Menu

Greg Laurie: Is It Acceptable for Christians to Drink?

S
sermonindex

Evangelist pastor Greg Laurie tackled the question of whether it's acceptable for Christians to drink in a recent blog post by pointing out that John the Baptist is a good role model – he drank neither wine nor strong drink.

"John gives us a good model for life: he drank neither wine nor strong drink. Personally, I don't drink at all," Laurie states. "That is due, to some degree, to coming from an alcoholic home and seeing the devastation that drinking can bring."

In his blog post, "Some Thoughts on Drinking in This Holiday Season," Laurie describes how John was set apart by God from the time he was in his mother's womb.

"In Luke 1:15, the angel said of John, 'He will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb' (NKJV)."

Among the sobering statistics about alcohol consumption in the U.S.: In 2010, 211 children were killed in drunk-driving crashes. Out of those 211 deaths, 131 (62 percent) were riding with the drunk driver. Also, adults who drank too much and got behind the wheel amounted to 112 million times, two years ago. That is almost 300,000 incidents of drinking and driving each day, according to the Center of Disease Control and Prevention.

Perhaps one of the most revealing statistics about the harm of alcohol abuse, three out of every four convicted jail inmates were involved in alcohol or drugs at the time of their current offense, according to statistics cited on the faith-based recovery website, MartyAngelo.com.

Read more: http://www.christianpost.com/news/greg-laurie-is-it-acceptable-for-christians-to-drink-86161/

S
Sree

Coincidentally i happened to see a young TV preacher in a TV channel today talking on this matter. I normally do not believe in these TV preachers and mostly hear them to know how much Satan has deceived people. This guy though I did not like the way he was mocking another preacher who he claimed to have supported Alcohol addiction, made some interesting points against taking alcohol.

G
ginnyrose

Recently is a conversation with another person I gained a new insight concerning the consumption of alcoholic beverages.

How can the LORD approve the use of people using alcohol when it puts the pregnant woman's child at risk for fetal alcohol syndrome? Consumption of alcohol for anything other then medicinal use puts the imbiber at risk not just for herself/himself but others as well. If we believe in the Golden Rule this should also apply to the consumption of alcohol.

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is the most awfullest affliction a mother can impose on her unborn child. It is so bad I think that if a woman does it once she should be sterilized! Radical? Yes, but not near as radical as harming another child for the rest of their life! It is all avoidable! Now, some distractor will say "but what if she repents afterwards and wants a child, is it right to rob her of this ability to have another child?" Sorry, but you have harmed one person for life, now go take care of him/her - it will consume you as well. Do not depend on others to care for your child like so many do.

You can tell I have no tolerance for mothers using alcohol - I have two [adopted] nieces who are FAS victims and it angers me because it was all avoidable.

S
sermonindex

At the same, while not condoning the consumption of alcohol, there is no prohibition against it. While we are using John the Baptist as the example here against it... scripture also says In Luke 7:33-35:

“For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon!’“The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’“Yet wisdom is vindicated by all her children.”

Obviously our Lord was not a drunkard. The Bible clearly states that drunkeness is a sin, and Jesus was sinless. But whatever it was He was drinking it was something that people associated with alcohol. That does not give everyone permission to go out and drink alcohol, but neither does it prohibit it. What I am saying is that there are two sides to this coin.

Like it or not... this is a grey area. Each believer must seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit on such matters as these. To many the Spirit will say "No." To some He may say "Yes".

And we must not judge one another on such matters either. This issue more than any other causes judging. To be honest, the greater sin is the fact that we judge one another on this issue, not whether someone drinks a glass of wine or a beer.

Krispy

M
MrBillPro

Touchy subject here, I don't personally drink, just never liked the taste of any kind of alcohol, but I did spend many years of my 61 years smoking pot, of course I was delivered from that in 1995 when I accepted the King of Kings into my life. I will say this, it's very hard out there going through this life stone cold sober, I know! so I would not condemn anyone if they just drink a little, to take the edge off when needed. Because I don't smoke pot anymore or don't like alcohol, I have to beat my head against the tree out back to take the edge off. :)

S
sermonindex

I have to beat my head against the tree out back to take the edge off. :)

Ahh... that explains a lot! :-)

Krispy

J
jimur

Galatians 5:19-21 (KJV)
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

I have always been of the understanding the word "witchcraft" in vs 20 above translates from the Greek word pharmacia, which refers to mind-altering drugs. Alcohol
is a mind altering drug. Someone want to help me out here? What am I missing apart from possible word usage and differences in minority and majority text? Thanks.

S
sermonindex

The fact that Jesus' first miracle was changing the water into wine... the fact that Paul recommended a little wine to Timothy for what ailed him...

Drunkeness is a sin. Plain and simple. But there is no prohibition against alcohol, albeit there are a LOT of warnings about the abuse of it. Which is why for most believers it is a great idea to just avoid it all together. But we can not, using scripture, condemn any and all use of alcohol. It simply isnt there.

If we are going to apply a prohibition to any use of alcohol then we need to also condemn cough medicine or any other medications that contain alcohol.

Mind altering drugs like morphine serve a purpose. We can not say someone dying of cancer who is being given morphine is practicing witch craft.

Common sense must be exercised when discussing grey areas like this. Unfortunately in the church... often times common sense is in short supply. (Not accusing you of that, jimur! Just speaking in general)

Krispy

S
sermonindex

I have always been of the understanding the word "witchcraft" in vs 20 above translates from the Greek word pharmacia, which refers to mind-altering drugs. Alcohol is a mind altering drug. Someone want to help me out here? What am I missing apart from possible word usage and differences in minority and majority text? Thanks. jimur

As you say brother the word translated in verse 20 is pharmakia (φαρμακεία). It comes from the root magia (μαγεία). So the word (φαρμακεία) is a conjunctive of φαρ and μακεία.

φαρ is used to denote isolation of individuality or separateness. This is the effect of using drugs such a morphine etc. To get high means what it ought to mean “to go into another realm of thought in which one feels isolated either fearfully (paranoia) or else euphorically (egotistical well being) ”. The same idea is carried with the word (φάραγξ) which is used for the word valley or ravine. It is implicit and figurative of danger and isolation. Again the same prefix is used in the word (Φαρισαι̂ος) which means Pharisee. The root of the aramaic word means to separate. Reflect on how separate were the pharisees both in real physical life and in the end being cut off from life itself.


When μακεία is prefixed with φαρ the result is a meaning which spiritually carries the value of the root semantic expression magia (μαγεία) and literally means to use drugs for the purposes of enhancing the natural desire to practise magic. The consequence of taking this course as opposed to simply behaving demonically is the true meaning of sorcery. It cannot be entered into by accident, it must be desired and wilfully sought. It is worth noting that sorcery is quiet natural to the flesh and not just a product or sense of desiring to take drugs for a reason of mental health issues. Be they self administered or else prescribed; the difference is semantic. The real deeper meaning lies in the very physiology of the body itself which being in a fallen state can achieve psychosomatic or sympathetic releases of endorphins which when attended to by a wilful rebellious heart produces a form of witchcraft which passes easily for spirituality. This kind of release fuels the mind and stimulates the body to produce more wilful and deliberate egotistical outbursts or else curses or even prayers. It is all witchcraft regardless.

Alcohol at a certain point of imbibing produces a similar effect because it provokes the mind to act foolishly or else violently and has the effect in such circumstances as does any drug which stimulates the natural mind. How often has it been said of a man "he is fine when sober but violent when drunk". Blessings.

S
sermonindex

In this current age of revelry, we should abstain from alcohol.

A few years ago I would have fought for the right to drink as a Christian because we have the freedom to do so. I still think we have that freedom, but I don't think it's proper now in our day and age. We have so many people going to AA, committing suicide, families are ruined, children separated, divorce, abortion to be frank this list can be long.

If we never had a bible to read to know if it's okay or not, our own eyes should tell us that this world is having tremendous problem with controlling it in their lives.

My sister drinks nothing but Vodka. She is or at least was a Christian. Many things had happened that lead up to her breakdown, the main one was divorce and the inability to be in control. Recently she lost custody of her children. What she misses the most is not being in control of their lives and this is basically why she drinks. Her house is in ruins, she sits in her own pee, can barely walk, heart trouble, eye trouble, organ failure, and it's hard to believe that she was once a successful business woman running her own business. Can't talk to her on the phone anymore, drunk and crying all the time, totally obnoxious. And yet when she wants a drink, she can get ready, and drive down to the liquour store and get her fix. When it comes to going to the doctor, going to get help forget it.

If we had a liquor problem before, it's wise that we do not tempt ourselves.

If we know of brethren that had this problem before, it's wise that we do not have it in the house.

If you want to drink wine, buy the 0.05%. One thing it won't do is cause you get tipsy, and won't offend your weak brother.

J
jimur

@Krispy

Medical use of a given drug is altogether a different idea, this might be where one should apply common sense perhaps? I certainly agree many consider alcohol a grey area yet sometimes think it to be a substitute term for compromise.
I also believe scripture goes deeper than the letter of the word as the law did with the pharisees.
The use of the "water to wine" miracle poses some questions for me as well Krispy. I find it difficult to understand how Jesus could have provided a means to allow the guests to further a probable intoxicated state and still claim to be sinless. Which would tend to indicate the word wine was not always a reference to a fermented drink. Paul's recommendation to Timothy could have easily been meant as simple grape juice. If we trace the word "wine" backward, from English, to Latin, to Greek and then Hebrew, we find the four words, wine, vinum, oinos, and yayin have been used historically to refer to either or both fermented or unfermented juice. Just as many today use the word "coke" genericaly to refer to a soft drink or soda rather than a specific "coca-cola".
I would still like to hear an expounded explanation of the word "pharmakeia" as I think it to be very pertinent to the discussion.
Thanks for the reply Krispy and no, I did not feel accused of lacking common sense though I may display that trait at times. LOL

edited in "@Krispy"

J
jimur

@Approved

I very much understand your statements and my prayers go up for your sister as well as you and other loved ones. Unfortunately mankind has always had a problem of shifting personal focus from Christ to himself. I too, am no different I'm afraid. Life is often a struggle and we want to take care of things on our own and as often as not fail.
Still, I think it imperative we understand the truth in scripture and though I dislike the term "grey area" this topic would seem to fall into such a category. I do not wish to offer incorrect information to anyone seeking answers of this matter and feel it an obligation to learn and understand scriptural teaching on the subject.

D
DEADn

Here is what doesn't make sense to me with this topic. On one hand Paul says to use a little wine for it does the belly good. Probably talking about red wine because it is good for the body. Yet, Jesus made wine at the party after it was gone and everyone was full He made it anyway. Why did Jesus do this for alcohol is alcohol. It seems it contributed to drunkeness. I had one person tell me the alcohol wasn't potent which I laughed at. Really? people will usually drink alcohol to get drunk and I don't think it would be any different with that scene. So why did that incident happen?

G
ginnyrose

Approved, am so sorry about your sister - I know this grieves yo deeply - I can sense it in your post.

I find it very revealing as to why males are the ones who will defend the use of alcohol consumed socially. We see it here on this forum and elsewhere. For example, I did a search yesterday on the effects of alcohol on sperm...on that website (that discussed alcohol use by pregnant women and males who father children) it was mentioned several times about the men how they drink and their wives want them to stop. The point being males have an affinity to alcohol. I do not understand. Alcohol works to anesthetize a persons emotions, conscience - is this why it is so attractive to males?

J
jimur

@amrkelly

Thanks so much. I almost missed the post but took the liberty of saving your reply. (very helpful) Hope that's ok? Care to confirm, rebut, expound on, or reject my statements of the word "wine"?

J
jimur

by DEADn on 2012/12/8 7:18:49

Here is what doesn't make sense to me with this topic. On one hand Paul says to use a little wine for it does the belly good. Probably talking about red wine because it is good for the body. Yet, Jesus made wine at the party after it was gone and everyone was full He made it anyway. Why did Jesus do this for alcohol is alcohol. It seems it contributed to drunkeness. I had one person tell me the alcohol wasn't potent which I laughed at. Really? people will usually drink alcohol to get drunk and I don't think it would be any different with that scene. So why did that incident happen?

That question puzzled me for a long time as well since knowing Jesus was/is without sin there must be an answer. That thought prompted me to do some word searches on words mentioned in my reply to Krispy which led me to my current thoughts of which are the basis expressed in that post. Mind you, I'm no expert and as Krispy states, this really is a seeming "grey area".

J
jimur

QUOTE: by ginnyrose on 2012/12/8 7:24:15

I find it very revealing as to why males are the ones who will defend the use of alcohol consumed socially. /QUOTE

I think you are correct, though we may be seeing a change in those percentages as of later years. Do you think historically (pre 60's-70's) men for the most part experienced the bulk of the stress due to the responsibilities he felt in being the only provider and considering the social position of women at the time? Of course immediately after WWII I think alcohol use in this country took a huge leap as well as soldiers returned home. In todays [U.S.] world many women are faced with those same issues and responsibilities thus placing them under more stress than before. Just thoughts.
I think it was Billy Sunday who coined the phrase, "Wiskey is alright in it's place, but it's place is in hell".

J
jimur

@ginnyrose

I hope I'm not over posting here and boring those of you who are much more scholarly than I. But as an after thought
concerning "the male's propensity to alcohol":

I don't believe in coincidence and the first mention of intoxication in scripture I find is in the story of Noah,
a male. We know how that went. Noah most assuredly brought the knowledge of wine making with him to this new world from the pre flood world. A world which grieved God that He had even created man. There must surely be a tremendous object lesson here if one could only find it.

S
sermonindex

Care to confirm, rebut, expound on, or reject my statements of the word "wine"? jimur.

The Greek word used for wine in the wedding feast is the most common used word when it is translated wine. In John 2:9 this word is oinos (οἰ̂νος). The anglicised word is vino or wine from the Latin as you have shared. There is another use of the word used and this gives some light on what you have shared. It is the word gleukos (γλευ̂κος). This word is the root of the anglicised word glucose. As the translation suggest this is “sweet wine”. It is used in Acts 2:13 on the day of Pentecost when the disciples were accused of being drunk. It takes a long time to ferment wine into sweet wine and the longer the process the greater degree of alcohol is produced. However this must be qualified. Without adding the passage of time and a particularly sweet grape this process will eventually foul and produce vinegarish wine. This is the type of wine which the Lord was offered on the cross.

By implication the word οἰ̂νος in John 2:9 is accompanied both in time and in meaning with the word new or fresh. New wine has no alcohol and fresh wine means the same. Naturally the miracle was taking water and making fresh wine with it. Therefore I would deduce by reason that the wine at the feast could not have been alcoholic . It was a miracle in time and visibility. The time passage would have been just as long as it took the Lord to sanctify the water into wine by His authority. The reference to old in this same passage does not mean old in time “into alcohol with gleukos”, it means cheiron (χείρων), vexing or stale.

If you begin to look into the Hebrew:


“And Noah began to be a husbandman, and planted a vineyard: and he drank of the wine, and was drunken. And he was uncovered within his tent.” Genesis 9:20-21

20 \tוַיָּ֥חֶל נֹ֖חַ אִ֣ישׁ הָֽאֲדָמָ֑ה וַיִּטַּ֖ע כָּֽרֶם׃
21 \tוַיֵּ֥שְׁתְּ מִן־הַיַּ֖יִן וַיִּשְׁכָּ֑ר וַיִּתְגַּ֖ל בְּת֥וֹךְ אָהֳלֹֽה׃

The word for vine yard or vine is yayin as you have shared.

The adjunction to Timothy to take little wine for his stomach is (1 Timothy 5:23) is oinos (οἰ̂νος) or fresh wine. Blessings.

D
DEADn

amrkelly

It sort of sounds to me as if 'wine' can be translated wine in some reference and grape juice in others? For wine to be wine it has to have some kind of alcoholic content in it. Even a wine cooler has alcohol but not like regular wine. Something seems fishy to me here.

In the Spanish language they use different words for the same word but to put a reference on what it is meaning whereas in the English language it isn't that way. One has to take the word into context to understand it but in Spanish the word tells you by its nature what it refers in conversation. Does Hebrew and Greek not do this? I often think that because English is so one dimensional we mis ALOT but not understand what specific words are supposed to be or refer to. Love has various meaning and in English it isn't easy to understand how it refers in varous contexts. It can be easily taken out of context and so give way to false doctrine.

S
sermonindex

It sort of sounds to me as if 'wine' can be translated wine in some reference and grape juice in others? For wine to be wine it has to have some kind of alcoholic content in it. Even a wine cooler has alcohol but not like regular wine. Something seems fishy to me here.

In the Spanish language they use different words for the same word but to put a reference on what it is meaning whereas in the English language it isn't that way. One has to take the word into context to understand it but in Spanish the word tells you by its nature what it refers in conversation. Does Hebrew and Greek not do this? I often think that because English is so one dimensional we mis ALOT but not understand what specific words are supposed to be or refer to. Love has various meaning and in English it isn't easy to understand how it refers in varous contexts. It can be easily taken out of context and so give way to false doctrine. deadn.


If you think what I said sounds fishy read this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5027710/Wine-ingredients-including-fish-and-charcoal-should-be-listed-on-the-bottle-say-regulators.html


On a serious note. I have no opinion as to whether a person should drink wine or beer or not. My son James does not, my daughter Sarah does. My granny needs moderating and my wife likes champagne. I don't drink at all. It is a matter of conscience and obedience. Just in case you didn't realise it the English language as spoken in England has the largest vocabulary of any language on earth by a long long way, as a consequence of this limitation to specify precise meaning in a single particle of grammar. Yet this weakness makes for a beautiful possibility to express shades and contours (morphology) of meaning even within a sentence structure which can carry several parallel meanings simultaneously without contradiction of grammatical form or comprehension.

Grammatically English is broadly Latin, with west Germanic, middle French and Greek structures incorporated. Ancient greek as used in the scriptures was a common form of Greek and the grammatical structure is reasonably simple. I have no idea about Hebrew structure at all.

What I shared regarding the meaning of wine as alcoholic or not in the verses cited are subjective in so far as the precise statement is concerned, but implicit in the usage of the words in their original context. Beyond that what can one say?

S
sermonindex

Wine is wine.

The same God that told the prophet Hosea to have intimate relations with the local whore down the street is the same God that changed water into an alcoholic beverage.

What we can't fathom we change. We can't fathom as to why Jesus our beloved Saviour would make something that He saved us from and allow it to be served. We have got to get beyond ourselves. It's not the alcohol that He served that is the thing, see by our own prejudices we are not seeing the whole picture as to why this act was done. It wasn't just mere chance or He felt like doing, this was a sign for that generation that He is the new wine of the Holy Ghost being poured out to them, freely and at the end. The best was saved for the last the host of the feast said which was unheard of as the old was always served after men have had the good stuff. But this was a significant moment, a change in which the Kingdom of God was near at hand and while men were still drinking in the Old, the New was about to be poured out.

We have to see it in that light. If we keep seeing the flesh, than we will always be arguing about what type of wine Jesus changed. Jesus said the same things in His day. They were concerned about washing the outside of the cups and but Jesus was telling them the more important instruction, clean up on the inside. We miss a lot of the spiritual applications when we put all our focus on what we read instead of what we should be hearing. Jesus said, "Let these words sink down into your ears".

J
jimur

@amrkelly

Great info! You explain this quite well, thanks. OK, so in view of all this, these verses are now in agreement with

Isaiah 65:8 (KJV)
8 Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all.

Obviously there can be no fermentation in the cluster prior to crushing the grapes so we find another Hebrew word ‏(tiyrosh)? Which would be new, unfermented juice correct? It would now appear we have established a pretty sound primus that within the English translations, the word WINE can and does refer to both fermented as well as unfermented drink and one is sinful while the other is not.

@DEADn

As you see, others here can answer your question much better. I'm just beginning with a very tiny bit of Hebrew and a little Greek, perhaps I should learn some Spanish as well. LOL but consider also our Lord's discourse with Peter and the use of the word lovest, two different words in the Greek with two very different meanings translated to the same English word in John 21:15-17.

J
jimur

Approved

QUOTE:

"What we can't fathom we change. We can't fathom as to why Jesus our beloved Saviour would make something that He saved us from and allow it to be served. We have got to get beyond ourselves. It's not the alcohol that He served that is the thing, see by our own prejudices we are not seeing the whole picture as to why this act was done. It wasn't just mere chance or He felt like doing, this was a sign for that generation that He is the new wine of the Holy Ghost being poured out to them, freely and at the end. The best was saved for the last the host of the feast said which was unheard of as the old was always served after men have had the good stuff. But this was a significant moment, a change in which the Kingdom of God was near at hand and while men were still drinking in the Old, the New was about to be poured out". END QUOTE

Can you clarify this? It seems you are stating "while men were still drinking in the Old, the New was about to be poured out". Yet in the explanation there appears to be no difference between the old and the new.

You are correct of course. I for one "can't fathom as to why Jesus our beloved Saviour would make something that He saved us from and allow it to be served". I pray it is not due to not getting beyond myself. I come here, read, post to ask questions at times, in order to help accomplish getting beyond myself. I firmly believe "We have got to get beyond ourselves". Obviously you believe it as well. Correct? I also agree, at times "by our own prejudices we are not seeing the whole picture" thus the discussions.

"If we keep seeing the flesh, then we will always be arguing about what type of wine Jesus changed".

I agree, my point exactly, if we keep seeing in the flesh. I think it a wonderful blessing we have a place such as this to share ideas on scripture in which to combat, without argument, seeing in the flesh. Isn't it a shame there are places, even in the USA where the open sincere discussion of Holy Scripture is not allowed?

J
jimp

hi, i am a man who grew up with a mom who became a fall down drunk.i have seen the results of booze up close and personal. i do not see much positives gained from drinking. that said :the jews drank wine that was fermented.harvest times were the only time you could drinl grape juice.they stored thejuice in containers and drank from the top avoiding the lees.they put wine in skins.the alc. that was in the wine killed the bacteria that caused sickness.there was no pastorization in bible days.jimp

S
sermonindex

Isaiah 65:8 (KJV) 
8 Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all. jimur.


כֹּ֣ה׀ אָמַ֣ר יְהוָ֗ה כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר יִמָּצֵ֤א הַתִּירוֹשׁ֙ בָּֽאֶשְׁכּ֔וֹל וְאָמַר֙ אַל־תַּשְׁחִיתֵ֔הוּ כִּ֥י בְרָכָ֖ה בּ֑וֹ כֵּ֤ן אֶֽעֱשֶׂה֙ לְמַ֣עַן עֲבָדַ֔י לְבִלְתִּ֖י הַֽשְׁחִ֥ית הַכֹּֽל׃


הַתִּירוֹשׁ֙

tiyrowsh, tiyrosh = from the root meaning to expel or freshly press translated “new wine”

בָּֽאֶשְׁכּ֔וֹל

eshkowl, ʾeshkol translated “cluster”

As a rational statement, “As the new wine is found in the cluster” there is an inference that freshly expelled juice from the grape makes for new wine. But this may not be the major predicative mood or intended meaning. The statement is literally true rationally but the semantic inference may be more important than the literal rational meaning. One could not make new wine from grapes which have been crushed months ago and left to ferment. New wine can only come from a cluster of grapes which are still in tact. I have to be honest and share with you that I don’t put much store by grammatical exegesis done in this way. The reason is that trans-literal exegesis can easily misrepresent the actual meaning intended by the Lord. Not only of the source passage but its intended target as well. In this case Isaiah 65:8 and John 2:9 respectively.

Clearly in this verse the word destroy appears twice. One in the semantic context of a cluster of grapes yet the word is “destroy it not.” The “it” however as the principle object may be the “blessing” which is in the grapes which form the cluster. The “it” is singular by reason of the cluster, but the intentional meaning is a blessing. The outcome of obedience to this command is “so I will not destroy them”. The “them” being “my” servants. The meaning of this verse lies in the narrative between these two.

I don’t say the literal meaning of the rational part of the passage isn’t actually true, clearly it is literally true. But it may not be appropriate to divide the Word in this way simply to “prove” another passage or meaning. I may be wrong. I guess one would have to ask what the fuller meaning of the verse is and therefore whether it is possible to use the Scripture in that way. To me it seems like a difference between dividing and rightly dividing. One thing is for certain. The John 2:9 is concerned with wine and crushed grapes of necessity. This passage or verse is a command not to crush the grapes, but to preserve them in tact. I am always very nervous of making these cross scriptural links. It may lead to many errors and wrong ideas. The very root of this subject is a first for me. I have never thought to look into it before or seen the greek meanings drawn out as I have done here. But it wont change my mind just yet that a believer cannot drink alcohol because I have seen that in the greek their is a distinction between new wine and sweet wine. Despite saying this my first pastor always said that the water into wine was grape juice and I always doubted it because of the accusation Jesus had made against Him. Just for a moment here I think I nearly believed my old pastor. Mmm. Blessings.

J
jimur

amrkelly

QUOTE: I don’t say the literal meaning of the rational part of the passage isn’t actually true, clearly it is literally true. But it may not be appropriate to divide the Word in this way simply to “prove” another passage or meaning. I may be wrong. I guess one would have to ask what the fuller meaning of the verse is and therefore whether it is possible to use the Scripture in that way. To me it seems like a difference between dividing and rightly dividing. One thing is for certain. The John 2:9 is concerned with wine and crushed grapes of necessity. This passage or verse is a command not to crush the grapes, but to preserve them in tact. I am always very nervous of making these cross scriptural links. It may lead to many errors and wrong ideas. The very root of this subject is a first for me. I have never thought to look into it before or seen the greek meanings drawn out as I have done here. But it wont change my mind just yet that a believer cannot drink alcohol because I have seen that in the greek their is a distinction between new wine and sweet wine. Despite saying this my first pastor always said that the water into wine was grape juice and I always doubted it because of the accusation Jesus had made against Him. Just for a moment here I think I nearly believed my old pastor. Mmm. Blessings. END QUOTE


An excellent perspective! Logical, not at all assuming or unsound, and certainly worthy. Some of this I have not really considered and must give some additional thought and prayer. I suppose we could also apply this same reasoning to Isa 16:10 where the word yayin is used. I haven't studied the verses in Hosea and a couple of other places. At this point in my Christian maturity, (or lack thereof), I tend to agree with your former pastor. However I do have uncertainty of the relationship of the Hebrew yayin as discussed and it's possible or probable relationship to the Greek oinos used in John 2 . The key may be in this and a perceived or otherwise difference between new wine and sweet wine in the NT Greek as you mentioned earlier.

I must thank you again as this discussion is very beneficial to me in several ways. You might consider yourself fortunate to not be a near neighbor. I most likely would prove bothersome to you were that the case. LOL

S
sermonindex

Brother jimur

There is a way of looking into this linguistic comparative between meanings in the Old and New Testament in greek itself. This approach does represent difficulties because although the New Testament is also written in common greek it really is common greek and was written with a mind to be accessible to the general population of Hellenistic linguistic influence.

The Septuaginta is a translation of the Old Testament made in the 3rd century BC with greek speaking Jews in mind, by Jewish scholars of the original Hebrew text. The translation however is linguistically schematic in that although it is written in common greek of the same linguistic semantic influence as the New Testament it is a literal and more formal translation. I assume that this reflects the Jewish Rabbis and Scribes who carried out the work in that they would have been desirous of a more accurate rendering of the Hebrew semantic than they would have been assertive of greek vulgarisms which are reflective of the greek of the New Testament. The seeming link is in that they are both said to be Koine or common greek, yet there is a significant difference in the way the language was used. The Septuaginta was not written for the greek, but the Jew.

An example of this might be seen by comparing the English parallel translation, the Septuaginta and a passage from the new testament which alludes to the same English parallel translation of the Septuaginta and the New Testament equivalence as well as the original Hebrew text.

For example:

Isaiah 65:8 (Septuaginta).

Οὕτως λέγει κύριος Ὃν τρόπον εὑρεθήσεται ὁ ῥὼξ ἐν τῷ βότρυι καὶ ἐροῦσιν Μὴ λυμήνῃ αὐτὸν ὅτι εὐλογία κυρίου ἐστὶν ἐν αὐτῷ, οὕτως ποιήσω ἕνεκεν τοῦ δουλεύοντός μοι, τούτου ἕνεκεν οὐ μὴ ἀπολέσω πάντας

Septuaginta English translation Isaiah 65:8

Thus saith the Lord, As a grape-stone shall be found in the cluster, and they shall say, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for the sake of him that serves me, for his sake I will not destroy them all.

Isaiah 65:8 Hebrew

כֹּ֣ה׀ אָמַ֣ר יְהוָ֗ה כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר יִמָּצֵ֤א הַתִּירוֹשׁ֙ בָּֽאֶשְׁכּ֔וֹל וְאָמַר֙ אַל־תַּשְׁחִיתֵ֔הוּ כִּ֥י בְרָכָ֖ה בּ֑וֹ כֵּ֤ן אֶֽעֱשֶׂה֙ לְמַ֣עַן עֲבָדַ֔י לְבִלְתִּ֖י הַֽשְׁחִ֥ית הַכֹּֽל׃

Comparative New Testament text John 2:9

ως δε εγευσατο ο αρχιτρικλινος το υδωρ οινον γεγενημενον και ουκ ηδει ποθεν εστιν οι δε διακονοι ηδεισαν οι ηντληκοτες το υδωρ φωνει τον νυμφιον ο αρχιτρικλινος


The common terms we are concerned with are wine and grapes.

In the Septuaginta the word translated into English is grape stone, but in the actual greek it can be used as berry or grape or even a cleft. The actual greek word ῥώξ is inflected to mean fallen from the vine. Semantically it carries the meaning of a fruit which has become so mature in season that it falls to the ground. It does not need to be cut from the vine because in maturity it has fallen to the ground in order to remove the outer garment of the flesh of the fruit and reveal the seed which itself is where the blessing lies and the true increase. It is a sense of fullness and increase. We would say its a good and full fruit.

This conceptually carries to the whole passage of Isaiah 65:8 where the command is not to crush the fruit. If the fruit is crushed prematurely it will in the end not prove to be a blessing. It may well make new wine, but it cannot become a full and profitable fruit for the Lord’s purposes. “So will I do for my servants sake” is parallel in meaning to “Destroy it not” in the same verse Isaiah 65:8. So The passage may be saying saying "do not destroy the growth or development of the fruit of the vine because [I] will not destroy the fruit of the vine if [I] find just one individual to serve [Me] faithfully. It carries the sense of “abide in Me and you will bear much fruit” and at the same time it is a warning not to destroy the fruit of the vine. This is incredibly pertinent because we can both destroy ourselves as an individual fruit by continuous sin and others may seek to destroy us by lording it over us. The emphatic meaning is we are many members, one body and we are grafter into the true vine which is Christ.

A possible secondary and more literal meaning pertains to the seed which is in the grape, even as the grape is within the bunch. If just one grape has within it the obedience to mature it will fall to the ground and dying it will bear much fruit. The sparing of the Lord’s hand not to destroy the whole bunch is a reflection of the obedience of this one seed. This is like the Lord seeking just one man to stand in the way of His wrath and cry mercy mercy. Or else it is like God seeking for just one righteous man so that He can stay His hand from destroying a city (Sodom). Just to make sense of this correlation whilst “righteous Lot” lived in the city he is a picture of the church in the world. What God was looking for in Sodom was a righteous man other than Lot because Lot is in the city but not off the city. Abram should not have taken his nephew with him in the first place. Lot is a picture of being in the world, but not of the world.

You can see why you have to be so careful in these studies and not take an academic approach to understanding, but let the Lord Himself teach us by the Spirit.

In John 2:9 is the greek word οινον and really does mean new wine.

If one were to continue the deeper meaning of these things to their reasonable conclusion one would have to say that the miracle of the water into wine has nothing to do with alcohol or not, but in fact it speaks about the bruising of the true Seed in the removal of the body of [His] flesh, as promised in Genesis, resulting in the shedding of His blood for all men. There is always a greater and a lesser meaning. How wonderful is the word of God.

Rationally it is water into wine and it is new wine. But its meaning must be greater than seeking to prove a mans consciousness. It must always come back to ones own willingness to be the one seed in your day, house, church, city or nation. Blessings.

Your heart in this brother has been such a blessing to me also. I am only just come back to the original languages after many years away from them. But I realise in this little exercise what a blessing it is if we really desire to serve God.

J
jimur

jimp

QUOTE
:the Jews drank wine that was fermented.harvest times were the only time you could drinl grape juice.they stored thejuice in containers and drank from the top avoiding the lees.they put wine in skins.the alc. that was in the wine killed the bacteria that caused sickness.there was no pastorization in bible days.jimp END QUOTE


An interesting thought and rightfully included here. Certainly the preservation of fruits and other produce was a difficult task to say the least. However, the idea that it was impossible is some what erroneous. Although there are others the works of two early writers, Josephus and
perhaps lesser known here, Columella addressed the issue. Josephus claimed Jews in Masada were able to keep fruit fresh for about a hundred years. That is questionable and very highly unlikely if not impossible. Still his account indicates they could accomplish it for a lengthy time period if only months. On the other hand, Columella who is considered a major, if not the most important classical writer of the first century Roman Empire on such subjects offers in great detail methods used at the time to accomplish the task of preservation of such things as fruit and other produce as well as grape juice. I have only a passive knowledge of his treatise but an on line search might produce detailed information. Some of the methods he addresses are rather involved and shows a good deal of innovation and determination on the part of those who would have been at the time interested in such preservation.
All things are not as cut and dry as we might prefer.

S
sermonindex

I find it interesting that this debate over alcohol seems to be an American phenomenon. I’ve known European Christians and missionaries to Europe, and this debate over alcohol in the American church does not seem to be nearly as intense there. The “tolerance movement” (which was anything BUT tolerant) in America in the late 1800’s, hitting it’s apex with Billy Sunday and the Prohibition Era profoundly changed the American church’s views on alcohol. As we know, Prohibition was a colossal failure because the government and the “Christian Tolerance” movement tried to change people’s behavior without changing their hearts. That is a failure any time it is tried.

What it did succeed in doing was entrenching “total abstinence” into the mindset of the church. While there were many in the church previously who did abstain from alcohol, there were many who it never entered their mind that the moderate consumption of alcohol might be a sin. Mainly because that’s not what the Bible teaches.

Point being, in the American church the prevailing attitude (total abstinence) can be directly traced back to the 1800’s and Prohibition… and not necessary the Bible because total abstinence is not taught or commanded in the Bible.

Again, not saying everyone should go buy a bottle of wine!! Just saying that if the BIBLE doesn’t prohibit it… then we should not either.

Krispy

W
White_Stone

Prov 31:4-7

It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink: Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted. Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.

Rev 1:5-6

And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Being made kings and priests unto God, it is not for us to drink wine, nor strong drink. Wine and strong drink are for those ready to perish (implied “eternally”) or with heavy hearts of misery. It is not so with us looking forward to the blessed hope!

ws

S
sermonindex

Not saying I disagree with your application of scripture, WS... it is very interesting indeed. You sure have to take a lot of back roads to get there.

Jesus was the King of Kings... and he turned water into wine, and apparently drank wine because one of the distinctions made by others between He and John the Baptist was that John did not drink, and Jesus drank wine... Jesus' own words.

How does this fit into your application? I'm honestly asking, not being a smart allek.

Krispy

S
sermonindex

1 Timothy 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

There is regular wine and then there is wine that has such a low alcoholic content that one could drink it like water. It still has alcohol in it, but nothing to cause a man to flip out. One would have to drink quite a bit of it to get to that tipsy stage but most would give up before that due to being waterlogged. The French have it on their tables in France because it's safer to drink that than the water supply, even their children drink it.

Seeing these things in our day, I can understand why Paul was instructing Tim to lessen the use of regular tap water and to incorporate a "little" wine into his diet.

A little wine is just that, a little. An ounce of regular wine will not make anyone tispy, it won't do anything unless of course one has a weak constitution.

Not set in stone, just throwing some fodder into the arena.

T
TMK

"And he said to him, “Every man at the beginning sets out the good wine, and when the guests have well drunk, then the inferior. You have kept the good wine until now!” Jn 2:10

I always thought it was obvious that based on this verse, Jesus created REAL alcoholic wine. A paraphrase might be:
"Every man at the beginning [of the party] sets out the good stuff, and after the guests have become tipsy and don't have discerning tastes any longer he brings out the cheap stuff. But you have saved the good stuff for last!"

Of course my paraphrase may be totally wrong, but I do not believe that it is.

Thus we can glean a couple of things:

1) it was not a sin for Jesus to make wine that people were getting tipsy on (because Jesus did not sin)
2) perhaps, in the setting of this festive occasion, and in this culture, getting tipsy was not a sin (because Jesus would not cause others to sin).

I think you have to go through a lot of gyrations that are inconsistent with the text to suggest 1) Jesus did not create real alcoholic wine or 2) He did not realize people were getting tipsy at the party.

IT DOES NOT FOLLOW that is therefore okay for a Christian to drink alcohol; it may or may not be.

I simply agree with KK that a strict prohibition cannot be found in scripture.

The problem with drinking alcohol if you are a evangelical protestant in America is that there is such a strong bias against it (which may be fine) that it is difficult NOT to feel convicted about drinking it, even if God Himself does not frown on a person taking a taste of alcohol short of drunkenness. In other words, it takes a lot of willpower not to feel conviction if you want to drink a glass of wine.

J
jimur

Krispy

QUOTE: Point being, in the American church the prevailing attitude (total abstinence) can be directly traced back to the 1800’s and Prohibition… and not necessary the Bible because total abstinence is not taught or commanded in the Bible.

Again, not saying everyone should go buy a bottle of wine!! Just saying that if the BIBLE doesn’t prohibit it… then we should not either. END QUOTE

I've never considered it an American phenomena and simply presumed it to be a matter of question through out Christendom in general. It really isn't my desire to sway the individual as to the right or wrong of alcohol use but rather to more fully understand true scriptural teaching personally. Actually, I have but a passing interest as to how or even when abstinence entered the church, though certainly am aware of effects of U.S. history of the 1800's and prohibition and it's relationship to the idea within the country.
I understand my thoughts and ideas on what is or is not sin, my works, or my desire to please God "are as filthy rags". All I know is when I dropped to my knees before God, acknowledged my sin, repented from it, asked forgiveness and accepted Jesus as my only hope of salvation, I was sincere. When I stood, I discovered a different man from which I had been. Praise God!
Today that same sincerity is prominent within me. Should I be perceived naive so be it, but I feel a personal eminent obligation and responsibility to search God's Word for truth as it pertains to His will in my life in this world. Until I am confident I have found that truth, I will continue the search. I am convinced if there exists a grey area in His Word, there remains a distinct lack of understanding on my part. I will more freely acknowledge personal hypocrisy than gamble compromise of His Word
(not to infer anyone here is doing that)

W
White_Stone

KK,

If it is not for Kings to drink wine nor strong drink because it will cause them to pervert judgment, the wine referred to can only mean intoxicating wine (wine with alcohol). The King of kings never once had perverted (impaired) judgment by partaking in any intoxicating substance. He even refused on the cross. Therefore anything that he ate or drank would not be mixed with intoxicating substances.

Now I will ask you, what makes you think He partook of ANY substance that would pervert His judgment? Is He not a perfect King?

Proverbs teaches that alcohol is for those who need help to forget their misery. Christ had no misery, and nothing He needed to forget.

ws

J
jimp

hi, each passover meal you drink 6 small glasses of wine.jimp

J
jimur

Approved

QUOTE:

A little wine is just that, a little. An ounce of regular wine will not make anyone tispy, it won't do anything unless of course one has a weak constitution.

Not set in stone, just throwing some fodder into the arena. END QUOTE


Appreciate the fodder. LOL

Though still considering man's law, the BAC shows a 5oz. glass of today's average wine consumed by a 160lb. male produces a blood alcohol level of .02 . Though this does not constitute legal intoxication it is stated it does however produce slight mood change and significantly effects driving skills. The difference is slightly greater for a female of the same weight. How often is that drink limited to 1oz.?

J
jimur

jimp

QUOTE:
hi, each passover meal you drink 6 small glasses of wine.jimp
END QUOTE

Six 5oz. glasses of wine for that same 160 lb. male will produce a .14 BAC which is beyond legal intoxication. How small are those glasses?

T
TMK

Deut 14: "If the distance is so great for you that you are not able to bring the tithe, since the place where the Lord your God chooses to set His name is too far away from you when the Lord your God blesses you, then you shall exchange it for money, and bind the money in your hand and go to the place which the Lord your God chooses. You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household."

T
TMK

jimur wrote:

"Six 5oz. glasses of wine for that same 160 lb. male will produce a .14 BAC which is beyond legal intoxication. How small are those glasses?"

where is .10 or .08 BAC shown to be the standard for intoxication in scripture?

J
jimur

TMK
QUOTE: 2) perhaps, in the setting of this festive occasion, and in this culture, getting tipsy was not a sin (because Jesus would not cause others to sin).
END QUOTE

Leaving, briefly at least, the water wine issue;
In reading the above quoted statement my thoughts ran almost immediately to Rahab. When she lied to the King's guard/soldiers concerning the spies, was it justified due to God's desired outcome or did she commit sin? In other words, DOES an event or situation justify or remove sin as an issue to God? Perhaps this would make for another interesting thread.

J
jimur

TMK

by TMK on 2012/12/10 7:59:30

jimur wrote:

"Six 5oz. glasses of wine for that same 160 lb. male will produce a .14 BAC which is beyond legal intoxication. How small are those glasses?"

where is .10 or .08 BAC shown to be the standard for intoxication in scripture?

No it's not there at all. My fault I guess. I precluded the understanding all recognized I had qualified that statement in the immediately previous reply to Approved where I stated "Though still considering man's law, the BAC shows a 5oz. glass of today's average wine consumed by a 160lb. male produces......." Sorry if I mislead, although I think it fairly safe to assume God would find displeasing, one who had just consumed more than a bottle of wine (30 oz.).

T
TMK

Hey Jimur-

I did not mean to imply that you were stating that .08 or .10 BAC = intoxication in scripture.

My point is that what we call "under the influence" today (i.e. .0-something or .10 BAC) may not have been what Paul was talking about when he said "do not be drunk with wine."

I mean, there is drunkeness, which I take to mean stagerring, slurring words, obvious behavior change, loss of self-control, etc. Then there are other very much lesser effects of imbibing alcohol. When Paul said don't be drunk with wine, I believe he meant "drunk"- not simply feeling some minor effects of a glass of wine or two.

Once again, I AM NOT saying that it is automatically okay for a Christian to drink alcohol; I am just against the argument that scripture flat out prohibits it.

Paul said:
1 Cor 10:29-32
For why is my liberty judged by another man's conscience? But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks? Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
NKJV

It is not our own consciences we protect, it's others. Why? Because truth hasn't set them free. But you hear preachers today perpetuating this with what can be called "soft condemnation" (for lack of a better term). Not an outright declaration that drinking or smoking are sin (although they might) but a strong suggestion that you are not living up to what God wants for you if you do not abstain from these "vices". They think they're doing everyone a big favor by placing a buffer around the real sin...drunkenness. The problem is, satan gets a lot of mileage out of making people feel condemned for something that isn't sin. It's another weapon he can use to alienate us from God. And we're just giving it to him free of charge.

J
jimur

TMK

QUOTE: My point is that what we call "under the influence" today (i.e. .0-something or .10 BAC) may not have been what Paul was talking about when he said "do not be drunk with wine." END QUOTE

No problem, I understand and not sure I could disagree. I suppose one could debate that as well in that scripture teaches we are to obey the laws of our country. But for me, this entire issue is simply not about debate.

You stated "I AM NOT saying that it is automatically okay for a Christian to drink alcohol; I am just against the argument that scripture flat out prohibits it".

I desire to be so confident, in one thought or the other. To date, I have not found that specific assurance in this matter. The irony is, though in shame I confess having drank my share of exspensive as well as cheap wines,(prior to salvation), I've never been fond of wine! LOL

T
twayneb

I think that any debate about the Biblical legality of drinking alcohol is often evidence of a legalistic approach to God. The same is true, I think, of almost any question that begins with, "Is it wrong to...fill in the blank." Too many times, I think, we attempt to define our acceptance by God based on what we do or do not do that comes from a legal analysis of scripture.

Lets take alcohol for instance. Scripture very clearly condemns drunkenness. Therefore we can make an unequivocal statement that drunkenness is wrong. However, all of these claims that Biblical wine was not fermented are pretty silly. Grape juice sans refrigeration yields a putrid, rotting substance that no one can drink. It is the fermentation that is the preservative. So the wine was fermented. So by Biblical example, we could conclude that drinking a little wine is OK, while drunkenness is wrong.

But that is the LEAST of the argument in my opinion. For we have a much greater admonition that comes into play. We are to love our brothers and sisters and prefer them above ourselves. We are to allow the weaknesses of a brother to dictate the limits of our own liberty.

I think the latter half of Romans 14 and the first part of Romans 15 is the definitive guiding principle in this particular matter.

Rom 14:19-23
(19) Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
(20) For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
(21) It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
(22) Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
(23) And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
Rom 15:1-2
(1) We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.
(2) Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification.

The love of God constrains me. The love of God demonstrated through me toward my brother will necessarily limit my own freedom and curb my own behavior.

A good friend of mine feels at liberty to occasionally have a glass of wine. He does so only when he is absolutely certain that he will not offend another. I accompanied him on a cruise on one occasion where the insurance company he represents delivered a bottle of champagne to our cabin. He looked at me and said, "Travis, I would like to have a glass, but I know that you do not drink alcohol. Will it bother you in any way if I do so?" He would have let it sit untouched had it offended me. It did not and he had one glass. The remainder sat untouched for the duration of the cruise.

I, on the other hand, do not feel that I could drink alcohol in good conscience and in faith. Perhaps I am weak in that area, or perhaps I have seen the debilitating effects of alcohol on portions of my family and desire nothing to do with it. I also teach the word of God and I NEVER want to cause a weak brother or sister in Christ to stumble because I am acting in my liberty.

You see, the motivation, in my opinion, cannot be legalistic interpretation of scripture and wrangling over definitions and terms, but rather the working out of the love of God through me toward my brother.

Of course, there are some areas that are clearly black and white. But in areas such as this one, I think the love of Christ has to be the motive.

S
sermonindex

Krispy is gone.

I have a feeling that I'll be next.

I am pulling away from these topics. It's the lure of the devil to entangle ourselves in such debates. What we can't understand, leave it be and let the Holy Ghost sort it all out.

J
jimur

The last couple of posts truly trouble me. Having again read back through the entire thread, I find no condemnation, accusation nor disagreement leading to disruptive discord among any of the participants. I find only honest opinionand idea based on personal interpretation of scripture and conviction. Is it not fitting and proper to seek a deeper understanding of scripture? Is the process so distorted that it is inappropriate to ask questions of those more learned than I within such a forum as SI in attempt to help achieve a higher understanding? Is legalism no longer a mentality or attitude based upon pride? I've seen no such attitude displayed in this thread. Has our definition of legalism became such as to forbid the tracing of translated words backward through historical languages, leaving us at the mercy of Editors from the various publishing houses who are forced to change words for monetary sake of patent rights or page format? Have they somehow been ordained of God in such matters?
Why is it deemed necessary to post in this particular thread that one has left and another threatens to leave as though alluding to some nonexistent offensive behavior within the posts made here? I can only offer my apology for persistence in trying to keep this thread alive in an attempt to learn and a heart felt thank you to those who took the time to read and add comments. Obviously there is much I do not understand of God's Word as well as His people.

S
sermonindex

The last couple of posts truly trouble me. Having again read back through the entire thread, I find no condemnation, accusation nor disagreement leading to disruptive discord among any of the participants. I find only honest opinion and idea based on personal interpretation of scripture and conviction. Is it not fitting and proper to seek a deeper understanding of scripture? Is the process so distorted that it is inappropriate to ask questions of those more learned than I within such a forum as SI in attempt to help achieve a higher understanding? Is legalism no longer a mentality or attitude based upon pride? I've seen no such attitude displayed in this thread. Has our definition of legalism became such as to forbid the tracing of translated words backward through historical languages, leaving us at the mercy of Editors from the various publishing houses who are forced to change words for monetary sake of patent rights or page format? Have they somehow been ordained of God in such matters?

Why is it deemed necessary to post in this particular thread that one has left and another threatens to leave as though alluding to some nonexistent offensive behaviour within the posts made here? I can only offer my apology for persistence in trying to keep this thread alive in an attempt to learn and a heart felt thank you to those who took the time to read and add comments. Obviously there is much I do not understand of God's Word as well as His people. Jimur

We ought not to be too discouraged by what others have said, even if they are right or whether they are right. Personally I can’t see anything innately wrong with your approach. On the other hand I don’t think that anything in this thread has caused offence to anyone at all. Be encouraged brother and persist if it seems right to do so. You certainly gave me cause for thought.

S
sermonindex

Why is it deemed necessary to post in this particular thread that one has left and another threatens to leave as though alluding to some nonexistent offensive behavior within the posts made here?
No, Jimur, you got it all wrong. Krispy was tossed out by the administration of this site. I was saying that "I'll probably be the next one on their list to toss out". If you ask why it's because I am not popular either and I certainly don't fit the flavour of this site, for now I am tolerated. I come here because I like being here and I try to fit in the best I can.

Your curiosity into the truth of the word wine and is it biblical is noteworthy and I truly hope you find your answer, or at least settle with a good godly answer that is both biblically sound and appropriate.

So don't be discouraged, keep up with the discussion. For me, I have to back away.

Merry Christmas

S
sermonindex

Found this in another thread that is wine related, very interesting testimony. The thread link is provided at the bottom.

By: crusader

\t
New wine

Due to a recent post, God directed me into studying the new wine in scripture, at first my understanding was blind as to why God wanted me to study this area, also i couldnt see how it related to the topic that troubled me so much. The point that the holy spirit has kept me to chew on was why the skins burst when new wine is put into it. and although my study is not complete in understanding yet for me, this is how and what he showed me so far

a client of mine worked in a winery and he said that the old wine containers contained bacteria so if you put a new batch of wine in them the bacteria reacts with the wine while it is fermenting therefor the container bursts. .

When making wine today the same containers are used but they are completley sterilized of this bacteria before adding new wine.

ephesians 4:21... says it as the following

if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus:that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.

In my past as a christian there where some bacteria (sin) of my life i ignored and justified it by saying "its ok it's not that bad of a sin" or "it's not hurting anyone" or "jesus will take it out of my life later" eventually i would fall about 6 months later into greater sins. This was my christian walk for 20 years. alot of pain depression regrets and basically i lost my house, friends, dignity, jobs, fellowship, wife and my mind.

durring this time i looked everywhere for awnsers in the christian world and would find something that looked good and felt good but never set me free of this pattern. such as; preachers that tickle the ears, hundreds of so called christian help books i even at one stage looked into the toronto blessing but God allowed me to see what was heppening and i seperated from this very quickly.

The problem was and always has been that there were some area's in my life that still had bacteria which i wasnt getting rid off. I believe that five weeks ago for the first time when i knelt down at the cross and gave "all" of my sinfull thoughts to him and trusted Jesus that he will protect me and shelter me from the enemy instead of me trying to do it in my own strength, it was then that God heard my cry and broke this pattern in my life. and i am now a new person in Christ filled with the Holy spirit.

The enemy has been persistant in his attacks on my mind but he has not prevailed at all because of christs covering over me. Some of the fruit from this is a fellow worker was in tears the other night as the power of the holy spirit convicted her of her sins and she has been praying to the Lord since asking him to wash away her sins. My wife and i have started a new life together with love, tenderness and support for each other. As these things have increased so have the attacks on me but this is a good thing as they are the marks of Jesus christ and not because of my sinful nature. anyway just wanted to share where i am at.

If my terminology is wrong i apologise, i find it very hard to qualify some things in such a small amount of space. for instance my biblical study on the new wine is about 15 pages long and growing. oh and my study on the the tabinacle of God well i leave it at that.:)

I now what it is to live a life as a slave to sin and the sting that comes with it but i testify today that i know know what it is like to be a new creature in Christ.

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=39287&forum=44&5

G
ginnyrose

______________________________________________________________
QUOTE:
"Krispy was tossed out by the administration of this site."
______________________________________________________________


This is NOT true.

I got an email from Krispy today asking me to come here and correct this: he was NOT tossed out by the administrators; he left of his own will. He announced this on another thread. QUOTE by Krispy: "but the fact is I asked to be removed."

Krispy's decision to leave was not a spur of the moment thing - he had been considering it for some time AND it had nothing to do with this thread.

God bless.

ginnyrose

J
jimur

Thanks for the explanations. Obviously I jumped to an improper conclusion, and as said, "got it all wrong".
Thanks again.

S
sermonindex

Thank you ginnyrose for this correction. I ask you all to please overlook my paranoia. Krispy, if your reading this, I completely understand your request to be removed.

Sometimes it appears rather odd to ask to be removed, I mean, we can just simply stop coming to the site. I find it silly to tell everyone that one is leaving. But to request to be cut off makes it final. It finally says that your moving on not unlike the one who is saying they are leaving, because in a few weeks or months they are back. I wished that I had your email address though, so that we can at least keep in touch or if you tend to sign into another forum site. Here is my email address if you like. hobozobo at zoho dot com.

So much for the wine thread, eh?

M
makrothumia

There are certain matters best left to the individual conscience and God. "Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself in that which he approves."

"So the faith you have, have unto yourself before God."

The attempt to "dialogue" about matters of private conscience results in doubtful disputation.

May we learn not to ask what we do not need to know.

If it is true that "blessed is the man who does not condemn himself in that which he approves" is true, we should soberly consider that it is very possible that

"cursed is the man who does condemn himself in that which he disapproves for others." Especially when that disapproval becomes a stumbling block set before others even if set forth in the best of intentions.

makrothumia

J
jimur

In essence, all we need to know is the pure gospel. Christ came, he died according to scripture, resurrected, ascended in to heaven where he sits at the right hand of the Father. In so doing he provides through his shed blood the only means of salvation into eternal life for any who would accept him as Lord and Savior. Now brother we NEED know little more than that. Are we to disregard all scripture apart from this pure gospel?

God, in His infinite wisdom saw fit to provide man with 66 books in, (73 in the Catholic) Bible, penned by no fewer than 40 individuals as inspired by Him over a great period of time. We are told in three of those books [inspired of God] Jesus [God in the flesh] said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away". Obviously God places great emphasis on His Word and places greater value of it than very creation. I should hope so great a blessing as to be found in the midst of reading, studying, discussing or asking questions of His Word when I am called home. We aren't discussing if Adam had a belly button.

The issue here isn't if a saved person faces hell by drinking a glass of wine, the condemnation of one who does, nor the righteousness of one who does not. Rather discerning the possible sinful subtleties of Satan by looking closely into word meaning within scripture at the time given then translated from the original language to one using later words with seemingly similar meaning.

Are we Christians [born again] to stand at the Bema Seat and exclaim, "Oh, I didn't know that's what you meant" ?

S
sermonindex

Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

Notice how wine and strong drink are connected.

If John was barred from drinking wine, and we call wine grape juice, why was it wrong for him to drink grape juice?

Of all the times that I have drank pure 100% grape juice not once have I fallen down drunk. But when I have drunk the alcoholic version of wine (I have to word it that way for those that think wine is just plain ole grape juice), I get tipsy.

So, if wine is non alcoholic grape juice, than strong drink must be coke, pepsi or coffee.

J
jimur

QUOTE: Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

Notice how wine and strong drink are connected.

If John was barred from drinking wine, and we call wine grape juice, why was it wrong for him to drink grape juice?
END QUOTE

My question here Approved, would be was this a reference to a command that he could not, or a prophecy he would not?

Yielding to previous offered definitions of the Greek oinos, and at risk of being further deemed legalistic, (only a pun offered as a result of a growing sense of paranoia), consider the following concerning secular English definition of the word wine.

The 1955 Funk & Wagnalls New "Standard" Dictionary of the English Language defines "wine" as: "1. The fermented juice of the grape: in loose language the juice of the grape whether fermented or not." This definition shows that less than 60 years ago the loose usage of "wine", in the English, referred to "the juice of the grape whether fermented or not."

More recently the (1971) New Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language defines "must" as "Wine or juice pressed from the grapes but not fermented". Clearly equating "wine" with non fermented grape juice.

The 1896 Webster’s International Dictionary of the English Language defines "wine" as "the expressed juice of grapes, especially when fermented , a beverage, prepared from grapes by squeezing out their juice, and (usually) allowing it to ferment." recognizing the basic meaning of "wine" as "the expressed juice of grapes," as it infers, it is (usually) but not always, allowed to ferment.

This discussion is archived and closed to new replies. Start a new discussion to carry the subject on.
Archived
1 of 58 posts

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate