before it fermented. Thus only tiyrosh was a part of the tithe. Thus it is that Tiyrosh is never spoken of in a negative context! It is always a blessing! Yayin is a mixed blessing, though it rejoices men's hearts it does not rejoice God's heart. Ps. 104:15 speaks of the yayin that rejoices men's hearts (only) while in Judges 9:13 tiyrosh is spoken of as cheering the hearts of God and men. (Not all men to be sure, some must have alcohol added to it.) There is no verse which says that yayin is a blessing (save the mixed one in Ps. 104) in the way that Tiyrosh is a blessing. No verse that says "I gave her corn and yayin." We believe this to be significant.

When the Bible says that God is sending blessings of wine it is always Tiyrosh. When the Bible says that God is withholding blessings of wine it is always Tiyrosh. See Hos 2:8, 9, 22; Joel 1:1 0; 2: 19; 2:24; Is. 24:27; 36: 17 (Never Yayin)! Tiyrosh then generally means grape juice as in Is.65:8 "Tiyrosh is found in the cluster." However there are grape juices that were meant to be made into alcoholic wine so there is one context where tiyrosh may refer to fermented wine as in Hos 3:11 by metonomy but no other example is found in the Bible,- not one they all speak of tiyrosh as the "wine of first fruits" Nu. 18:12; Deut 7:13 "gather in your wine in harvest" Deut 11:14; "Tithe of wine" (fresh pressed as first fruits) Deut 12:17; 14:23; 18:4; "first fruits of wine" 2Chron 31:5; "Wine of increase" 2 Chron 32:28; Neh 5:11, and many other verses.

Thus of these two words. though yayin is said to make men happy it is never spoken of making God happy or as a blessing to or from God, while Tiyrosh is spoken of as a blessing to both God and men. Interesting isn't it? Tiyrosh is grape juice, non alcoholic it cheers God and men.

THE USE OF ASIYS OR FRESH TRODDEN JUICE.

When God speaks prophetically of the coming age of blessings when there will be overflowing wine and the hills and streams will run down with wine. It is in both cases "asiys." With such wine God promises to bless the future age of Joel 3:19 and Amos 9:13, While in contrast. God says, Jeremiah 13:12, ' Every wine skin shall be full of wine" (yayin). In that place it means that everyone will be drunk as a divine judgement and punishment.

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2000

JESUS DID NOT MAKE ALCOHOLIC WINE AT THE WEDDING OF CANA : (John 2)

Several seemingly irrelevant incidentals take on greater importance under closer examination of this incident. Some of the problems that occupy commentators who seek to unravel the incident at Cana of Galilee are:

1. Does the word "draw out" (Gr. antleo) imply the miracle of turning water to wine took place apart from the water pots mentioned in the text? (antleo means draw out of a deep place)

2. Does the measure of the water pots indicate the measure of the wine offered to the ruler of the feast? (approx. 200 gallons)

3. Can the word "well drunken" (Gr. Methuo) meaning inebriated, be harmonized with a sinless Jesus? (Drunkenness as well as contributing to getting people drunk is sin.)

4. Was the ruler of the feast a part of the wedding party?

5. Did the ruler of the feast refer to the wedding party when he described what often happened at wedding parties in his experience?

6. Did Jesus make a large quantity of wine or a small quantity. Rephrased: Did the servants bear wine from the water source whether in the pots or other wise, or did they dip into the wine which had been water?

7. Did Jesus make more intoxicating beverage, in a large quantity to add to that which had already been consumed, for those who were already intoxicated?

Observations on the text:

The Greek word antleo which is translated "draw Out" means to draw water from the source or out of a deep place. That is implicit in the word.. It is possible that Jesus referred to the pots of water since they are described in detail in the narrative, the number and the measure and their purpose being given. What may be implied however from the word "draw out" (from the well) and bear to the ruler of the feast. In this event (supported by Barnes Wesscott, Moulton and others) the miracle was in the borne vessels and not in the source. It is likely therefore that even if the water was drawn out of the water pots the miracle was in the same measure. That is, not wine in the pots but wine when drawn to the ruler of the feast. There is no reason to suppose that Jesus made so much wine (the approximate measure of the six pots was about 200 gallons) that the bridal couple had enough to stake them to a large dowry through its sale as supposed by some.

When the wine borne by the servants was brought to the ruler of the feast to replenish the failing supply, the manager of the feast (probably a caterer hired for the occasion) called the bride groom to express his surprise.

Several things put his comments in focus. Lets see them before we note his comments. Several things made this feast different.

1. This wedding party had a religious nature. The water pots were for religious purposes of ritual cleansing. This was a religious group.

2. Jesus' mother was intimate enough with the wedding party to know that arrangements were failing.

3. Jesus was an invited guest.

4. Jesus' disciples were invited as guests to this wedding. The manager of this feast was ruling a feast for a group of very religious people. And that this was a different kind of occasion than the ordinary party he usually oversaw is seen in the manager's expression to the bride groom. Freely translated the manager said, "It is the usual procedure at wedding feasts (since that was his job he was in a position to know) that people set out their best wine first and then after people have drunk themselves numb, then the poorer quality is offered." He said, "You have not followed that procedure but have kept what is obviously best till last."

"Drunk themselves numb" is not a hyperbole as the word that the manager used translated "well drunken" means inebriated,--drunk. However the manager's use of the word drunkenness does not refer to the conditions of the wedding at Cana. The manager does say that is what is done by others but as the procedure of presenting the best quality first was not followed neither was the manner of over drinking alcoholic wine followed. The reference is a third person reference and not to those present. (see Barnes, Moulton and others).

If however for sake of developing the argument we suppose that the wedding party was all ready satiated with wine, (inebriated is the word the manager used) and Jesus made what some commentators suppose was between 150 to 200 Gallons of the best, that is to an alcohol lovers taste: the most potent of wines. (people given to moderation, temperance, gentleness, would consider the best to be an invigorating sparkling drink which was gentle and safe and non-intoxicating) the result would have been Jesus' responsibility not theirs. They too would have been accountable shortly if not already. But Habakkuk 2:15 says "Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbors, pouring it from the wineskin till they are drunk so that he can gaze on their naked bodies." It is not necessary to see the victims naked to be guilty of the woe. Hab. 2:15 makes it plain that it is a sin to give people drink and to make them drunk. If Jesus gave drunk people more alcoholic drink at Cana then Jesus would be a sinner according to Hab 2:15 and other scriptures. Jesus is not a sinner. He did not make alcoholic wine at Cana of Galilee. The people there were not already drunk and they did not get inebriated later from the miraculous wine of heaven made from water by Jesus.

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2000

THE GENERIC NATURE OF THE GREEK WORD "OINOS"

"Oinos" is a generic word

When the Greek translation of the Bible, called the Septuagint, was made about 280 B.C. each and every one of the 11 Hebrew words noted here were translated by one Greek word "oinos". As already noted the KJV followed the same pattern. Since "oinos" is put in the Septuagint for all eleven of the Hebrew words it plainly shows the generic use of the word "oinos." Therefore, it is impossible to say that the word itself, by itself, means alcoholic or non-alcoholic grape juice. It must be made clear by the context it is in. In the King James New Testament the word "wine" translates he Greek word "oinos" in all cases with the one exception of Acts 2: 13. Thus in the New Testament the English word "wine" is always generic. It simply means juice of the grape, whether alcoholic or non-alcoholic. An immediate consequence should be seen as to the perception of the word by people prejudiced either in favor of total abstinence or for "social drinking" or "private drinking", - that is that the word "opinion" ought to play a part in a continuing discussion. A dogmatic approach on ones opinion of what a particular translation rendering of the word "oinos" may mean, without taking the text and context into consideration. indicates a prejudged and opinionated conclusion which contains very little merit. You see, it will do little good "to look it up in the Greek" as it is generic in Greek too!

Therefore, if "oinos" means non-alcoholic grape juice in any verse (as it most certainly does in Mt. 9:17, Mk 2:22 Luke 5:37 and most likely does in Rev.6:6; 18:13) that does not mean the word means "non-alcoholic." in every other context. Especially is this so since it is obvious that the same word means intoxicating grape juice in Mt.11:19; Lu. 7:34; Eph 5:18; 2Tim 3:3; 3:8: Tit. 1:7; Tit. 2:3; I Pet. 4:3: Rev. 14:8,10 ( by metonomy) 16:19; 17:2; and 18:3 all of which are negative notices by the way.) All these contexts make it clear that the grape juice is alcoholic and they are negative inferences to the wine and its effects or the act of drinking it. However, since we can not say whether the word "oinos" means either alcoholic or non-alcoholic then we must study further into the contexts where if is used.

We bring our likes and experiences (to any problem and interpret it according to our own background. The wedding feast of Cana where Jesus turned water into wine is a good example. Some people have not seen a wedding (or a funeral for that matter) without the confusion and folly the fool calls joy that is brought on by alcoholic wine. It is hard for such a one to see a non-alcoholic wedding feast at Cana. But we intend to analyze this opinion and show why it is more reasonable to conclude that the "oinos" at Cana refers to non-alcoholic wine which was consumed. For instance, If Jesus went to a wedding feast with many guests, say 200, that would be a big one wouldn't it?, - and say he made 200 gallons of alcoholic wine, all now consumed. What kind of debauch would that have been? In the light of Hab 2:15 it seems probable that Jesus did not supply the potential for "all Hell to break loose."

PROPHETIC TYPES AND ANTITYPES

Beside the negative references to alcoholic wines in the Old Testament which make their use extremely questionable for a Christian whose righteousness is to exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, there are prophetic types and figures in the Old Testament that the spiritually minded man will take find the antitype and substance of in the new Testament.

A. THE HEBREW EXODUS AND THE WILDERNESS WANDERING ARE TYPES, AND CONVERSION AND THE CHRISTIAN LIFE ARE THE CORRESPONDING ANTITYPES.

We actually take it for granted, don't we?, - Egypt represents the life of sinful bondage, the Red Sea experience is baptism, (l Cor.10) "baptized unto Moses" and many of the experiences of the Israelites in the wilderness have their antitypes in the New Testament experiences. The journey through the wilderness is the Christian life in type: the manna, the shekina, tabernacle, water from the rock, the rock itself, have fulfillments in the New Testament Christian's life. Even the longing for the flesh pots of Egypt has its antitype in the temptation for a return to the attractions of the world of sin. The Jordan we sing about in song like: "I won't have to cross Jordan alone," or "Will the water be chilly," or, "The crossing must be near," with the promised land on the other side, are figurative thoughts that evoke deep emotions within us because we know there is much more in the type of crossing Jordan or standing on its banks to see the other side than a river in Palestine.

In the light of this type-antitype system: How would you see Deut. 29:6? which says that no wine (yayin) or strong drink was drunk in the wilderness experience at all, none, not a drop! What implications are there for the antitype in the Christian life? Obviously wine (yayin) and strong drink are absent from the Christian life to the one seeing the fulfillment of our journey paralleled in type in the Hebrew Holy Scriptures.

B. ALL CHRISTIANS ARE KINGS AND PRIESTS

The Old Testament Tabernacle is also a type of the church, "the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man." According to Hebrews 8,9;10 the true tabernacle, the church, is the antitype the physical tabernacle. Each priest under the old system approached the tabernacle with a sacrifice on the altar of burnt offering which was consumed. Rom. 12:1, In the Old Testament system.The laver of washing was outside the door of the tabernacle after which the priest entered into the first room where there was the altar (whose anti-type is continual prayer) and the weekly unleavened bread (communion) and the daily trimming of the light (Bible study) these prechristian types of Christian worship there all carried out, separated only by a thin veil from the presence of God where the High Priest has entered with his blood to atone for sins. These types and the applications would be difficult to misapply in the New Testament. What did the priest do with alcoholic drink in the tabernacle?

C. THE PRIEST AND STRONG DRINK IN THE TABERNACLE

There is only one mention in the Old Testament of strong drink in the tabernacle. It was then a variety of a drink offering, a sacrifice offered by the priest, but he was not to drink it! It was to be poured out on the ground! Numbers 28:7 "the drink offering is...of fermented drink. Pour out the drink offering to the Lord at the sanctuary." That is, it was poured out before he entered what corresponded to the church. Since the priest in the Old Testament finds his antitype in the New Testament Christian (not in a special order of leaders I Pet 2:5,9 and Rev. 3:6; 5:10) These New Testament passages make it clear that every Christian is a priest. Since every Christian fulfills the type of the Aaronic priest in the tabernacle. What in your opinion is the antitype of the type presented by the Old Testament priest pouring the drink offering out on the ground? The priest did not drink the strong drink, he poured it out! I suggest that we as Christians do the same.

D. THE PORTION OF SACRIFICES DUE TO THE OLD TESTAMENT PRIEST

The instructions of what a priest should eat and drink in the tabernacle follow immediately the death of Nadab and Abihu in the same context. Thereby punctuating the importance of following instructions given by God. In Lev 10 there are four warnings underscored by "or you will die." One warning went unheeded and Nadab and Abihu died! Quite a responsibility being a priest! Do you think that the superior priesthood of the true tabernacle has any less responsibilities connected with it?, The second warning was that Aaron and his remaining sons were not to show any anguish at the deaths, "or you will die." 10:6 Third: they were allowed to mourn within limits but not to leave the door of the tabernacle while the anointing oil was upon them, "or you will die" 10:7 The fourth warning we are noting has to do with eating and drinking in the tabernacle with instructions to eat all of the sacrifice apportioned to them either in or out of the tabernacle but here our type system is called upon again. "You and your sons are not to drink wine (yayin) or other fermented drink (shekar) when ever you go into the tent of meeting "OR YOU WILL DIE." Lev. 10:9 and the reason for it, "you must distinguish between the holy and the profane."

Since all Christians are priests in the new system and are therefore the antitype of the old, what is the antitype of the commandment that the priest is not to drink alcoholic beverages in the tabernacle? It is the opinion of this writer that the antitype of the tabernacle can not be a place. John 4:21-24 Neither is it limited to the Sunday morning worship service and certainly not the church leaders only, because all Christians are priests. Therefore since all Christians are priests continually in the spiritual tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man; each Christian must find meaning then in the type of not drinking alcoholic wine or strong drink in !he tabernacle. Is it far fetched to conclude that the Christians (O.T. priest) with a spiritual mind (anointed) will see an application of abstinence from alcoholic drink as a part of their Christian life after baptism? We think not and see no other possible application for these types!

NEW TESTAMENT VERSES USED TO JUSTIFY DRINKING ALCOHOL ARE MISAPPLIED

Verses that are often used to show that drinking of alcoholic wine is acceptable show nothing of the kind.

A. AVOIDANCE OF ALCOHOLIC WINE IS NATURAL AND OBVIOUS TO THE ONE BORN OF THE SPIRIT.

We have already shown that the Greek word "oinos" in the Bible does not always mean alcoholic wine. To us as English speakers the word "oinos" can not be used to make a distinction between alcoholic and non-alcoholic Hebrew words because "oinos" is generic, i.e. it means grape juice in any form, alcoholic or not. We've also noted that every context in the New Testament where the use of "wine" is obviously alcoholic is a generally negative context, that is condemning, forbidding or generally negating its use. This ought to be enough to convince a follower of Christ to abstain from alcohol but we see, unfortunately, that some people don't want to give up alcohol even though they want to retain a religious connection. Micah describes a similar condition in his day saying, "If a man walking in the spirit of falsehood do lie, saying I will prophesy unto you of wine; he shall even be the prophet of this people" Micah 2:11

B. HOWEVER, MANY MISLED RELIGIOUS PEOPLE SEEK THE EXHILARATION IN A BOTTLE.

"Don't fill yourself with wine wherein is excess but fill yourself with the spirit:" Eph 5:18. This verse plainly explains the spiritual "high" that is available to the Christian. This kind of exhilaration can't be drunk from a bottle. In fact the flesh wars against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh. The exhilaration that is in the bottle is a fleshly high and therefore will actually inhibit the growth of the Holy Spirit within. Don't put the "high" of wine inside yourself but put the "high" of the Holy Spirit's spiritual experiences of singing and music with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs with thanksgiving.

C. IS EXCESS OF WINE AN OPINION?

A news item in the Daily London Telegraph by the health service correspondent was headed "More than 5 pints a day dangerous." The article went on to say, "Five pints of beer a day or its equivalent in wine or spirits is the maximum that can be drunk without risk to health. The British Medical Association said yesterday. Even then the drink should be taken at intervals throughout the day and the drinker should make strenuous efforts to reduce consumption to not more than 3 pints a day...... taken at intervals throughout the day." (Alcoholism is a frighteningly increasing problem in Britain which has raised great concern from the Health Service.)

The idea of three or four bottles at one sitting is certainly a "dangerous" thing according to those who are more apt than I am to know about health risks. Further evidence along this line is seen in a recent North Sea oil disaster. Not that the cause was drinking. To the contrary, it is evident because of company policy that rules would have to be broken to drink heavily as a recent news item made clear. These rules stated that only two bottles of beer were allowed to men working on off shore oil rigs and that they would be subject to dismissal for hoarding the bottles to be drunk later. They must be consumed when received and not kept for the morrow! Even two bottles would not be allowed during work as it would impair judgement! You do not have to be a Christian to be reasonable when economics initiate business decisions on drinking behavior.

1. JESUS DID NOT USE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

Accusations were hurled at Jesus while he was here in the earth that are untrue. Let us note some of them. They said that the healings he performed were by the power of Satan. Does this mean that he dabbled in witchcraft and that they merely exaggerated what he was doing? No! they certainly lied about who he was and by whom he cast out demons. They said that he was a Samaritan and that he had a devil. (Jo.8:48) Was there any basis in fact to these accusations? Some said that he was "beside himself," i.e. insane. (Mk. 3:21) Did they mistake a charismatic frenzy for insanity or was it just plain slander? Surely each of these cases was a case of mere slander and outright lies. Some say that the Pharisees accusations that Jesus was a winebibber indicates an exaggeration of his moderate use of alcoholic wine. Several other accusations in this category were made about Jesus. He was accused of being a friend of publicans and sinners. He was accused of being associated with publicans and sinners in their drinking bouts. Matt 11:19, Luke 7:34. When each of these verses are seen in their contexts the accusations are seen to be baseless falsehoods and the slanderers are seen as perpetrators of the same false judgements and false slanders with the intent to injure the moral character of Jesus. They are lies.

I am sure that Jesus knew the O.T. prohibition in Prov. 23:20 "Be not among winebibbers." And he surely did not contradict the word of God but lived in harmony with the revelation of the Holy Spirit. The answer here is quite simple. The Pharisees said that John the Baptist had a devil because he was an ascetic, he dressed, ate, and lived according to Nazarite restrictions. He would therefore eat no grapes, raisins, grape jelly, jam or juice and submitted to other restrictions of diet. Jesus, however, lived like an ordinary man and he had no dietary restrictions on him. They said that John had a devil and that Jesus was a glutton and a winebibber. If, on this false assumption, Jesus drank a little alcoholic wine, is it true that John had a little devil? Isn't it more realistic to see the Pharisees remarks as slander with no basis in fact. Their accusations do not indicate a moderate use of spirits on Jesus part. John ate nothing that came from the grape non-alcoholic or otherwise. They lied about him. He did not have a devil, big or small. They also lied about Jesus, he was not a glutton nor a winebibber. The verses that say that John came neither eating nor drinking while Jesus came both eating and drinking is far afield from the idea that John did not drink alcohol and Jesus did. It has nothing to do with alcohol. John and Jesus were simply both lied about.

2. JESUS DID NOT ATTEND THE LOCAL PUB

The Pharisees complaint (in Mt.9:17) that "your master eats with publicans and sinners" is taken by some to mean that Jesus went with gluttons and winebibbers and shared the same fare and activities with them. A simple reading of the context will show that Jesus was not with the publicans and sinners doing what they did. On the contrary the publicans and sinners were with Jesus doing what Jesus did. Many other sinners through the years like Matthew, found that their association with Jesus changed their lives. Many in that day and in this day still find Jesus and make him their friend, but on his terms, not on theirs. His terms include the putting away of the things of the flesh. Therefore let us see the publicans and sinners in Matthew's house as being with Jesus and not as the Pharisees saw and accused him of having the publican's way of life. Since I met Jesus beside alcohol there are places I don't go, things I don't do, things I don't listen to, things I don't taste anymore! Thank God he took away from me my dependance on habits at the flesh.

3. MODERATION

Phil 4:5 says, "Let your moderation be known unto all men." Drink that can make you drunk can hardly be used in moderation. Anyone who will occasionally decide that it is a good thing to celebrate with alcohol will confirm that moderation is more than difficult. Occasional celebrants will occasionally get drunk and not be in control of their actions. It is a misuse to apply this verse to alcohol. It would be just as reasonable to apply it to any fleshly excess common to men. Apply it to LSD for instance, as some can be found to do, or to smoking dope which young people often feel the same way about. They only use it with moderation. Or apply it to tobacco or hash, or heroin or speed or similar things. An application like this allows too much and is obviously faulty no matter how logical it may sound. What is moderation in the use of alcoholic drink? Each man is left adrift in the obscure realms of existential opinion where human experience alone is the criterium of truth. I actually read what was presented as a serious attempt to show Christians should drink alcoholic beverages to relieve the tension of life. In spite of this being contrary to the admonition of the Holy Spirit in Eph 5:18. The author advocated up to four bottles of beer every night for the "tired" Christian. Of course most will see this as an extreme not to be found often, but what is to limit "moderate" to four. Another man might consider 5, 8, or 10 bottles moderation and insist on making "his" moderation known to all men!

I suggest we follow the tabernacle type and "pour it on the ground." Make the sacrifice! Find your exhilaration in the Holy Spirit and mark and avoid such foolish advisers who promise liberty while they ensnare the unwary into bondage again.

Further the verse under discussion is misapplied as the word moderation translated so in the KJV is "epieikas" meaning suitableness, appropriateness, it is also translated gentleness and patience. Certainly a non user of alcohol better fits the definitions here than one who consumes a "moderate" four bottles of beer a night or any amount.

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2000

Danny, you wrote

Nope...sure didn't Duane.

didn't what? I scrolled up and couldnt find the reference.

As expected....any attempted biblical defense of abstinence must by the very nature of things rely heavily on inference.

Well, duh! That's why we call it Christian liberty. I make decisions about my Christian walk based on:

1. Clear commands
2. Principles derived from Studying God's Word (inferences)

Many times the author states...."Often....but not always." "In our opinion"...(whoever the "our" is).

Of course. The author is giving his opinion. Noble of him to state it thus. Would that posters in this forum do likewise.

The discussion of OINOS is interesting for he readily admits that it is used of both intoxicating and non-intoxicating wine in the N.T....then goes on further...to give his opinion....largely based on inference.

Uh, yeah.... so?

"Not given to much wine".....why should this be a concern?? Who has a problem with addiction to grape juice??

Good question... point taken... (that's why we're doing this, by the way)

If the principle of "Where the Bible Speaks We Speak....and Where It is Silent...We are Silent" is valid....this study did nothing to help.

Straw man... Look, you can't have it both ways. You post a message asking for input on a topic. Readers assume you are asking for their "take" on the subject... "opinion"... knowing full well, of course, that you will then filter everything based on God's Word. Then, someone gives their opinion, (even acknowledges it as "opinion") and you say, "well, the rules are, 'where the Scriptures are silent..."

Now possibly we need to change our principle to "Where the Bible Speaks We Speak.....and Where It is Silent...We rely heavy on inference."

Maybe so. The Bible is silent on many issues. We do get "principles" from the Bible that guide us... Anyway, I don't think the article was saying, "This is the law you should impose on others" but rather "this is one man's opinion for you to consider, as you contemplate the personal decision to drink." Methinks the preacher doth protest too much.

Again to my question...if the writer is supporting abstinence....would he have the same problem with the person who takes...by prescription....anti-depressant drugs??

dunno, didnt ask him... I emailed him about posting his article, maybe he will respond. My answer: two wrongs don't make a right.

I believe you got that study from the back of DeWelt's book on 1 & 2 Timothy did you not??

What's that got to do with anything? LOL! Irrelevant! But, no. If you had followed the link given at the beginning of the article, you would have known. :) A pamphlet written by a man named Fred Miller.

By the way...as a side note....Sam Loveall's comments on cultural bias certainly shined throughout the article.

Side note? or side jab?

For me Duane....I need something clearer.

How about vodka?

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2000

I've gone over this argument many times and all I have to rely on is the Word of God. There are times for Alcoholic Wine and times for Strong Drink. There are times to refrain from same.

Any juice processor can tell you that if the juice is not refrigerated then it is impossible to keep it from turning to wine. Refrigeration is new. Wine skins are the old way to store juice.

(Lev 10:9 KJV) "Do not DRINK WINE nor STRONG DRINK, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:"

(Deu 14:26 KJV) "And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for WINE, or for STRONG DRINK, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,"

Try to simplify your studies. Less words. Most people become bored with sermons that drone on and on.

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2000

I found Miller's article helpful. Here is why:

1. The fact that when "wine" is referred to in a POSITIVE light, the context shows it to be unfermented (ie., grape juice)

2. The fact that when "wine" is referred to in a NEGATIVE light, the context shows it to be fermented (ie., strong drink)

Based on these inferences, I form the opinion that Christians ought not to drink, and choose not to do so myself.

When Christians ask me for advice, I advise what I also practice: abstinence. If they ask me for principles from Scripture which lead me to practice abstinence, I cite principles such as those given in Miller's article.

I do not make it a test of fellowship. It's a tougher call for leadership, but I suppose if a fellow who had all of the other qualifications sipped wine at dinnertime, I would not have a problem.

Personally, (my opinion to follow), I don't see any reason to drink a beer besides to get a buzz. The macho camaraderie commercials touting beer for its "taste" are a farce.

The real issue, as I see it, is in the gradual progression from relaxation, to "slight" buzz, to dead drunk.

What the "moderation/casual drinker" crowd are really promoting is the scenario of the occasional drinker who has a couple of drinks to take the edge off, get a mild euphoric buzz---but not lose control. There are plenty of folks who can get a really good buzz going, feeling much pleasure and little pain, and still drive safely and speak clearly. They would say that they are not "drunk", since to them, "drunkenness" means total inebriation.

So when the Bible condemns drunkenness, is it referring to incoherent staggering only, or does it include the warm glowing, light-headed, quick-witted life of the party who just had 3 shots of whiskey?

The rub here, is that this "gradual progression from relaxation, to "slight" buzz, to dead drunk" tends to be more that just a "gradual progression". It becomes a slippery slope, which is traversed by folks with varying degrees of traction.

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2000

Yes...

BUT...

What constitutes drunkenness?

If I drink some wine, start feelin friendly, happy, etc., but do not get sloshed.......

Is that sin?

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2000

In my opinion, yes.

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2000

Hey guys,

If we are going to go that far, what about drugs prescribed for physical pain or surgical procedures? I have taken many of late for intense physical pain that are mind altering also.

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2000

Are you saying that taking anything that alters the mind is a sin??

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2000

Danny,

Crystal

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2000

Ok, so I get this straight....

Taking a Tylenol 3 (with codeine) for your arthritis is "ok" but taking any "mind-altering" drug to cope with the difficulties of life is wrong.

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2000

Nate,

My point exactly.

Danny, correct me again if I am wrong in stating your opinion...taking a mind altering drug is not the sin...what we are taking that drug for constitutes the sin.??

Does this include all mental illness/depression and such?

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2000

This thread is altering my mind...

I hereby repent.

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2000

Anyone who's been around a paranoid delusional schizophrenic or has one as a friend knows they darn well better be taking their drugs to cope with the realities of life!

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2000

Danny,

You said: "D. Lee..... I'm not sure.....but did I ever mention the word "sin??"

Refering to the previous thread:

"Are We Correct In Teaching Abstinence??"

You said: "Typo from last post.... I said...."I consider depression to be a drug....etc."

I meant to say...."I consider depression to be a sin...."

Does this answer your question?

Brother Danny,

While you are (IMHO) somewhat correct in saying that depression is sin, it might be MORE correct to say that Depression is a result of sin. (refering to the depravity of man)

Hearing that "more and more psychologist and the ilk....are coming to realize....we choose to be happy....and we can choose to be depressed" warms my heart. I mean, this is the first news I have heard concerning this triumphal discovery! I must shout it from the mountaintops!!! Please may I have some of the names of these "more and more psychologist and the ilk...." so that I may study how to choose to be happy instead of depressed?

My sarcasm and your seeming ignorance (I am not using ignorance in a ad hominim fashion) of this debilitating disease aside, I want, brother, for you to understand a few things. First, I suffer from depression. Second, there is a clinical, measurable difference between "Depression" and "being depressed." One, "being depressed" is an emotional response to outside influence such as losing a job etc. The other, "Clinical Depression", occurs due to a chemical (measurable) imbalance of the hormone "seratonin" in the human brain. This imbalance thus makes one depressed on the "emotional side" of our phyche.

While I am suspect of most MD's, psychologists, and psychiatrists... I also know that I love my Lord and strive to live in Him. Are you saying that it's my own fault that I feel this way? I firmly disagree if that is what you are saying. AND I am personally offended by your judgement of me.

I am not now on Prozac (or any other anti-depressant)and haven't been for over 4 years now. But I was... and I can tell you that while some antidepressants are "mind-altering drugs" in the strictest sense of the word, that Prozac is not. Prozac encourages your brain to produce seratonin (The Happy Hormone) to normal levals. In addition, it was never intended to be a "take forever" drug. Most professionals will remove you gradually from this drug after one year. By this time, your body should have taken over the normal production of seratonin. After having been stimulated by Prozac.

I still suffer from depression, however, I am not a "Drug-taking" kind of guy... and I want for God's grace to be sufficient for me, therefore I choose not to drug myself. But I still have depression. I am able to cope through Him. But I am not always happy. No, not "I feel a little depressed today." But, "Lord come quickly, I don't know if I can take this world any longer." Then I wonder if God would consider it suicide if I walked into a biker bar and asked which pansy that Harley-Davidson outside belonged to? (or would he have mercy on me because I'm just stupid?)I can no better "Think myself happy" than I can "Think myself a biscuit."

My humble opinion is that arthritis and Clinical Depression are of the same ilk, they are BOTH physical diseases.

Brother, I suggest that before you start willy-nilly making pronouncements against things which you haven't any experience that you get some "expert" opinions. And no, I don't think that every expert is right. But look at ALL the evidence before you pronounce judgement.

While there is MUCH room for opinions concerning ADD and ADHD... (YES! I agree that Ridilin is Waaaay over prescribed... but that is THAT subject and Depression is a COMPLETELY different one.) Differing opinions concerning (measurable) Clinical Depression are few and far between among the true "experts."

Yes, I know that you can list your experts "more and more psychologist and the ilk...." is that one more? Or two more? I've got at least twice that who would refudiate those findings.

*Sigh* I know that there are plenty of people in the church who think as you do Danny. But you are starting to sound like a faith-healer to me.. And I know that you aren't. Have you ever noticed that the Lord's army is the only army in the world where we shoot our wounded? I'm wounded brother. ...and even though, for me, it is only a flesh wound, it still hurts like heck.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2000

Nate, I thoroughly agree with you. While I believe we are an over-medicated society, I also believe that there are serious mental illnesses out there that do not respond to just "positive thinking." I have a few friends with schizophrenia who are on lithium and other medication.

One of them recently stopped taking her meds, and now she sees Jesus and Isaiah appearing physically before her, talks to dead relatives, thinks she has stigmata, has out of body experiences, and is convinced there is a global conspiracy out to get her personally. Unfortunately, she is almost totally unreachable now, and no amount of "good behavior therapy" is going to bring her brain chemical imbalance back to normal. Sadly, our streets are filled with people who are in this condition because we do not take mental illness as seriously as physical ailments.

-- Anonymous, February 11, 2000

Danny,

"Why is it, that you guys must always resort to the worst case scenarios??"

I didn't...

"I said...I had a PERSONAL problem with the "average" person who needs a pill to get along in life. "

I agree...

"I said....I have a PERSONAL problem with a society that looks for a solution in a bottle. "

I agree...

"I said....I have a PERSONAL problem with parents who are simply inconsistent in their discipline, who create chaos in children's lives because they are always on the go, who refuse to spank their kids....who want to control them with a drug....because they heard...."a lot of people are doing it." "

I agree...

"I have no right...nor desire to pass judgment on your personal situation which obviously does not fall into the category of the "average" person."

I agree...

"I mean Nate, you have to admit there is something inately wrong with a 22 year old that wants to take Viagra!!!"

I agree...

"But why not?? When he was bad...he was given a pill...when he could not concentrate he was given a pill...so why not now?? "

I understand, and agree wholeheartedly...

"Let's keep in mind the original purpose of this thread.....or at least what started it."

My apologies to you and everyone else for rabbit-chasing...

"I see this "pill" thing.....as Christian liberty. I never gave any indication that it was a test of fellowship. That is your personal choice."

The "Pill" issue was not one I was taking up...

"You said: "D. Lee..... I'm not sure.....but did I ever mention the word "sin??"

Refering to the previous thread:

"Are We Correct In Teaching Abstinence??"

You said: "Typo from last post.... I said...."I consider depression to be a drug....etc."

I meant to say...."I consider depression to be a sin...."

THIS was the issue I was taking up... that you consider depression to be a sin...

However, I would be interested.....do you teach abstinence in drinking??

A qualified "no"... (to an alcoholic, "yes")

"My guess is.....you do not. You leave it up to personal Christian liberty. In this, you would be consistent.....THAT....was what I was looking for."

"The only problem I have with you Nate is your continuing attempt to justify your position, not on evidence, but by undermining my postion as uneducated and uniformed. Neither are true."

What other evidence would you like? When I hear statements like...

"You said: "D. Lee..... I'm not sure.....but did I ever mention the word "sin??"

Refering to the previous thread:

"Are We Correct In Teaching Abstinence??"

You said: "Typo from last post.... I said...."I consider depression to be a drug....etc."

I meant to say...."I consider depression to be a sin...."

...I am not doing the undermining. While this is a simple statement, it has far-reaching consequenses for those who do not have your 11 years of education to go on. A blanket statement of this type could be quoted for years...

"Having spent 11 years in school, with a great deal of that time with an emphasis in pastoral ministry....I have numerous hours (both required and elective) in couseling courses and Family therapy."

o.k.... ...and your credentials give the right to make the statement that depression is sin?

"As far as uninformed.....let me just give you this tidbit. You said, "Prozac and Ridlin are unrelated."

I said nothing of the kind... I said "While there is MUCH room for opinions concerning ADD and ADHD... (YES! I agree that Ridilin is Waaaay over prescribed... but that is THAT subject and Depression is a COMPLETELY different one.) "

"I would suggest you read the book "Running on Ridlin" by Lawrence Diller, M.D. where he historically points out that both were driven by the same agenda....i.e., the emphasis upon "nature" to the neglect of "nurture." "

I would agree with his analysis... However, Prozac has still done some good for people who suffer with depression, regardless of what the original agenda was...

"You obviously had a doctor that emphasized both if he got you off Prozac in a year. Again, your case does not the general public make."

My doctor did nothing of the kind, I took myself off prozac because I wanted to trust in God's mercy...

"I also resent your "ad hominem" of calling me a "faith healer.""

I said... "But you are starting to sound like a faith-healer to me.. And I know that you aren't." That was a qualified statement that speaks for itself, however... if you were offended I do offer my apologies. I in no way was calling you an actual "Faith Healer." Please forgive me.

"Am I to suppress my belief that our Christian faith has a lot to do with our happiness??"

No...

"Am I to dismiss the fact that my mother's doctor, who is not a Christian, encouraged her to use her faith and relationship with the Lord, to help her get off all of her medication??"

By NO means!... here, here Doc...

"Does it work for everyone?? Of course not. I already spoke to the fact that there are legitimate needs that require more.....in a previous post. John's post was a mute point."

Agreed, I think we are very close on our opinions there...

"But again.....I have always spoken to the general nature of society, which both you and John agreed to, in that we are are an overly medicated society that looks for the solution for everything in a bottle."

Yes, yes...

"Nate....at least I understand you now...."

I doubt that, at least not anymore than I do you...

"and personally...I'm not going to talk to you about it in on the forum anymore."

Ok...

"Why not?? It's easy....it would be improper for me to discuss how you feel. No one knows that but you. I'll be glad to talk to you personally via e-mail."

Thank you...

"But here is the key.....what I personally think does not hinder the fact, your personal attacks aside,........."

If I have attacked you brother, again, let me beg your forgiveness and the rest of the forum as well. I was attacking your statement, not you. I fervently disagree with your statement and am perhaps too passionate about it. I never intended to offend, only confront.

"......you are a brother in Christ and I trust the Lord will give you peace and strength to continue His work!!"

Thank you, that statement means Much to me.

"Now if you cheat on your wife....I've got more than a PERSONAL problem with that!! (ha)"

That would be a difficult thing to do, as I am a single man in the Lord's army. (With no plans of changing that in the near future, ha!!)

I have a deep respect for you, brother, as we have some passions that run in the same direction. WE do not often agree on issues or how to handle them, however we are still in the same army and are still fighting the same foe.

I pray that God will bless your ministry and multiply you a hundred- fold. I know that someday up in heaven there will be many saying "Thank you" to you.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, February 11, 2000

You are right Duane.....it is your opinion.....especially in light of the fact that I have made myself abundantly clear.

Hey.... I did say 3 options were available.... apologize, clarify, or defend....

I assume you chose "defend". You stick with "depression is a sin"...

Just trying to sort out the basics...

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2000

In THAT case Duane, I am extremely thankful for God's ABUNDANT grace!

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2000

Just a few observations.

I think the original title of this thread was something like, "Are we right in teaching abstinence?" That's ambiguous in more ways than one. Not only is "abstinence" more commonly used these days to refer to sexual abstinence, but you could also use a variety of different standards for deciding whether it is right or wrong. Even a person who believes that the Bible permits drinking might decide that abstinence is a better course for a variety of other reasons. I have relatives who are not "active" Christians by any means, but who are still strongly tee-total. I have Muslim and Hindu friends who are tee-total for religious reasons, but not because of Bible teachings. I have heard that recovered alcoholics are usually advised to avoid alcohol completely, lest they slip back into alcoholism again.

I took 3 years of Greek in Bible college, but didn't take any Hebrew, so what I know of the Hebrew words involved is limited and second-hand, but my memory of when I researched this question (of what the Bible says about drinking) is that all of the sources I consulted at that time said that some of the Hebrew words, like the Greek word OINOS, were ambiguous and could refer to either alcoholic wine (of various strengths, though none as strong as today's "spirits" since distillation was unknown) and non-alcoholic grape juice.

I agree strongly with those who have suggested that our culture has a lot to do with how we interpret the relative passages. People on both sides of the question agree that there are Bible passages that use the ambiguous words (N.T. and O.T.) in both positive ways and negative ways. Since the words are ambiguous, those who already are pre-disposed by their culture and background to think that God could not possibly approve of drinking alcoholic beverages, assume that whenever it is used in a negative way, it must be the alcoholic beverage, but that if it is used in a positive way, it must be non-alcoholic grape juice. Those who are pre-disposed to think that drinking of alcoholic beverages is all right in moderation will argue that what really makes the difference is not the alcoholic content, but rather the amount drunk. If drinking is done in moderation, it can, they argue, be the kind of blessing that the Bible describes, but if done to excess, then all the Biblical warnings and condemnations apply. This, in fact, is the way that drinking is described in most non-Christian writings -- as something enjoyable when done in moderation, but a "mocker", a "brawler", etc. (Prov. 20:1) when done in excess.

In general, Christian thinking in the U.S. seems to be anti-alcohol (and non-Christian thinking on it often ambivalent), while the general sentiment in Europe (among Christians and non-Christians alike) is that it is all right in moderation. There are also differences on both continents between denominations, high church and low church, etc., so this is VERY general. In Asia the situation is very mixed, and a lot seems to depend on which western countries have been most influential in a given place.

In England a Church of Christ minister I was visiting served sherry Sunday noon, after the church services and before dinner. And at least one church I visited in England (all also Churches of Christ) used alcoholic wine for the communion.

Much has been said about "what if someone sees you"? Will it harm your witness? Will it cause someone else to stumble? Will it "offend" someone? Should we abstain if it would "offend" someone, but would not actually cause them to "stumble"? Etc. I may have missed this, but I think there is another reason for being careful who sees you and who you tell. Whether or not this "should" make a difference, I'm sure it does. This is fear. I know missionaries (mainly in Europe) who have come to feel that in the circumstances where they are it is all right to drink socially, and that their witness may even be improved if they do not appear to be making an issue over something that has come to them to be a matter of personal opinion. I have heard U.S. preachers tell privately of having come to the same conclusion when visiting Europe. But I wonder how many of these preachers would admit that to their "board" of elders, or how many of these missionaries would admit it to their supporting churches. Is that dishonest? I don't think so. Only prudent. But it means that many of those who might have the most valuable contribution to make to a discussion like this are going to be excluded unless there is a way to provide anonymity for their submissions.

One final thing to think about. While doctors everywhere agree on the harmful effects of excessive drinking, most agree that several medical studies have shown that moderate drinking of red wine (I think they recommend somewhere in the vicinity of one average glass per day) helps to protect against heart attacks. Some have suggested that the same benefits can be had from drinking non-alcoholic grape juice, but I know of no studies to confirm this. In fact, I think I recall reading a report of one study that suggested that similar benefits (though in a lesser degree) could be had from moderate drinking of other alcoholic beverages, which seems to indicate that it is not JUST something in the grape that makes the difference.

Benjamin Rees, Hong Kong

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2000

On re-reading my previous posting to this thread, I'm not sure if I made one point clear enough. In the first major paragraph, in which I pointed out that the question, "Are we right in teaching abstinence?" was ambiguous, I meant to go on to suggest that a strong case could be built for teaching abstinence (based on all kinds of factors), just as long as we are not teaching dogmatically that this is what the Bible says, when the Bible teaching is NOT quite so clear.

Benjamin Rees

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2000

Danny,

Thanks for your comment. I guess I need to give further clarification. Our ULTIMATE source of authority for determining right and wrong is the Word of God. We MUST obey its clear commands, and apply its principles to the best of our understanding; we must NOT do the things it tells us not to do. But the Bible is not intended to be a detailed rule book to give us the final word on every choice we have to make in life. (And Jesus condemned the Pharisees who tried to treat it that way for having "neglected the weightier matters of the law".)

Although some of my brethren believe that the Bible is clear in condemning not only drunkenness, but ALL consumption of alcohol, it doesn't seem so clear to me. I cannot find a clear "thou shalt not" on this issue. Therefore, to me, it seems to be an area of liberty where I am free to weigh other factors -- both principles within the Bible and other factors from outside, e.g. from science, sociology, culture, traditions, etc. -- to decide what I will do personally and what I will recommend to others.

With an alcoholic father that you were reacting against, I suspect that even if the Bible were absolutely silent on the question of drinking, you might still decide (either from other principles that are in the Bible, or simply from experience) that it is better not to drink. I have no direct family experience like that, since most of my family are tee-total, but family tradition says that my great-grandfather or great-great-grandfather was the town drunk -- until he abruptly sobered up in a Salvation Army meeting in Wales, and never took another drink in his life (which is why my father's family were Salvationists and also tee-total for the next couple of generations). Since alcoholism tends to run in families and there MAY be a genetic factor, I might decide it is better for me also to be tee-total. As I said in my first message, my understanding is that recovering alcoholics are usually advised never to drink again, since the temptation to slip back into alcoholism is so strong. If there seems any likelihood that social drinking might cause someone else to stumble, I should follow Paul's advice that it is better not to eat meat at all (or drink alcohol at all) than to cause a brother to stumble.

So, in summary, I think that to say that the Bible commands us to be tee-total -- or even strongly teaches this -- goes beyond what is really there. I think this has to be an area of "opinion" where we have freedom to make our own decisions and must allow others the freedom to differ. But even someone who believes that drinking is "permitted" may still feel that it is wiser or more prudent to abstain and to teach abstinence (as long as we are not saying that this is what the Bible commands, when it isn't that clear).

With regard to preaching, a lot of our preaching is interpretation and application. We put forth a Bible principle and apply it to life today. Surely it is possible to put forth Bible teachings about temperance, not being drunkards or "given to much wine", not harming the body, etc., and then to RECOMMEND total abstinence while still admitting that it is an area where we have freedom to make our own choice. The Apostle Paul admitted that observing or not observing special days and eating or not eating meat were matters of opinion, but recommended that we not exercise our freedom if it was likely to lead someone to stumble. He commended marriage -- while at the same time recommending his own choice of celibacy.

Does that clarify things, or does it only muddy the waters further?

Benjamin Rees

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2000

Room for another angle (from a first-time browser)???

An influential verse for me on this subject used to be 1 Corinthians 10:23 - All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. From basic study, I knew drinking was not prohibited by Scripture. (Original languages aside, 'Not given to much grape juice' and the possibility of drinking grape juice causing a brother to stumble, just didn't make sense.) But I knew people held strong opinions against drinking, (though they did not see them as opinions), and drinking would interfere with my ministry. My thought was, 'I know the position is not biblical (i.e., to view drinking as wrong), but I'll just focus on the "important" things.' I saw precedent in the circumcision of Timothy (Acts 16). Paul knew it was not required by God, but Timothy's being uncircumcised would have diminished the effectiveness of their ministry.

Recently, another passage(s) and a different incident have affected my view. Galatians takes a strong stand against people undermining the freedom that we have in Christ (e.g., do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery, 5:1; if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed, 1:9). And not just because it is not fair to have to sacrifice such freedom, but because the mentality that calls for us to do so fosters legalism and erodes Grace. In Galatians, Paul refers to an incident outwardly similar to the one with Timothy. A traveling companion (Titus) was not circumcised. This time, Paul refused to circumcise him. Why? Because doing so would have lent credence to the position that being circumcised was necessary for salvation (i.e., legalism).

My point: Which incident best represents the situation in most churches? Should drinking be viewed as presenting an obstacle to ministry, and so advised against? Or, does the popular stand against drinking actually have a more insidious effect on the ministry of the gospel of Grace because it perpetuates legalism?

Think beyond drinking for a minute. My fellow FCC alumni, do you remember playing Skip-Bo and Uno in the Holy Land? Was it because no one knew Rummy and Euchre? No, regular playing cards were prohibited. Why? We did not want to offend anyone. Granted, but why would anyone have been offended? Because, 'Christians do not play cards.' (Ever heard anything similar regarding pool? I have.) And then there is the dreaded . . . facial hair! I had a friend tell me once that if he grew a beard, his congregation would run him out of town. Maybe some exaggeration, but I do have another friend whose father was not asked to give the communion meditation for a whole winter, during which he had a beard. When it came off in the Spring, he was back in the rotation. (If "Thou shalt not drink" is an inference, what would you call that "biblical principle"?)

I used to classify such things as "minor issues" which were best overlooked in order to focus on the important things. But now I wonder, Is it possible to be legalistic in some areas (i.e., the "minor" ones) and not in others? Experience tells me, No. What about you? That being the case, do such attempts not to offend actually do more harm than good? I'm sure Paul's refusal to circumcise Titus ruffled a few feathers. However, he decided it was best for maintaining the purity of the Gospel and the life of the Church.

Again my point: Which situation best reflects most churches - Timothy or Titus? What is the ultimate effect of the position we have been espousing regarding drinking? Have we wisely removed obstacles or unwittingly fostered legalism?

Steve Vinson (vinsons@lynxus.com)

BTW, in answer to a question of Danny's: A nice, light red, such as a Pinot Noir, is actually becoming very popular with fish . . .

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

My last posting to this thread seems to be "lost in cyberspace". I might be able to reconstruct it from memory. I'll think about whether or not it is worth the bother. In the meantime, here is something I ran across in my personal Bible reading this morning:

Deuteronomy 14:22-26 (NIV) -- "Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the LORD your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the LORD your God always. But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the LORD your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the LORD will choose to put his Name is so far away), then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the LORED your God will choose. Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, WINE OR OTHER FERMENTED DRINK, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice."

For "fermented drink", the KJV has "strong drink."

According to Young's, the Hebrew words are: For "new wine" -- TIROSH For "wine" -- YAYIN For "fermented drink" or "strong drink" -- SHEKAR! (See the definition above.)

I had almost forgotten this passage, but when I was in my late teens and formulating my own views (through study of the Bible) on a lot of issues on which up to then I had only followed my parents' views, this was one of several passages that forced me to conclude that the issue of drinking was not quite as clear-cut as I'd always been taught.

Benjamin Rees

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

This is wierd!

I've just been browsing through miscellaneous threads to see what I've missed in the many months I've been "away" (not following this forum), and ran across this one. Nothing seems to have been added since the last time I looked at it, but the order in which the messages appear sure has changed!! WHY, apart from Duane's initial message, do we have all of Danny's postings first, with no-one else's in between, even when he is responding to other people's message, followed by everyone else's, but none of Danny's!

Is Danny making use of his position as moderator to try to make sure that his messages get priority? ;-)

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2003

Now Benjamin.....it's comments like this that leads to contentions on the forum....and in fact give a perfect example of why there are "gossip" problems in most churches. Goodness, if "leaders" do it....it's no wonder churches are ate up with it. Rather than e-mail me privately about the irregularity....you choose to air your misperception and in so doing "muddy the waters" some more. So please....prepare to take "foot out of mouth" while I explain.

If you will notice the e-mail address for this post....is different than the e-mail address that is given for the moderator. The reason being, that this server automatically, without me doing a thing, puts any posts with the moderators e-mail address at the head of the line. If something is pulled out of the archives, it does the same thing. If you will notice, when Duane was moderating, he used a "fake" e- mail address when he posted on a thread to avoid this.

In fact Benjamin.....you will notice that I have posted very little for the last year. Time simply did not permit much effort to be spent here. I would check in occassionally to see if discussions were staying somewhere in the realm of civility, which for the most part they have.

I have the ability to change the "password" as many times as I want.....and will do so.....if posts like yours continue.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2003

Weird, yeah. Hard to read, yeah.

But my biggest question is, I wonder what I said about cultural bias? Musta been good! Wish I knew where to look for it.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2003

Good grief! It was a JOKE!! I thought that would be clear from what I said and from the context, but, just to be sure, I even added one of those "winking smiley faces" to make it even clearer (even though I normally hardly ever use those things).

For the record, I suspected that the reason was something like what you said. I did wonder what the specific reason was, but my main reason for what I said was that it seemed to me a HARMLESS way to inject a little humour into a forum that has a tendency to take itself a little too seriously sometimes. (I'd consider the SERIOUS back-biting that often went on to be a greater threat to harmony and Christian love than the little bit of teasing that I attempted.)

Or was your response also intended as a joke? I hope so, but it seemed rather heavy-handed to me, so failed with me even more than my joke seems to have failed with you.

Anyway, once again -- it was intended as a JOKE!

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2003