# Was wine mixed with water in biblical times?



## heartoflesh

I have always held to the freedom of the believer to drink intoxicating beverages, as long as one didn't become drunk (although I guess that's rather subjective in itself). Lately I've come under great conviction that this is not a good idea for me. There are a number of reasons, rangiing from the impression I am giving my kids seeing dad with a beer in his hands, to the feeling of general unseparation from the world that alcohol gives me. As much as I try to rationalize this feeling away telling myself it is my liberty to drink alcohol, I am plagued by this feeling nonetheless.

I know that many if not the majority of the folks on this forum approve of alcohol usage as a freedom for the believer, but it doesn't matter to me what the majority thinks, nor does it matter to me that Calvin and Luther or anyone else drank, I really want to know biblically and historically how to handle the subject. 

I just listened to a message by Greg Mazak from sermonaudio.com that I thought was very well balanced and instructive. SermonAudio.com - The Beverage Use Of Alcohol

Rather than typing out all the relevant points that he brings up, I just want to focus on the question of whether or not the wine of biblical times was indeed much weaker than today's wine (about 4%-7% aclhol content) and then after that was mixed with at least 3 parts water.

So in other words, there was nothing even remotely approaching the alcohol contents we have today, in fact, the pure unmixed wine was about as strong as today's beer, and then mixed with at least 3 parts water.

He pointed out some things I didn't know, or hadn't thought about before, such as his interpretation of Proverbs 31:23

Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it goes down smoothly; 


He states that the reason the wine in the cup is red is because it is unmixed. He also goes on to show how unmixed wine was used in a compassionate way to relieve the agony of death (something our Lord refused at the crucifixion) but never as a beverage (unless you were a barbarian). 

What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## Andres

my thoughts are ...  &  

In all seriousness brother, I respect your choice to abstain and I believe that if your conscience would have you to not enjoy alcohol, then by all means you should follow it. I would however like you to please help me to understand your two reasons that you are choosing to abstain. First, you mention that you are concerned with the impression of your kids seeing you with a beer. I do not follow why this is a problem. For example, I hope that my children understand that alcohol in moderation is enjoyable, but it is drunkeness and the resulting behaviors that are condemned. I cannot think of a better way to teach children this than by our example. Second, to say that drinking alcohol makes you feel "unseparated" from the world, I would wonder if you enjoy intimacy with your wife. The world regularly and unfortunately quite flagrantly abuses this gift from God. Why do we not quit enjoying the beautiful gift of sex? The reason is because we distinguish between the _abuse _and between the gift in proper, biblical context. To completely try to separate from sex just because it's abused by the world would be silly and incorrect in my opinion. I apologize if that is innappropriate, but I was only trying to convey my point.


----------



## Soonerborn

I understand your point about "the impression I am giving my kids seeing dad with a beer in his hands". I enjoy beer on occasion and I have small children. However, I let them know that God has given us beer to enjoy as part of his creation. 

In countries where children are exposed to alcohol from a young age, there less of a tendency of the children to become addicted to alcohol as they grow up. For example, in many European countries, alcohol is seen more as a "food staple" and children are introduced to it at a much younger age. It becomes the norm for the children to see the parents enjoying a beer or glass of wine and there is much less "hysteria" about drinking. 

I really feel the "prohibition" attitude lends itself to more children drinking. As Paul alludes in Romans 7, sin will seize the opportunity afforded by the law and drive someone to drink, if there is a law that says, "You can't drink". 

I would have no problems with my children enjoying alcohol when they grow up and what better way for them to learn how to enjoy it properly than to see their father enjoy it properly.


----------



## Tripel

This is just me an my two cents, but the idea of wine being diluted with water during biblical times seems really silly. It sounds more like an attempt to fit Scripture to firmly-held beliefs, rather than the other way around.


----------



## heartoflesh

Brothers, thanks for your replies and since I'm at work I don't have a lot of time to say much, but if there really is nothing to the claims that alcohol was different in biblical times from what we know today as beer and wine (there were no distilled spirits I have been told) than the question is mute and my refraining from drinking would be purely out of my own conscience. 

If on the other hand, there is a difference between the alcohol back then and what is used as a beverage today, then it is more of an issue for me. That's what I'm trying to figure out, and unfortunately it's one of those "so and so says this" kind of things right now.


----------



## satz

Regardless of what the alcohol percentage in the wine back in bible times, the bible warns constantly from OT to NT about getting drunk with wine. What ever the wine was in those days, it was understood as a substance whose excessive use would lead to drunkenness. So whatever the alcohol content of bible wine, I don't think it is accurate to say that it was somehow "safer" than the wine and other drinks we have today. The bible always assumes that the alcoholic drinks of its day would cause drunkenness when used excessively, just like we understand about wine/beer/spirits today.


----------



## Theogenes

Well, you could always drink Coors Light or some other beer flavored water beverage...


----------



## CharlieJ

Yes, wine was mixed with water. However, It is not clear from the evidence how often mixing was done, how much water was used, or how strong the wine was before mixing. Some of the statistics from Mazak, who was one of my professors, are dubious at best. They're drawn from some Christianity Today article back in the 60's. 

Read this; it shows that some wines had up to 16% alcohol, others could be concentrated, and that dilution ratios ranged from 1:1 to 1:4. Wine and Rome


----------



## JennyG

I understand your feelings, Rick, and share them. 
Wine was definitely mixed with water in the ancient world. You have to remember too that the water was not as reliably drinkable as now so the wine also had a practical function. Maybe it would sometimes be hard to draw the line,- as in, am I having a drink of water, but with wine added to sterilise it; or wine, diluted because only barbarians drink it neat?

And besides it's interesting to consider what else was available to a thirsty ancient, completing some hard work, say, or washing down a meal. Coffee? Tea? Coke? Beer? No, no, no and no. There's water, or there's wine, or to be on the safe side, both.


----------



## heartoflesh

Andres said:


> my thoughts are ...  &
> 
> In all seriousness brother, I respect your choice to abstain and I believe that if your conscience would have you to not enjoy alcohol, then by all means you should follow it. I would however like you to please help me to understand your two reasons that you are choosing to abstain. First, you mention that you are concerned with the impression of your kids seeing you with a beer. I do not follow why this is a problem. For example, I hope that my children understand that alcohol in moderation is enjoyable, but it is drunkeness and the resulting behaviors that are condemned. I cannot think of a better way to teach children this than by our example. Second, to say that drinking alcohol makes you feel "unseparated" from the world, I would wonder if you enjoy intimacy with your wife. The world regularly and unfortunately quite flagrantly abuses this gift from God. Why do we not quit enjoying the beautiful gift of sex? The reason is because we distinguish between the _abuse _and between the gift in proper, biblical context. To completely try to separate from sex just because it's abused by the world would be silly and incorrect in my opinion. I apologize if that is innappropriate, but I was only trying to convey my point.



Andrew, neither of these would be a problem, just like you say, if the beverage use of alcohol as we know it today is perfectly fine and in line with what has been practiced by holy Christian believers throughout the ages. That's what I'm trying to figure out. Personally, I have a hard time picturing the early Christians relaxing with gin and tonics. Much of my problem, I suppose, is comparing our current American Dream society to that ancient culture. So it's a bigger picture than just alcohol. 

As for the comparison with sex, I agree with you that as far as God's good creations used badly (by men behaving badly) then we should recognize it as such. It should be embraced as a good thing and beer should be served alongside the Cokes and Pepsis at the church picnic. Somehow I don't see this happening though! 

(Unless, like sex, it is a good thing created by God but something to be practiced only behind closed doors.) 


There's many things I'm in the process of "sorting out" from the days of my youth. I certainly didn't start out with what one would call the "proper use of alcohol" and a lot of that is still ingrained in me to this day. Well, I managed to ditch rock and roll. I guess the Holy Spirit has it in for the booze too.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Isaiah 1:21-23


> 21How the faithful city
> has become a whore,
> she who was full of justice!
> Righteousness lodged in her,
> but now murderers.
> 22 Your silver has become dross,
> *your best wine mixed with water.*
> 23Your princes are rebels
> and companions of thieves.
> Everyone loves a bribe
> and runs after gifts.
> They do not bring justice to the fatherless,
> and the widow’s cause does not come to them.


Here, the reference to watered-down wine is expressly negative. Not saying anything about the practice as such, just that there's no rule we can look at.


----------



## yeutter

Theogenes said:


> Well, you could always drink Coors Light or some other beer flavored water beverage...


Spoken like a good Deutscher.


----------



## Andres

Rick Larson said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> my thoughts are ...  &
> 
> In all seriousness brother, I respect your choice to abstain and I believe that if your conscience would have you to not enjoy alcohol, then by all means you should follow it. I would however like you to please help me to understand your two reasons that you are choosing to abstain. First, you mention that you are concerned with the impression of your kids seeing you with a beer. I do not follow why this is a problem. For example, I hope that my children understand that alcohol in moderation is enjoyable, but it is drunkeness and the resulting behaviors that are condemned. I cannot think of a better way to teach children this than by our example. Second, to say that drinking alcohol makes you feel "unseparated" from the world, I would wonder if you enjoy intimacy with your wife. The world regularly and unfortunately quite flagrantly abuses this gift from God. Why do we not quit enjoying the beautiful gift of sex? The reason is because we distinguish between the _abuse _and between the gift in proper, biblical context. To completely try to separate from sex just because it's abused by the world would be silly and incorrect in my opinion. I apologize if that is innappropriate, but I was only trying to convey my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for the comparison with sex, I agree with you that as far as God's good creations used badly (by men behaving badly) then we should recognize it as such. It should be embraced as a good thing and beer should be served alongside the Cokes and Pepsis at the church picnic. Somehow I don't see this happening though!
> 
> (Unless, like sex, it is a good thing created by God but something to be practiced only behind closed doors.)
Click to expand...

 
Rick, there have been several occasions where alcohol was served with church related functions that I am aware of. Some examples: Every first Sunday evening of the month we have monthly home groups where we meet at a members home for fellowship and study. There have been occasions where alcohol was served at these gathering and no one that I know of was bothered by it. Another example would be at our most recent presbytery meeting. The meeting was held in a hotel and after the meeting on Friday evening I know that several of the men (pastors and elders mind you) gathered together at the bar in the hotel and enjoyed fellowship over a few beers. A third example I can think of is that I have personally enjoyed fellowship with godly men from this board over a few beers at a local pub/bar. Not only that but their pastor came and joined us along with another elder and we had a blast! I can assure you that in each of these occasions no lewd or lascivious behavior occurred, but rather quite the opposite as theology and our love for Christ was discussed and shared. Again the reason we are not bothered by alcohol in any of these settings is because we don’t have a problem with alcohol per se, but rather the abuse of alcohol. So no, we do not partake in secret, but rather enjoy freely the good gift God has given us.


----------



## heartoflesh

Andres said:


> Rick Larson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> my thoughts are ...  &
> 
> In all seriousness brother, I respect your choice to abstain and I believe that if your conscience would have you to not enjoy alcohol, then by all means you should follow it. I would however like you to please help me to understand your two reasons that you are choosing to abstain. First, you mention that you are concerned with the impression of your kids seeing you with a beer. I do not follow why this is a problem. For example, I hope that my children understand that alcohol in moderation is enjoyable, but it is drunkeness and the resulting behaviors that are condemned. I cannot think of a better way to teach children this than by our example. Second, to say that drinking alcohol makes you feel "unseparated" from the world, I would wonder if you enjoy intimacy with your wife. The world regularly and unfortunately quite flagrantly abuses this gift from God. Why do we not quit enjoying the beautiful gift of sex? The reason is because we distinguish between the _abuse _and between the gift in proper, biblical context. To completely try to separate from sex just because it's abused by the world would be silly and incorrect in my opinion. I apologize if that is innappropriate, but I was only trying to convey my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for the comparison with sex, I agree with you that as far as God's good creations used badly (by men behaving badly) then we should recognize it as such. It should be embraced as a good thing and beer should be served alongside the Cokes and Pepsis at the church picnic. Somehow I don't see this happening though!
> 
> (Unless, like sex, it is a good thing created by God but something to be practiced only behind closed doors.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rick, there have been several occasions where alcohol was served with church related functions that I am aware of. Some examples: Every first Sunday evening of the month we have monthly home groups where we meet at a members home for fellowship and study. There have been occasions where alcohol was served at these gathering and no one that I know of was bothered by it. Another example would be at our most recent presbytery meeting. The meeting was held in a hotel and after the meeting on Friday evening I know that several of the men (pastors and elders mind you) gathered together at the bar in the hotel and enjoyed fellowship over a few beers. A third example I can think of is that I have personally enjoyed fellowship with godly men from this board over a few beers at a local pub/bar. Not only that but their pastor came and joined us along with another elder and we had a blast! I can assure you that in each of these occasions no lewd or lascivious behavior occurred, but rather quite the opposite as theology and our love for Christ was discussed and shared. Again the reason we are not bothered by alcohol in any of these settings is because we don’t have a problem with alcohol per se, but rather the abuse of alcohol. So no, we do not partake in secret, but rather enjoy freely the good gift God has given us.
Click to expand...

 
I sort of meant in the context of the entire church gathering for something. It just doesn't seem like alcohol would fit in well with a big family-focused event. Maybe that's just me. Might be nothing wrong with that, just sayin.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Rick,

I always consult Edersheim to get a sense of Jewish customs at the time of Christ. He has a discussion of mixing water with wine in Chapter 12 of Volume 2 of The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. It's difficult to ascribe normative Scriptural warrant to something from the Talmud but it indicates how the Pharisees practiced it:



> CHAPTER 12
> THE MORNING-MEAL IN THE PHARISEE’S HOUSE—MEALS AND FEASTS AMONG THE JEWS—Christ’S LAST PERÆAN WARNING TO PHARISAISM.
> (St. Luke 11:37–54.)
> 
> BITTER as was the enmity of the Pharisaic party against Jesus, it had not yet so far spread, nor become so avowed, as in every place to supercede the ordinary rules of courtesy. It is thus that we explain that invitation of a Pharisee to the morning-meal, which furnished the occasion for the second recorded Peræan Discourse of Christ. Alike in substance and tone, it is a continuation of His former address to the Pharisees. And it is probably here inserted in order to mark the further development of Christ’s anti-Pharisaic teaching. It is the last address to the Pharisees, recorded in the Gospel of St. Luke. A similar last appeal is recorded in a much later portion of St. Matthew’s Gospel,a only that St. Luke reports that spoken in Peræa, St. Matthew that made in Jerusalem. This may also partly account for the similarity of language in the two Discourses. Not only were the circumstances parallel, but the language held at the end may naturally have recurred to the writer, when reporting the last controversial Discourse in Peræa. Thus it may well have been, that Christ said substantially the same things on both occasions, and yet that, in the report of them, some of the later modes of expression may have been transferred to the earlier occasion. And because the later both represents and presents the fullest anti-Pharisaic Discourse of the Saviour, it will be better to postpone our analysis till we reach that period of His Life.
> 
> Some distinctive points, however, must here be noted. The remarks already made will explain, how some time may have elapsed between this and the former Discourse, and that the expression, ‘And as He spake’ must not be pressed as a mark of time (referring to the immediately preceding Discourse), but rather be regarded as indicating the circumstances under which a Pharisee had bidden Him to the meal. Indeed, we can scarcely imagine that, immediately after such a charge by the Pharisees as that Jesus acted as the representative of Beelzebul, and such a reply on the part of Jesus, a Pharisee would have invited Him to a friendly meal, or that ‘Lawyers,’ or, to use a modern term, ‘Canonists,’ would have been present at it. How different their feelings were after they had heard His denunciations, appears from the bitterness with which they afterwards sought to provoke Him into saying what might serve as ground for a criminal charge. And there is absolutely no evidence that, as commentators suggest, the invitation of the Pharisee had been hypocritically given, for the purpose of getting up an accusation against Christ. More than this, it seems entirely inconsistent with the unexpressed astonishment of the Pharisee, when he saw Jesus sitting down to food without having first washed hands. Up to that moment, then, it would seem that he had only regarded Him as a celebrated Rabbi, though perhaps one who taught strange things.
> 
> But what makes it almost certain, that some time must have elapsed between this and the previous Discourse (or rather that, as we believe, the two events happened in different places), is, that the invitation of the Pharisee was to the ‘morning-meal.’ We know that this took place early, immediately after the return from morning-prayers in the Synagogue.3 It is, therefore, scarcely conceivable, that all that is recorded in connection with the first Discourse should have occurred before this first meal. On the other hand, it may well have been, that what passed at the Pharisee’s table may have some connection with something that had occurred just before in the Synagogue, for we conjecture that it was the Sabbath-day. We infer this from the circumstance that the invitation was not to the principal meal, which on a Sabbath ‘the Lawyers’ (and, indeed, all householders) would, at least ordinarily, have in their own homes. We can picture to ourselves the scene. The week-day family-meal was simple enough, whether breakfast or dinner—the latter towards evening, although sometimes also in the middle of the day, but always before actual darkness, in order, as it was expressed, that the sight of the dishes by daylight might excite the appetite. The Babylonian Jews were content to make a meal without meat; not so the Palestinians.b With the latter the favourite food was young meat: goats, lambs, calves. Beef was not so often used, and still more rarely fowls. Bread was regarded as the mainstay of life, without which no entertainment was considered as a meal. Indeed, in a sense it constituted the meal. For, the blessing was spoken over the bread, and this was supposed to cover all the rest of the food that followed, such as the meat, fish, or vegetables—in short, all that made up the dinner, but not the dessert. Similarly, the blessing spoken over the wine included all other kinds of drink. Otherwise it would have been necessary to pronounce a separate benediction over each different article eaten or drunk. He who neglected the prescribed benedictions was regarded as if he had eaten of things dedicated to God, since it was written: ‘The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof.’e Beautiful as this principle is, it degenerated into tedious questions of casuistry. Thus, if one kind of food was eaten as an addition to another, it was settled that the blessing should be spoken only over the principal kind. Again, there are elaborate disputations as to what should be regarded as fruit, and have the corresponding blessing, and how, for example, one blessing should be spoken over the leaves and blossom, and another over the berries of the caper. Indeed, that bush gave rise to a serious controversy between the Schools of Hillel and Shammai. Another series of elaborate discussions arose, as to what blessing should be used when a dish consisted of various ingredients, some the product of the earth, others, like honey, derived from the animal world. Such and similar disquisitions, giving rise to endless argument and controversy, busied the minds of the Pharisees and Scribes.
> 
> Let us suppose the guests assembled. To such a morning-meal they would not be summoned by slaves, nor be received in such solemn state as at feasts. First, each would observe, as a religious rite, ‘the washing of hands.’ Next, the head of the house would cut a piece from the whole loaf—on the Sabbath there were two loaves—and speak the blessing. But this, only if the company reclined at table, as at dinner. If they sat, as probably always at the early meal, each would speak the benediction for himself. The same rule applied in regard to the wine. Jewish casuistry had it, that one blessing sufficed for the wine intended as part of the meal. If other wine were brought in during the meal, then each one would have to say the blessing anew over it; if after the meal (as was done on Sabbaths and feast-days, to prolong the feast by drinking), one of the company spoke the benediction for all.
> 
> At the entertainment of this Pharisee, as indeed generally, our Lord omitted the prescribed ‘washing of hands’ before the meal. But as this rite was in itself indifferent, He must have had some definite object, which will be explained in the sequel. The externalism of all these practices will best appear from the following account which the Talmud gives of ‘a feast.’ As the guests enter, they sit down on chairs, and water is brought to them, with which they wash one hand. After this the cup is taken, when each speaks the blessing over the wine partaken of before dinner. Presently they all lie down at table. Water is again brought them, with which they now wash both hands, preparatory to the meal, when the blessing is spoken over the bread, and then over the cup, by the chief person at the feast, or else by one selected by way of distinction. The company respond by Amen, always supposing the benediction to have been spoken by an Israelite, not a heathen, slave, nor law-breaker. Nor was it lawful to say it with an unlettered man, although it might be said with a Cuthæan (heretic, or else Samaritan), who was learned. After dinner the crumbs, if any, are carefully gathered—hands are again washed, and he who first had done so leads in the prayer of thanksgiving. The formula in which he is to call on the rest to join him, by repeating the prayers after him, is prescribed, and differs according to the number of those present. The blessing and the thanksgiving are allowed to be said not only in Hebrew, but in any other language.
> In regard to the position of the guests, we know that the uppermost seats were occupied by the Rabbis. The Talmud formulates it in this manner: That the worthiest lies down first, on his left side, with his feet stretching back. If there are two ‘cushions’ (divans), the next worthiest reclines above him, at his left hand; if there are three cushions, the third worthiest lies below him who had lain down first (at his right), so that the chief person is in the middle (between the worthiest guest at his left and the less worthy one at his right hand). The water before eating is first handed to the worthiest, and so in regard to the washing after meat. But if a very large number are present, you begin after dinner with the least worthy, till you come to the last five, when the worthiest in the company washes his hands, and the other four after him. The guests being thus arranged, the head of the house, or the chief person at table, speaks the blessing,2 and then cuts the bread. By some it was not deemed etiquette to begin eating till after he who had said the prayer had done so, but this does not seem to have been the rule among the Palestinian Jews. Then, generally, the bread was dipped into salt, or something salted, etiquette demanding that where there were two they should wait one for the other, but not where there were three or more.
> 
> This is not the place to furnish what may be termed a list of menus at Jewish tables. In earlier times the meal was, no doubt, very simple. It became otherwise when intercourse with Rome, Greece, and the East made the people familiar with foreign luxury, while commerce supplied its requirements. Indeed, it would scarcely be possible to enumerate the various articles which seem to have been imported from different, and even distant, countries.
> 
> *To begin with: the wine was mixed with water, and, indeed, some thought that the benediction should not be pronounced till the water had been added to the wine.* According to one statement, two parts,b according to another, three parts, of water were to be added to the wine. Various vintages are mentioned: among them a red wine of Saron, and a black wine. Spiced wine was made with honey and pepper. Another mixture, chiefly used for invalids, consisted of old wine, water, and balsam; yet another was ‘wine of myrrh;’ we also read of a wine in which capers had been soaked. To these we should add wine spiced, either with pepper, or with absinth; and what is described as vinegar, a cooling drink made either of grapes that had not ripened, or of the lees. Besides these, palm-wine was also in use. Of foreign drinks, we read of wine from Ammon, and from the province Asia, the latter a kind of ‘must’ boiled down. Wine in ice came from the Lebanon; a certain kind of vinegar from Idumæa; beer from Media and Babylon; a barley-wine (zythos) from Egypt. Finally, we ought to mention Palestinian apple-cider, and the juice of other fruits. If we adopt the rendering of some, even liqueurs were known and used.
> 
> Long at this catalogue is, that of the various articles of food, whether native or imported, would occupy a much larger space. Suffice it that, as regarded the various kinds of grain, meat, fish, and fruits, either in their natural state or preserved, it embraced almost everything known to the ancient world. At feasts there was an introductory course, consisting of appetising salted meat, or of some light dish. This was followed by the dinner itself, which finished with dessert (Aphiqomon or terugima), consisting of pickled olives, radishes and lettuce, and fruits, among which even preserved ginger from India is mentioned. The most diverse and even strange statements are made as to the healthiness, or the reverse, of certain articles of diet, especially vegetables. Fish was a favourite dish, and never wanting at a Sabbath-meal. It was a saying, that both salt and water should be used at every meal, if health was to be preserved. Condiments, such as mustard or pepper, were to be sparingly used. Very different were the meals of the poor. Locusts—fried in flour or honey, or preserved—required, according to the Talmud, no blessing, since the animal was really among the curses of the land. Eggs were a common article of food, and sold in the shops. Then there was a milk-dish, into which people dipped their bread. Others, who were better off, had a soup made of vegetables, especially onions, and meat, while the very poor would satisfy the cravings of hunger with bread and cheese, or bread and fruit, or some vegetables, such as cucumbers, lentils, beans, peas, or onions.
> 
> At meals the rules of etiquette were strictly observed, especially as regarded the sages. Indeed, two tractates are added to the Talmud, of which the one describes the general etiquette, the other that of ‘sages,’ and the title of which may be translated by ‘The Way of the World’ (Derekh Erets), being a sort of code of good manners. According to some, it was not good breeding to speak while eating. The learned and most honoured occupied not only the chief places, but were sometimes distinguished by a double portion. According to Jewish etiquette, a guest should conform in everything to his host, even though it were unpleasant. Although hospitality was the greatest and most prized social virtue, which, to use a Rabbinic expression, might make every home a sanctuary and every table an altar, an unbidden guest, or a guest who brought another guest, was proverbially an unwelcome apparition. Sometimes, by way of self-righteousness, the poor were brought in, and the best part of the meal ostentatiously given to them. At ordinary entertainments, people were to help themselves. It was not considered good manners to drink as soon as you were asked, but you ought to hold the cup for a little in your hand. But it would be the height of rudeness, either to wipe the plates, to scrape together the bread, as though you had not had enough to eat, or to drop it, to the inconvenience of your neighbour. If a piece were taken out of a dish, it must of course not be put back; still less must you offer from your cup or plate to your neighbour. From the almost religious value attaching to bread, we scarcely wonder that these rules were laid down: not to steady a cup or plate upon bread, nor to throw away bread, and that after dinner the bread was to be carefully swept together. Otherwise, it was thought, demons would sit upon it. The ‘Way of the World’ for Sages, lays down these as the marks of a Rabbi: that he does not eat standing; that he does not lick his fingers; that he sits down only beside his equals—in fact, many regarded it as wrong to eat with the unlearned; that he begins cutting the bread where it is best baked, nor ever breaks off a bit with his hand; and that, when drinking, he turns away his face from the company. Another saying was, that the sage was known by four things: at his cups, in money matters, when angry, and in his jokes. After dinner, the formalities concerning handwashing and prayer, already described, were gone through, and then frequently aromatic spices burnt, over which a special benediction was pronounced. We have only to add, that on Sabbaths it was deemed a religious duty to have three meals, and to procure the best that money could obtain, even though one were to save and fast for it all the week. Lastly, it was regarded as a special obligation and honour to entertain sages.
> 
> We have no difficulty now in understanding what passed at the table of the Pharisee. When the water for purification was presented to Him, Jesus would either refuse it; or if, as seems more likely at a morning-meal, each guest repaired by himself for the prescribed purification, He would omit to do so, and sit down to meat without this formality. No one, who knows the stress which Pharisaism laid on this rite would argue that Jesus might have conformed to the practice. Indeed, the controversy was long and bitter between the Schools of Shammai and Hillel, on such a point as whether the hands were to be washed before the cup was filled with wine, or after that, and where the towel was to be deposited. With such things the most serious ritual inferences were connected on both sides. A religion which spent its energy on such trivialities must have lowered the moral tone. All the more that Jesus insisted so earnestly, as the substance of His teaching, on that corruption of our nature which Judaism ignored, and on that spiritual purification which was needful for the reception of His doctrine, would He publicly and openly set aside ordinances of man which diverted thoughts of purity into questions of the most childish character. On the other hand, we can also understand what bitter thoughts must have filled the mind of the Pharisee, whose guest Jesus was, when he observed His neglect of the cherished rite. It was an insult to himself, a defiance of Jewish Law, a revolt against the most cherished traditions of the Synagogue. Remembering that a Pharisee ought not to sit down to a meal with such, he might feel that he should not have asked Jesus to his table. All this, as well as the terrible contrast between the punctiliousness of Pharisaism in outward purifications, and the inward defilement which it never sought to remove, must have lain open before Him Who read the inmost secrets of the heart, and kindled His holy wrath. Probably taking occasion (as previously suggested) from something that had passed before, He spoke with the point and emphasis which a last appeal to Pharisaism demanded.
> 
> What our Lord said on that occasion will be considered in detail in another place. Suffice it here to mark, that He first exposed the mere externalism of the Pharisaic law of purification, to the utter ignoring of the higher need of inward purity, which lay at the foundation of all. If the primary origin of the ordinance was to prevent the eating of sacred offerings in defilement,2 were these outward offerings not a symbol of the inward sacrifice, and was there not an inward defilement as well as the outward? To consecrate what we had to God in His poor, instead of selfishly enjoying it, would not, indeed, be a purification of them (for such was not needed), but it would, in the truest sense, be to eat God’s offerings in cleanness. We mark here a progress and a development, as compared with the former occasion when Jesus had publicly spoken on the same subject.d Formerly, He had treated the ordinance of the Elders as a matter not binding; now, He showed how this externalism militated against thoughts of the internal and spiritual. Formerly, He had shown how traditionalism came into conflict with the written Law of God; now, how it superseded the first principles which underlay that Law. Formerly, He had laid down the principle that defilement came not from without inwards, but from within outwards; now, He unfolded this highest principle that higher consecration imparted purity.
> 
> The same principle, indeed, would apply to other things, such as to the Rabbinic law of tithing. At the same time it may have been, as already suggested, that something which had previously taken place, or was the subject of conversation at table, had given occasion for the further remarks of Christ. Thus, the Pharisee may have wished to convey his rebuke of Christ by referring to the subject of tithing. And such covert mode of rebuking was very common among the Jews. It was regarded as utterly defiling to eat of that which had not been tithed. Indeed, the three distinctions of a Pharisee were: not to make use nor to partake of anything that had not been tithed; to observe the laws of purification; and, as a consequence of these two, to abstain from familiar intercourse with all non-Pharisees. This separation formed the ground of their claim to distinction. It will be noticed that it is exactly to these three things our Lord adverts: so that these sayings of His are not, as might seem, unconnected, but in the strictest internal relationship. Our Lord shows how Pharisaism, as regarded the outer, was connected with the opposite tendency as regarded the inner man: outward purification with ignorance of the need of that inward purity, which consisted in God-consecration, and with the neglect of it; strictness of outward tithing with ignorance and neglect of the principle which underlay it, viz., the acknowledgment of God’s right over mind and heart (judgment and the love of God); while, lastly, the Pharisaic pretence of separation, and consequent claim to distinction, issued only in pride and self-assertion. Thus, tried by its own tests, Pharisaism terribly failed. It was hypocrisy, although that word was not mentioned till afterwards;c and that both negatively and positively: the concealment of what it was, and the pretension to what it was not. And the Pharisaism which pretended to the highest purity, was, really, the greatest impurity—the defilement of graves, only covered up, not to be seen of men!
> 
> It was at this point that one of ‘the Scribes’ at table broke in. Remembering in what contempt some of the learned held the ignorant bigotry of the Pharisees, we can understand that he might have listened with secret enjoyment to denunciations of their ‘folly.’ As the common saying had it, ‘the silly pietist,’ ‘a woman Pharisee,’ and the (self-inflicted) ‘blows of Pharisaism,’ were among the plagues of life. And we cannot help feeling, that there is sometimes a touch of quiet humour in the accounts which the Rabbis give of the encounters between the Pharisees and their opponents. But, as the Scribe rightly remarked, by attacking, not merely their practice, but their principles, the whole system of traditionalism, which they represented, was condemned. And so the Lord assuredly meant it. The ‘Scribes’ were the exponents of the traditional law: those who bound and loosed in Israel. They did bind on heavy burdens, but they never loosed one; all these grievous burdens of traditionalism they laid on the poor people, but not the slightest effort did they make to remove any of them. Tradition, yes! the very profession of it bore witness against them. Tradition, the ordinances that had come down—they would not reform nor put aside anything, but claim and proclaim all that had come down from the fathers as a sacred inheritance to which they clung. So be it! let them be judged by their own words. The fathers had murdered the prophets, and they built their sepulchres; that, also, was a tradition—that of guilt which would be avenged. Tradition, learning, exclusiveness—alas! it was only taking away from the poor the key of knowledge; and while they themselves entered not by ‘the door’ into the Kingdom, they hindered those who would have gone in. And truly so did they prove that theirs was the inheritance, the ‘tradition,’ of guilt in hindering and banishing the Divine teaching of old, and murdering its Divine messengers.
> 
> There was terrible truth and solemnity in what Jesus spake, and in the Woe which He denounced on them. The history of the next few months would bear witness how truly they had token upon them this tradition of guilt; and all the after-history of Israel shows how fully this ‘Woe’ has come upon them. But, after such denunciations, the entertainment in the Pharisee’s house must have been broken up. The Christ was too terribly in earnest—too mournfully so over those whom they hindered from entering the Kingdom, to bear with the awful guilt of their trivialities. With what feelings they parted from Him, appears from the sequel.
> ‘And when He was come out from thence, the Scribes and the Pharisees began to press upon Him vehemently, and to provoke Him to speak of many things; laying wait for Him, to catch something out of His Mouth.’
> 
> Edersheim, A. (1896). Vol. 2: The life and times of Jesus the Messiah (204–213). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.


----------



## TimV

Rick, if it were you doing the brewing, how would you stop the alcohol content from getting to 11 plus percent? Sulfides? You say you don't care what the majority thinks, doesn't that presuppose you've a good handle on winemaking? As we're talking I'm drinking my own brew, and I just wonder at the technical aspect of your theory, and I just can't see how it would work without modern chemicals and so forth. And even if they did, why someone would go to the huge expense and trouble of arresting the fermentation at that level.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

The alcoholic content of wine is determined by the amount of sugar in the grapes being fermented. If grown in a warm climate, such as the Mediterranean, the sugar level is likely to be higher. If sufficient sugar is present, yeast will ferment to about 12 to 14 percent before being inhibited by the alcohol level.

Strong drink in the Bible is neither distilled spirits (which didn’t exist then) nor strong wine. The Hebrew “shekar,” translated “strong drink” in the AV, is a word for an intoxicating fermented beverage made from something other than grapes- cider or more likely a fermented grain beverage (an ale or beer, without the hops). The word is applied to beer in modern Israel.

Alcoholic beverages drunk in a family or religious context are less likely to lead to abuse. There was a day when community taverns in America were a place where one might take the family, and small local breweries delivered their product to the door like dairies. Prohibition changed all that.

I am part of a gathering of local NAPARC pastors in Boise which meets monthly at a local pub to drink beer, eat the best pizza in town, and share concerns about our mutual ministry.


----------



## Steve Curtis

Glenn Ferrell said:


> The alcoholic content of wine is determined by the amount of sugar in the grapes being fermented. If grown in a warm climate, such as the Mediterranean, the sugar level is likely to be higher. If sufficient sugar is present, yeast will ferment to about 12 to 14 percent before being inhibited by the alcohol level.
> 
> Strong drink in the Bible is neither distilled spirits (which didn’t exist then) nor strong wine. The Hebrew “shekar,” translated “strong drink” in the AV, is a word for an intoxicating fermented beverage made from something other than grapes- cider or more likely a fermented grain beverage (an ale or beer, without the hops). The word is applied to beer in modern Israel.
> 
> Alcoholic beverages drunk in a family or religious context are less likely to lead to abuse. There was a day when community taverns in America were a place where one might take the family, and small local breweries delivered their product to the door like dairies. Prohibition changed all that.
> 
> I am part of a gathering of local NAPARC pastors in Boise which meets monthly at a local pub to drink beer, eat the best pizza in town, and share concerns about our mutual ministry.



It would seem that the use of "shekar" in Numbers 28:7, however, _does_ mean wine, thus adding to the difficulty in knowing quite how to translate it (though I agree that, in most cases, it seems to be used to indicate specifically something _other than_ wine, as in Lev. 10:9 where it is directly contrasted with wine ["yayin"]).


----------



## CharlieJ

One historical point: when the wine was diluted, they were drinking a lot of it. It was the primary beverage at gatherings, not a glass on the side as we have it today. In medieval England, for example, almost no one drank water; they drank a gallon of weak ale every day.


----------



## William Price

I want to put this forth in consideration. I came from a family which I saw alcoholic use. I saw that for so many, they did not consider themselves drunk, just impaired. This impairment caused me to see their language change and their mannerism become very carnal. While I am not condemning my brethren, those who hold to loving their alcoholic beverage, might I ask you what witness of Christ this portrays to those looking at you? Are you using your liberty as a stumbling block and not even really knowing this?


----------



## William Price

Joshua said:


> Bill,
> 
> If people act like fools, whether they've a beer in hand when doing so or not, people will think them fools. On the other hand, if people act godly and respectably, and this with beer in hand, is it any right of others to judge them over a matter of liberty? Surely not. The Pharisees themselves accused Jesus of being a winebibber and glutton. Do you think he stopped drinking wine or eating because of their _false_ accusations? Yes, we should be careful not to cause our brother to stumble, but we should also be careful not to think that a brother can continually say, "I'm offended! I'm offended!" once he has been shown that things such as this are matters of liberty and even gifts from God. For himself, he ought to refrain, but to press that charge to others is unfounded, and to judge a brother as sinning inherently when he takes a drink is the epitome of the Pharisaical mindset (i.e. making commandments out of the doctrines of men).


 
Like I said, I am not condemning my brethren. I just ask my brethren to consider the testimony of the believers in all they say and do.


----------



## Andres

William Price said:


> I want to put this forth in consideration. I came from a family which I saw alcoholic use. I saw that for so many, they did not consider themselves drunk, just impaired. This impairment caused me to see their language change and their mannerism become very carnal. While I am not condemning my brethren, those who hold to loving their alcoholic beverage, might I ask you what witness of Christ this portrays to those looking at you? Are you using your liberty as a stumbling block and not even really knowing this?



Were these family members that you speak of Christians? And I don't mean considered themselves Christians, but men and women that truly loved Christ more than all else?


----------



## nicnap

William Price said:


> Like I said, I am not condemning my brethren. I just ask my brethren to consider the testimony of the believers in all they say and do.



Brother, to say that lawfully drinking is a "mark" on a testimony in any way is to condemn it as something less than what a Christian should do before the eyes of the world. The testimony of believers in all they say and do...and that is _including_ the consumption of alcoholic beverages, is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. If we start basing righteousness on things that aren't Scriptural in their foundation, well anyone can be marring their testimony at any given time (as long as I am the judge). For instance, there are some Christians who believe that the consumption of caffeine is not a good testimony - as people are prone to be addicted to it. Enough rambling though.


----------



## heartoflesh

TimV said:


> Rick, if it were you doing the brewing, how would you stop the alcohol content from getting to 11 plus percent? Sulfides? You say you don't care what the majority thinks, doesn't that presuppose you've a good handle on winemaking? As we're talking I'm drinking my own brew, and I just wonder at the technical aspect of your theory, and I just can't see how it would work without modern chemicals and so forth. And even if they did, why someone would go to the huge expense and trouble of arresting the fermentation at that level.



I'm sorry Tim, this went completely over my head and I don't know how to respond.

My comment about not caring what the majority was in reference to the members of this board, who seem to be overwelmingly in favor of the freedom of Christians to drink alcoholic beverages. I know nothing about beer or winemaking. The claim being made by Mazak in the link I provided above, is that the wine used in biblical times was used primarily to make water safe to drink, and would be hard to catch a buzz on-- unless you slammed a gallon really quick I suppose-- and that pure unmixed wine was used to give to dying people. 

I will mention this, it seems like there is a tendency among many Christians to flaunt their "right" to drink in everyone's face. I'm not referring specifically to this borad, but a lot of believers I personally know. I've been guilty of this myself. Perhaps this is a reaction to what we perceive as a patently unbiblical, judgmental view of alcoholic beverages by previous generations. In the past, Christians (at least in America) were pretty much unified in their views on "the demon rum" and could pray together as a congregation for the bars in town to be shut down. Now we apparently have a new, enlightened view of the subject, or perhaps simply rediscovered the good gift of alcohol in Scripture long hidden away by teetotalers? 

Well, that's the dilemma I'm faced with. Which view is right? And that's why the issue of how alcohol was used in the ancient world, and by Christians of old is important to me. If I can persuade myself through substantial evidence or reason that those ancient saints were freely heading down to the pub in Ephesus (Diana's?) or were brewing their own beer and drinking 1 or 2 (but knew they shouldn't have 5 or 6) then I'll feel better about cracking a cold one.


----------



## William Price

Should we not abstain from every appearance of evil? Sorry, but I stand where I stand.


----------



## nicnap

William Price said:


> Should we not abstain from every appearance of evil? Sorry, but I stand where I stand.


 
That's rather arbitrary...so, I will assert that shirts with buttons are evil. We should all abstain from wearing shirts with buttons, because I have seen some people misuse such shirts. They didn't consider it a misuse of the shirts, but I certainly did. So, we should avoid the very appearance of evil, and not use those shirts. While I am not condemning my brethren, those who hold to loving their shirts with buttons, might I ask you what witness of Christ this portrays to those looking at you? Are you using your liberty as a stumbling block and not even really knowing this? (That is where your reasoning comes from and goes to.) I think you might need to rethink it.


----------



## heartoflesh

nicnap said:


> William Price said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should we not abstain from every appearance of evil? Sorry, but I stand where I stand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's rather arbitrary...so, I will assert that shirts with buttons are evil. We should all abstain from wearing shirts with buttons, because I have seen some people misuse such shirts. They didn't consider it a misuse of the shirts, but I certainly did. So, we should avoid the very appearance of evil, and not use those shirts. While I am not condemning my brethren, those who hold to loving their shirts with buttons, might I ask you what witness of Christ this portrays to those looking at you? Are you using your liberty as a stumbling block and not even really knowing this? (That is where your reasoning comes from and goes to.) I think you might need to rethink it.
Click to expand...

 

But let's not pretend that alcohol is something as neutral as shirts with buttons. It's an industry fueled by a particular mind-set. Alcohol is routinely paired with immoral thinking and behavior. Whether this is fair or not, or whether this is merely people _abusing_ alcohol doesn't change the fact that this is how it is perceived. So when unbelievers see Christians partaking in the same activity they do, they say "so what's the big deal with this born again stuff?" At the very least, it makes for a lot more explaining. "Well, you see drunkenness is.... well... it's when you just know you've had too much.....and Christian's know when to say when"


----------



## JennyG

I don't know what the general population's drinking habits are like in the US - here, we've long passed the point where subtleties like how much is too much can even be heard any more. When only-just-teenagers are binge drinking themselves into oblivion every weekend, it seems to me that they are the ones we should be considering, and there's only one place for a christian to make a stand - give them ocular demonstration that life can be lived without alcohol. _We_ know that drinking is acceptable within bounds - who else is picking up on that distinction, though?


----------



## CharlieJ

The question is whether we will allow the Scripture to dictate the way we perceive actions. Does Scripture describe wine as a good gift from God that he expects us to partake of, or is it an evil substance that the Christian should shun? I think the Bible is pretty clear on this, but here is one striking passage:



Deuteronomy 14:22-26 said:


> 22*¶ "You shall tithe all the yield of your seed that comes from the field year by year. 23 And before the LORD your God, in the place that he will choose, to make his name dwell there, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always. 24 And 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, 25 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 26 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.



So, it seems that God didn't worry what people would think when the Jews had their wine and strong drink during the holy feast.


----------



## nicnap

Rick, Have you seen some of the shirts that people wear? 

There are shirts that are made to draw attention to places and promote all sorts of things. So, let me say to you...let's not pretend that shirts with buttons are something as neutral as alcohol. It's an industry fueled by a particular mind-set. Shirts with buttons are routinely paired with immoral thinking and behavior. Whether this is fair or not, or whether this is merely people dressing immodestly doesn't change the fact that this is how it is perceived. So when unbelievers see Christians dressing similarly to how they dress, they say "so what's the big deal with this born again stuff?" At the very least, it makes for a lot more explaining. "Well, you see immodesty is.... well... it's when you know you've dressed too provocatively.....and Christian's know how to dress." Brother, we can do this all night. What needs to happen, is you need to take the time to speak effectively to those who have questions...to disciple them. For the rest, they are perhaps acting in judgment, and that wrongly. I have had MANY conversations with my teetotaler family, and they now understand...and yes, that includes lost members. My guide is Scripture, not the perceptions and wrong judgments of men. Explanation is commanded...it is called discipleship. We must remember that it is not the object that is evil...the hearts of men are.


----------



## jrdnoland

William Price said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill,
> 
> If people act like fools, whether they've a beer in hand when doing so or not, people will think them fools. On the other hand, if people act godly and respectably, and this with beer in hand, is it any right of others to judge them over a matter of liberty? Surely not. The Pharisees themselves accused Jesus of being a winebibber and glutton. Do you think he stopped drinking wine or eating because of their _false_ accusations? Yes, we should be careful not to cause our brother to stumble, but we should also be careful not to think that a brother can continually say, "I'm offended! I'm offended!" once he has been shown that things such as this are matters of liberty and even gifts from God. For himself, he ought to refrain, but to press that charge to others is unfounded, and to judge a brother as sinning inherently when he takes a drink is the epitome of the Pharisaical mindset (i.e. making commandments out of the doctrines of men).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I am not condemning my brethren. I just ask my brethren to consider the testimony of the believers in all they say and do.
Click to expand...

 
Bill - I agree with you, and I for one will not associate with anyone who drinks, goes to bars or has anything to do with alcohol. My father was an alcoholic, my sister and brother are alcoholics.

Let those who care only about themselves drink, God tells us to be considerate of all men and aware of how even our unsinful actions may lead others astray.

Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak

Now while as a matter of one's own conscience, Christians have a good deal of freedom. But in the name of love Christians should restrict themselves from activities which bother the conscience of other Christians. It's written,

Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. Rom 14:13-20

This includes the consumption of alcohol. There are some who struggle against an addiction to alcholism. But while others don't have such an addiction or are not tempted along those lines, yet their free exercise of their right to partake of alcohol may lead those who are weak into temptation and into addiction.

Therefore it is best if Christians abstain from alcohol. And while they have the freedom to drink, they certainly don't have the right to get drunk. And, in the name of love for others, they should be careful that the exercise of their rights does not embolden the weak to fall into the sin of drunkenness.


----------



## Herald

jrdnoland said:


> *Let those who care only about themselves drink*, God tells us to be considerate of all men and aware of how even our unsinful actions may lead others astray.



Jeff, 

We allow many things to be said on the PB, but impugning motives in areas where the bible allows liberty is not one of them. You are so fixated on abstinence from alcohol that you fail to see the contradiction in your statement. Because some people are given to gluttony should we abstain from eating? Had you wrote that you have a scruple about drinking, so you personally abstain, that would be fine. However, you are accusing those Christians who drink of caring only for themselves. Therefore, what you really are accusing them of possessing an unloving spirit and of selfishness. You are speaking ill about your brother. This is a violation of the 9th commandment. 

Until you can see the sin in your attitude towards your Christian brothers, and retract your statement, you are going to prohibited from further posting in this thread. If you wish to retract your statement please PM Joshua or myself and we will allow your retraction to be posted.


----------



## KMK

jrdnoland said:


> Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.


 
I wish people would stop using this verse as a proof for teetotalism. The context has to do with cultic scruples and not the sin of drunkenness. If this verse means what you seem to think it means, then we should all stop eating meat because it might encourage our brother's gluttony.

I will also remind you that the confession to which you subscribe commends the use of wine with the Lord's Supper.


----------



## Jack K

I drink some. I even think it can be a good witness to drink moderately, so that unbelievers see there's freedom in Christ. But I also think kindness and sensitivity are called for toward those who've been hurt by the effects of alcohol abuse. There are many such people and the hurts go deep.

So if I have a friend who's seen alcohol abuse in his family, I might ask how he feels about it before drinking or serving alcohol in front of him. That's not the same as having a rule that we must all put aside alcohol completely because some are offended. Nor is it a legalism left over from the Temperance Movement. It's just being kind and acknowleging the many hurts alcohol has caused. I think sometimes, in our haste to defend Christian freedom, we forget compassion.


----------



## Andres

Jack K said:


> I drink some. I even think it can be a good witness to drink moderately, so that unbelievers see there's freedom in Christ. But I also think kindness and sensitivity are called for toward those who've been hurt by the effects of alcohol abuse. There are many such people and the hurts go deep.
> 
> So if I have a friend who's seen alcohol abuse in his family, I might ask how he feels about it before drinking or serving alcohol in front of him. That's not the same as having a rule that we must all put aside alcohol completely because some are offended. Nor is it a legalism left over from the Temperance Movement. It's just being kind and acknowleging the many hurts alcohol has caused. I think sometimes, in our haste to defend Christian freedom, we forget compassion.


 
Jack, this is a valid point and one which I would agree with, but if it's in reference to any of the previous posts, I don't see how it's applicable. Our brother condemned all use of alcohol and also condemned anyone who partakes of alcohol. This is where the line was crossed, not in his choice to abstain. 

Also, let's be realistic here - if I had an acquaintance, whether Believer or not, and I knew that they truly struggled with alcoholism, then I would abstain out of respect for them. However, if out at dinner I'm not going to poll each person at all the tables around me for their opinion of alcohol before ordering a drink. I'm overweight and I have never, ever been asked by anyone if I minded if they enjoyed a second helping of dessert.


----------



## KMK

JennyG said:


> Isn't there maybe a wee bit of motive-impugning going on in both directions? Let's not forget anyone can read this forum


 
If you can't be more specific, then I am going to delete this post because it sounds as if you complaining about Bill's moderation.


----------



## KMK

Joshua said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think sometimes, in our haste to defend Christian freedom, we forget compassion.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and it ought to be the heart and desire of every Christian to be so-minded with dealing in such situations. As you noted, however, a blanket prohibition and condemnation of others who use their liberty in this area is legalism.
Click to expand...


And there is nothing compassionate about allowing legalism to disguise itself as piety.


----------



## fredtgreco

jrdnoland said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jrdnoland said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Let those who care only about themselves drink*, God tells us to be considerate of all men and aware of how even our unsinful actions may lead others astray.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> We allow many things to be said on the PB, but impugning motives in areas where the bible allows liberty is not one of them. You are so fixated on abstinence from alcohol that you fail to see the contradiction in your statement. Because some people are given to gluttony should we abstain from eating? Had you wrote that you have a scruple about drinking, so you personally abstain, that would be fine. However, you are accusing those Christians who drink of caring only for themselves. Therefore, what you really are accusing them of possessing an unloving spirit and of selfishness. You are speaking ill about your brother. This is a violation of the 9th commandment.
> 
> Until you can see the sin in your attitude towards your Christian brothers, and retract your statement, you are going to prohibited from further posting in this thread. If you wish to retract your statement please PM Joshua or myself and we will allow your retraction to be posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me make myself clear, It is my opinion that those who care about their own liberties when those actions may lead other weaker people into bad habits is being selfish. Again, MY OPINION. Are we not allow to voice our opinions on this forum?
Click to expand...

 In my opinion, opinions can be voiced on the board. I would just question the wisdom of such a broad prohibition as your opinion is, in which it would make our Lord Jesus Christ guilty of sin.


----------



## Jack K

Andres said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> I drink some. I even think it can be a good witness to drink moderately, so that unbelievers see there's freedom in Christ. But I also think kindness and sensitivity are called for toward those who've been hurt by the effects of alcohol abuse. There are many such people and the hurts go deep.
> 
> So if I have a friend who's seen alcohol abuse in his family, I might ask how he feels about it before drinking or serving alcohol in front of him. That's not the same as having a rule that we must all put aside alcohol completely because some are offended. Nor is it a legalism left over from the Temperance Movement. It's just being kind and acknowleging the many hurts alcohol has caused. I think sometimes, in our haste to defend Christian freedom, we forget compassion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jack, this is a valid point and one which I would agree with, but if it's in reference to any of the previous posts, I don't see how it's applicable. Our brother condemned all use of alcohol and also condemned anyone who partakes of alcohol. This is where the line was crossed, not in his choice to abstain.
> 
> Also, let's be realistic here - if I had an acquaintance, whether Believer or not, and I knew that they truly struggled with alcoholism, then I would abstain out of respect for them. However, if out at dinner I'm not going to poll each person at all the tables around me for their opinion of alcohol before ordering a drink. I'm overweight and I have never, ever been asked by anyone if I minded if they enjoyed a second helping of dessert.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wouldn't expect you to poll everyone. I wasn't trying to dispute any of the alcohol-is-okay points made in this thread. I'm on that side, too. It just felt a bit like compassion was being forgotten, and I thought we could all use the reminder that one goal is to act toward others out of kindness.



KMK said:


> And there is nothing compassionate about allowing legalism to disguise itself as piety.


Excellent point. I would say that in many cases compassion means exercising our Christian liberty rather than let others continue to practice a false piety that makes them feel smug. Other times, compassion means abstaining. It takes discernment, doesn't it?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Calvin on Liberty of Conscience:


> 11. I will here make some observations on offenses, what distinctions are to be made between them, what kind are to be avoided and what disregarded. This will afterwards enable us to determine what scope there is for our liberty among men. We are pleased with the common division into offense given and offense taken, since it has the plain sanction of Scripture, and not improperly expresses what is meant. If from unseasonable levity or wantonness, or rashness, you do any thing out of order or not in its own place, by which the weak or unskillful are offended, it may be said that offense has been given by you, since the ground of offense is owing to your fault. And in general, offense is said to be given in any matter where the person from whom it has proceeded is in fault. Offense is said to be taken when a thing otherwise done, not wickedly or unseasonably, is made an occasion of offense from malevolence or some sinister feeling. For here offense was not given, but sinister interpreters ceaselessly take offense. By the former kind, the weak only, by the latter, the ill-tempered and Pharisaical are offended. Wherefore, we shall call the one the offense of the weak, the other the offense of Pharisees, and we will so temper the use of our liberty as to make it yield to the ignorance of weak brethren, but not to the austerity of Pharisees. What is due to infirmity is fully shown by Paul in many passages. “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye.” Again, “Let us not judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall, in his brother’s way;” and many others to the same effect in the same place, to which, instead of quoting them here, we refer the reader. The sum is, “We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbor for his good to edification.” elsewhere he says, “Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak.” Again “Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake.” “Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other.” Finally, “Give none offense, neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God.” Also in another passage, “Brethren, ye have been called into liberty, only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.”46 455455 61 461 Rom. 14:1, 13; 16:1; 1 Cor. 8:9; 10:25, 29, 32; Gal. 5:13. Thus, indeed, it is: our liberty was not given us against our weak neighbors, whom charity enjoins us to serve in all things, but rather that, having peace with God in our minds, we should live peaceably among men. What value is to be set upon the offense of the Pharisees we learn from the words of our Lord, in which he says, “Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind,” (Mt. 15:14). The disciples had intimated that the Pharisees were offended at his words. He answers that they are to be let alone that their offense is not to be regarded.
> 
> 12. *The matter still remains uncertain, unless we understand who are the weak and who the Pharisees: for if this distinction is destroyed, I see not how, in regard to offenses, any liberty at all would remain without being constantly in the greatest danger. But Paul seems to me to have marked out most clearly, as well by example as by doctrine, how far our liberty, in the case of offense, is to be modified or maintained.* When he adopts Timothy as his companion, he circumcises him: nothing can induce him to circumcise Titus (Acts 16:3; Gal. 2:3). The acts are different, but there is no difference in the purpose or intention; in circumcising Timothy, as he was free from all men, he made himself the servant of all: “Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ), that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some” (1 Cor. 9:20-22). We have here the proper modification of liberty, when in things indifferent it can be restrained with some advantage. What he had in view in firmly resisting the circumcision of Titus, he himself testifies when he thus writes: “But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you,” (Gal. 2:3-5). *We here see the necessity of vindicating our liberty when, by the unjust exactions of false apostles, it is brought into danger with weak consciences.* In all cases we must study charity, and look to the edification of our neighbor. “All things are lawful for me,” says he, “but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth,” (1 Cor. 10:23, 24). *There is nothing plainer than this rule, that we are to use our liberty if it tends to the edification of our neighbor, but if inexpedient for our neighbor, we are to abstain from it. There are some who pretend to imitate this prudence of Paul by abstinence from liberty, while there is nothing for which they less employ it than for purposes of charity. Consulting their own ease, they would have all mention of liberty buried, though it is not less for the interest of our neighbor to use liberty for their good and edification, than to modify it occasionally for their advantage. It is the part of a pious man to think, that the free power conceded to him in external things is to make him the readier in all offices of charity.*



In summary, if a man has a scruple against alcohol, I will refrain from alcohol in his presence but I do not forsake liberty altogether by adopting his scruple. My liberty is exercised by my willingness to abstain, in charity, towards those who are weaker in this area.

There is the danger, however, of the weak conscience who then insists that his scruple is the norm and creates a law with which to bind the consciences of other men. "I have a problem with alchohol, therefore it is a sin for all other men to partake...." This, I believe, needs to be withstood to its face as a violation of the liberty that men are given before God. God, alone, is the Lord of the Conscience and has left it free from the scruples of men and whatever they might add to the Law of God in this matter.

Consequently, to the weak brother who exercises his scruple in love, I will not tempt or make him uncomfortable by drinking in his presence but I do not give up something in all situations for, as Calvin notes, we could scarcely do anything if we were to avoid every scruple of man. To the man, however, that adds to the Law of God with his scruple, this needs to be challenged as a basic denial of the Gospel.


----------



## heartoflesh

I opened this thread with the intention of simply having a discussion about wine in biblical times and how this would compare with what we know today as alcoholic beverages. I am as guilty as anyone of causing it to run afoul into the broader area of Christian Liberty. This can't be helped with this subject. If we could conclusively prove how the early Christians viewed alcoholic beverages we would have an easier time with this, and I guess that's what I was going for. 

Let me say this-- none of us learn our particular views about alcohol in a vacuum. What guides and binds my conscience is largely determined by how Christians around me treat the issue. When I say that I'm beginning to think that alcohol consumption may not be right for me, I'm not saying that because I think I have a problem with alcohol personally. It's because I'm under conviction that it's possibly something God doesn't want _any_ Christians having anything to do with. This conviction means nothing unless it can be proved that what we drink today as alcoholic beverages is completely different from what would have been known in Biblical times (for holy people to drink). So that's the only question I myself am interested in further discussing.


----------



## heartoflesh

Joshua said:


> Rick Larson said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's because I'm under conviction that it's possibly something God doesn't want _any_ Christians having anything to do with. This conviction means nothing unless it can be proved that what we drink today as alcoholic beverages is completely different from what would have been known in Biblical times (for holy people to drink). So that's the only question I myself am interested in further discussing.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter how different it was because, regardless, however _much_ it was is not regulated by Scripture and yet we see that the abuse thereof had the potential to induce drunkenness. Ergo, alcohol is alcohol is alcohol. God has commended its _proper_ and _moderate_ use, and condemned its _indulgent _and _inordinate_ use.
Click to expand...


But it wouldn't be the same thing if in it's customary usage it was watered down so much that it would hardly have any intoxicating effect. That's the claim being made. Sure, a person _could_ drink the unmixed wine, but that's supposedly what's being warned about in Proverbs 23:31 "don't gaze at the wine when it is *red*".

Or course, I still don't have an answer for Charlie's quotation out of Deuteronomy about buying "strong drink". I forwarded that one to poeple smarter than me but I'm waiting to hear back.


----------



## TimV

> But it wouldn't be the same thing if in it's customary usage it was watered down so much that it would hardly have any intoxicating effect. That's the claim being made. Sure, a person could drink the unmixed wine, but that's supposedly what's being warned about in Proverbs 23:31 "don't gaze at the wine when it is red".



I normally try to avoid fundamental baptist type threads since they're so frustrating. At least I've been trying to avoid them lately. I'll point out though that the color red doesn't get you drunk. If you water down wine even three to one it is still stronger than most beers. And if you water down red wine until it's not red it's about 100 to one. And that sort of logic isn't reasonable to any educated person.


----------



## Andres

Rick Larson said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rick Larson said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's because I'm under conviction that it's possibly something God doesn't want _any_ Christians having anything to do with. This conviction means nothing unless it can be proved that what we drink today as alcoholic beverages is completely different from what would have been known in Biblical times (for holy people to drink). So that's the only question I myself am interested in further discussing.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter how different it was because, regardless, however _much_ it was is not regulated by Scripture and yet we see that the abuse thereof had the potential to induce drunkenness. Ergo, alcohol is alcohol is alcohol. God has commended its _proper_ and _moderate_ use, and condemned its _indulgent _and _inordinate_ use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it wouldn't be the same thing if in it's customary usage it was watered down so much that it would hardly have any intoxicating effect. That's the claim being made. Sure, a person _could_ drink the unmixed wine, but that's supposedly what's being warned about in Proverbs 23:31 "don't gaze at the wine when it is *red*".
> 
> Or course, I still don't have an answer for Charlie's quotation out of Deuteronomy about buying "strong drink". I forwarded that one to poeple smarter than me but I'm waiting to hear back.
Click to expand...

 
I was under the impression that several posts answered the questions about alcohol content in biblical times and therefore your questions. See here, here, here, here, here, and here. I'm not sure what else you are looking for.


----------



## heartoflesh

TimV said:


> But it wouldn't be the same thing if in it's customary usage it was watered down so much that it would hardly have any intoxicating effect. That's the claim being made. Sure, a person could drink the unmixed wine, but that's supposedly what's being warned about in Proverbs 23:31 "don't gaze at the wine when it is red".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I normally try to avoid fundamental baptist type threads since they're so frustrating. At least I've been trying to avoid them lately. I'll point out though that the color red doesn't get you drunk. If you water down wine even three to one it is still stronger than most beers. And if you water down red wine until it's not red it's about 100 to one. And that sort of logic isn't reasonable to any educated person.
Click to expand...

 

Tim, thank you for your warm invitation to ask questions, and to make me feel like a real idiot simpleton, or at worst, a fundamental baptist. I wish I were as educated as you, I would never have had to open this thread.

---------- Post added at 09:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 PM ----------




Andres said:


> Rick Larson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rick Larson said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's because I'm under conviction that it's possibly something God doesn't want _any_ Christians having anything to do with. This conviction means nothing unless it can be proved that what we drink today as alcoholic beverages is completely different from what would have been known in Biblical times (for holy people to drink). So that's the only question I myself am interested in further discussing.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter how different it was because, regardless, however _much_ it was is not regulated by Scripture and yet we see that the abuse thereof had the potential to induce drunkenness. Ergo, alcohol is alcohol is alcohol. God has commended its _proper_ and _moderate_ use, and condemned its _indulgent _and _inordinate_ use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it wouldn't be the same thing if in it's customary usage it was watered down so much that it would hardly have any intoxicating effect. That's the claim being made. Sure, a person _could_ drink the unmixed wine, but that's supposedly what's being warned about in Proverbs 23:31 "don't gaze at the wine when it is *red*".
> 
> Or course, I still don't have an answer for Charlie's quotation out of Deuteronomy about buying "strong drink". I forwarded that one to poeple smarter than me but I'm waiting to hear back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was under the impression that several posts answered the questions about alcohol content in biblical times and therefore your questions. See here, here, here, here, here, and here. I'm not sure what else you are looking for.
Click to expand...

 

Thank you, yes, I know about those. 

I didn't mean to make everyone so upset by asking to continue the discussion. 

Sorry. Going to bed now.


----------



## Andres

Rick Larson said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it wouldn't be the same thing if in it's customary usage it was watered down so much that it would hardly have any intoxicating effect. That's the claim being made. Sure, a person could drink the unmixed wine, but that's supposedly what's being warned about in Proverbs 23:31 "don't gaze at the wine when it is red".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I normally try to avoid fundamental baptist type threads since they're so frustrating. At least I've been trying to avoid them lately. I'll point out though that the color red doesn't get you drunk. If you water down wine even three to one it is still stronger than most beers. And if you water down red wine until it's not red it's about 100 to one. And that sort of logic isn't reasonable to any educated person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tim, thank you for your warm invitation to ask questions, and to make me feel like a real idiot simpleton, or at worst, a fundamental baptist. I wish I were as educated as you, I would never have had to open this thread.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 09:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rick Larson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rick Larson said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's because I'm under conviction that it's possibly something God doesn't want _any_ Christians having anything to do with. This conviction means nothing unless it can be proved that what we drink today as alcoholic beverages is completely different from what would have been known in Biblical times (for holy people to drink). So that's the only question I myself am interested in further discussing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter how different it was because, regardless, however _much_ it was is not regulated by Scripture and yet we see that the abuse thereof had the potential to induce drunkenness. Ergo, alcohol is alcohol is alcohol. God has commended its _proper_ and _moderate_ use, and condemned its _indulgent _and _inordinate_ use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it wouldn't be the same thing if in it's customary usage it was watered down so much that it would hardly have any intoxicating effect. That's the claim being made. Sure, a person _could_ drink the unmixed wine, but that's supposedly what's being warned about in Proverbs 23:31 "don't gaze at the wine when it is *red*".
> 
> Or course, I still don't have an answer for Charlie's quotation out of Deuteronomy about buying "strong drink". I forwarded that one to poeple smarter than me but I'm waiting to hear back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was under the impression that several posts answered the questions about alcohol content in biblical times and therefore your questions. See here, here, here, here, here, and here. I'm not sure what else you are looking for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, yes, I know about those.
> 
> I didn't mean to make everyone so upset by asking to continue the discussion.
> 
> Sorry. Going to bed now.
Click to expand...

 
I am not upset at all brother. You are obviously free to ask away any and all questions you would like. I do however feel that some of your questions have been answered, yet you continue to press for more or different answers. I am just curious as to why these first answers are insufficient for you. If it's because it's not what you wanted to hear, then I am not sure what else to tell you.


----------



## Kevin

Rick, I drink because I have children. It is my holy duty before God to train them in wisdom & moderation. So I must model these virtues in my everyday life. If I were so intemperate as to abstain from drinking then they would grow up with a warped view of what blessings God has provided. They might even grow to love their own religion more then they love Jesus. If this happened then I would be a great failure as a parent.

Thus to be a faithful, Godly father, I must drink.

Rick, I drink because of my concern for the lost. If I abstained then the lost people that I know might believe that I was a practitioner of "churchianity", and not a follower of Christ. Because the *one thing* that all nonbelievers do know about Jesus is that he made wine! And the *one thing* that non believers know about the bible is that it tells people that follow the scriptures that thay may drink. So the simpelist test that most non believers have for determining if you are a "Real" follower of Jesus or do you practice a "religion", is this; Do You Drink?

Thus to be a faithful godly witness for Jesus, I must drink.

As for you question about the low % of alcohol in ancient wine. That is anti-factual special pleading. Wine is made (as is any adult beverage) by the action of yeast eating sugar. That never changes. So the claim that ancient wine only had 2-4% alcohol is just silly. Any person that claims otherwise is simply ignorant of the basic process of fermentation, or lying.


----------



## heartoflesh

Andres said:


> I am not upset at all brother. You are obviously free to ask away any and all questions you would like. I do however feel that some of your questions have been answered, yet you continue to press for more or different answers. I am just curious as to why these first answers are insufficient for you. If it's because it's not what you wanted to hear, then I am not sure what else to tell you.




Sorry to snap away last night, brother. I think it really was past my bed time. 

I think I've learned about all I can from this thread. Mods, please feel free to close it.


----------

