In Defense Of Alcohol, God's Blessing To Man

[Jeffrey]

We have covered alot of this in the "Christians Falling...." thread, but I have said that I would start this so, here goes. To start, I will not bring in other Christians who partake, to quote from, I will just use Strongs for defination sake, but primarily use Scripture. I know it will be hard for many to accept. It was for me, I literally stayed up nights trying wrap my mind around this because this wasn't what I was taught, and it is hard to believe that people you love would be wrong.

 

To start off, I will readily admit that Scripture is clear on the sin of drunkeness, Proverbs is chock full of warnings of excess of alcohol. But nowhere does it condemn the use of it but it condemns the abuse of it. Like food and sex, both are a blessing from God, good gifts, but can be easily abused. Scripture plainly shows that alcohol is a blessing in the following verses:Psalm 104:14-15; Deut 7:13, 11:14, Prov 3:10, That it cheers God Judges 9:13. Was commanded to be used in the worship of God Ex 29:40  Lev 23:13 Num 15:5,7,10 28:14

 

God clearly teaches that He would take it away for disobedience Deut 28:39,51 Isa 62:8

 

Of Course i always quote from Deuteronomy 14:26 and thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,

 

Wine; Hebrew word yayin Strongs #3196 wine The Hebrew Lexicon- bubbling up and fermenting

strong drink Hebrew shekar Strongs#7941 strong drink, intoxicating drink,fermented or intoxicating liquor

 

In all cases yayin means wine, alcoholic wine and shekar means intoxicating liquor

 

New wine had an alcoholic content Hos 4:11, Acts 2:13

 

In the NT Jesus first miracle was changing water into wine, alcoholic wine. By the reaction of the governor of the feast John 2:10 and saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. they would set out good wine and when people starting feeling good they would set out the older wine that isnt that good, because people would not know the differnce.

Jesus drank wine Luke 7:34 which would make sense because he was comparing himself to John the baptist who was a Nazerine

Paul in 1 Cor 11:21-22 tells them to stop getting drunk but to drink in their own house

 

I'll delve into it more later and more I want to cover, but I wanted to get the ball rolling, Remember, read Scripture! Let God's Word speak to you and dont depend on the "traditions of man"

[Standing Firm In Christ]

You are wrong.  Alcohol is not a blessing, no matter how much you try to twist Scripture to make it so.

It may seem like a blessing to you, but it is not.  At the last, it biteth like a serpent and stingeth like an adder.  Those who partake of it are not wise.

But Wisdom is justified of all her children.

[Arbo]

This again?

 

Groundhog Day was six days ago.

[TheSword]

I'll repost this here so we can keep the discussion in this thread instead of the other:

 

You have to be careful with some of the older Strongs #s because some are not coded correctly.  It's actually methusthōsi (μεθυσθῶσι) which is a verb rather than a noun. It is also passive, indicating the action was done to the subject (the wedding feast attendees) rather than the subject doing the action. Addtionally, it is in the subjunctive mood which indicates an action of possibility or probability. Combined with the preceding contingent adverb "when" (hotan, ὁταν, literally means "whenever") this pushes the mood more toward possibility than probability. Finally, it is in the aorist tense which, properly understood, means to communicate a snapshot in time.

 

So, when properly understood and exegeted, the verse should communicate "whenever people are made to be drunk, then bring out the bad wine" (presumably because it no longer matters). In context, what you have in John 2:9-10 is somewhat of a rebuke of the bridegroom by the governor of the feast for making the people drink the inferior wine first and keeping the good wine until later. In context, we see that the governor is upset that people have been made to be drunk because they were given the older fermented wine when they could have been drinking newer, non-fermented wine. When considered with Eph 5:18 ("be not drunk with wine....") and similar verses on drunkenness, this makes more sense than Jesus providing more and better alcohol to people already well-intoxicated. If you accept and interpretation that this passage speaks of Jesus creating alcoholic wine, then you must also accept and proclaim a Biblical contradiction.

[Jeffrey]

I'll repost this here so we can keep the discussion in this thread instead of the other:
 
You have to be careful with some of the older Strongs #s because some are not coded correctly.  It's actually methusthōsi (μεθυσθῶσι) which is a verb rather than a noun. It is also passive, indicating the action was done to the subject (the wedding feast attendees) rather than the subject doing the action. Addtionally, it is in the subjunctive mood which indicates an action of possibility or probability. Combined with the preceding contingent adverb "when" (hotan, ὁταν, literally means "whenever") this pushes the mood more toward possibility than probability. Finally, it is in the aorist tense which, properly understood, means to communicate a snapshot in time.
 
So, when properly understood and exegeted, the verse should communicate "whenever people are made to be drunk, then bring out the bad wine" (presumably because it no longer matters). In context, what you have in John 2:9-10 is somewhat of a rebuke of the bridegroom by the governor of the feast for making the people drink the inferior wine first and keeping the good wine until later. In context, we see that the governor is upset that people have been made to be drunk because they were given the older fermented wine when they could have been drinking newer, non-fermented wine. When considered with Eph 5:18 ("be not drunk with wine....") and similar verses on drunkenness, this makes more sense than Jesus providing more and better alcohol to people already well-intoxicated. If you accept and interpretation that this passage speaks of Jesus creating alcoholic wine, then you must also accept and proclaim a Biblical contradiction.

Um, no! But I'll give you this, that's the first time I heard it put that way, it's been through out 2,000 years if church history that Jesus made oinos, wine and and the governor was impressed by the wine.
If wine means grape juice, then why in Romans does Paul instruct believers not to offend by what we drink? If it's grape juice, why would it offend? Or in Collosians 2, why would be judged for drinking grape juice in vs 16?
It doesn't make sense if wine were grape juice!! But if that wine was alcoholic, then the text makes sense!

[wretched]

I agree and disagree with boths sides in the argument.

 

You don't have to change the Word to make an argument, whenever I see this regardless of topic there is loss of credibility. Whenever the KJBible says wine, it means wine every single time. This juice nonsense is man made grasping at straws to lend fabricated evidence to a solid Biblical teaching. Not only is that sinful in itself, it is absolutely unnecessary and downright silly. Now I realize no one here who says "juice" thought that up yourself, you got it from another man. Where you didn't get it from is the Bible.

Conversely:

There is more than enough Scripture warning against wine and strong drink to know all should avoid it

Even the world knows it is not ok for them to partake in it. It is taboo even in the crudest circles of the lost, it is mocked, drunks are made fun of, the mention of drinking brings a smirk to all faces among the lost. Our Godless governments have laws regulating when, where, how much and what you cannot do after partaking in it. Anyone who has drank knows it is not an acquired taste. What is acquired is the buzz.

 

Jesus did make wine and He did make donuts. Without Him nothing was made that was made. He did give the raw materials and knowledge to man. He also says not to abuse either, else you become a sinful drunk or a sinful fat-body.

[TheSword]

You also have to be careful using the term licquor.  It is certainly true that the words translated wine (yâyin) and strong drink (šēḵār) are different in the Old Testament and reflect different levels of alcoholic content.  However, keep in mind that distillation of alcohol did not come about until the 12^th century (some say 7th century in the Near East; either way it's way later than any biblical writing) so the max alcoholic content of “strong drink” could be no more than 12%-15% and liquor as we know it did not exist.  The wine that we know of today falls in this category at an average of 13.5%.  Today, strong drink would definitely include all liqeuers and liquors (which can go up to at least 75% - Bacardi 151) but just because the max available has changed this doesn't mean that the base standard of what constitutes "strong drink" has.  Wine as we know it today was, and therefore still is, considered "strong drink."  Of all the times “strong drink” is found in the Bible, it is always translated from the same word and is never condoned or used in a positive context.  In every other instance but Deu 14:26 its context is always that of either prohibition or condemnation.  Additionally, you also have to understand how those two items were generally used as a preservative or purifier for water rather an always drunk straight.  The common method was to boil the wine down to a syrup-type substance called must, which would burn away any alcohol or microbes, and then mixed with water to create a safe and refreshing drink.

[TheSword]

You don't have to change the Word to make an argument, whenever I see this regardless of topic there is loss of credibility. Whenever the KJBible says wine, it means wine every single time. This juice nonsense is man made grasping at straws to lend fabricated evidence to a solid Biblical teaching. Not only is that sinful in itself, it is absolutely unnecessary and downright silly. Now I realize no one here who says "juice" thought that up yourself, you got it from another man. Where you didn't get it from is the Bible.

 

Not really. Linguistically speaking, the differentiation between wine and and juice is an understanding that only came about in the last century or so. Both the Greek and Hebrew words carried the meaning of both possibilities and more properly meant to be anything that came from the vine and there was really no word for "juice." Even the English "wine" carried this dual meaning until relatively recently. You'll still be able to find this definition in most English dictionaries; my 1899 Webster's for instance lists the definition of "the juice of certain kinds of fruits."  It is an anachronism to read into the text that wine can only mean alcoholic wine. It's not changing the word to express its full range of meaning, particularly when this meaning was both common and available to the original authors as well as the KJV translators and is valid in the context of the passage of Scripture being discussed.

[TheSword]

Um, no! But I'll give you this, that's the first time I heard it put that way, it's been through out 2,000 years if church history that Jesus made oinos, wine and and the governor was impressed by the wine.
If wine means grape juice, then why in Romans does Paul instruct believers not to offend by what we drink? If it's grape juice, why would it offend? Or in Collosians 2, why would be judged for drinking grape juice in vs 16?
It doesn't make sense if wine were grape juice!! But if that wine was alcoholic, then the text makes sense!

 

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. The word translated wine isn't strictly non-alcoholic juice. It carried both meanings and context dictates which meaning is intended. It's the same with all words in every language. Sometimes it is clearly meant to mean alcoholic wine and sometimes it is clearly not. Other times it is unclear and you have to analyze both near and far contexts.

[Jeffrey]

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. The word translated wine isn't strictly non-alcoholic juice. It carried both meanings and context dictates which meaning is intended. It's the same with all words in every language. Sometimes it is clearly meant to mean alcoholic wine and sometimes it is clearly not. Other times it is unclear and you have to analyze both near and far contexts.

If you want to twist the meaning of words to fit a position, I can do the same, but the definition of wine was alcoholic, held for 2000 years, in Acts 2 when the Apostles were accused of being full of "new wine", what was Peters response? He said it was too early, he didn't say " we don't touch the stuff" it was common place for people to drink wine, like today. Nobody is saying drunkeness is ok. Having a drink is not sinful, temparance is a fruit of the Spirit

[Jeffrey]

You are wrong.  Alcohol is not a blessing, no matter how much you try to twist Scripture to make it so.
It may seem like a blessing to you, but it is not.  At the last, it biteth like a serpent and stingeth like an adder.  Those who partake of it are not wise.
But Wisdom is justified of all her children.

Is 55:1 ?

[Standing Firm In Christ]

AVBibleBeliever brought up an interesting point on my thread.

The only place where God said to buy wine and strong drink was in relation to the Annual Feast.  The wine and strong drink were to be bought in Jerusalem, and used in Jerusalem.  Are our pro-alcohol advocates making treks to buy their wine and strong drink? 

I highly doubt it.

[Jeffrey]

AVBibleBeliever brought up an interesting point on my thread.
The only place where God said to buy wine and strong drink was in relation to the Annual Feast.  The wine and strong drink were to be bought in Jerusalem, and used in Jerusalem.  Are our pro-alcohol advocates making treks to buy their wine and strong drink? 
I highly doubt it.

Isaiah 55:1?

[Jeffrey]

AVBibleBeliever brought up an interesting point on my thread.
The only place where God said to buy wine and strong drink was in relation to the Annual Feast.  The wine and strong drink were to be bought in Jerusalem, and used in Jerusalem.  Are our pro-alcohol advocates making treks to buy their wine and strong drink? 
I highly doubt it.

So you do admit it was permissible at that time to buy wine and strong drink, when did that end?

[TheSword]

If you want to twist the meaning of words to fit a position, I can do the same, but the definition of wine was alcoholic, held for 2000 years, in Acts 2 when the Apostles were accused of being full of "new wine", what was Peters response? He said it was too early, he didn't say " we don't touch the stuff" it was common place for people to drink wine, like today. Nobody is saying drunkeness is ok. Having a drink is not sinful, temparance is a fruit of the Spirit

 

How is this twisting the meaning of words? And on what do you base the assertion of the definition being held as only alcoholic for 2000 years?

 

Also, "new wine" in Acts 2 is not the oinos the rest of this study/discussion is talking about, but rather it is glueukos, which means a sweet, or freshly pressed, wine which is specifically unfermented. Rather than being drunk, the more likely implication is being on a sugar high.