A couple of months ago, a series of situations occurred that led us to reevaluate our consciences and further study what the Bible has to say about alcohol. The following essay is what spun out of it.
******
The question that really hounds me is – at what point will the church condemn drinking? At what point does it become sinful for Christians to drink? Where is the line between responsible and irresponsible drinking? Does one first have to stagger down the street like a maniac? Is it between lightheadedness and silliness? Is it all right if it causes one to be talkative and loose, but wrong if it goes a step further and turns to violence and cursing? Is drinking good if it causes a depressed person to relax, but wrong if it causes him to gossip? Is it right or wrong only by the way a person reacts to its power? Can two men sit side-by-side, drinking the same amount of alcohol – react differently – and one be right, the other wrong? One man becomes happy and kind – the other, mean and violent. Do we justify the kind drinker and condemn the violent one? Is a Christian justified in drinking to the point he is able to handle it with dignity? Does it suddenly become sinful at the point he makes a fool of himself? Is he a responsible drinker if he can hold down three or four cocktails, irresponsible if he vomits? (Wilkerson, 54-55)
Introduction:
I picked up David Wilkerson’s book Sipping Saints a few days ago following a discussion with a friend of mine about the consumption of alcohol. The quote above was one of many that offer a stark challenge to Christians as it pertains to drinking. While I would encourage anyone interested in learning more about this subject matter to read Sipping Saints, the book did not offer the complete perspective I hope to provide in this essay. This is not, by any means, a scholarly essay, and I am not an expert theologian nor am I fluent in Greek, all of which are probably needed to provide a full view of this subject. What this essay does offer are my interpretations of what scholars and theologians have said, what preachers have preached, and what the Bible says to me; I am writing this because people have observed my abstinence from alcohol and asked my opinion. Before I get into all that, I want to cover a few details about how I interpret scripture, so that you will know how I arrived at my interpretations. I also want to discuss the different perspectives in depth, offer different viewpoints, and then posit a few questions. It is not as much my intention to persuade as much as it is to educate, although in full disclosure I do find the arguments for abstention to be most persuasive, and at times I am rather passionate in my agreement. There is enough circumstantial evidence, anecdotal evidence, and experiential evidence to fill entire volumes on why not to drink, and, although I will probably mention some of them, I prefer to dwell on more of the factual evidence with regards to alcohol consumption, its effects, and the context of culture, as well as what the Bible says about the subject, which is quite a lot; Wilkerson writes that alcohol and/or drinking are mentioned 627 times in the Bible, more than “lying, adultery, swearing, stealing, Sabbath-breaking, cheating, hypocrisy, pride, or even blasphemy.” (Wilkerson 34)
Biblical Interpretation:
It is very common for Christians to “proof-text” scripture. Many of us do it without knowing that we are doing it. Just today, a co-worker of mine told a friend the following: “You know you have to be specific in your prayers!” She was referencing what is commonly known as the prayer of Jabez in 1 Chronicles 4:10. But any thorough study on prayer (e.g. Matthew 6:5-15, Luke 18:35-42, James 4:3) demonstrates that there is much more to prayer than being specific.
I first learned about proper Biblical interpretation, also referred to as hermeneutics, from a book by John MacArthur called Charismatic Chaos. Although (perhaps ironically) I do not agree with all MacArthur teaches in his book, I do believe that he has a strong commitment to the authority of scripture, and he lays out a solid foundation for proper hermeneutics that is simple enough for anyone to understand and apply. The process may seem tedious to some, but it is vitally important if we hope to truly understand what God is saying in his word. As MacArthur states in Charismatic Chaos, “the task of hermeneutics is to discover the meaning of the text in its proper setting; to draw meaning from scripture rather than reading one’s presuppositions into it” (103). He goes on to expose the danger of improperly reading God’s Word, stating that “misinterpreting the Bible is ultimately no better than disbelieving it. What good does it do to agree that the Bible is God’s final and complete revelation and then misinterpret it? The result is still the same: one misses God’s truth. Interpreting scripture to make it say what it was never intended to say is a sure road to division, error, heresy, and apostasy” (ibid.). This may seem like harsh criticism, but it is profoundly true. And if you don’t have enough experience in your own life to believe that, go ask a Methodist to interpret John 6:37 and Hebrews 10:26-27, or ask a snake handler to interpret Mark 16:17-18. You will see division, and error, and heresy, and apostasy.
The five principles to proper Biblical interpretation that MacArthur presents are these: the literal principle, the historical principle, the grammatical principle, the synthesis principle, and the practical principle. The literal principle is the most commonly misunderstood principle to Biblical interpretation, and it does not mean 100% literal translation, word for word, all the time. Rather, MacArthur says, the literal principle means “we understand scripture in its normal sense, including figures of speech like parables, hyperbole, simile, metaphor, and symbolism.” (109) I might even add poetry, allegory, and other obviously figurative language such as apocalyptic passages or prophecies to this list. Usually these passages are very obvious, and can be identified as figurative language without too much trouble or disagreement. Even in less conspicuous cases, usually the historical setting or audience of the speaker make it easy to identify whether the language is meant to be literal. Therefore, if there is a hypothetical verse that states “David ate green eggs and ham,” we would interpret that as saying he literally ate green eggs and ham. We would not search for some hidden meaning or metaphor, nor would we make claims that green eggs are a symbol of new life after death, and by eating them David was claiming restoration for the world through Christ as the ham. This claim would be applying meaning to the text that isn’t there. Instead, all the text really says is “David was hungry and this is what was around.” Although a silly example, there are many such misinterpretations proclaimed as truth in the church today.
The historical principle looks to the context of culture and history for proper interpretation of the text. MacArthur values this principle highly, saying that “if one understands the historical context, the passage often will practically interpret itself” (111), although as we explore some particular passages like John 2, we will see that it is not always that easy. In any case, the historical context is especially important on this subject matter, as “wine” is the most-oft referenced beverage in the Bible and is translated into English from as many as thirteen different words in Hebrew and Greek. With each of those translations, the historical context will be important to understand whether the beverage mentioned contained alcohol or not, and a lot of doctrines have been developed from the interpretation that every reference to wine refers to a fermented beverage, and vice versa, as we will see later.
The grammatical principle considers syntax when deconstructing a passage. Many times words are displaced when translate from one language to another; for example, in Spanish, “Me llamo” means, “I call myself” where “me” is the direct object and appears before the verb “llamo”. In the English translation, “myself” is the direct object and appears after the verb. It can be subtle, but there are many different constructions where it is important to discern the proper placement of nouns, verbs, objects, and other parts of speech. This principle will not be as relevant with regard to this subject matter, as there is little to no disagreement about the syntax of most of the passages we’ll discuss, but it is important to know nonetheless.
The fourth principle is the synthesis principle, commonly noted as “Scripture interprets Scripture.” MacArthur defines this principle by saying that “obscure passages in Scripture must be understood in light of clearer ones” (113). He goes on to say that, if we believe Scripture is the Word of God, which should be just about everyone reading this essay, then we must also believe it inerrant and consistent with itself. So if one Scripture says “judge not lest ye be judged” (Matthew 7:1) and another says “are you not to judge those inside [the church]?” (1 Cor. 5:12) we must determine that these two verses do not contradict each other, but rather help to explain each other. To determine the correct interpretation of passages like these, you must define the clear one first, then the obscure one. In most cases, there are many other passages that clarify the subject. I can immediately think of one very commonly misunderstood subject that is frequently interpreted on the basis of one obscure passage: faith by works (ref: James 2:14-26). No matter how frequently the Gospel writers or Paul or Peter wrote about grace, there are those that maintain their works as they try to earn salvation in their hearts.
The last principle MacArthur proposes is the practical principle. This principle basically enables us to examine why the Scripture passage is important and its value as part of the Canon. As MacArthur notes, 2 Timothy 3:16 states that “all Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” If we seek to be moved by God, to be taught by his Spirit, we need to cherish his Word. If you do not wish to be challenged, or if you are comfortable with your convictions, then by all means close the book. Each of us can testify that when we open God’s Word, conviction comes, because we are all in fact sinners. It does not matter how long ago we decided to forego a life of sin and pursue Christ, we are still human and we still fall short of His glory. His Word is Holy, it is perfect, and that is why it challenges us. Consider what the apostle Paul says:
Oh the depths of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” “Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?” For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever. Amen. (Romans 11:33-36)
MacArthur adds one last thought to this methodology of interpretation: “they are useless without the illumination of the Holy Spirit.” The Lord speaks to each of us through his word; it is the Spirit that enables us to listen.
Contemporary Theology
The church has a long history of alcohol use. Many mainline denominations, as well as Catholic churches, use alcohol for Communion and the Eucharist and have for centuries, and if tradition were the baseline for our decision to consume, the conversation would end here. Tradition is important, certainly, but it is the work of men, and contrary to the belief of some, men are not inerrant. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that many great men in the history of the church were given to drink: Martin Luther, John Calvin, C.S. Lewis, and other reformers and theologians all consumed alcohol. It wasn’t until the 19th century that temperance was really even discussed. In fact, according to Mark Driscoll on his website, pastormark.tv, John Calvin was even paid in wine, “up to 250 gallons of wine to be enjoyed by he and his guests” (FAQ: What’s your stance on alcohol?, par. 2). Pastor Driscoll himself is considered by many (including myself) to be a modern-day reformer and founder of the “emerging church,” although it is a title he has disputed himself (The Christian Post, “Mars Hill Pastor Ditches ‘Emerging’ Label for Jesus”). As an influential leader, however, it is worth considering his view point as a voice for many Evangelicals today.
In the above cited article on his website, “FAQ: What’s your stance on alcohol?”, Mark Driscoll presents a fair and balanced perspective on this subject. Acknowledging first that “all Bible believing Christians believe that drunkenness is a sin” (par. 8), he identifies three groups, the prohibitionists, the abstentionists, and the moderationists, as the different categories within which all Christians can place their beliefs. As the name suggests, prohibitionists are Christians who believe drinking is a sin and should be prohibited behavior. While not delving into the prohibitionist position in any great detail, Driscoll calls it “untenable” and cites a few Scripture references, including Psalms 104, which states that “wine that gladdens the heart of man…” is made by God (14-15). He also cites Jesus’ miracle at the wedding in Cana from John 2, where he turned water into wine, as well as the Pharisee’s characterization of Jesus as a glutton and a drunkard found in Matthew 11:19. In light of these references, Driscoll argues “if alcohol is inherently evil, then God is evil because he makes it, and Jesus is sinful because he drank it” (par. 13). Although I agree with Pastor Driscoll’s position against prohibitionists, his argument is poorly developed, and we will revisit these Scriptures later.
The abstentionists, in contrast to the prohibitionist position, do not believe alcohol is inherently sinful. As such, abstentionists are Christians who abstain from drinking because they believe it is a better choice morally for the sake of others. They refer to passages such as Romans 14:21 and 1 Cor. 10:31-32 to support this position. As Driscoll affirms, “Christians should avoid drinking in the presence of others who are unable to practice moderation and self-control” (par. 15) but cites the same passage in Corinthians to say that “drinking alcohol can be done in a way that glorifies God” (par. 16). He goes on to say that the abstentionist position is also unreasonable; causing an actual person to stumble is clearly anti-Biblical, but to “seek to avoid causing a hypothetical person to hypothetically stumble is unreasonable, if not impossible when applied to every single issue” (par. 17). He goes on to create a hyperbolic example using sugary food as a euphemism for alcohol:
If a skinny person eats dessert in front of a dieting, obese glutton, they could tempt them to sin by also eating dessert. So, in love, they should forgo it. But, to tell the skinny person to never eat dessert again, even at home alone with only his or her skinny spouse, because someone, somewhere, who eats cakes by the sheet instead of by the slice, may hear about this dessert consumption and be thrown into a frosting frenzy, is unreasonable. (par. 18)
Although it sounds silly, Driscoll does have a point. The consumption of alcohol in the privacy of your home would never realistically cause someone to stumble any more than my wife watching So You Think You Can Dance could cause a man to commit adultery. But what Pastor Mark neglects to mention is what happens when word gets out, as it almost inevitably does, unless the drinker goes to extreme precautions to prevent such exposure. In my opinion, the real danger exists when Christians with a predisposition towards alcohol abuse learn of other Christians who permissively drink in moderation. Driscoll makes no distinction between physically drinking in front of others and other Christians knowing that any particular Christian drinks. Whether in moderation or not, the knowledge that another believer imbibes has the potential to be justification for another Christian to drink, and then the hypothetical person becomes a real person.
A little less obvious from the name, Driscoll describes the moderationists by saying they “rightly teach that drinking is not a sin and that Christian conscience must guide each person without Christians of differing convictions judging one another” (par. 19). He goes on to describe this position as the most reasonable and balanced because the Bible teaches that wine itself is neutral and can be used in good and bad ways. To support this, Driscoll references several Scriptures: 1 Sam. 1:14,24, which describes Hannah’s dedication of Samuel, an event to which she brought wine, and 1 Sam. 25, which details Abigail’s gift of wine to David, which he accepts. Later, Driscoll references a very oft-cited verse that many use as a proof text for drinking, Psalm 104:14-15, which we’ve mentioned once already and we will still discuss in more detail later. But in his context, Driscoll takes the verse literally word-for-word as a thank you to God for “wine that gladdens the heart of man.” He mentions several more references but his position is clear: since wine is neutral, it can conceivably be drunk by Christians without violating conscience or God’s law.
Driscoll is accurate in his moderationist belief by saying that drinking is not a sin, and by his own definition abstentionists believe that too. To present alcohol as anything other than neutral would be difficult, and very few reputable theologians consider alcohol to be innately sinful. The one difficulty I see in Driscoll’s moderationist position, however, is where he places the responsibility. Instead of the drinker taking responsibility for whomever he or she exposes to alcohol, Driscoll places the responsibility on others, allowing each person’s conscience to guide them. This is exactly what Paul was preaching we should avoid in Romans 14. Alcohol is a subject that must be handled delicately. It should not be discussed flamboyantly or even casually, for the sake of the weaker in faith. By his remarks, Pastor Mark implies that the moderate drinker bears no responsibility for the actions of others, which is the crux of the abstentionist position. We can declare that wine is essentially neutral, and Christians have liberty to drink it in moderation. But if anyone suffers for this, is it their responsibility to adjust their own lifestyle, and refrain from drinking further, but not the responsibility of the casual drinker to curb their consumption, or cease their declaration to others that their consumption is ok?
It’s difficult to say definitively one way of the other where the onus of responsibility begins and ends. The Bible believing Christian would have to agree with Matthew 18:6 and Romans 14:21, which clearly and strongly suggest that Christians should not “do anything that causes your brother to stumble.” But where is the line? As with the opening quotation, where does appropriate discussion or revelation about consumption begin, and where does it end? Should we consume alcohol openly? Should we speak freely about our consumption? Do we share it with a select few who share our liberty? How do we find those few?
Another contemporary reformer, John Piper, offers a perspective that answers a few of those questions for us, and presents something of a counter point to Mark Driscoll, even though his article “Total Abstinence and Church Membership” was written 30 years prior to Driscoll’s. For his journey into the subject, Piper divides the topic into two distinct parts: “should Christians in America today abstain from the use of alcoholic drink as a beverage?” and “Should such abstinence be a requirement for church membership?” (par. 1). Piper then begins by reciting a church covenant from what was at the time his parish that commands all members “to abstain from the sale and use of intoxicating liquors as a beverage,” among other covenant and promises (par. 6). He notes that, although every other requirement in their covenant has a biblical foundation, the comment about liquor does not. In fact, Piper argues, the biblical basis for alcohol is decidedly neutral, which stands in agreement with Driscoll. He too references the wedding at Cana in John 2, Psalm 104, and he cites Old Testament law in Deuteronomy 14:26, where God promotes the purchase of “wine or other fermented drink.” All of these passages were referenced by Driscoll and are frequently cited in support of the consumption of alcohol.
But unlike Mark Driscoll, John Piper is quick to establish the Biblical baseline for drinking and drunkenness. He comments that the priests were prohibited from drinking when serving the Lord in his holy tent (Lev. 10:9). Piper then cites Numbers 6:3, saying that “part of the Nazirite vow was total abstinence” (par. 13) before quoting extensively from Proverbs 20 and 23, which contain some of the strongest rebukes of drinking in the Bible. He also references the prophet Isaiah who declared “Woe to those who…run after strong drink” (5:11) and several letters of Paul, including Ephesians 5:18 which encourages Christians to “not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit.”
His contrast to Mark Driscoll’s approach is further evidenced in his next two paragraphs, which tie together his perspective so seamlessly that I have decided to just reprint them here:
The least we can infer from all this [Scripture cited above] is that while drinking is not always viewed as wrong, its dangers and harmfulness were such to call forth numerous warnings, and in some cases (priestly service, Nazirite vow, Timothy’s apostolic efforts) abstinence was seen as commendable. Drunkenness is always wrong.
The implication of this for our lives today is that we must look at the fundamental ethical principle of Scripture, take stock of our own personal and societal situation, and decide whether total abstinence or moderate use is the best way to go. For myself and my family the way I have decided to go is total abstinence. I also believe, in general, that this is the best way for all believers in America to go. (par. 15-16)
His reasoning for his position center on the theme of personal responsibility, even fundamentalism, and stand in stark contrast with Driscoll’s personal liberty theme. Summarily, his four reasons are conscience, alcohol’s mind-altering properties, the addictiveness of alchohol, and society’s view of alcohol. Again, it should be obvious to any Bible believing Christian that if consuming alcohol violates your conscience, then you should definitely abstain. Piper cites what Paul says in Romans 14:14, “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.” But later in the chapter, Paul adds a comment that subtly includes many more people than just those who “think it unclean.” In verse 22, Paul encourages us to keep these things “between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.” This is a challenging promise. Piper summarizes it by saying “the main point of Romans 14…is that we should not tempt others to do what they feel qualms about doing, but that also means that we who have qualms about a thing should avoid it.” If just our public approval of alcohol, not even our own consumption, causes another brother to stumble, then we have in fact brought condemnation upon ourselves. Paul reinforces this in 1 Corinthians 8, “be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak…when you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall” (vs. 9, 12-13). Paul’s declaration is weighty; he says that not only will he no longer eat meat in front of his weaker brother, but he will never eat meat again, ever. This is a very far-leaning position, but Paul’s purpose is straightforward; he desires an end to sin and a furthering of righteousness, and he’s willing to give up all his personal liberty to achieve it. This brings us back to the question, what is appropriate consumption for a Christian? What is an appropriate conversation about consumption? And to whom can we speak of consumption? In light of these challenges, it seems the only safe answer is no one.
Piper’s second and third reasons for abstaining address the physical properties of alcohol, its effect on the mind and its addictiveness. As mentioned before, everyone understands that too much alcohol can have serious negative effects on the body, such as drunkenness or alcohol poisoning, but where is the line of too much? Piper offers to draw the line at the first sign of lessened moral restraint, slowed reflexes, and diminished judgment; effects which are often considered ‘loosening up’ or ‘relaxing.’ Scientific studies have shown the ‘loosening up’ effects of alcohol manifest at just .03 blood alcohol content, which for a 150 pound woman equals one five ounce glass of wine (.034) and for a 200 pound man equals one and a half 12 ounce beers (.032), although the time in which the drink is consumed also plays a factor (“Alcohol & Your Body,” Sect. 4). Piper highlights the dangers to Christians in even minimal levels of consumption, stating that “alcohol could hinder in me what I want most, namely, to recognize and do the will of God” (par. 21). He quotes Romans again, saying that Christians should strive to “be renewed in the spirit of your mind that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (12:2). In light of this, he offers this challenge to believers:
The mature believer does not ask: How many enjoyable things can I do and still not transgress God’s will? But rather: Is there anything at all that I can do or stop doing which will refine my ability to recognize and do the will of God? In general, drinking alcoholic beverages does not increase one’s sensitivity to the will of God. On the contrary, it weakens the intensity of our desire to be holy as God is holy (par. 21)
What Piper is saying is that any diminished capacity of mind will also diminish our desire for God; therefore, to justify moderate drinking, one must argue that when they consume alcohol within their limitations, they are not hindered in this way. To take it a step further, the moderate drinker must, in his heart, make the case that not only is he not hindered in his desire for God, but his alcohol consumption actually enhances his desire to be holy and to glorify God, because as Christians that should be our motivation in everything we do. Given the aforementioned side effects, it is difficult to make such a case, although I have heard moderate drinkers cite the passage in Psalm 104 or 1 Corinthians 10 frequently in this context.
With regard to its addictive nature, many who currently consume alcohol understand their limitations and do not exceed those limits. Even putting aside for the moment where those limits should be, how does the moderate drinker discover those limits? It is theoretically conceivable that a person could consume alcohol so moderately and patiently as to never reach their limit, however arbitrary that limit may be, by slowly consuming more and more alcohol, perhaps over different days, until reaching a point of satiety but not crossing the line into inebriation, or looseness and relaxation, or wherever the limit is determined to be. But how many moderate drinkers can honestly say that their experience with alcohol mirrors this hypothetical introduction to alcohol in moderation? Or is it more likely that the moderate drinker has had an experience where he has drank too much, even if not to inebriation, to the point of relaxed inhibition or looseness? If that is the case, who is to say it will not happen again? My brother offered an allegory about a married man who has a prayer group, and one day the only participant is a woman. Even though the premise was well intentioned, the man and the woman are alone and end up becoming too intimate, to the point where both have become adulterous, even if just in their hearts. At that point, would we the body of Christ come to that man and say, don’t worry about it, you may continue to host that prayer group, even if the only participant is that woman, because now you know how far not to go? Nonsense! Any Christian who would commend such behavior is a fool. The apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8:13 “Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.” The same applies to the moderate drinker who has defiled himself in this way; he need not worry about his brother, for he should abstain for his own sake to prevent himself from sinning again. Jesus said in Matthew 5:30, “if your right hand causes you sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.” How many moderate drinkers are clinging to their “right hand?” How many refuse to abstain out of poor doctrine or a misunderstanding of Christian liberty? If the potential for sin exists, using past precedence to decide, the moderate drinker who has ever consumed too much should be encouraged to abstain. To do otherwise is pride.
To further extrapolate this point, let us consider how we are to regard those who have never consumed any alcohol. How are they to know their limitations? Consider your children as they grow up. Do we encourage them to share a few drinks with their Christian friends until they “discover” their limit? We have already established that as foolishness. So do we set an arbitrary standard, one and done? If so, one drink is not like another… is it one glass of wine? One beer? One long island iced tea? And if I have never before consumed alcohol, am I at liberty to take my first drink, not knowing if I will succumb to its addictive properties? Should I be encouraged in that liberty by Scripture? By other Christians? This is a significant question, and potentially perilous. Few would deny that alcohol has addictive properties. How then can we encourage a non-drinker to indulge their liberty to imbibe? Do we use Scripture? Is it not possible, even probable, that in so doing we may provoke that person to a life of drunkenness and therefore sin? If that is a possibility, then there can be no promotion of alcohol consumption. If, as a Christian, one proclaims a desire to be holy, then one must also denounce the consumption of alcohol, or at least remain silent on the subject. For how can someone promote drinking without unwittingly promoting sin? No one has declared alcohol itself to be sinful, it is neutral. But the promotion of alcoholic beverages to the non-drinker is different; at a minimum it is unconscionable, because you do not know what outcome you are promoting. At worst it is sin.
The last reason John Piper offers to support abstentionism is to make a social statement. He offers some now 30 year old statistics: “there are about 10 million alcoholics and 20 million persons who consume immoderate amounts of alcohol…alcohol contributes to 205,000 deaths a year…one half of all traffic fatalities are the direct result of the abuse of alcohol...it is directly connected to one-half of the homicides and one-third of the suicides. It costs business alone 19 billion dollars a year” (par. 24). A simple google search can offer some updated figures, and while the number of deaths per year have diminished to 88,000, the costs have gone up to 223 billion dollars (“Alcohol”, par. 3). Additionally, a more recent and verified statistic from 2002 states there are 17.6 million alcoholics in the U.S. Beyond alcoholism, it is even more troubling the trend towards alcohol use in teenagers: according to the CDC, “alcohol is the most commonly used and abused drug among youth in the United States…in 2011, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health reported that 33% of 8th graders and 70% of 12th graders had tried alcohol” (“Fact Sheets”, par. 1-2). John Piper saw these trends in 1981 and decided he did not want to support the way of the culture: “it is clear that millions and millions of people are stumbling over alcohol and ruining their lives, their families, and their businesses. Christians ought to care about that and ought to want to say something and do something. What I choose to say is ‘Stop drinking, America!’…I choose to oppose the carnage of alcohol by boycotting the product” (par. 25). By partaking of alcohol publicly, the moderate drinker is implicitly endorsing everything alcohol represents, both good and bad. To the casual observer, it may not be readily apparent that the person has only consumed a “moderate” amount, but it likely doesn’t matter; all the negative connotations of alcoholism, drunk driving, and others will likely be associated with the consumer of alcohol. While not very scientific in this, John Piper is basically saying he would rather avoid any such association in every possible way; by not purchasing alcohol, he does not support the businesses that promote this destruction, and by not consuming it publicly, he is not associated with these negative implications, whether true or not. As Paul says in Romans 14:22: “blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he has approved.” I agree with Piper and Paul, and believe that abstention is the only means by which this is achieved.
What the Bible Says
Although both Driscoll and Piper cite similar passages of Scripture, these are very different perspectives offered by both of these contemporary theologians. As such, we need to begin to dissect some of the frequently cited passages that both abstentionists and moderationists use to support their positions. To do that, I used a variety of sources, including a very well researched book called Wine in the Bible by Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, and an easy to understand book entitled Sober Saints by Keith Malcomson. I had never before heard of these gentlemen and I do not know their overall theology. But when it comes to this topic, Dr. Bacchiocchi’s research gave tremendous insight into the origins of the words we translate as “wine” and their uses in history both in the Word and in secular writings. Malcomson, for his part, opens the Bible and reveals much about the language and context, and he uses an approach that is calculated and aligns with solid interpretation techniques.
There are two important things to consider as we begin to explore the subject of wine and alcohol in the Bible. The first thing we have to consider is the overall character and message of God, because who he is determines what he does. He cannot contradict himself – he is holy, and he cannot and will not do anything to defile his holiness. Therefore we must examine the character of God, as it is revealed in his word, so that we can better understand his word as it relates to this subject. After all, one of the most important interpretative techniques is the synthesis principle, where obscure passages are interpreted in light of clearer ones. The second thing to consider is the reference to wine itself: does it always indicate a fermented drink? This is probably the most important question as it will steer all further discussion. If a case can be made that the words translated as “wine” did not always indicate a fermented drink, then we have much more to consider; how can we know when the word wine means fermented and when not? How does that change the context of the verse? What implications does that have on our theology? Or more pointedly, does our interpretation follow the synthesis principle and align with God’s character? Hopefully, these questions are the kinds of questions that will allow us to dig deep into God’s word and determine the correct interpretation. As such, let’s begin with a few Scripture references to the character of God:
The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands [of generations], forgiving iniquity and transgression of sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and fourth generation.” (Exodus 34:6-7)
Behold, my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen in whom my soul delights;
I have put my Spirit upon him;
he will bring forth justice to the nations.
He will not cry aloud or lift up his voice,
or make it heard in the street;
a bruised reed he will not break,
and a faintly burning wick he will not quench;
he will faithfully bring forth justice.
He will not grow faint or be discouraged
till he has established justice in the earth;
and the coastlands wait for his law…
I am the Lord, that is my name;
my glory I give to no other,
nor my praise to carved idols. (Isaiah 42:1-4,8)
because the Lord has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor;
he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor,
and the day of vengeance of our God;
to comfort all who mourn. (Isaiah 61:1-3)
I will protect him, because he knows my name.
When he calls to me, I will answer him;
I will be with him in trouble;
I will rescue him and honor him.
With long life I will satisfy him,
And show him my salvation. (Psalm 91:14-16)
and forget not all his benefits,
who forgives all your iniquity
who heals all your diseases
who redeems your life from the pit,
who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy
who satisfies you with good
so that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s.
The Lord works righteousness
and justice for all who are oppressed.
He made known his ways to Moses,
his acts to the people of Israel.
The Lord is merciful and gracious,
slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love,
he will not always chide,
nor will he keep his anger forever,
he does not deal with us according to our sins,
nor repay us according to our iniquities
for as high as the heavens are above the earth,
so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him;
as far as the east is from the west,
so far does he remove our transgressions from us.
as a father shows compassion to his children
so the Lord shows compassion to those who fear him. (Psalm 103:2-11)
The second thing we must consider are the words interpreted as ‘wine’ in the Old and New Testaments and whether they always indicate a fermented beverage. According to Keith Malcomson in Sober Saints, there are as many as thirteen different Hebrew and Greek words that we translate as ‘wine’ (1). The three used most frequently are the Hebrew tirosh and yayin and the Greek oinos. When we consider these words and their respective translations, there are two keys to answer our fermentation question: first, we must determine if our interpretations of scripture are consistent with other ancient texts, which will give us lexical consistency, and second, if our interpretation follows the prescribed pattern for interpretation I referenced earlier in this essay.
Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi was a very scholarly if somewhat controversial figure who studied at the Ponitifcal Gregorian University in Rome, although he was not Catholic but actually a Seventh Day Adventist. His book Wine in the Bible is mostly available for free online at the website biblicalperspectives.com. In the book, he devotes an entire chapter to the origins and secular usage of the key words in the Bible relating to wine: tirosh, yayin, and oinos, as well as discussing the Latin vinum and the English word wine. Briefly, Dr. Bacchiocchi introduces the English word by looking at its definition and how it has shifted over time. In today’s context, we know wine to always refer to an alcoholic beverage made from grapes. But Bacchiochi quotes several dictionaries that have changed the definition of wine:
The 1955 Funk & Wagnall New “Standard” Dictionary of the English Language defines “wine” as follows: “1. The fermented juice of the grape: in loose language the juice of the grape whether fermented or not” … the 1896 Webster’s International Dictionary of the English Language defines “wine” as “the expressed juice of grapes, especially when fermented…a beverage…prepared from grapes by squeezing out their juice, and (usually) allowing it to ferment.” (par. 2-3)
Malcomson goes back even further to make this same point, saying the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary defines must as “new wine; wine pressed from the grape but not fermented,” which gives distinction between the common association of wine as an alcoholic beverage and not. As Bacchiochi cites later, the problem with many intepretations today is that what once was a common association has now become the only association, and many people approach the scripture reading the word “wine” and assuming that it must mean an alcoholic beverage. When the King James Version of the Bible was translated, however, the denotation of wine was clearly much different than today, and the translation of yayin or oinos as wine, whether fermented or not, was much more acceptable to that readership than the translations today.
Even with this new understanding of the English word wine, it is still merely a translation of the original text; what about the Hebrew and the Greek? The Hebrew word tirosh is said to always mean a type of unfermented wine. According to Malcomson, “it is found 38 times, of which 26 times are translated as wine…it is always spoken of as a blessing and never warned against…most often it is the fruit of the grape, not even the juice” (8-9). The other Hebrew word yayin is the most commonly referenced word for wine, being found 141 times. There are very explicit references that are undoubtedly in reference to fermented wine, such as Genesis 9, when Noah “planted a vineyard, and he drank of the wine [yayin] and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent” (Genesis 9:20-21). Other references include Lot and his daughters and Abigail and Nabal. Yayin is also referenced in some of the harshest criticisms of wine in the Bible in Proverbs 20 and 23: “Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise…do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly. At the last it bites like a serpent and stings like an adder” (20:1, 23:31-32). These uses of yayin clearly are in reference to an intoxicating beverage. In regards to examples where yayin does not indicate an unfermented beverage, Dr. Bacchiocchi is quick to point out that there are no passages that are as clear as with the fermented kind: “the use of yayin in the Old Testament to denote unfermented grape juice is not always as evident as its use to describe alcoholic wine, because the former does not come under condemnation like the latter.” Obviously, the intoxicating effects of alcohol are decried in scripture, and those contexts make it easy to determine the use of yayin in those cases.
There are a few examples, however, where context does help us to ascertain the use of yayin as an unferemented beverage, and Dr. Bacchiocchi cites six of them. The first is Isaiah 16:10, which reads “and joy and gladness are taken away from the fruitful field, and in the vineyard no songs are sung, no shouts are raised, no treader treads out wine in the presses, the vintage shout is hushed.” The imagery here is of a harvest, and there is no one to tread the press. Bacchiocchi says “the important point which this passage clarifies is that what the treaders tread out in the pressing vat is called yayin. This is obviously unferemented grape juice, since fermentation is a time controlled process” (Pt. II, par. 18). One notable objection to this interpretation comes from Kenneth Gentry, who authored God Gave Wine, the single most prominent writing for the moderationist perspective. Gentry argues that yayin in this case references a finished product, since Hebrew poetry will sometimes attribute end results to the substance that produces it. But Bacchiocchi finds two major weaknesses to this objection: “First, it fails to recognize that the poetic imagery of Isaiah 16:10 deals with the joy of the harvest and the treading of grapes. The yayin flowing out of the press is seen not in terms of what it could become, fermented wine, but in terms of what it is at harvest time” (Pt. II, par. 19). Further, Bacchiocchi cites secular references from the Encyclopedia Judaica, which states “the newly pressed wine prior to fermentation was known as yayin mi-gat” (Pt I, sec. 4, par. 2). The reference here coincides with Isaiah 16:10 and makes the interpretation of unferemented wine much simpler and easier. Additionally, it follows the good interpretation practice of literal translation. Gentry’s position is to add something to the text that isn’t necessarily there, as well as applying the bad literal technique of assuming word-for-word translation rather than maintaining the content and message, whereas Bacchiocchi’s interpretation takes the statement at face value and offers the literal translation as unfermented wine or newly pressed grape juice, which makes more sense contextually as the wine is still in the press.
The next passage is Jeremiah 40:10, 12, which reads “Gather wine and summer fruits and oil, and store them in your vessels, and dwell in your cities that you have taken…and they gathered wine and summer fruits in great abundance.” The references in this passage, if interpreted literally, most likely refer to the fruit of the vine or a bunch of grapes, and not actual wine as we would interpret it today. This makes sense in the context of gathering fruit and oil. Some argue that since oil goes through a process of pressing, which delivers a finished product, so wine also could contextually be fermented. But pressing olives for oil it is not nearly the same as fermentation; also, the second verse only mentions the gathering of summer fruits and wine, with no mention of oil, so the context would seem to lean more toward the definition of a bunch of grapes or must.
Another example comes from Lamentations 2:12, which reads as a cry from babies to their mothers: “Where is bread and wine? As they faint like wounded men in the streets of the city, as their life is poured out on their mothers’ bosom.” When we take a literal translation of this passage, Jeremiah is describing an actual cry of babies who were brought to the brink of death during the siege of Jerusalem. While the cry “where is bread and wine” could possibly be fermented wine, it is much more likely an unfermented drink in this context, since there is no indication anywhere in the Bible or secular writings that the Hebrew people gave alcoholic beverages to babies.
Perhaps the best examples come from Song of Solomon, where Solomon writes some passionate imagery referencing wine: “for your love is better than wine…we will exult and rejoice in you; we will extol your love more than wine…How sweet is your love, my sister, my bride! How much better is your love than wine” (Song of Solomon 1:2, 4, 4:10). The context of these statements is a simple comparison between love and wine. What makes it significant, however, is how it is written by the same author who also called wine a “mocker” and a “brawler” in Proverbs 20. It is unlikely that the same author would refer to the same beverage in such a positive light.
These verses are just a few of the more clear examples found in Scripture, and they demonstrate that yayin can mean unfermented wine. The context of yayin is important for our New Testament study of oinos as well, and it’s important that we set the standard that Yayin can be both unfermented and fermented wine, because we will define oinos the same way. It’s also important to note the multiple definitions of yayin because the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament into Greek translates nearly every instance of yayin as oinos. Interestingly, the Septuagint also translates tirosh as oinos a total of 33 times, even though tirosh is always considered to be unfermented.
The Greek word oinos is oft-cited as always being of a fermented quality. But Malcomson and Bacchiocchi both offer evidence that it is in fact a generic term for any wine, fermented or unfermented. To begin, Bacchiocchi cites some secular writings that use the term oinos to refer specifically to an unfermented wine. At this point, it is worth citing Bacchiocchi’s work directly, as his examples present a strong case for oinos as a generic term in classical Greek texts outside of scripture:
There are ample Greek literary texts which negate the narrow definition of oinos as denoting only fermented wine. A clear example is provided by Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). In his book Metereologica, he clearly refers to "grape juice" or "must" (gleukos), as one of the kinds of wine : "For some kinds of wine [oinos], for example must [gleukos], solidify when boiled." In another passage of the same book, Aristotle refers to a sweet grape beverage (glukus) which "though called wine [oinos], it has not the effect of wine, for it does taste like wine and does not intoxicate like ordinary wine." In this text Aristotle explicitly informs us that unfermented grape juice was called "oinos—wine," though it did not have the taste or the intoxicating effect of ordinary wine.
Athenaeus, the Grammarian (about A.D. 200), explains in his Banquet that "the Mityleneans have a sweet wine [glukon oinon], what they called prodromos, and others call it protropos." Later on in the same book, he recommends this sweet, unfermented wine (protropos) for the dyspeptic: "Let him take sweet wine, either mixed with water or warmed, especially that kind called protropos, the sweet Lesbian glukus, as being good for the stomach; for sweet wine [oinos] does not make the head heavy." Here the unfermented sweet grape juice is called "lesbian—effoeminatum" because the potency or fermentable power of the wine had been removed…At this juncture it is significant to note that unfermented wine was recommended for stomach problems…[especially] when considering the meaning of Paul’s recommendation to Timothy to "use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments" (1 Tim 5:23).
In another passage Athenaeus explains: "At the time of festivals, he [Drimacus the General] went about, and took wine from the field [ek ton agron oinon] and such animals for victims as were in good condition." As Lees and Burns observes, "No one, we suppose, can carry prejudice so far as to impose upon himself the belief that fermented and bottled wine was thus "taken from the fields.’"
Proclus, the Platonic philosopher, who lived in the fifth century, in his annotation to Hesiod’s Works and Days, has a note on line 611 where he explains how the grapes were first exposed to the sun for ten days, then to the shade for ten days and finally "they treaded them and squeezed out the wine [oinon]."24 Here also the freshly squeezed juice of the grape is explicitly called "oinos—wine." (Part 1, section 3, par. 1-4, 6)
These are several examples from some very well-known historical Greek texts where oinos is used to denote a non-alcoholic beverage, but let us further elaborate on the Septuagint. Gleukos is a Greek word for must or pressed grapes that had not yet fermented. Yet the fact that the translators of the Septuagint did not choose gleukos to translate tirosh, the seemingly appropriate choice to replace the Hebrew word for must, but instead chose oinos, is very indicative of the context within which the word oinos was used. As Bacchiocchi attests, “the Greek word oinos…like the English wine, was used as a generic term to refer either to unfermented or fermented grape juice” (Part 1, section 3, par. 11). Unfortunately, this usage as a generic term is lost on contemporary readers who know only of the usage of the term wine as a fermented beverage, whether in English or Greek. Considering the historical support of secular writings, and the translation of the Septuagint, it seems reasonable to at least consider the possibility that oinos does not always refer to an alcoholic beverage.
Let us also further consider the use of oinos and yayin in Scripture, especially those passages that are oft-cited in defense of the moderationist position. In John 2, Jesus performs his first miracle at the wedding in Cana. In the context of the story, Jesus and his disciples are invited to a wedding, most likely for a family member of Jesus, as his mother has some sort of role in the wedding. Beginning in verse 3:
When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. And he said to them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast.” So they took it. When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.” This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.
Each reference to wine in this passage is the Greek word oinos. There are lots of elements to this passage, but the main question is this: did Jesus make an alcoholic wine and serve it to the wedding guests? The common answer is yes, and is based on several assumption made about key phrases in the passage. The first assumption is that oinos always refers to a fermented wine, and thus it must refer to it here as well. The second assumption is that the term “good wine” refers to an aged, stronger wine, indicating Jesus made more potent wine than was previously served. The next assumption is that the phrase “drunk freely,” or methusko in the Greek, means the guests were all intoxicated. The last assumption, though not directly in the text, was that since the wedding was in the spring time, there would have been no way to serve freshly pressed grape juice, and the only option for preserving wine in ancient times was to ferment it.
We have already discussed the possibility that oinos can be used as a generic term for any beverage coming from grapes, fermented and unfermented. So what does the master of the banquet mean when he says “you have kept the good wine until now?” The first thing we should note is that the qualifier “good” denotes a difference between the other wine that was previously drank. Moderationists and others who believe oinos always refers to a fermented beverage will define “good” wine as a stronger, more intoxicating beverage. But this is a modern interpretation of what is good and what is bad. Modern taste has been affected by technology, even the technology of pasteurization, which produces a fermented wine quite different in taste and bite than in ancient times. In his book, Dr. Bacchiocchi cites several different Roman authors who spoke to their preference in wine. Pliny, a Roman author and naturalist, wrote that a “good wine was one that was destitute of spirit.” Bacchiocchi also cites Plutarch, saying he “points out that wine is ‘much more pleasant to drink’ when it ‘neither inflames the brain nor infests the mind with passions’” (Part 1, par. 13). These quotes clearly show that taste in ancient times could easily refer to a less potent drink, not a stronger one. The same authors even write about the best ways to remove the alcohol, through boiling or straining the wine, practices that were widely known and available to all. To top it off, the Greek word for “good” in this context really translates as “morally befitting,” hardly an appropriate adjective to describe stronger drink.
The next phrase, “drunk freely,” is sometimes translated “well drunk,” and is referenced by some as indicative that the wedding guests were intoxicated already because they drank fermented wine. Rather than go into whether the Greek word methusko always indicates intoxication, which it very well may, let us consider two things about this argument. The first is that the speaker of the quote, the master of the banquet, is not talking about the current party. He is making a generalization about every party, and to infer that these particular guests were intoxicated or were freely drinking intoxicating wine is poor hermeneutics because it is adding to the text context that isn’t there. The second thing is, if the guests are intoxicated, then Jesus would be promoting excessive drinking by contributing more wine to the guests who are already inebriated.
The idea that Jesus created intoxicating wine to an already drunk wedding party constitutes a moral dilemma that is irreconcilable with the character of Jesus, and the moderationist who subscribes to this theory has to make a choice on how to solve this dilemma. Either Jesus condones excessive drinking, to the contrast of the rest of the entirety of Scripture, or he also miraculously prevented everyone at the party from becoming intoxicated. The first option completely negates the characterization of Jesus as the Son of God, or as Bacchiocchi writes, “it destroys the sinlessness of Christ’s nature and teachings” (Part 1, par. 18). If the purpose of this miracle was to create alcohol for a party, then it surely could not be said to “manifest his glory,” as Scripture indicates. Consider again the character of God, and the purpose for which Christ came to Earth. According to the prophet Isaiah, “a bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench,” and “to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound.” Does the promotion of excessive drinking align anywhere with the prophecies of Christ? Does it correlate with his other miracles, all benevolent signs which fulfill prophecy: healing the sick, curing the blind, raising the dead? If we are to believe he supplied alcoholic wine to this party, then we must also acknowledge the malevolence of this act, and in so doing deny that Christ is the son of God. It sounds radical, but the truth is that Christ denial is the logical conclusion of this interpretation.
The other option, that Christ created intoxicating wine but prevented anyone from becoming intoxicated, is completely lacking in evidence. We know from our discussion earlier that even a small amount of consumption can have intoxicating effects which Scripture speaks against, so there’s no way Jesus could have naturally prevented everyone from over consumption. Further, the Scriptures mention nothing about the wedding party being divinely protected from the effect of the alcohol, and to say so would once again be poor hermeneutics by adding to the text what isn’t there. As such, if we are to believe in Christ, that he is the son of God and he did come to bring good news, then it is clear that the wine he made must have been unfermented, non-alcoholic.
The last assumption as to why the wine at the party was of fermented quality was due to the time of year, generally accepted to be spring time. The assumption is that the Jewish people in the first century had no way of saving grape juice without fermentation. But there are several examples from ancient history that suggest storing grape juice for extended periods was not only a widely known, common practice, but also that it was easier to do than to produce fermented wine. Boiling was the most common method, as any temperature over 113⁰ would kill the yeasts that product the alcohol. Some sources say grape juice could be boiled down and stored in this or similar manners for up to two years (Malcomson 27). It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the wedding guests would have access to this unfermented wine, and it is more likely they would have saved it for just such an occasion, if we believe it true that the culture found grape juice more enjoyable and more satisfying than fermented wine.
Another passage which is oft-cited in defense of moderationism is Psalm 104:14-15, which has been referenced several times but I will cite again: “You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man’s heart.” The moderationist typically has a unilateral translation of yayin as only representing fermented wine, and if so this passage clearly indicates that wine is created by God to gladden man’s heart. Hopefully by now I have already shown that yayin is not exclusively fermented wine, and the argument that yayin is always fermented is not substantial enough to validate this statement as an endorsement of wine. But let’s consider a few other reasons why it is more likely unfermented in this context. First, the passage has two parts: the first half refers to the fruit of the ground and the things that God directly creates, grass and plants, and the second part, things that are byproducts of things he creates, oil and bread. Wine falls directly in the middle along with “food from the earth.” To me, the context of food from the earth more closely correlates with a natural product that is part of creation than a byproduct, the result of a manmade process. Interpreted this way, the “wine to gladden the heart of man” could easily be grapes on the vine or unfermented wine, more so than wine of a fermented quality.
Beyond the context clues, let’s consider again the synthesis principle of scripture. The passage is clearly speaking of the blessings from the Lord, and references positive reactions to each blessing: “grass to grow for livestock and plants for man to cultivate,” along with “oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man’s heart.” All of these things are blessings that build up. The exception, of course, would be fermented wine. We see no caveat that wine makes man’s heart glad up to a certain point, but then it becomes really bad. It makes no mention of wine as a “mocker” or a “brawler.” Given the fact that yayin can sometimes be interpreted as unfermented grape juice, isn’t it far more likely unfermented in this context? Then it fits congruently with the other blessings listed. To add the caveat of “up to a certain point” is again an addition to scripture. The interpretation of yayin as grape juice requires no addition to scripture, and is not contradictory to any other passage. It follows the literal, historical, and synthesis principle better than any other interpretation.
Another frequently cited passage is 1 Timothy 5:23, which reads “No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.” Many will caveat this statement with an anecdote about how red wine is good for the heart, and Paul clearly believes that we can drink to our health. The difficulty about such a statement is that it is untrue. Modern science has shown that alcohol is in no way good for the stomach, and can in fact cause serious ailments related to digestion including cirrhosis, gout, and liver failure. Additionally, many studies have shown that the “good for the heart” hypothesis is also false, at least at normal drinking levels, and the main ingredient that benefits the heart, called resveratrol, is actually found in higher content in grape juice. Lastly, as referenced above, there are many references that the Greeks used “sweet wine” to aid stomach ailments; that is to say, they used unfermented wine. It is much more likely that Paul, a very educated man, was referencing some common medicinal knowledge about grape juice.
There are other passages that are frequently referenced as well, but the real question that we have to answer is whether the Greek word oinos and the Hebrew word yayin can represent unfermented wine or not. Additionally, we must always keep present in our mind the character of God and who he is. This is his word, it is inerrant, it is not contradictory. And I believe there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion that yayin and oinos can be generic terms for wine of fermented quality as well as unfermented.Final Thoughts
Throughout my reading and research on this subject, along with many discussions I have had with friends, family, and members of my church, I have consistently heard the term legalism brought up. It is my belief that many keep silent on subjects such as this because they do not want to be labeled “judgers” or “legalists,” particularly since no case can be made that alcohol is inherently sinful. As such, Christians and family members remain silent while their brothers and sisters in Christ go out and publicly drink or otherwise broadcast their pro-alcohol views. This is the kind of tolerance that I abhor. We as the body of Christ, not among non-Christians but among fellow believers, need to address reckless behavior when we see it. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5:12-13, “what business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.” Also in Isaiah, the prophet says “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter” (5:20). Now let me be clear about two things. First, I agree alcohol is not inherently sinful, it is neutral. Second, when we drink publicly or encourage others to drink, directly or indirectly, we are at least reckless and at worst promoting sin.
I do not think we should as a church prohibit drinking or declare it sinful, because that is not Scriptural (although my honest opinion is that, much like slavery, if the context of culture had been different it probably would have been forbidden). Nevertheless, to those who are moderate drinkers, who do not feel conviction from the Lord and whose conscience is not violated by drinking, who have never drank so much as to feel loose or relaxed or inebriated and thereby are not partial to be tempted to sin again or stand in opposition to Paul’s challenge in 1 Corinthians 8:13, who do not broadcast publicly their consumption of alcohol to anyone, Christian or non-Christian, in accordance with Romans 14, and who do not wish to make a social statement by standing in opposition to an industry by which millions of lives are destroyed through use of their products, to those I say, feel free to consume alcohol in the privacy of your home. It is your Christian liberty. It may sound extreme, but if we consider the whole of Scripture, this really is the only context in which alcoholic beverages could be consumed.
I also say to you, if you can drink in this context and do not violate the Scripture in so doing, you have no guilt, and no one should shame you for your choice, in the same way you should not shame someone who abstains. There can be no condemnation for an action that is not sin. If we as a church begin to add to Scripture, either to legitimize illicit behavior or condemn approved behavior, we are no longer stewards of the Gospel of Jesus, but rather some other Gospel (Gal 1:6-9).
My prayer and hope is that this essay will encourage you in your walk with Christ and help you to determine where your heart lies on this matter.
-Jonathan
