In September 2008, Dr. Randy Jaeggli of the BJU Seminary faculty wrote a book entitled The Christian and Drinking: A Biblical Perspective on Moderation and Abstinence. The book is part of the University's series on "difficult issues." The book was a fair treatment of the subject from a biblical, historical and medical perspective.
The following is a book review - not a position paper. This post (like all other blog posts) is neither my complete thought nor final thinking on the topic.
The book has five sections: a review of the biblical references to alcoholic beverages in the Old Testament, a review of references in the New Testament, a general history of the church's views on alcohol through to the present, the relevant medical evidence, and practical applications based on personal holiness.
Jaeggli's position is that a believer should exercise total abstinence; a traditional fundamentalist position. How he gets there is somewhat different than many fundamentalists.
The review of references to alcohol in the OT and NT shows that Scripture clearly prohibits excessive drinking. But there are several references which seem to imply that alcohol is associated with some positive Christian values or is a metaphor for foundational Christian truths.
Perhaps the most controversial part of the book from a fundamentalist perspective is Jaeggli's conclusion that the wine Christ made in the wedding feast was indeed alcoholic. Some Christians from other educational institutions (e.g. Ambassador) have accused him of heresy (i.e. they assume alcohol is itself sin, if Christ made alcohol, he must be sin, if Christ is the author of sin he is not god, therefore Jaeggli is heretical.). Such a conclusion is absurd.
So, the first two sections conclude that Scripture prohibits excessive drinking. The Scriptural warnings also indicate that it is very easy to move from moderate drinking to excessive drinking.
The book's next section deals with a religious history of alcohol and the church. Certainly, many great Christian forefathers were unashamedly attached to their wine or beer (Puritans being the clearest example). Others were adamantly opposed.
Jaeggli then reviews the medical evidence regarding alcohol. He concedes that wine consumption can have a positive effect on a person's heart. He also rightly points out that aerobic exercise provides much more of a benefit. Jaeggli also points out the danger of alcoholism and notes that it is difficult to know if you have a genetic predisposition towards this disease until you begin consuming.
Finally, Jaeggli concludes with a chapter on personal holiness. Upon conversion, a believer's life should be progressively becoming more like Christ and less like the world. Appropriately, that process means jettisoning things that are unnecessary (even if they are technically permissible).
In other words, believers ought not to be so concerned about whether or not they can do something, but whether or not they should do something. What benefits do we gain from drinking? Not many. The negatives? The potential of substantial testimonial damage both inside and outside Christianity.
Intellectually, it is fulfilling, even mandated by Scripture, for us to search out the extent and nature of each of God's commands. But if we have a correct understanding of personal holiness, we will not look to live near the line that separates explicitly legal actions and explicitly worldly / illegal actions (as defined by Scripture).
I am aware that there are persuasive arguments that Scripture prohibits, in addition to excessive drinking, drinking strong drink of any kind.
But assuming the position advanced by many evangelicals or progressive fundamentalists (i.e. moderate drinking is technically permissible), Jaeggli's book makes a worthy defense of one of fundamentalist's most attacked positions: A Christian should not drink.
Thanks for this review, Jonathan. I had no idea this book existed until you said something.
Hmm...interesting. I'm with him all the way until his necessary/unnecessary point (what I'm going to call his 'should argument'). A *massive* point (& somewhat playing devil's advocate here) he's leaving out is the doctrine of Creation, aka He has given us all things richly to enjoy, I have given them to you for food, etc. and so on.
While I am 101% in agreement with Jaeggli's thoughtful consideration of what a choice adds to or takes from a life, I believe that reducing that needful aspect down to a sense of 'should' is a grave mistake. One that risks insulting God as creator.
By his same argument, *should* I eat green beans? What about pomegranates? Or using saffron in my cooking? Should I grow my own herbs? Should I wear facial hair? Should I sing while I drive? When I take a vacation, should I visit the beach or instead, say, Spartanburg, which is much closer?
You see? The should argument, when removed from the context of such a prickly issue, immediately unravels. Should is a *fantastic* question to ask - don't get me wrong. But a choice's appropriateness to one's life (a great point, by the bye) is a much broader, richer, more sophisticated question than *should*. A question that would necessarily allow for respectful, gracious differences in the body, as well as the freedom to graciously converse/query about those differences to keep either extreme from becoming idolatrous in their choice. Which is my conclusion on the issue.
All the same, it's refreshing to see some fair scholarship about the issue from the Fundamentalist camp.
Posted by: will | May 31, 2009 at 09:36 PM
IMHO, green beans and pomegranates are not the same as alcoholic beverages. Better to compare green beans and pomegranates to grapes rather than alcoholic wine. It seems that grapes are more nutritious than wine with none of the drawbacks of wine (possibility of drunkenness or alteration of a person's physical or emotional functioning).
Posted by: David Hanson | June 01, 2009 at 12:11 AM
I bought this book when I was over in Greenville but haven't had a chance to read it yet. I'm teetotal but do not know many other like-minded people, not even in my church (Spanish-Italian church in Germany). It's a tricky issue and maybe culture also plays an important part in this. I have heard good arguments on both sides, but none that would absolutely settle the issue for me. So I'm hoping that this book will give me a better understanding of the matter, although I have a strong suspicion that I won't be able to find the all-convincing argument in this book, either. But in any case, I love Dr. Jaeggli and know him to be a serious and excellent Bible scholar.
Posted by: Michael | June 01, 2009 at 03:43 AM
"Upon conversion, a believer's life should be progressively becoming more like Christ and less like the world. Appropriately, that process means jettisoning things that are unnecessary (even if they are technically permissible)"
If the argument is made that alcoholic beverages should not be consumed because there are better alternatives and alcohol is thus unnecessary, I can see problems with the argument. Soda does not need to be consumed (tea and water are alternatives) and as opposed to wine, it is somewhat unhealthy to be consumed. Regular soda consumption is a contributing factor to diabetes and obesity. Obese Christians are a horrible testimony. Should we abstain from drinking soda?
Why do fundamentalists classify certain things are "wordly" that the Bible doesn't say are wordly? The answer seems to be, if it's popular in society, it's wordly.
Posted by: C.S. Lewis | June 01, 2009 at 06:05 PM
By the way, I coulda sworn I wrote another comment here. Hmm....
David, you're quite right in saying wine is not equivalent to green beans. Here's what I meant to argue:
When we narrow down our argument about a part of creation to the simple question, "Is this necessary?", we insult the richness of its significance in the first place. There is much that God has called us to make the best use of (dominion), as well as to enjoy where it will not cause us to stumble.
What is necessary or not necessary is *certainly* part of a believer's judgment. But reducing any decision down to just that seems to miss a dozen other questions that are just as valuable.
And so, my analogy. Jaeggli's argument in this fashion (as described above) only *seems* to work because the issue is, as you hint at, one that people should treat seriously. To show the incompleteness of the argument, though, I ask you to consider how inadequate it seems to ask, Is it necessary for me to use the air conditioning in my car? (or any of the other questions I listed earlier). It becomes obvious from moving the argument to other topics that the argument was inadequate in the first place. Drink, just like any other issue containing the possibility of harm, deserves careful consideration - not an 'is it necessary?' simplification that seems to miss the doctrine of Creation in the first place.
I hope I'm at least coming across more clearly, and not muddying the waters even more. I realize we may believe differently about the application, but would hope we could agree on the breadth of consideration we would want to give to a decision. All the best!
Posted by: will | June 02, 2009 at 10:04 PM
Not sure how much we differ here, Will. But some thoughts:
I hear you on the doctrine of Creation. But the creation is fallen and we need to be careful not to justify current use of a sinful world based on a view of unfallen creation. To me the doctrine of creation is relevant, but much less so than that of personal holiness and progressive sanctification. Our enjoyment is only helpful to the extent it focuses us on Christ.
I wonder if we're playing a semantic game with the "is it necessary" point. Our worldview should be that we are here to become more like Christ and bring him Glory (the one being vital to the last), which by definition means less like the fallen creation (or more properly our fallen nature). Thus, it is indeed appropriate to use the “is it necessary question” in each of your above questions. And here again we may be simply talking past each other.
But I think we as a fallen race we tend towards a man-centered life / worldview; what do I feel as opposed to what does God want (or is like). For example, should I eat green beans? It depends. Are they healthy for me (my body is God's temple)? Are they best way to get what I need (nutritionally and financially)? Should I take this vacation? Depends. What's the best use of my money for God's work on earth?
This is not to say we take extremes (e.g. asceticism), though I believe Christians, esp. in the US, would find what the Bible truly says about money, possessions, etc. (see Alcorn) to be “extreme.” I agree we ought to be okay with enjoying non-essentials (expensive dinners at Devereaux's or trips to Paris are my favorite) on occasion. But frankly, I don't think that's really a problem for our generation.
Our problem today isn’t too little but too much materialism; too much focus on present enjoyment instead of future glorification (not always, but usually the choice). Perhaps the second main problem is we forget our environment: we’re at war. We ought to enjoy what God has given, but focus on living like nobody else (on earth) so we can lay-up treasure for eternity (or live like nobody else in Heaven). *Forgive the Ramsey perversion*
Posted by: Jonathan | June 03, 2009 at 12:20 AM
Hey Jonathan (and Will), it's good to see some conversation going on. It's been too long.
Keeping in mind that I haven't read the book:
The phrase "technically permissible" seems to me of dubious merit--perhaps a kind of rhetorical trick. From the point of view of Law, something is either permitted or it's not. In this case, Jaeggli has concluded that alcohol is, in fact, permitted.
For me, that's the end of the discussion.
From that point on, any conversation on the matter ought to be placed in the context of personal choice (with modest book/chapter titles like: "Randy Jaeggli & Drinking" or "One Man's Perspective on the Question of Drink.")
There are a number of great reasons not to drink--just like there are a number of great reasons not to ride a motorcycle, loan money to a family member, or marry at eighteen.
But in the end, each person is *free* to make these decisions as he or she sees fit. If it blows up, he or she bears the responsibility for the damage done both to him/herself and the others who were hurt (and there will be others).
But if it doesn't blow up, we should all rejoice in our brother or sister's success and happiness. Too often the voice of envy (in the Aristotelian sense) masquerading as pious caution hisses at another's joy when these kinds of hard decisions bear good fruit.
In the absence of a definite biblical proscription, trying to generalize a universally-applicable Christian course of action is (I think) going to be needlessly constrictive, intrusive, and divisive--and ultimately fruitless.
My one caveat is Romans 14: Those who have the liberty within to make the decision affirmatively on contentious issues like this have a definite obligation to be mindful of the consciences of others and to avoid being a stumbling block.
Their exercise of their liberty should be prudently private.
Hope all is well with you all!
Posted by: David J. Lohnes | June 08, 2009 at 08:30 AM
David,
I agree that the making an absolute claim in this area can be divisive. Holding a position on subjects that are not clearly cut as right or wrong can come off as very self-righteous. I find that people who consider it wrong to consume alcohol often look down on people with the stronger conscience. It's the whole "Lord, thank you that I'm not like that man" kind of thing".
Posted by: Martin Luther | June 08, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Jonathan, my son, a friend of yours pointed me to your blog. I also have a review of this book here. It is a good deal longer than yours! I have this problem with verbosity.
Nevertheless, one reason I point to it is an article I ran across while reading Randy's book that seems to debunk the claim of health benefits for alcohol.
I have also been thinking lately about the sin lists in the NT where drunkenness is listed as a prohibition, along with fornication, adultery, etc. It occurs to me that these lists represent categories of sins that are prohibited, not just the only aspect of something that is prohibited.
I would suggest the Lord's reasoning in Mt 5 concerning adultery and anger as representative of the way we ought to think about these sins.
Then think about those sin lists. Take the works of the flesh in Galatians for example. The emphasis of that list seems to be sins of anger because Paul has a pretty thorough coverage of various aspects of anger in that list. (And a fight was going on in Galatia, methinks.)
But consider fornication and adultery for example. Are these merely prohibitions of illicit intercourse? Is it permissible for a man to flirt with another man's wife, as long as "nothing happens", as some would say? I don't think so.
Now consider drunkenness. At what point does that occur? At what point might we say drinking alcohol moves from'technically permissible' to sin? It is not easy to discern where that line is, especially in a world such as we live in given we have plenty of sources of pure drinking water and other beverages and given that the alcoholic drinks of today are not the same as in ancient times. The fact is that most drinking today is for the effect of alcohol and nothing more. If that is the case, it seems to me that it falls under the prohibitions of the NT.
Finally, alcohol is not in the category of stronger/weaker consciences, unless it is alcohol at an idol's temple that you are discussing. The issue in 1 Corinthians was the location in which the meat was consumed, not the meat itself. With alcohol, the question is about the substance, not the place it is consumed.
FWIW
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Posted by: Don Johnson | June 25, 2009 at 10:25 AM
hmmm... your software doesn't like my html, here is the link to my review:
http://oxgoad.ca/2008/10/28/the-christian-and-drinking/
Hope that works better.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Posted by: Don Johnson | June 25, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Don, I believe you are off base in your statement that the consumption of alcohol should not be included as an issue of weaker/stronger conscience. If Christ drank alcohol, the substance itself is definitely not the issue.
The issues raised in 1 Cor. 8 are (1) eating meat purchased from the temple meat market, (2) as a guest, being served meat from the temple market, (3) actually eating meat at the temple, something Paul and for which he was given a hard time.
1 Cor. 8 can absolutely be applied to areas of liberty. The passage clearly indicates that no one is more or less spiritual for their choice on the matter; food does not commend us to God.
The problem in Christianity is that some people do not have proper love for those with stronger/weaker consciences. We could all use more charity.
Posted by: Bill Smith | July 01, 2009 at 07:49 PM
Alcohol isn't something that is associated with idolatry. My point is that as such 1 Cor 8-10 don't apply. The reason the meat in question in 1 Cor 8-10 was in question at all was the association with idolatry.
Further, I think you are confused about the argument of 1 Cor 8-10. I won't go into detail on 1 Cor 8, but suggest you see Gordon Fee's commentary for his take and a thorough handling of the context.
The first two points you suggest as being raised in 1 Cor 8 actually are raised in 1 Cor 10 as extraordinary circumstances to the main issue, after Paul comes to his final conclusions. You are confusing one passage with another.
The whole argument of 1 Cor 8 is incomplete without ch. 9 and ch. 10 as well. In Paul's conclusion he absolutely prohibits eating meat in the idols temple, see 1 Cor 10.14-23. He doesn't want you to have fellowship with demons.
After that, he answers additional questions, what about meat sold in the shambles? and what about meat in the house of a pagan? (And even in these circumstances it is sometimes prohibited.)
Many people confuse the teaching of 1 Cor 8-10 with that of Rm 14-15 because similar language is used. They are talking about quite different scenarios.
All of that is probably too brief to really help much. The whole passage encompasses a good deal of careful apostolic argumentation. It is hard to know how much to say or not say on a blog. At any rate, I encourage you to look at Fee's commentary and get a better grasp of the passage.
Last: this discussion of 1 Cor will probably sidetrack the thread from the main issue. My earlier comment primarily speaks to our understanding of drunkenness as categorized as a work of the flesh in the NT. It would be more helpful to the topic at hand and keep us on topic if you could interact with that comment rather than my lesser point of 1 Cor 8-10. (My opinion of course, not that I am trying to moderate this thread!)
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Posted by: Don Johnson | July 03, 2009 at 03:52 PM
How can you guys argue about the "christian legality" of alcohol, all the while realizing that Jesus manufactured, distributed, and consumed alcohol himself?
Essentially, this is stating that either A) Jesus was wrong or B) you know better than he does. All of the arguing in the world won't/can't refute those allegations.
Posted by: Jebediah | July 06, 2009 at 04:22 PM
Not withstanding all of the Scriptures that condemn the abuse of alcohol, but speak favorably to the moderate use of it, let me address several of the abstention issues.
(1)The Bible instructs us to avoid "much drink". If it were impossible to draw a morally relevant distinction between "much" drinking and moderate drinking, why does God warn us about the subject? Why would the Bible condemn drunkenness if we can't tell the difference? Scripture condemns gluttony, but how much food is too much? Oh, and by the way, you can become poisoned by drinking too much water!
(2) If God deems wine as a blessing from Himself, how can we say it is detrimental to our health? Did Jesus drink something detrimental to His health?
(3) The Lord and his apostles drank wine despite sinful men around them (read culture) indulging in it to their own degradation. We detract from our witness if we promote a false morality that is "holier" than the Bible.
(4) All evidence that wine was diluted in the NT comes from non-biblical sources. Wine in the OT was rarely if ever diluted.
"The abiding strength of a truly vital Christianity derives from its sole reliance upon the sufficiency of Scripture for all matters concerning faith and practice (Kenneth Gentry)". Let's not be tempted to resort to sanctified feelings for resolving complex issues instead of turning to the Bible.
Posted by: mj | July 06, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Re mj's point #4 above:
I'm not sure what relevance your point has. Are you suggesting that the evidence that 1st Century wine was normally consumed after dilution is untrue?
With respect to wine of OT times, I'd suggest that the evidence would be inconclusive or non-existent. There just isn't that much to go on the further you go back in history.
The point that is being made with respect to dilution is simply this: you can't assume current alcoholic beverages are exactly the same as what is being described in the Bible. The evidence suggests pretty strongly that there was a significant difference. Thus the Biblical instructions reflect a culture that no longer exists. We can still derive instruction and wisdom from them, but we at least have to acknowledge that we are not exactly comparing apples to apples. This is something to take into consideration in interpretation and application.
In the end, everyone is going to have to make a faith decision. Every Christian will give account at the judgement seat. I am pretty confident that my abstinence will not be one of those areas where I might be censured. I don't think those who advocate drinking can approach it with the same level of confidence on that point.
(That's not to say I will escape censure at the judgement!)
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Posted by: Don Johnson | July 07, 2009 at 04:19 AM
Don, as to your last sentence, I can't speak for all moderationists, but I think we can absolutely be confident in the decision to drink in moderation. I look forward to the feast described in Isaiah 25 where we will all drink wine. Do you plan to abstain at the feast?
And now to address your comments on 1 Cor 8/10. This passage raises a fundamental issue in regards to the practice of homiletics, especially how we apply a biblical text to our modern situation. Obviously very few people will face the issue of whether or not to eat meat sacrificed to idols. So we must identify the timeless principle(s) Paul is stating and then apply those to our modern situation in a manner that is analogous to the original historic context. The issue of alcohol consumption is an example that type of issue.
Posted by: mj | July 07, 2009 at 04:02 PM
To Don:
Quoting you: "The point that is being made with respect to dilution is simply this: you can't assume current alcoholic beverages are exactly the same as what is being described in the Bible."
Why WOULD the Scriptures warn against consuming too much "diluted" drink? That doesn't even make sense.
Posted by: Jebediah | July 07, 2009 at 04:17 PM
To Don:
Again, quoting you: "In the end, everyone is going to have to make a faith decision. Every Christian will give account at the judgement seat. I am pretty confident that my abstinence will not be one of those areas where I might be censured. I don't think those who advocate drinking can approach it with the same level of confidence on that point."
***I think it might be possible that your logic is skewed on this one. I say that because, as we all know, Jesus died a sinless man. A perfect man. Surely, Jesus' OWN consumption of alcohol, if it were a sin, would have negated his sinless status in God's eyes.
But he died a perfect man; sinless in God's eyes, despite his consumption of alcohol.
So, in rebuttal to your comment that "those who advocate drinking cannot approach judgement with confidence" I say that this is wholly incorrect, as they can rely on the perfect example of the Christ himself.
Posted by: Jebediah | July 07, 2009 at 09:39 PM
Editor's note:
Let's make sure we keep the tone respectful. Healthy debate is profitable, but let's make sure it is Christ honoring.
Posted by: Jonathan | July 07, 2009 at 09:57 PM
Just checking back in... a couple ofpoints.
1. Yes, we can derive timeless principles from 1 Cor 8-10, but remember that the meat in question was unquestionably unquestionable in itself. The problem was the association with the idol temple/idol sacrifice. If you want to make the case that alcohol is completely innocent and it is only its associations that are problematic, then I suppose this text is for you. I don't think you can make that case successfully. I do think, however, that some of the principles for avoiding things with bad associations can be applied to alcohol, but they are not the only answers to the question and they aren't the best answers to the question.
2. The warnings in the Bible are more related to unmixed wine, not diluted wine. My point there is simply that the alcoholic beverages in Bible times are not the same as modern alcoholic beverages and neither is the culture of alcoholic beverage consumption the same. Arguments that assume that the substance and culture of one period is identical with another period are flawed. Secular histories of beer and wine confirm this.
I think that last point relates to the comment about our Lord's creation and use of wine as well.
~~~
I find the vehemence of response quite interesting. This usually comes at points when one has no argument to make.
If anyone cares to continue the discussion and wishes to make reasonable argument, I'll continue by checking in from time to time. But I'm not going to answer any heated mockery in the future.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Posted by: Don Johnson | July 10, 2009 at 01:27 AM
Don, I'm not saying our beverages are exactly what people in ages past have consumed or that our culture is identical to theirs; culture is constantly changing. What I am saying is that there is absolutely no way to prove that there is something inherently evil in the substance of alcohol that warrants the prohibition of its consumption. Beverages of today are no so alcoholic that they cannot be consumed in a manner of moderation and with thankfulness to God for his creation.
John Calvin foresaw the danger of a new cult of abstinence. In his commentary on Psalm 104:15, he writes that God has given “wine to make the heart of man glad”. He warned against making the peril of drunkenness “a pretext for a new cult based upon abstinence.”
And Martin Luther had this to say: "Do you suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused? Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women? The sun, the moon, and the stars have been worshipped. Shall we then pluck them out of the sky? … See how much He has been able to accomplish through me, though I did no more than pray and preach. The Word did it all. Had I wished I might have started a conflagration at Worms. But while I sat still and drank beer with Philip and Amsdorf, God dealt the papacy a mighty blow."
I really don't understand how if God intends for us to share wine with Him at the feast described in Isaiah 25 that we should think that in the meantime we can't consume alcohol. This isn't something that need be reserved for some time to come.
Posted by: mj | July 10, 2009 at 03:13 PM
MJ, Luther's comment is pretty foolish. I'm pretty sure that is some kind of propaganda device, although I am so long out of school I can't remember the name of which one it is. It is pretty well irrelevant to what we are discussing.
As for Calvin's comment, I think that he is missing something here, but I am going to beg off on that one. I recently heard some information that I want to verify before commenting on points like this.
As for this point: there is absolutely no way to prove that there is something inherently evil in the substance of alcohol that warrants the prohibition of its consumption...
Do you really want to make that proposition? Alcohol is a poison. If you consume enough of it you will be dead. I am not sure you want to get into an argument about the properties of alcohol.
Finally, with respect to Isa 25, I think there is some question regarding whether the wine being described is alcoholic or not. It will take more space and time than I currently have to show why there is a question, so I guess I'll have to beg off that argument for now also.
I am working on an article to deal with some of these things. It will occur in due course at my place.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Posted by: Don Johnson | July 10, 2009 at 08:19 PM
Don, I'm tired of arguing with you. You perverted my statement about there not being anything evil with alcohol. Also, there are plenty of things which are harmful to us if consumed in too large of quantities (including water). I meant that there is no evidence in the Bible that the wine of the day was not alcoholic and thus, the numerous biblical mentions of it as being used as an offering or consumed at a feast etc. condone the substance.
Moreover,the only reference to water diluted wine in the Bible comes from Isaiah 1 and it is used as a rebuke. The diluted wine is a figurative symbol for the debasement of the moral character of Israel.
What I'm getting at is that wine and beer have been around for about 6 or 7 thousand years and have been seen as blessings from God. Why do people like Don think our culture is only now so corrupt that alcohol is a worldly device?
The wine mentioned in Isaiah 25 is alcoholic. Wine rested on lees to increase its strength and color and was more valuable.
Posted by: mj | July 12, 2009 at 08:39 AM
You perverted my statement about there not being anything evil with alcohol. Also, there are plenty of things which are harmful to us if consumed in too large of quantities (including water). I meant that there is no evidence in the Bible that the wine of the day was not alcoholic and thus, the numerous biblical mentions of it as being used as an offering or consumed at a feast etc. condone the substance.
I perverted your statement? How so? Here is what you said:
What I am saying is that there is absolutely no way to prove that there is something inherently evil in the substance of alcohol that warrants the prohibition of its consumption.
You didn't say "no evidence in the Bible" in the first statement. You said "no way to prove that there is something inherently evil in the substance". So I offered the response that alcohol is a poison. Then you shift gears and attempt to say that you meant "nowhere in the Bible". So...??? I don't think I perverted your argument at all.
And we aren't arguing about consuming things in "too large of quantities". We are arguing about consuming or abstaining. My contention is that Christians should totally abstain from alcohol. One ounce is too much in my view. So the argument that "too large of quantities" of other substances are also dangerous is really a red herring. It has nothing to do with what we are discussing. It is totally irrelevant.
Finally, I am not saying that our culture is now so corrupt that alcohol is a worldly device. I am saying that there are good and sufficient reasons for Christians today to totally abstain from alcohol use. We can make the arguments on the basis of wisdom, on the basis of changes in alcohol content and production in modern times, on the basis of clear scriptural warnings, and, I think, on the basis of the prohibition on drunkenness. I'll not elaborate on that last point at this time, but will post a note here when I write an article on it for my own blog.
One last point on Isa 25, according to dictionary.com, 'lees' are the sediments that settle out of wine as it ages. The verse is referring to the straining out of this sediment, making the wine more pure. I am not certain how this advances your argument for your position in any way.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Posted by: Don Johnson | July 13, 2009 at 01:19 PM
oops, Jonathan's site doesn't take "italics" html markers. The first and third paragraphs above are quotations of ml.
Sorry for any confusion.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Posted by: Don Johnson | July 13, 2009 at 01:21 PM
Don, like you said, lees are indeed sediment. In fact, it's dead yeast that falls to the bottom of the barrell at the end of fermentation, which is exaclty why you are wrong on this point. This verse is not saying the wine is purer; it's saying the wine is more complex.
White wines are often left in contact with the dead yeast cells (lees) that fall to the bottom of the barrel following the completion of fermentation. This contact is usually for a period of six to nine months, and the lees can either be left or stirred (battonage) at regular intervals. Barrel fermentation and lees contact increases the aroma and flavour complexity, imparting smokey, toasty and cheesy flavours to white wines. Some winemakers also feel that barrel ferment results in better integration of fruit and oak, and that imparts a creamy texture to the mouth-feel. However if it is overdone, the wine can take on overt doughy and vegemite characters.
Fermentation is completed when all the fermentable sugars have been converted to alcohol (by the yeast).
Posted by: mj | July 15, 2009 at 11:42 AM
For anyone interested, I have just posted my article on drunkenness at my site.
'what about drunkenness?'
http://oxgoad.ca/2009/07/17/what-about-drunkenness/
FWIW
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Posted by: Don Johnson | July 18, 2009 at 03:47 AM
Thanks for the review. I came across your website after a Google search for Jaeggli's book.
Not having read Jaeggli's book, I can't say whether or not I fully agree with him. My personal position has been that the Scripture forbids drunkenness, but doesn't forbid drinking in moderation. However, that being said, I personally do not drink mainly because I am afraid of what could happen should I like it too much.
Thanks again for the review.
Posted by: Stephen | July 24, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Someone in a post argues for grape juice being healthier than wine. What they don't know is the alcohol in wine increases the absorbtion of the resveratrol which is the hottest nutrient in anti-aging/heart health. The bottom line: alcohol helps the body absorb resveratrol.
Posted by: brion | August 02, 2009 at 04:00 PM
This has become kind of a silly conversation since I was here last, mainly because turning up the heat a notch brought out the essential point of each side:
• Those who want to argue for total abstinence usually do so by vilifying the object (i.e., alcohol is evil). This is foolishness and entirely unbiblical. Paul states it clearly, in case the record of the rest of the Bible has been less than clear: "There is nothing unclean of itself."
• Those who want to argue for even moderate consumption usually end up trying to convince everyone of their view, not just their ability to have this view. This isn't exactly foolish, but probably a waste of time and a faulty focus.
The point about wine lies in the heart of the doctrines of Creation and Fall, and receives a returned look in Redemption.
Creation: God created wine. To think anything other is to say that in the Fall, God altered Creation so that fermentation and molecular breakdown appeared for the first time. I've heard people who believe this. If so, that would mean, for instance, that Adam & Eve did not function on oxygen by breathing air and did not digest anything. And much more. Untenable.
Fall: People are sinners. Notice I didn't say wine is a sinner or sinful. It will not give account. As such, we are a danger to creations like wine. Not vice versa.
Redemption: God forgives sin in Christ. God reaffirms the point of Creation in Christ. Christ drinks wine. Christ makes wine. Christ reminds us that sin is in the heart, not the thing.
The conclusion of the whole matter: do what you believe is *best* for you (not your preference; not your desire). And don't stress over convincing your fellow believers, who may not be "meant" to take your same position in the first place (due to their weaknesses and/or calling).
Posted by: Will | August 04, 2009 at 05:01 PM