I am Joe Thorn, the Lead Pastor of 
Drinking with Jesus
June 26th, 2006And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the Lord your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the Lord your God chooses, to set his name there, then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the Lord your God chooses and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household. And you shall not neglect the Levite who is within your towns, for he has no portion or inheritance with you.
Deut. 14:24-27
Since the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution encouraging “total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages” there has been a steady stream of discussion on the topic. Issues of “liberty” and the “weaker brother” are issues right now. I think this is a very good thing, but in the middle of it all I continue to find those who want to argue that alcohol is a beverage God is against, and that Jesus did not turn water into (alcoholic) wine, nor ever drank wine himself. So please consider this my brief attempt to help bring clarity to those specific issues.
That “wine” in the Bible was an intoxicating beverage is almost universally agreed on. I say “almost” because there are always internet publications based more on speculation and personal agendas than on the grammatico-historical interpretation of Scripture. D.F. Watson states it plainly in The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels in his article, Wine, when he says, “All wine mentioned in the Bible is fermented grape juice with an alcohol content. No non-fermented drink was called wine.” This is distinct from “strong drink” mentioned in Scripture which was an alcoholic beverage made from barley. And contrary to what some SBC leaders have recently suggested, it too is sometimes spoken of favorably in Scripture.
For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by all her children.
Lk. 7:33-35Wine was the daily drink of the people of God. It appears that, on average, their wine was cut to one part wine, three parts water. This means that a glass of wine had something closer to the alcohol content of a Guinness Draft. Wine was used in the Passover Feast and in the Lord’s Supper. And of course, we know that Jesus’ first miracle was the supernatural production of “good wine.”
Some might be surprised to see that in the Bible wine is the sign of God’s blessing, a gift to his people, and a source of joy for those who partook. Jesus himself not only spent time with wine drinkers, but he himself drank wine. Jesus could have abstained, as did John the Baptist, but he chose not to. Jesus was no teetotaler, and when the Kingdom comes in its fullness we will all drink wine together in the presence of and with our Lord Jesus Christ.
If there is an interest I will give my thoughts in another post on the issue of liberty, abstinence and the “weaker brother.”
June 26th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
I cast my vote for a post on liberty, abstinence, and the weaker brother.
June 26th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
Vote yes.
Good, direct, biblical post.
June 27th, 2006 at 12:03 am
I vote yes. And please have a drink before you do so that your pen meets with no thought of halting.
June 27th, 2006 at 12:50 am
Amen, great post. Preach it! A fellow SBC brother agrees.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:37 am
I’ve benefitted greatly from posts on this topic by yourself and Steve McCoy. Please write more soon!
June 27th, 2006 at 4:34 am
Thanks, Joe, for your thoughts. Yes, more would be great!
June 27th, 2006 at 7:04 am
This was argued upon another blog, and I’ll bring it up here to gain your opinion.
No, the drinking of wine (alcohol) may not be specifically forbidden within the Scripture, but neither is the smoking of pot. Are we then to assume that if we lived outside of this nation that forbids such behavior, that for the Christian it would be acceptable to smoke marijuana?
June 27th, 2006 at 7:36 am
Well spoken (er, ‘written’ I guess) Joe.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:10 am
Good, straightforward post. I would be the first to say that LOVE is the ruling elder in my heart - at least I hope it is! So if a brother has a legitimate problem with alcohol then I will abstain in his presence.
But what you bring up here is exactly what has me so concerned with the SBC leadership - poorly articulated and fallacious arguments to support their cause. The idea that Jesus drank wine has been put on the same level of as blasphemy - something that is way out of bounds to be sure. I am fine with people advocating their position - just do it fairly and accurately. This isn’t rocket-science.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:54 am
Abstaining is a separate, but important issue that I will deal with next. Here, I simply wanted to point out how the Bible depicts wine. Some people have been dishonest, or are at least confused on that issue.
Concerning Pot. Smoking pot is not condemned in Scripture, but inebriation is. Smoking pot seems to produce this effect almost immediately. I know since I smoked pot from fifth grade until my Sr. year in High School. But this is not the point. I do not know any Christian who thinks smoking marijuana is okay, nor is it what we are talking about. I get the feeling when this is brought up people are trying to connect the dots on a page I am not on.
Besides Sofyst, the drinking of wine is actually encouraged in Scripture. Saying it is not “specifically forbidden” makes it sound like I am making my argument from silence on the issue. I am not.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:12 am
my italian tradition of drinking wine with my dinner loves you man. My glass of wine tasted a little better last night, thanks
vapor
June 27th, 2006 at 9:31 am
Joe, Thanks for this. In attempting to minister to youth who are concerned about issues such as drinking (regardless of what a congregation and the parents of the youth want to think… they are involved)it’s difficult to tell them “Hey, our congregation and denomination are against it, but the Bible says it’s OK…” High school kids are very good at calling a spade a spade. The conflicting message this resolution sends is yet another wedge to drive between an already sceptical generation of young seekers. The legalistic pursuit of this resolution is exactly what “younger” generations are trying to run away from… this is yet another hinderance, not a help, in addressing the needs and concerns of an already confused group of people.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:38 am
Good direct, factual post.
As for the “pot” argument that has been brought up several times…
The Bible not only doesn’t forbid the drinking of wine (alcohol), but rather, it encourages it in many different verses. The only arguments I’ve heard to the contrary are from people attempting to say that the word “wine” doesn’t mean what we think it does. I don’t buy it. God wouldn’t leave such an important concept so vague if it were that important. He’d make sure that we would never interpret the word “wine” to mean “alcoholic wine” if we wanted us to abstain. If we truly believe the Bible is inerrant and complete, then we can’t believe God expected us to find vague historical research that said that God’s wine in the Bible is not the same as our wine. That’s my belief anyway.
Marijuana is not the same as wine. Anyone that argues that it is probably hasn’t ever had wine. I would argue that most of the arguments that I’ve seen against wine have come from people that just don’t understand it. Comments like “you start getting intoxicated right away” just aren’t true. The same is not true of marijuana. Your brain is absolutely affected immediately (so I’ve heard, I’ve not ever partaken, or been around others who are, but I’ll trust the research).
You cannot make a correlation from wine to other “controlled substances.” Wine is mentioned as a blessing. Pot is not. Enjoy it as a good gift from God. I know its a hard thing to get your mind around when you’ve been raised to believe that it is evil, but allow yourself to actually imagine that you and others might have been wrong about this, and that the Bible says something differently than you believed. (I’m not saying this to anyone in particular, just whoever is reading). I also say that because that’s the position I was in, and I was surprised by what God’s Word actually said about this thing that I believed in so passionately.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:41 am
Joe, I think you and I are on the same page actually. I just brought up that question to see how you would respond. My response to it was very similar. I said that the issue was not really whether we could or could not drink (or even should or should not). The main issue was whether the SBC had authority to govern whether we could or could not. The big ordeal is based upon the SBC exerting itself as an overarching authority within the lives of Southern Baptist.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:58 am
Very good post, Joe. It seems to me that there is a natural trend that most things are great, but only in moderation. Just as we need to learn that Twinkies are OK but only in moderation, so too is alcohol — provided we are not being mentally affected.
June 27th, 2006 at 11:35 am
I’m troubled by the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ has been, in a sense, disqualified for serving as a trustee, etc., of SBC institutions/agencies. It is clear from the Scriptures that He was involved in the “manufacturing, advertising, distributing and consuming” of alcoholic beverages, namely wine.
The 1925 Baptist Faith & Message declares this regarding the Lord’s Supper (Art. 13):
“…the Lord’s Supper, in which the members of the church, by the use of bread and WINE, commemorate the dying love of Christ.”
So, I guess E. Y. Mullins and the others involved with the drafting of the ‘25 BFM would be disqualified too.
Sad, very sad. I look forward to your future posts on this topic, Joe.
June 27th, 2006 at 11:40 am
To be fair, no one is disqualified from serving because of the resolution. It is not policy.
June 27th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
I think it is fair to say that Joe’s years of “smoking pot” have had permanent effects on his ability to rightly interpret the Holy Scriptures.
June 27th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Wow. Jeremy comes out swinging for the fences! So, besides insulting me, would you like to offer a valid criticism of anything I actually wrote in this post?
June 27th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
And I think it is fair to say that Jeremy’s years of education and recent publication haven’t taught him to avoid split infinitives. Oh, wait, that “rule” is disputed by many experts and“pseudo-conservatives” as well. So, like Jeremy, I haven’t really said anything either. Sorry to interrupt a fruitful conversation, Joe.
June 27th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
What? Is this the same Jeremy Green that wrote the Florida Baptist Witness article? Let me apologize on his behalf Joe for such a comment. I am sorry Joe.
And they call the SBC bloggers graffiti . . . yikes.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
There is without question a huge difference in class between Joe and Jeremy. Joe’s post is thoughtful, bibilical, honest and winsome. It’s well stated even if you disagree.
Jeremy’s comment is juvenile, arrogant, and it completely seeks to rape the idea of redemption in Joe and his past. I’m pretty sure Jeremy’s comment is one of the most tasteless and ungodly I have ever encountered by any Christian online, and that is saying something. Utterly shameful.
Everyone please take notice. Yes, Jeremy is the guy who wrote the Florida Baptist Witness article slamming younger leaders in the SBC.
Here’s a quote from Jeremy’s article showing clearly his hypocrisy, “the presence of Christian leadership is most certainly identifiable: it is selfless and not self-seeking, and it has far more to do with servant-hood than superiority.” What a great example you are Jeremy.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Joe,
I am curious. This is my only question or comment. How does our Lord’s inspired words in Prov 31:4
“It is not for kings, O Lemuel,
It is not for kings to drink wine,
Or for rulers to desire strong drink,”
square with your suggestion that Jesus (the king of kings) and his disciples (rulers) were drinkers of alcohol in violation of His own precept?
June 27th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Joe,
I do not wish “to rape the idea of redemption” concerning your past, as Steve has suggested - it is quite possible that Steve is simply under the influence of alcohol.
It only stands to reason that if you ignore the Biblical principles concerning the consumption of beverage alcohol then you might feel that you have “liberty” to ignore any other Biblical principles as well.
In regards to your post, it showed a complete disregard for the Holy Scriptures. It appears that you have chosen to fashion them to suit yourself and your “tastes.” Please read my post entitled, “Alcohol, Inerrancy, and the SBC” for a short synopsis of the Biblical teaching concerning beverage alcohol.
God bless!!!
June 27th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Tim,
I am on my way out the door (local association meeting where, I promise, there will be no alcohol) but wanted to quickly respond. Thanks for bring Scripture into the discussion.
I think that’s a fair question, but it must be squared not with my suggestion that Jesus drank wine, but with his own admission of drinking wine. He says John the Baptist drank no wine, but in contrast he did (Lk. 7:33-35). This proverbial statement must also be reconciled with everything else the Bible says about wine and strong drink (see Scripture above).
Almost every commentary I have read on that Proverb suggests that intemperance/drunkenness is being warned against, not moderate use. Ancient and modern scholarship seem to agree on this. In fact the majority of those arguing for total abstinence agree that wine was the drink of the day and Jesus and the Apostles drank wine as well.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Jeremy,
You still have not engaged the Scriptures listed or argument I have made here. In fact, I would like to know what you specifically disagree with that I posted. Others should feel free to engage since I will most likely be away from a computer. If I can get back on, I will. I would also encourage you to be careful of your incendiary, and ungodly comments about me or others. As Paul wrote to another young pastor, “Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.” Your speech needs some help brother.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Jeremy,
Why do you feel the need to attack people with whom you disagree? This is not a battle between enemies, this is a discussion between brothers in Christ. Would you attack an unsaved friend by saying, your years of drug use and/or alcohol have destroyed your ability to think? I would hope not. So, please, don’t use it against brothers in Christ.
Make your argument, make it strongly, make it Biblically, but make it with grace.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Jeremy,
It appears that you are new to the blogosphere given that you started just last week. Any reason for this? Did Greensboro have anything to do with it?
Let me help you out with something. If you have something to say, you will more likely have an audience when you refrain from attacking the author. You might have something to offer to the discussion; unfortunately, you will continue to forfeit any readership in the blogosphere with your sophomoric, condescending attitude.
There have been many to give “a short synopsis of the Biblical teaching concerning beverage alcohol.” Why are we to assume that your position is right and others wrong? While you argue that folks are completely ignoring the Scriptures (which is an outright lie), you have written both in Florida Baptist Witness and here statements that are simply shameful. Brother, salvage your reputation in the blogosphere and refuse to go down this road.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Daniel Whitfield’s Survey of the Bible and Alcohol is the best summary I’ve found on the web. This is worth anyone’s- on either side of the issue- reading and considering.
http://wooga.drbacchus.com/bible/alcohol.html
June 27th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Joe,
The “wine” that Jesus drank (as well as others during Biblical times) was merely purified water - the alcoholic content of it was between 2-3%. This was necessary to purify the drinking water that had been stored in cisterns and wells of that day. You really should read my post on the subject.
In regards to your false allegations that my comments are “incendiary, and ungodly,” I would encourage you to take your own advise (in reference to the Apostle Paul’s advice) to speak and conduct yourself appropriately. Such as preaching and teaching false doctrine in reference to beverage alcohol as well as practing such ungodly and immoral activity.
June 27th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Tom and Timmy,
In reference to your comments, I have not attacked anyone. I have simply stated the obvious: those who contend that the consumption of modern beverage alcohol is appropriate are twisting the Scriptures. Furthermore, it is completely legitimate to question whether or not the effects of alcoholism have warped the abilities of an individual to rightly divide the Word of God. If anyone has been attacked on your “blogosphere” it is I:
http://www.stevekmccoy.com/sbc/2006/06/florida_baptist.html
June 27th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Jeremy Green said, “In regards to your false allegations that my comments are “incendiary, and ungodly,” I would encourage you to take your own advise (in reference to the Apostle Paul’s advice) to speak and conduct yourself appropriately.”
Um…you may disagree with his assessment of your comments, but I don’t think you can call them false allegations, since we all can read them for ourselves. I don’t think anyone would dispute that they were, in fact, incendiary, and it seems quite obvious that you intended them to be. While I would not make a characterization that you personally are ungody (and nobody here is), I think we can frame your comments in light of Christ’s example and find your attitude lacking in grace and love. That is not an allegation, merely a characterization based on your words.
But I guess these young bloggers are just trying to gain power and attention for themselves. I’m sure the hits to your blog are rapidly increasing. Be careful that you don’t become what you’ve spoken against. Good luck in your ministry in your new church, and with your blog. I’m certain that you have some valuable insights into SBC life specifically, and the Christian life in general. I’m also certain that I don’t want to read them, given the manner in which you choose to share them. I’m sure there are some that will.
June 27th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
I think it’s interesting that when St. Paul is speaking to the Corinthian church about getting drunk while celebrating the Lord’s Supper, that he does not tell them to switch from wine to juice. If Biblical wine was so impotent, as is suggested by Greek word revisionists, then how could that congregation become inebriated?
June 27th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Jeremy,
Did you just bascially say that Joe holds to the “false doctrine” of “beverage alcohol.” LOL
And I “attacked” you how? By responding to your article with questions and points? Hilarious. Truly funny man.
June 27th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Jeremy,
This is going to be my last comment with regarding your statements (Joe, I apologize for this tangent).
1. There have been many threads which have discussed the issue of alcohol and the Christian. Let me refer you to two:
@ Founders Blog
and
@ SBF Blog
2. Concerning your article, you said:
However, there appears to be a mindset among some “younger leaders” today that they are entitled to, or can demand, a position of leadership within our convention. Some may be infatuated with the ideas of holding office, receiving recognition from others, and climbing the denominational ladder. After all, how does one have time for sermon preparation with all of the new requirements for “younger leaders,” such as networking and web logging? Younger leaders are especially susceptible to a revolutionary mentality — one that is on a mission for change. Change is both good and necessary when appropriate. Nevertheless, this mentality sometimes results in a desire to change anything and everything for the sole sake of change itself – leading a rebel without a cause.
How do you start off by arguing that it “appears” that “some young leaders” are . . .? What right do you have to write about your own perception? Who are “some young leaders? You wrote with your own perception about “some” people you do not know. This is not reporting. This is a gossip column. “Some” may be infatuated . . . Who is infuated?
You say that the young leaders are “rebels without a cause.” How do you know this? You go on to say that you are disturbed by the “childish attempts” to get one’s way. What right do you think you have to say this? As I responded on my “web log”, I wrote:
If this guy can go on record and call “some younger leaders” childish and “rebels without a cause,” the least he can do is do some good journalism and get some facts. Anybody can say anything about anybody and make print? Where’s the verification and vetting of some sources? Could it be that his only source is his imagination? Who are the ones demanding a position in leadership or holding an office? All this vague and ambiguous talk is worse than anything I have read in the blogosphere.
3. Finally, you have attacked Joe’s character and refuse to acknowledge it. No one has attacked your character, but rather have responded to what you have said. I would argue that many of us know Joe personally, and if anyone has the license to speak about Joe’s character or godliness, then that person certainly would NOT be you. I have read many articles by Joe in the past, and it goes without saying that he is one of the most respected and well-articulated Christian men in the blogosphere. You would do yourself a favor and learn from him. I have, and I am a better man for it.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Man, I step away from the computer for a day and all this excitement happens! You gotta love it.
Here’s one minor question. With all this talk about beverage alcohol am I to assume it is okay to use cooking alcohol? Is that why the distinction is being made about “beverage alcohol?” I just don’t know anyone who really uses that terminology.
Having read the comments how is this:
“I think it is fair to say that Joe’s years of “smoking pot” have had permanent effects on his ability to rightly interpret the Holy Scriptures.”
Anything but inflamatory? How cold and callous can you get?
BTW, good post Joe. If you hold to a false doctrine of beverage alcohol then I guess I’m with ya bro…laugh
Oh, and Steve, you’re just a bully, come on man…:)
June 27th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Praying for you, Jeremy, not about your views because I can understand and to a certain point agree with them, but that your words would be a reflection of the heart of Jesus.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
It is far easier to pinpoint problems on substances than on one’s character. The issue is self-control. I sat in the barber chair today - yes, Joe I still indulge the practice even though there is less and less with which to work. A conversation ensued about a young man who turned 21 and decided to celebrate one of the only (sadly) rights of passage (turning 21)we “men” have in our culture where we are now considered “legal” - he got drunk. It was said, I hope he learned his lesson. His problem was self-control. He crossed the line and violated the Scriptural admonition to avoid drunkenness. Alcohol was not his problem, self-control was.
Reading each of the “qualifications” for leaders Paul offered Timothy share the core fruit of the Spirit - self-control. Here in these comments it is difficult to see how incendiary comments can in any way be construed as possessing self-control. Rather than engage the conversation, Joe gets flamed and Steve gets the obligatory “drive-by.”
I read Mr. Green’s post, well just the first couple of paragraphs. It is apparent that child abuse, spousal abuse is purely the consequence of substance abuse. After 25 years of pastoring/serving the local church, there are more abusers who are in their “right mind.” Their problem is self-control; anger gone wild. I understand the last statement to be a bit of an oversimplification but rest assured, the root causes of abuse do not center around alcohol - they are only intensified by it.
We would do well to ask for the developments of the fruit of the Spirit rather than continue to hope to simply “avoid” being “those” kind of people. Rather, it would be far better to become the different people who possess and live out of the fruit of God’s gracious activity. And, those fruit include - kindness and gentleness.
Good thoughts you recovering pot smoking, alcohol drinking theolog.
Glad to be at the table with you.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:41 pm
I’m pretty sure Luther would have cracked Jeremy upside the head with a beer mug by now…
June 27th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
Jeremy said . . .
“The “wine” that Jesus drank (as well as others during Biblical times) was merely purified water - the alcoholic content of it was between 2-3%.”
Here is Mississippi they sell “merely purified water” under the names Budweiser, Miller, Pabst, and others. The beer alcohol level in this state is, I believe, 3.2%. Back in a former life, 4 or 5 cans of merely purified water had a strange effect. . .
June 27th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Let me get this straight:
1. Jesus drank alcohol. (I think that this point has been conceded.)
2. The wine in Jesus’ day contained only 2-3% alcohol.
3. Modern wine is now around 10% alcoholic.
4. Therefore, it is sinful to drink wine today.
I just don’t see how this flows logically. Further, it is historically questionable.
Obviously, drunkeness is a scandolous problem in our day. But is it really worse than it was in our Lord’s day? When you read of the drunken festivals that the people of that day had, I would daresay that they would make many college binges look lame by comparison. (They had a room were you could force yourself to vomit in order to stuff down more food and drink.) Are we to believe then that the propensity to abuse alcohol is worse today than it was in Jesus’ day?
Is Jesus rejecting alcohol today because the content is higher? What if someone fermented their own to match the content of Jesus’ day? Would that be alright? Or, if the average beer contains only 2-3%, would that be better than wine?
At best, this “command” to abstain is questionable. I do not begrudge anyone the freedom to teetotal. In fact, I would encourage it for the glory of God. (After all, if abstaining from pork can bring God glory, so can alcoholic abstenance.) The question is whether that conviction can be forced on another believer’s conscience. Apparently, it cannot be Scripturally sustained. All I have seen is flaming ad hominem arguments and questionable historical research. The quote from A. T. Robertson does not help the case for abstaining! The definition of the word and the facts of Jesus’ consumption are not under question! It is Brother Robertson’s conclusions that must be justified.
Jeremy, it is obvious that your remarks to Joe were uncharitable. As he said, make a case against his exegesis and you’ll have a willing audience. Apparently, your article isn’t convincing enough. Try again.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
Joe,
Thanks for the post.
Alcohol is great, humans make it bad. I’m a new student at SBTS and fairly new to the SBC. I appreciate good discussion and thoughts on the use of alcohol. It seems unfortunate people get offended at the thought of taking any form of drug, but that’s to their honest ignorance. In the past, I have struggled with judging Christians who drink alcohol until I realized they genuinely did it for the glory of God. I wish it didn’t seem so ironic in America, but it’s true. Actually, it is truer out west. Once you get away from the south the line isn’t so thick.
Anyway, thanks for the post. I’ll be looking for more.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
By the way, great blog. How do you guys construct this stuff? I assume you pay for it.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Brad - that’s pretty much the problem. Any first year philosophy student in beginning logic knows that a conclusion must follow from the premises. But in the premises you present (which I think is an accurate representation of what has been said) a ghost premise has to be inserted to make it work.
Wine back then wasn’t the same as today, therefore one mustn’t drink wine today. Doesn’t follow, sorry.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
Isn’t this all just the same sort of argument that many right wingers shoot down from “liberals” with regards to gun laws? ‘Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.’ is the refrain of the NRA folks. But here apparently it is alcohol that kills people, not people. I guess we can have our cake and eat it too.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
Bobby G, don’t try to exegete Scripture. I know where you went to college.
Jason Allen:
The teetotaller argument is EXACTLY the same kind of argument that gun control freaks use. Take a useful thing and outlaw it because some people abuse it and die from it or kill others.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
The only verse that speaks to the ‘watering down of wine’ is Isaiah 1;22 and referenced in a quite negative light. If God wanted it to be manditory to dilute the ‘cup’, one would think He would mention it somewhere?
The only view that will reconcile all of scripture is careful moderation. There is no mandate of abstinence, only a mandate of sobriety.
Said differently, moderation is both a gift and a command.
June 27th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Thanks guys for keeping the post on topic, and for your kind words.
I have banned Mr. Green from commenting because a) he does not contribute constructively to the discussion, has not engaged Scripture, and has attacked a few of us personally and b) I don’t want to see him hang himself with his own words. At least not on my blog.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:09 am
BT, You said, “Clearly, in Proverbs 31:4-5, King Lemuel’s mother understood that moderate drinking adversely affects mental functioning.” This is not clear and the vast majority of commentaries (at least in my reading) do not suggest this is the point, or a point of application in the text. (See my thoughts on that verse above.)
It would be an interesting conversation, “What defines drunkenness?” since the Bible says it is a sin. But I think it is getting away from the point here. All agree, drunkenness is a sin. The issue for me in this post is establishing that wine in the Bible was alcoholic, a blessing of God to his people, a source of pleasure, and consumed by Jesus. The follow up post will deal with various arguments for and against abstinence.
**Edit, I have no idea where your comments have gone man. Feel free to state it again if you wish.**
June 28th, 2006 at 4:00 am
Joe,
I was recently asked this question and was curious what your answer would be (I have answered but want to hear your take on it).
The question:
John 2:10 states, “Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou [Jesus] hast kept the good wine until now.”
The text indicates that these men had “well drunk” already.
Did Jesus contribute to the drunkenness of the men in John 2 by turning the water into wine?
—It seems as if one answers in the affirmative, then one indicts our Lord with sin; an indictment which is unconscionable.
—It seems as if one answers in the negative, then one must presume that the content of alcohol was not significant enough to promote the sin of drunkenness.
I thought this was a loaded question carrying obviously serious consequences. Do you have a reply to this question?
June 28th, 2006 at 8:12 am
Timmy,
Leon Morris points out that his remarks do not refer to what the guests at this particular event were experiencing, but that such was what typically happened at this type of celebration. He said, “when men have well drunk,” or literally, “when men get drunk.” It does not say, “These men are drunk…”
Despite this, I might also ask them a question. Does God contribute to mens’ drunkenness when he provides wine providentially? Men are drunk and will get drunk on it. Why would Jesus’ supernatural provision of wine be any different?
Besides, we must allow God to determine what is right, and his word to determine what we believe. This line of questioning sounds as if God is expected to fit into our preconceived idea of him. I prefer to allow the Bible to tell me who God is and what he does. Whether or not Jesus shares our scruples is irrelevant.
June 28th, 2006 at 9:09 am
I’ve been reading these comments and thinking to myself: so, according to some who’ve commented here, Jesus’s great miracle at the wedding was turning water into…water. Hmmm…
June 28th, 2006 at 10:25 am
Chris,
Close, but not quite. He turned it into grape juice. I must admit I was a bit flummoxed the first time someone popped out that argument to me, that the wine back then was different. Now that some have thoroughly explained their context for that argument, I’m borderline aghast, with a touch of agog. This passes for logical theological arguments, that I’m supposed to base a major life decision on?
So let me get this straight…historical context tells us that much of the wine back then was 2-3% alcohol, therefore, that’s the kind of wine Jesus made. They do not get that conclusion from the Bible, so in my book, that’s an extra-Biblical conclusion, and certainly not one that anybody can claim any level of certainty supporting, much less discounting the miracle of Jesus. I read a quote somewhere where somebody referred to the drink that Jesus made as “a refreshing grape beverage”. Listen, I believe Jesus probably had a good sense of humor, and I think he’s probably still laughing over that one.
June 28th, 2006 at 10:51 am
Mmmm. Nothing like a nice glass of ‘refreshing grape beverage’ in the morning.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Thank you for the nice post, Joe. It really IS all about the Bible, isn’t it? For many years I taught and practiced the total abstinence position. But then an amazing thing happened - I actually read the Biblical text instead of listening to the rants of well meaning, yet misguided preachers. As one of those preachers I had a decision to make - believe the Word of God for what it says or do what was right in my own eyes (a problem the people of God have had since the garden but particularly articulated at the time of the Judges).
As a follower of Jesus it was apparent to me that I must stick with the Bible. So I repented of my error and began giving myself and the people I shepherd the liberty the Bible gives them. This liberty must be exercised responsibly like all liberties (including sex and good food, etc.), but nonetheless it does glorify God to enjoy all his gifts in a redemptive way. (Awhile back Steve McCoy wrote a nice blog about this).
I suppose then the question would be “Who is your authority? God and His Word or someone or something else?” As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
June 28th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
A refreshing grape beverage….??
This had to be it…
http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/soda-pop_1900_86407
June 28th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
Hey Joe,
Good to meet you in Greensboro! Nice post.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
I’m not sure I’m quite ready to equate “giving wine to inebriated wedding guests” with sin. That’s kind of the whole point of this, isn’t it? That the resolution tries to define a behavior out of context as sin. “Drinking alcohol is sin,” they say. But drinking a sip of alcoholic wine as part of the Lord’s Supper, for instance, is clearly approved of by the vast weight of Scripture and church history. And drunken orgies are just as clearly proscribed. What’s the difference? Context.
One might as well write a resolution against, say, opiates. Which is appropriate if you mean smoking a nickel bag of Jack on a Saturday night, but inappropriate if you mean the morphine drip on a cancer patient’s IV.
In the same way I would be hesitant to describe what the Bible seems to ascribe to Jesus as sin just because of our understanding of “drunkenness.” Some people back then made the same error, calling Jesus himself a “glutton and a drunkard.” They took His actions out of context because they didn’t fit their rigid notions of propriety.
But that’s what this whole debate is about, isn’t it? Whether we’re going to be like the Pharisees, and judge the actions of others based on our own rigid preconceptions, or whether we’re going to be like Jesus, who though He did not sin, yet He broke all kinds of the Pharisees’ rules, like healing on the Sabbath, and picking seeds on the Sabbath, and talking to Samaritans, and eating with tax collectors and prostitutes, and eating without ceremonially washing, etc.
So really, what we need to define here is not drunkenness, but sin. Jesus established in His ministry that His definition of sin was less about outward appearance than it was about the heart. Indeed, it’s not what goes into a man that condemns him, but what comes out.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Publius,
You’re exactly right. The heart is the issue. An oft given reason that many are uncomfortable with moderation is that we don’t know when drunkenness begins. “At what point do you cross into sinning?” It seems we want a black and white answer so it will be clear who is sinning and who is not, or even more personally, if we are sinning or not. But it is my belief that the church should not be in the business of delineating those gray areas for us, where the Bible does not.
If you’re uncomfortable with the fact that you won’t know when you’ve crossed into drunkenness, then by all means, don’t drink. I however, do know when to stop. I’ve never been intoxicated, and I believe I haven’t sinned in regards to alcohol consumption. If I ever have though, God’s grace covers that sin just as much as any others I commit. As Paul says, “Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!”. If I did sin with alcohol, I would repent, take note of what caused the sin (note to self, 2 full glasses of wine on an empty stomach isn’t a good idea), and move on. If I habitually sinned with alcohol, then I should make the choice to abstain. It’s not rocket science, just common sense.
As Publius said, Christ came to teach us that the heart matters much more than outward action.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
By the way, I found the article with the “refreshing grape drink” line in it.
http://www.james-dave.com/alcohol2.html
It’s in the section about Jesus and Wine.
June 28th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Dear Brother Joe,
Thanks for your continued work on this issue. I believe you realize, like others of us do, that we are not really discussing alcohol. Instead, we are discussing the relative value of scriptural teaching and human tradition in our Christian belief and practice.
I treasure this quote you made above:
“Besides, we must allow God to determine what is right, and his word to determine what we believe.”
Love in Christ,
Jeff
June 29th, 2006 at 9:04 am
Joe and all…
I’ve been lurking here on and off. Great blog, love the photos and the sincerity–enough to offer this which I hope is a contribution.
All the references to this in the Bible I have read about alcohol lead me to say a couple of things:
1. Celebrations don’t count. I mean come on, it was a wedding at Cana. That passage in Deuteronomy that the original text for this post talks about a time of celebration for the Jews “And you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice”. Not only that but it appears that it suggests you take the Pastor (the local Levite) and buy him a few too.
2. If you know a drunk or an alcoholic you know for a fact that moderation isn’t on his mind. Its all about his love affair with the bottle. His beverage of the day has replaced his love for everything else–including Christ. Most of us don’t have time for that sort of thing–especially in the ministry. Besides drunkeness has its own limiting factors the next day. Anyone who’s crossed over into being drunk knows where the line is. Going there on purpose, I think, is the problem and I don’t see anyone here advocating just going out a getting lit.
3. This isn’t exactly off topic but, is anyone but me getting tired of dogma being used as a lens through which we must view the Bible if we’re REAL Baptists?
Press on Brothers!
Josh
June 29th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Hey guys,
Great post. The issue really hits home for me. I’m planting/planted a church as part of the SBC strategic focus city “NEW HOPE NEW YORK”. Several weeks before the convention our support was pulled because of a “gathering” at my place in which neighbors and friends brought beer and in which I participated. I did confess that I believed I had sinned by drinking the 1.78 coronas- the rest was backwash. I should have never lowered my standard and drank such a cheap beer. It will never again happen- Guiness only from now on. But on a serious note- It pains me that a beer or 1.78 would become the issue that is focused on rather than the lives being transformed in our community.
Anyone want to help support an amazing church plant who’s pastor might have a beer once a year?
June 30th, 2006 at 8:40 am
Joe-
As an outsider to the SBC i am watching this whole thing unravel, and it is very interesting to me. I agree with your post’s general direction as well as most of your specific references. I do however have an objection to your Last Reference (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Matthew+26%3A29 ) as it is taken slightly out of context: http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Matthew+26%3A26-31.
It is my understanding that that reference is specifically referring to the breaking of bread as we do today in communion. I think that it is important to analyze verses within the context of the scripture around it as well as in a historical context.
thanks
June 30th, 2006 at 8:55 am
Peter, thanks for pointing out the context. I am, or course, aware of the context. I simply stated that we would drink wine with Jesus in the end - which we will. That this may take place during a meal in conjunction with the sacrament is irrelevant to me. Thanks for commenting man.
June 30th, 2006 at 10:14 am
Dylan,
I think your sin was drinking Corona! If you are going to drink a beer once a year at least make it worth your while! I’m grateful that you have seen the error of your ways.
SE
June 30th, 2006 at 11:25 am
Why were my posts removed?
[admin: I am not sure. I am working on it]
June 30th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
I know that Jeremy has been banned (good move Joe), but I still have to comment in support of my dear brother and pastor Joe — who unlike Jeremy is one of the most graceful, godliest men that I know. Joe is a very cool dude!
Like Joe, I struggled with alcohol and the other stuff, but for a much longer time period than him (like 14 years or so). Like many others have commented here, it’s not the alcohol that’s the problem, but other underlying problems that cause it’s abuse. In my case, I just wanted to have “fun” but it got out of control. After being saved, I abstained from alcohol (for ~20 years) until a few years ago when Joe and others and my own reading helped me to see that it wasn’t the evil thing that I’d come to imagine. I love to hang out with Joe and hoist a few (Bass Ale preferably) and talk theology and redeeming community for His glory - it’s one of my favorite things and I’m fairly sure that Jesus is OK with it.
Signed,
A former pot-smoking, cocaine-snorting, brother ransomed by the blood of Jesus — Rick
June 30th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Rick, you are very kind. I look forward to seeing you Sunday. God Bless.
June 30th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
Thanks for the post Joe. Does this mean I will have to give up my “resolution #5 grilled chicken”? See http://paullamey.blogspot.com/2006/06/weekend-fun-resolution-5-chicken.html
July 1st, 2006 at 6:12 am
You can keep the chicken, Lamey. If for no other reason, because you chose a weak ale like Boddington’s. Be a man–buck up!
July 1st, 2006 at 8:45 am
Hey, no reason to begrudge the man for the Boddington’s. It ain’t no Bass or Smithwyck’s, but hey, at least he didn’t use a Michelob Ultra Amber. yeck.
July 1st, 2006 at 10:40 am
Richard pretty much only drinks Guinness.
*cough-elitist-cough* lol
July 1st, 2006 at 11:31 am
Ah, me Guinness. Theakston’s Old Peculier is a wonderful ale as well. I get to have some from a tap in about a week or so in Oxford. I think that will likely be one of the first things I do upon arrival.
And Dogfish Head brews some really good stuff.
As for begrudging Paul–as former college roommates, I feel certain he and I have many even more trivial things that prompt begrudging. I thought I was taking it easy on him. Besides, if he had used Michelob Ultra Amber, well, I am not certain such a poor selection would qualify as breaking “Resolution #5.” I mean, I think we all can agree to stand against such brewed offerings.
July 1st, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Begrudge me mates if I were to use Colt 45 or Schaffer Beer! The chicken however was great.
July 1st, 2006 at 6:55 pm
In God’s providence my wife asked me to make the “Beer in the Rear” grilled chicken next weekend. I grill a lot, but this will be a first for me.
July 6th, 2006 at 12:38 am
[...] In that light, it is interesting that the voices that are speaking out against this resolution are (mainly) voices of younger people who are not returning to a conservatism they once knew, but are forging their own conservative views in the midst of today’s culture. It is a sobering lesson about how much culture affects our theology without us even realising it. [...]
July 15th, 2006 at 2:15 am
God is Right,(Wine makes the heart glad) Men who who want to be God will be destroyed with the rest of the Humanist
July 16th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
I can’t believe this Jeremy guy. Even if the wine of the first century only had an alcohol level of 2-3%, guess what, it still had alcohol! His arguments against alcohol look foolish when he has to admit that Jesus drank wine with alcohol. God Incarnate drank, period. How can anyone be so arrogant and idiotic to be against what God Himself did? I can’t believe it. It’s really blasphemous and heretical.
September 8th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
I’m hearing a lot of arguments from the people that vote for total abstinence, but I have YET to see someone back this up with near as much Scripture as those who are proponents of drinking, like I am. I mean, can everyone go back and just read the verse he started out with? Even if the crippled argument about wine being non-alcoholic were true, what do you think “strong drink” is? Coffee. Come on. Just take the Bible for what it says.
I am not saying this to be harsh, nor am I without sympathy. I used to believe in abstinence from alcohol as well. However, in the face of blatantly obvious Scripture supporting the obvious, I have two choices: continue holding on to my false law, or reach out in FAITH and trust the Bible means exactly what it says.
As for the comment of someone driving a wedge between the church and youth, well, that’s all the more reason why we should show that we can discuss this while being gracious and understanding toward one another. Sometimes there will be friction when uncomfortable truth in Scripture is brought out. Nevertheless, let’s face it head on.
September 8th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Also, I would point more people to this article as well. There are a bunch of verses supporting wine. He makes 8 points, most of them solid, on why the Bible does NOT advocate abstinence.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:58 am
This is the first time and reading/responding to a “blog”… I was doing a search on this topic and stumbled upon this site…
This is a very big topic and church as well a my family setting considering the fact that my pastor (also my father-in-law) is “totally” against alcohol in any capacity. He uses a lot of references that I have read on this site to support his “beliefs”. I have chosen to follow the “road of abstanance”, however, am still questionable to the whole topic.
One thing my pator (father-in-law) has stated that I have not seen referenced is that, yes, Jesus drank wine, and yes, wine was even at the last supper…. the bible also states that Jesus said that we are not to drink it again until his return…
Does anyone have any feedback for this?
I will say that I understand people’s “beliefs” on both sides of this topic. Even though I have chosen “abstanance” does not mean that I condemn those who haven’t. I do feel that as long as one has Jesus in their heart the Holy Spirit when lead you and direct you. We may not all see eye to eye but we must always walk in the love of Christ.
Thank you in advance for taking the time to response, blessings to all!
September 19th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Erika, Thanks for stopping by. Jesus actually said that he would not drink it again “until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Mt. 26)
Also, you might want to check out these other relevant posts here and here.
January 26th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Thank you for your article. I have to agree with you.
January 26th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Thank you for your article. I wanted to say that actually the alcohol content in the wine was closer to 11%. The Jewish wine served today at Passover is 11% and it was prepared exactly as in the days of Jesus - strictley to the Jewish code. What simply amazes me is how the Southern Babtist Churches condemn anyone for drinking a single glass of wine but think nothing of gluttony at their many soup socials, or drinking 4 to 5 cups of coffee a day. It takes 10 oz. of water to flush one cup of coffee through your digestive system. Every day people alow their childred to consume gallons of soda filled with nothing but cafine and sugar. Then we question why there is so much obesity in our country. I say to those who would condemn me for drinking a single glass of wine that they need to examine themselves. If you cannot show moderation in that area it is most likely that you cannot in other areas either. Thank you again for this article. I think it is about time