Alcohol and Biblical Greek

Here's a little light-hearted fun for your afternoon.  Please tell me what is wrong with this statement from the Summer 2006 issue of the Southern Seminary TIE (first found at Mere Comments 1 1/2 years ago).  Russ Moore writes...

I do know Greek, but I still believe that "teetotalism" is the best option for my church in the contemporary cultural context. I'm a convinced Protestant who believes in sola Scriptura and sola fide without reservation.

Comments

[J.Gray]

Interesting comment.

I think it implies that alcohol is a matter of wisdom and not of biblical fidelity.

If he was convinced that the Bible condemned alcohol consumption on the whole, he very well could have said that. But he didn't, he made it a matter of wisdom.

Which is what most people have been saying all along.

- Gray

Or maybe I'm way off. :)

[Joe Thorn]

LOL. His "but" is very peculiar. I am sure he doesn't mean it the way it sounds (this is called giving someone the benefit of doubt Russ) but, it sounds closer to those he so often takes issue with. It sounds like, "I know the Scriptures in the original languages, but I still prefer to establish my practice apart from it."

[David Wayne]

I'm a fan of Russell Moore but you point out an obvious problem here. These guys are trying to be holier than God Himself.

[Steve McCoy]

I find it most funny that he says it and then follows up with his belief in sola scriptura "without reservation."

Jason, I agree. I think that's what he's saying. But surely you recognize the humor of the "but" and the "sola," and then to act like it's wisdom is just funny. This is why Russ' position on this is unacceptable.

[Joe Thorn]

I think Steve is only pointing out the humorous wording in the article in light of the current conversation on wine and teetotalism. And before anyone thinks Steve is blasting Moore, you should hear the things Steve says about me to my own face! I get it much worse than this kind of fun ribbing.

[jason allen]

Laugh...you've gotta love irony and contradiction within the span of a mere two sentences.

[Clay]

He says he knows Greek and then to show it off he throws out 2 latin phrases!!!

This whole debate is really troubling to me. We are really majoring on the minors.

[Richard A. Bailey]

Clay, since you're the language expert, here are few words for you: "algunos malos niños." Hope you're well, man.

[Richard A. Bailey]

Biblical Spanish, by the way.

[cavman]

"But... I just pretend to believe in Sola Scriptura. Please don't rob me of my self-deception"

[iMonk]

I don't know why I suddenly started thinking of about a hundred things we criticize Catholics for doing that aren't taught in scripture, but which they insist are authoritative via tradition apart from scripture.

[Clay]

Richard...we are doing great. Hope this new parenting thing is going well with you. If you think one is a challenge, try 3. I wouldn't trade it for the world...Well, most days.....

Steve...give us your thoughts and don't just keep us guessing.

[Ted Gossard]

I like beer.

More seriously, I'll bet we all do this. But it isn't justified. It is something we should work at being aware of and not doing.

Where there is freedom, which is true here: to drink or to abstain, we should honor that. And not make people think that somehow they're second rate for not following suit.

[Ted]

"This is like deja vu all over again." - Yogi Berra.

[J.Gray]

This is something I don't understand about SBC decisions....we say we believe in inerrancy and the suffciency of Scripture...but then we make pronouncements that are not found in Scripture, as if they were clearly what Scripture says...and we don't think Scripture is sufficient enough for our ecclesiology (denial of church discipline and elders, practical denial of regenerate church membership).

Odd.

[Baptist Theologue]

Scripture addresses both the beneficial and deleterious aspects of alcoholic beverages. In biblical times, the beneficial aspects (medicinal uses and potable qualities) outweighed the deleterious aspects (impaired mental functioning, Prov. 31:4-5). In America at the current time, the deleterious aspects outweigh the beneficial aspects. One glass of wine can lead to a blood alcohol content of .02 in a 220 pound man, enough to impair the person when driving: http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm . Danny Akin, the president of Southeastern Baptist Seminary, also stressed the importance of context and the correct application of biblical principles:

"Arguments that a total abstinence position is an extra-biblical tradition rooted in legalism are simply false. Now, let me be fair. Does the Bible, by direct command, condemn the use of alcohol in every instance? The honest answer is, “No, it does not.” Jesus clearly turned water into wine (John 2). However, this is where contextual and principle considerations must be engaged. The ancient Hebrew context and the 21st century American context do not have a one-to-one correspondence in this area."

http://www.sebts.edu/olivepressonline/index.cfm?PgType=2&ArticleID=434

[Peter R.]

However, this is where contextual and principle considerations must be engaged. The ancient Hebrew context and the 21st century American context do not have a one-to-one correspondence in this area.

Gee, what a great argument for ordaining women and marrying gays ...

[jason allen]

It seems the issue is that practically it doesn't look like we believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, thus our incessant need to apply extrabiblical rules and regulations.

It also might be said that this is a practical denial of the sufficiency of the Holy Spirit. Our actions (if not our words) say, The Holy Spirit is really incapable of doing his job of leading the people of God into practical holiness and therefore we jump in with rules that will "protect" people.

[Baptist Theologue]

Peter, the Scriptural principles about ordaining women and performing marriages for gay people do not change according to context. Such practices are always, in every context, contrary to Scriptural principles.
Neither do the Scriptural principles about drinking alcoholic beverages change. The principles about alcohol's beneficial aspects as opposed to its deleterious aspects must both be regarded and weighed against each other. Another example: We are commanded to obey the magistrate. If the magistrate has put up a no trespassing sign, we should normally obey it. If, however, a person is drowning on that property, we should ignore the sign and rescue the person. Similarly, the O.T. says not to work on the Sabbath. Jesus, however, indicated it was okay to rescue an animal on the Sabbath, which could involve a lot of work. Scriptural principles must be prioritized to a particular situation. Scripture never calls for ordaining women or performing marriages for gay people.

[WES]

I know greek BIBLE(never prohits drinking but in fact endorses it)BUT..I don't endorse what the greek BIBLE endorses....and I'm sola scriptura.

I first want to see the entire context of this comment but at a glance with no understanding of the context this statement is a CONTRADICTION.

[James Thompson]

BT: I appreciate your intent, but the cultural contextualization argument is faulty in my estimation at this point: in biblical times alcohol was not merely consumed as a means to purify water. It was consumed at weddings and other festivals as a drink to be enjoyed. The negative effects of alcohol should be kept plainly in view across all contexts: there is never an appropriate context for being drunk. And impairment in regards to driving is not synonymous with being drunk (before we start arguing about blood-alcohol levels). So the Bible speaks quite clearly on the issue of alcohol across all contexts: avoid being drunk. But this does not imply at any point the need for abstinence except as an indiviudal decision.

Personally I don't drink, and if my conciensce were not bound by my position I would still not drink. I simply don't have any desire to, but my conciensce has been unjustly bound without scriptural warrant. If we are truly people of the book we should let that flow out into every aspect of our lives, providing liberty where it can not be scriprutally restricted by clear precept or command.

Alcohol is not an issue of cultural context, it's a matter legalistic traditionalism that should be discarded rather than further defended and institutionalized.

(Sorry for going a bit off topic from the actual post: I do find the 'explanation' confusing and inconsistent.)

[Baptist Theologue]

James, you said:

“It was consumed at weddings and other festivals as a drink to be enjoyed.”

All drinks can be enjoyed, depending on the situation (how thirsty the drinker is) and whether the drinker has developed a taste for the beverage.

You also said,

“There is never an appropriate context for being drunk.”

I agree.

Then you said,

“And impairment in regards to driving is not synonymous with being drunk (before we start arguing about blood-alcohol levels). . . . But this does not imply at any point the need for abstinence except as an indiviudal decision.”

True, but would you say that it is okay to drive impaired but not drunk according to biblical principles? Is that simply an individual decision?

[Kevin Peacock]

The scripture is as specific in what it does not say as in what it does say. I am uncomfortable with people claiming sola scriptura yet feeling that they have to fill in the gaps the Holy Spirit must have overlooked when He inspired the text. These "fill-ins" are what Jesus called "traditions" (Matt 15:2-6). These may be fine for personal preferences and house rules, but fall far short for building a biblical theology. Traditions are not inspired, and therefore, they are fallible and will not last forever (Matt 24:35).

The scripture does not condemn drinking, but rather it condemns drunkenness. If it did condemn drinking, as some have proposed, this would be perfectly clear in the text and there would be no discussion. The scripture does urge caution in drinking for various reasons. It is also clear in scripture that drinking alcohol was a point of contention between Christians (1 Cor 10:31). It was a genuine theological disagreement among brothers -- as it seems is the case today.

I don't remember anyone referring to this passage, but I believe it gives biblical counsel on the bigger issues. In Romans 14 the Roman brethren had three theological disagreements: what people can or cannot do on certain days (e.g. the Sabbath, vv. 5-6), Jewish dietary laws and specifically eating meat offered to idols (vv. 2, 6), and drinking wine (v. 21).

As an argument between brothers who see things differently, Paul placed the entire issue in the realm of the Christians personal conscience before God (vv. 1-5, 10-12, 22-23). Every Christian must stand clear in their conscience before God (vv. 22-23). As such, no one is to judge their brother and his conscience before God (vv. 1-5, 10-12). Paul also gives some considerations that each individual Christian must ask themselves, such as, If I do this, what will it do to my brother (v. 13)? What will it do to my conscience (v. 14)? Is love my motivation (v. 15)? What will it do for God's kingdom (vv. 16-18)? Will it "build up" or "tear down" (vv. 19-21)?

These are questions that every believer must ask for their own personal practice, and no Christian should ask for another. As soon as we start making judgments for our fellow brother we are judging him. Paul is very clear here: "accept" him (v. 1), "not for passing judgment on his opinions" (v. 1), "not to regard with contempt" (v. 3), "not to judge...for God has accepted him" (v. 3), "each person is to be fully convinced in his own mind" (v. 5), "why do you judge your brother?" (v. 10), "why do you treat your brother with contempt?" (v. 10), "each one of us will give an account of himself to God" (v. 12).

I stand with Piper on this one. The legalism is more dangerous than the alcohol. By no means should this issue be a test of fellowship or a measure of one's spirituality. We can challenge one another with the above questions, but leave the answer up to personal conscience before God. People who choose not to drink for God's glory have biblical warrant to do so. People who choose to drink for God's glory (1 Cor 10:31) also have biblical warrant. How we treat a brother who is seeking to follow biblical truth is more important to the Father than the specifics of this issue (John 13:17).

[Baptist Theologue]

Kevin, I agree with 1 Corinthians 10:31 that in eating, drinking, or whatever we do, we should bring glory to God. In biblical times drinking alcoholic beverages could bring glory to God by displaying proper stewardship. Drinking potable wine rather than contaminated water certainly showed good stewardship. The beneficial aspects of alcoholic drinks certainly outweighed the deleterious aspects in biblical times. In the modern context in America, however, that is not usually the case except under extreme circumstances; e.g., a family gets stranded in the Nevada desert, runs out of bottled water and soft drinks, finds a deserted cabin with a stash of alcoholic drinks, and drinks the alcoholic beverages in order to survive. If the alcoholic drinks providentially found by the family lead to their survival, then God is glorified. Under normal circumstances, however, it is difficult to see how the consumption of alcoholic beverages glorifies God. All applicable biblical principles should be weighed in the modern context in America. Bernard Ramm had a good comment on this type of issue:

"The Bible is more a book of principles than a catalogue of specific directions. The Bible does contain an excellent blend of the general and the specific with reference to principles for Christian living. If the Bible were never specific we would be somewhat disconcerted in attempting a specific application of its principles. If the Bible were entirely specific in its principles, we would be adrift whenever confronted with a situation in life not covered by a specific principle. The emphasis in Scripture is on moral and spiritual principles, not upon specific and itemized lists of rules for moral or spiritual conduct."

Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970), p. 186.

[Kevin Peacock]

You and Ramm are correct that the Bible is full of principles. The biblical principle here is that alcohol is not condemned but drunkenness is. Also, the biblical principle is that Christian brothers may see this issue differently, therefore, we should stand clear in our own conscience and not judge our brother in his.

In your context your application of the biblical priniciples may be perfectly valid, but they are still applications and not the principles themselves. Applications may change according to context. (Notice how applications of the biblical principle of modesty have changed over the years.) But biblical truth never changes. We do far better separating the two and teaching our people what the Bible actually says, then asking how that principle applies to them in their context.

Abstinance from alcohol is a valid application of certain biblical principles (e.g. not wanting to cause a brother to stumble, etc.). It is not, however, a biblical principle in itself.

[Baptist Theologue]

Kevin, abstinence is indeed a biblical principle. It is called for in several instances in the Old Testament. Notice the following quotes.

From Dennis Swanson:

“‘It is not for kings to drink wine, nor for princes intoxicating drink’ (Proverbs 31:4). Speaking to Aaron, God declared, ‘Do not drink wine or intoxicating drink, you, nor your sons with you when you go into the tabernacle of meeting’ (Leviticus 10:9). The passage goes on to say that the reason for this was so that their teaching of the Word of God to the people might not be hindered. Those in positions of leadership in God's economy were to abstain from alcohol entirely.”

http://www.u-turn.net/8-2/swanson.shtml

From Ed Rickard:

“In the Old Testament, total abstinence was required of anyone performing a sacred office or service. A king was admonished to forego intoxicating drink while he judged the people (Prov. 31:4-5). A priest had to be fully sober while he was ministering in the Temple (Lev. 10:8-11).”

http://www.themoorings.org/life/separation/drinking/drink1.html

From the Assemblies of God position paper on alcohol:

“Secular leaders are also to abstain from alcohol. ‘It is not for kings to drink wine, nor for princes intoxicating drink; lest they drink and forget the law, and pervert the justice of all the afflicted’ (Proverbs 31:4,5, NKJV). If the prohibition is absolutely essential for spiritual and secular leaders, it is certainly essential for every believer. We who are kings and priests unto God (Revelation 1:6) must live according to His standards.”

http://ag.org/top/beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_4187_abstinence.cfm

From John MacArthur, who grouped Proverbs 31:4-5 with other texts calling for abstinance:

1. The higher standard for Old Testament priests

God established standards for His people, but He called certain men to live above even those standards. Leviticus 10:9 gives this standard for priests: "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." Some Bible commentators think this command applied only when the priests ministered inside the tabernacle. Others believe the command applied to their entire lives. But either way the priests were called to minister for God and abstain from alcohol. The reason was their judgment could be clouded and God wanted their minds clean, clear, and pure.

2. The higher standard for kings and princes

Proverbs 31:4-5 says, "It is not for kings to drink wine, nor for princes strong drink, lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the justice of any of the afflicted." God didn't want their judgment, like the priests, to be clouded. According to verse 6, strong drink was given only to those who were perishing. It was a sedative for their pain. Regular wine was given to those who were heavy of heart. There was to be a greater level of consecration in the leadership of the country.

3. The higher standard for those taking the Nazirite vow

Numbers 6:1-5 says, "The Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazirite, to separate themselves unto the Lord; he shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink and liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried. All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk. All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head."

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1938.htm

[Casey]

Here's the best article I've read so far for the abstinence position:
http://www.bpnews.net/bpcolumn.asp?ID=2298

[Steve McCoy]

Casey, I disagree. I may be better than others, but that doesn't make it helpful. There are responses in the works.

[J.Gray]

Hold up.

Was that Leviticus 10 passage declaring a total abstinence policy, or does it say "when you go in to the tabernacle of the congregation"?

It seems to speak of times of abstinence, rather than complete abstinence. If that si true, then the implication from being specific times of abstinence is that total abstinence at all times was not expected.

As for the Nazirite vow...were all people expected to take that vow? Doesn't the fact that it is a special vow imply that total abstinence is not required for everyone else. If abstinence was the rule, then why mention abstaining from wine as part of the vow? Moreover, do we take the Nazirite vow as what is expected of all believers? So should we also not cut our hair.

I guess what bothers me the most about all these arguments are their utter inconsistencies.

And I don't even drink!

Sigh.

[James Thompson]

BT: Regarding your question: "[W]ould you say that it is okay to drive impaired but not drunk according to biblical principles? Is that simply an individual decision?"

It is not okay to drive drunk or impaired because it has been determined illegal to do so, and since I have been instructed to respect the laws placed over me I would be just fine walking or calling a cab or asking an unimpaired friend to drive me home if my driving would be inappropriate or illegal given my state. However, my inability to drive legally or responsibly does not imply a state of drunkeness since I should still have enough sense about me to do the right thing.

My big problem with this whole debate is that the "abstinence party" has no scriptural support as the basis for their complete abstinence position. Abstinence from alcohol is something each believer should determine for themselves and all believers who do partake in alcohol shoudl be held accountable to do so moderately and responsibly.

[Baptist Theologue]

Jay, I said in an earlier post that abstinence was called for in certain instances. It was never demanded for everyone because not everyone had access to potable water. In the modern, American context, we normally have access to potable water. Why would abstinence be called for under some circumstances in the Old Testament? John MacArthur noted that there was a higher standard for certain categories of people. Proverbs 31:4-5 is a passage which points out that alcoholic beverages adversely affect mental functioning. Note that principle (that alcohol adversely affects mental functioning) and apply it in the modern context. Weigh it against the beneficial effects of alcohol in the modern context. As I said earlier, if your family is stranded in the Nevada desert and will die of thirst unless it imbibes alcoholic beverages, then you have a good argument for drinking such beverages under such circumstances. I think what many people demand from people like me who believe that abstinence is biblical in modern America is a statement in the Bible that bans alcohol for all times. Such a statement does not exist. Neither does such a statement exist for slavery and abortion, but in all three cases (slavery, abortion, alcohol consumption) we can bring Scriptural principles to bear and make the correct biblical decision. Read again what Bernard Ramm said above. Also notice what Haddon Robinson said about applying a biblical passage correctly. Haddon Robinson’s “Biblical Preaching” is usually at the top of any list of preaching textbooks. He is a professor at Gordon-Conwell seminary and was president of Denver Seminary and served as a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. He stated,

“In order to apply a passage accurately, we must define the situation into which the revelation was originally given and then decide what a modern man or woman shares, or does not share, with the original readers. The closer the relationship between people now and people then, the more direct the application. . . . When the correspondence between the twenty-first century and the biblical passage is less direct, however, accurate application becomes more difficult. An expositor must give special attention not only to what modern men and women have in common with those who received the original revelation but also to the differences between them. . . . Application becomes more complex, however, when we must deal with problems biblical writers never encountered. . . . Whether we can say ‘Thus saith the Lord’ about particular issues not dealt with in the Bible depends on our analysis of the issues and our application of theological principles. . . . Have I determined all the theological principles that must be considered? Do I give the same weight to each principle? Are there other principles that I have chosen to ignore?”

Haddon W. Robinson, Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository Messages, 2d ed (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001), 87-93.

James, are you saying that it is okay to drive impaired even if there is not law prohibiting impaired driving? If you caused a traffic death while driving impaired but not legally drunk, would you feel that you sinned in any way?

[Bob Carder]

Why don't you just have a beer and realize the freedom. Don't drink five or six, just one. I think Jesus would have one with you. This abstinence issue is an Americanized Christianity issue. No where else in the world are people so hung up and obsessive over the issue. Abstinence may very well be the cause of excess in America. In cultures that do not make an issue there are much fewer alcoholics.

Jesus drank wine, I wish I could drink with Him.

[Jeremy Weart]

Bob,

One day you will my drink with Jesus. And the rest of the family of God will drink with you. I am so ready for that Last Supper!

Isaish 25:6
On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare
a feast of rich food for all peoples,
a banquet of aged wine—
the best of meats and the finest of wines.

[Baptist Theologue]

Bob, notice Leviticus 25:44:

"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have--you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you." (NASB)

Does this mean slavery is okay in the modern American context? Like alcoholic beverages, it was tolerated in a context very different from that of modern America. Does the modern American context affect how we weigh certain biblical principles? If Jesus was at a wedding feast in modern America, would He still turn the water to wine, or would He be concerned about the guests driving home in an impaired state?

[Steve McCoy]

BT, we don't derive our theology or practice from speculations. And no one is arguing that there aren't times to drink less, or not drink. So even if you are right in speculation about Jesus not making wine at an American wedding (which I doubt you are), that doesn't change the biblical view of alcohol.

That said, I'm leaving town tomorrow and think it's best to close the comments on this thread. Thanks for understanding, and please don't carry the conversation here to another post. Have a great 4th.