22 Comments so far

1. steve moore on January 22, 2008 7:57 pm

   When I grew up I was under the impression that the Bible expressly forbid any alcoholic consumption. Imagine my shock when I found out that Jesus didn’t drink grape juice and himself made good wine!

   I respect those who wish to abstain but in their choice understand that it is not wrong for others to choose differently. Even better is when this is not just a theoretical, but the abstainer truly does not hold it against the partaker in any way.

   On the other hand: I am amazed at the incredible gymnastics and gyrations that people twist and take the text as well as history to make a case that drinking of any kind is wrong. They flat out make all kinds of stuff up. I’m honestly not sure how I could avoid offending them regardless of whether I drink or not!

   Here’s a question - did the pharisees drink wine? I am pretty sure they did, since they were at the parties with Jesus and it was not a taboo at that time and culture. Makes me go “hmmm…”. Even if they didnt, it really doesnt matter as I’m not wanting to be like a Pharisee… Jesus is a far better example and clearly he partook of something which was alcoholic enough in content to get someone drunk.

   As for the weaker brother (wb) case as was brought up: I think there is such a thing as a weaker brother. I do not think the passages allow for it to be the alcoholic, I do not think the professional weaker brother counts either. The one thing that is always left out is that in the whole argument of the weaker brother Paul does 2 things: 1) points out that a wb does exist and 2) educates the wb so he/she is no longer weak! So, if someone pulls the wb clause, they should also know by that very argument that it is not wrong, and thus are self-refuting. The true wb doesnt know they are weak, and so when dealing with them grace and mercy should be extended when instructing them of their freedom in Christ and helping them along the way towards maturity. In the end, the real, legitimate weaker brothers out there should be a problem that diminishes over time, as they grow in Christ and understand the radical nature of what He has done for them.

   As a parting comment: I think a church that puts abstaining from alcohol as a requirement for membership or leadership (some go so far as to say it is a sin) is in serious error, especially when they list it right under their adherence to “sola scriptura”. Ahh, the irony.

   -steve

2. JoanieD on January 22, 2008 9:21 pm

   I don’t think it is a sin to drink alcohol, but I have to say that I see SO MUCH pain caused by the over-consumption of alcohol or the inability of some folks to drink at all without causing problems. I do often think that the world would be a better place if there was no such thing as alcohol. I work as a juvenile probation officer and also see the adult offenders in court and alcohol plays a big part in the problems they are having. We can’t BLAME the alcohol and I am aware that alcoholism is a brain disease. But that still doesn’t prevent me from hating the destruction that I see resulting from abusers of alcohol. The Bible does not say that drinking alcohol is a sin but it DOES say that drunkenness is a sin. I think there is even a passage in the New Testament where it says that drunks will not be in the Kingdom. I would have to find that passage.

   Joanie D.

3. doctorwinters on January 23, 2008 4:46 am

   That is a common argument….abstinince because of alcoholics. However history proves that outlawing alcohol and making it taboo actually increases alcoholism. In countries like Italy where wine is just a staple with dinner moderate alcohol consumption is the norm and abuse is much less common. Making it a sin seems to result in binge drinking and overindulgence: “In for a penny, in for a pound” as it were.

4. JoanieD on January 23, 2008 6:59 am

   Hi doctorwinters. No, I don’t want to outlaw alcohol. I know that people would drink no matter what the law said. (In fact, during prohibition, I understand that a relative of mine “ran” liquor.) I just wish alcohol didn’t exist. It’s a “fantasy” that’s all. I read some statistics somewhere that said it is just a “myth” that in other countries where children are allowed to drink that there are less problems with alcohol. So I don’t really know the truth about that. But if alcohol didn’t exist, then some drug would. It seems that humans are hard-wired to want to change their consciousness. But they are looking in the WRONG direction. Only God can truly change their consciousness in a way that is permanent, positive and life-affirming.

   Joanie D.

5. JoanieD on January 23, 2008 7:07 am

   Oh, and just for the record, I do drink myself in moderation (couple beers or glasses of wine in a week), but I could really take it or leave it.

   Joanie D.

6. steve moore on January 23, 2008 7:30 am

   Joanie,

   I agree entirely that being drunk is a sin - the Bible is also explicitly clear on that point.

   I also agree that alcohol, when misused and abused, has caused great tragedies. I’m personally affected by them myself.

   As you have stated, neither of these make alcohol sin - it makes the abuse/misuse of it sin.

   Just like sex: within the marriage is a gift of God but outside of the proper context, misuse and abuse is sin, and has caused many many great tragedies as well. That doesn’t make sex wrong - merely the misuse/abuse of it.

   What I find most perplexing of all is that Christians would even debate dietary laws. ;^)

   -steve

   -steve

7. Eric Stephens on January 23, 2008 5:34 pm

   This conversation is not happening in Europe. When I’ve brought it up to folks over there they just snicker at us American Christians. The phobic concerns of many Christians are rooted in American culture and not (properly interpreted) Scripture. I respect any Christian’s choice to abstain or enjoy alcohol. Just don’t go around attempting to codify teetotalism with Scripture because I don’t think it can be done without proof-texting. The best Scripture around this topic, I think, is Eph 5:18 where Paul simply states “don’t get drunk”. ‘nuf said!

8. bcwb on February 8, 2008 7:03 am

   I think Steve hits the nail on the head when he says “neither of these make alcohol sin - it makes the abuse/misuse of it sin.”
   It is the abuse of something that makes it a sin.
   Ravi Zacharias in many of his talks uses the phase “Intent is prior to content.” This is a powerful statment because the focus shifts from WHAT a person does to WHY they are doing.
   Now obviously this has it’s limitations too because somethings are deemed wrong in Scripture regardless of intent; however alcohol doesn’t fall in this list of objective moral negatives.

   Simply because something can be abused doesn’t make it wrong. Again Steve brings up the parallel of sex which is a great point. But let us not stop there, how about food, knowledge, work….. all of these when harnessed correctly serve a good purpose but can be negative if abuse.

   Dallas Willard in his book “Hearing God” says the following:
   “Legalism is superstition. The legalistic tendencies found throughout our religious and cultural life also thrust us toward superstition. Legalism claims that over action in conforming to rules for explicit behavior is what makes us right and pleasing to God and worthy of blessing. Jesus called legalism “the righteousness….of the scribes and Pharisees” (Mat 5:20)
   Legalism, superstition and magic are closely joined by their emphasis on controlling people and events. Legalists are forced toward superstitious behavior because, in the interest of controlling life through their laws, they depart from the natural connections of life. They bypass the realities of the heart and soul from which life really flows. That is why Jesus tells us we must go beyond the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees if we are truly to enter into life.
   Life does not come by law (Gal 3:21), nor can law adequately depict or guide life. The law is the letter, and “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” (2 Cor 3:6) Legalists are evermore forced into merely symbolic behavior, which they superstitiously suppose to have the good effects they seek. Magic or superstition, as is well known, also place absolute emphasis on doing everything “just right,” which is the essence of legalism.”

   There is a plateful of truth in that quote!

9. Lynn on May 14, 2008 1:14 pm

   I’m concerned. I agree with you that we should in no way judge a fellow believer in his choice to drink. When I study to understand leadership and drinking I find: It was required by priests Lev. 10:9, it was the Nazirite’s vow, wiseman’s injunction Prov. 23:31&32, Rule for kings Prov. 31:4, Law of the Recabites Jer.35:6,It was Daniel’s principle Daniel 1:8, required by John the Baptist, and also for our weaker brother Romans 14:2 to obstain from alochol. I do not believe asking a leader to please refrain from drinking while in leadership is beyond the scope of God’s word and what He has required of leadership in the past.

10. steve moore on May 18, 2008 9:19 am

    Lynn,

    Welcome to the party, though we’ve already covered a great deal of ground before you joined.

    I appreciate your concern but I’m not convinced. Rules against being drunk, sure - they are clear. Voluntary (Nazarite vows) are not in view here however. Romans and the weaker brother have already been addressed.

    Simply put, there are no rules against drinking. There are rules against being drunk, there are rules against abuse (your other references). You’ve taken them and logically extended that to mean that therefore leaders shouldn’t drink. This is where I part with you and cannot agree as you’re step turns to legalism.

    Jesus drank wine, and it was the good stuff, and He is Lord of the church, among many other things. The statement that His wine was grape juice is, well, silly. The Bible is clear on that too, also already addressed. It makes the heart merry and causes the face to glisten. There are so many positive affirmations that you’ve not even mentioned. Even about leaders and those in leadership.

    Respectfully, you said we shouldn’t judge but then you did. Were you simply addressing those who had a different opinion, and that they shouldn’t judge? ;^)

    cheers,

    -steve

11. RIsEoben on December 5, 2008 1:11 am

    SEO ZONE is a search engine optimization(seo) firm, provides seo, seo article, seo tools,seo news and seo related informations,helping companies leverage the internet to increase revenues and profits.

12. lynn on December 5, 2008 11:30 am

    I’m sorry you feel this way. I didn’t judge at all in fact I just stated a few scriptures where it was important that the Lord and man believed there were times where we needed to refrain. I have friends who drink on ocassion and feel the very same way I do. I believe this is a faith walk not a man walk. God’s word is what I stand on. and to just say it’s o.k. to drink and that God’s word says nothing about refraining from drinking is to not accurately convey God’s word. What man decides to do is up to him, but to not fully equip him to make the wise choices is not sound Biblical teaching. The generation it will affect are my kids and my kids. Remember what we do in moderation our future generation tends to do in excess.

13. steve on December 5, 2008 11:35 am

    “Remember what we do in moderation our future generation tends to do in excess.”

    Were that true, we’d all be drunks all the time.

    ;^(

14. Donnie on December 8, 2008 9:37 pm

    Yes, we should not drink.

    But having sex with Prostitutes like Jimmy Swaggert, Ted Hagard, Jim Baker, and others do, is is A-OK!

15. lynn on December 9, 2008 11:07 am

    Open your eyes I am not saying that you are wrong, but with you it’s bondage or not bondage. Untrue. Our walk is with God and we should be letting our lives like Daniel (who chose not to drink) & John the Baptist (who was required not to drink)show us that we should always consider what God has for us. To make a blanket statement that anyone who says “there are times to refrain is in bondage” is wrong. Because I have freedom in Christ, but not the freedom to disregard what God’s will may be for my life. And Donnie it is sad we have leaders who do things that are a poor reflection on Christians. But I do say this they had a responsibility, just like all of us, to live our Christian lives in accordance with God’s word. But I believe that’s why the Bible uses so many people who have failed big time. So we would have an example of how true repentance is what God truly desires.

16. Chad Winters on December 9, 2008 11:22 am

    Your missing his basic point. We disagree on your presupposition that drinking alcohol is sinful or a “poor reflection on Christians”. For every person you can point out in the Bible who did not drink you can point to more who did and were not condemned for it. Including Christ, Paul, the other 11 disciples, Timothy et. al.

    It is cultural eisegesis that drinking alcohol is bad. Abstinence for one reason or another by some is just like fasting or sexual abstinence.

17. lynn on December 9, 2008 9:11 pm

    No I did not say the poor reflection was about drinking, but men who serve God and behave in a way that is not biblical is a poor reflection.(such as Jimmy Swaggart…etc. In reference to what Donnie said)not drinking. My whole entire basic point I am trying to get across is that we need to find out from God what He wants us to do or not to do just like anyone in the Bible had to do. The whole presupposition was drinking is ok & I believe that God set many standards in God’s word for leaders to follow and drinking was one of them. We need to be responsible with blanket statements, because people are listening. I would rather encourage people when it comes to drinking to be in prayer and realize that God required different things from different people and though God never said no to drinking you should ask God what He has for you.

18. Karl on October 7, 2009 9:08 pm

    I don’t consider myself to be a Bible scholar, but I did graduate from Seminary some 25 yrs ago (MA) where I studied both Greek and Hebrew. I have always assumed that the wine in the Bible was fermented and that the Biblical message was to not drink in excess. I recently did some research that has challenged these assumptions. I’ll try to list the assumptions I had and how they have been challenged. The challenges are not my own original thoughts, but for simplicity I’ll try to express them mostly in my own words.

    Assumption: wine in the Bible was always a fermented drink

    Challenge: The relevant Hebrew words (about 18) and the relevant Greek words (about 5) were used in a generic sense to mean both fermented and unfermented juices. Since neither language had a word for alcohol, the context is the first step in determining the type. Words translated “wine” were used to describe juice still in the grape and juice fresh from the press-both not fermented. Secular Greek writers, including Aristotle, at times used the Greek word most often translated “wine” in the New Testament (”oinos”) to mean unfermented juice.

    Assumption: Cultures back then needed fermented wine because of the scarcity of good water. Cultures back then did not know how to preserve juice.

    Challenge: All cultures must have regular access to acceptable water. Cultures of Biblical times regularly preserved juice. It was boiled to a syrup type state and then sealed. Water was later added at the time of use. A ship found at the bottom of the Mediteranean Sea some 2000 yrs old was loaded with juice that still had not fermented. In fact, getting juice to ferment properly (without just turning to vinegar) was a bit of a skill in those days. It was easier to preserve the “wine” as unfermented juice.

    Assumption: The Biblical admonition that church leaders are not to be drunkards means that they are obviously allowed to drink moderately.

    Challenge: The first translation, the Latin Vulgate, translated the original Greek how it was intended. Much later English translations were influenced by a church that had by then become comfortable with “social drinking” and so used a more figurative translation. The original Greek (also translated this way in the Vulgate) says that leaders should not be “paroinos”. This comes from “para” which means “near, beside, in the vicinity of” and “oinos” which means “wine”. That is, church leaders are not to be near wine.

    Assumption: Drunkeness is condemned in Scripture, but nowhere is moderate drinking condemned.

    Challenge: The Greek word translated “drunk” or “drunkeness” is “methusko”. Its root is the word “methe” which means “an intoxicant”. This verb is an inceptive verb, meaning that it expresses the beginnig of the action, to begin to be softened; it includes the beginning of the process, i.e. “to begin to be drunk”.

    The word sometimes translated “sober” (”nepho”) in the New Testament comes from the Greek “ne” or “not” and “pino” or “drink”. So a literal translation is not drink wine or “to be free of the influences of intoxicants” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary) We can say that the word has figurative uses, but that these do not exclude the literal use. A play on the root word “drink” is found in I Peter 5:8, “Be sober, Be on the alert! Your adversary the Devil is prowling around like a roaring lion looking for anyone he can devour”. The literal “sober” is actually “do not drink” (”nepho”) and the word devour is literally “drink down” (”katapino”). That is literally, “do not drink or Satan will drink you down”. The verse has obvious figurative meaning, but this does not preclude the literal meaning.

    Assumption: Jesus drank and produced fermented wine.

    Challenge: Nothing in the text indicates that the “wine” (”oinos”) was fermented. Jesus had just turned 30, the age of becoming a Rabbi. He had just returned from his time in the wilderness. Given the Biblical mandate to not be under the influence of fermented wine, he would not have produced fermented wine for those already under the influence.

    Authentic science and cultural knowledge support the Biblical view. One guy wrote, “Alcoholics Anonymous will be glad to explain to you that sober means no alcohol in any amount”. Another wrote, “the first drink ends your sobriety”. According to Dr A.C. Ivy, anyone who starts to drink occasionally has a 1 in 9 chance of becoming a heavy drinker or chronic alcoholic. “Evidence indicates that there is no guarantee of a safe level of drinking, no absolute threshold below which alcohol fails to damage or destroy groups of cells in the brain and other vital organs” (credited to Readers Digest 6-70). JAMA-”There is no minimum blood alcohol concentration which can be set at which there will be no effect” SAMHSA Alcohol Impairment Chart-”Impairment begins with your first drink”.

19. Viagra on January 23, 2010 12:04 pm

    Keep working ,great job!

    rH3uYcBX

20. Corey Reynolds on February 23, 2010 4:41 pm

    Karl, it sounds like you got yourself into some dishonest junk there.

    I don’t have time to handle your whole wall of text right now, so I’ll just hit the first assumption and challenge. Acts 2:13 makes that whole argument ridiculous because the folks at Pentecost thought that the apostles were drunk on “new wine”.

    Fundamentalist Bible twisting to prove traditionalistic presuppositions = fail.

21. CPye on March 13, 2010 11:15 am

    I like what Jack Graham said when he said “he does not drink because of the many lives and families he has watched get destroyed by a alcohol”. I don’t know anyone who’s life got worse because they do not drink. I believe we should not judge others that do drink. “There are some that can drink and some that cannot”. There is only one way to find out. At any rate, alcohol can lead to a slippery slope. I believe God got my attention after I found that I am one that cannot drink. It was a blessing for the eventual outcome and I use those experiences to hopefully lead others to Christ. A drinking problem is really a thinking problem and the alcohol is yet a symptom of not being spiritually fit. Once I began to trust God, clear away the wreckage of my past and help others, my new life as a Christian that tries to follow God’s lead is better than it has ever been while remaining free from alcohol.

22. J.J on March 16, 2010 6:20 pm

    “Acts 2:13 makes that whole argument ridiculous because the folks at Pentecost thought that the apostles were drunk on “new wine”.

    I’m sorry but this doesn’t prove that the apostles drank alcohol at all. Hannah was also accused of being drunk when the prophet found her babbling to God in the temple. Does this mean she was a female drinker? If I walk down the street and find a bunch of youths acting rowdy, does this prove they drink alcohol?