Christians and alcohol

[Semper Fidelis]

I never said you anathematized her. I said the anathema comment was out of line. I'm not sure what you were trying to imply by using it.

The implication was a reminder of the dangers of presuming to add to the Gospel requirement.

I think you're wrong, Rich. She CAN be classified as a weaker sister because she was never arguing for abstinence as a rule of God's law. Stop putting words in her mouth. All I have read from her are warnings. Granted she has been firm in her warnings, but who cares? What's wrong with that coming from a grandmother who has experience in life? She's not making her opinions and warnings the law of God, and if she is then you're spot on by rebuking her. I just didn't read it that way.

Again, no she can not. I would ask you to read Calvin in his commentatry on Romans 14 for I believe he is spot on. bwsmith is the wife of an Elder. She is not (or should not be at least) a neophyte in the faith. That's the first point.

The second point is that Romans 14 is primarily addressing those who have scruples that were based upon the Mosaic ordinances that they haven't quite shaken off. In other words, the reason the weaker brother in Romans 14 still has a problem eating pork is that he grew up in a time when it was strictly forbidden to eat pork. The person who has come to fully understand his freedom in Christ is to be in a place where they realize that no food or drink can defile. In this case, abstinence has never been a Biblical command that the Jews would then have to "shake off."

Third, even when we allow for broader application, at the very least the "weaker brother" is not permitted to judge what another brother eats or drinks and say that they dishonor the Lord somehow in their doing of it. Paul's point, to a large extent, is "mind your own business" and that if it's a sin for you then be content with your scruples but don't try to put another brother or sister under the yoke of your scruples. Thus, even if I concede bwsmith is the "weaker brother", the Biblical rebuke to "mind her own business" would be appropriate as essentially an attempt to restrict the liberty of others by announcing "...this is unwise behavior...."

This is nothing personal against either Rich or bwsmith. I made my feelings clear in my initial post that both parties seem to be a little off base throughout the course of this thread. If bwsmith claims her opinion is a rule of God's law then I retract what I have said and she is wrong. If not, then I think some have gone too far in their comments. I probably wouldn't have even commented if not for the anathema statement.

I'm not interested in arguing my view on this thread any further.

I'm not arguing. I'm clarifying. I don't relish this at all honestly. This is why I've repeatedly tried to underline: "I'm concerned about the nature of the Gospel here". I've even said this isn't about eating or drinking fundamentally.

Do you know what would cause me to back off? If I felt like the parties that I keep reminding about the Gospel would acknowledge that there is a warrant for concern when certain things are said.

At the risk of offending, this is rather the problem with the Federal Vision in one aspect. I'm not saying that bwsmith is agrees with the FV but the common issue here would be when people are drawing conclusions from your words that are Gospel-undermining, it is your responsibility to be clearer and not the responsibility of every hearer to learn how to hear things in the right way. This is why I don't listen to the chorus "We're being misrepresented" by the FV crowd. It's their job, if they believe the Gospel, to start talking like they do.

I want to see if the concern will finally sink in so that I can hear Gospel resonance in this concern.

 

[bwsmith]

Granted you may not have used the word "curse", but it sounded like you were describing one.

If you honestly are trying to say that the laws of fermentation have changed in the last 2000 years, then yes, you are wandering off the reservation into crank territory. This theory has been around now for a few years and is on the same level as a flat earth theory.

Citing warnings against drunkeness and then saying "see wouldn"t it be nice to treat Gods blessing as a curse to be avoided?" is not wisdom.

Actually it was my pastor who said in a sermon that the levels of alcohol in wine and beer to day have changed –The wine of Bible times was low in alcohol content (usually ranging from 2 to 6%). The alcohol content in wine today is way more –

Also I found this interesting:

From R. Laird Harris in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, "yakah," Vo Vol. 2, page 969 l. 1, p 376 & )

A. "Wine" (Hebrew "yayin") meaning "wine" (Proverbs 9:2,5; 20:1; 21:17; 23:30; 23:31; 31:4).

This word "wine" is used 140 times in the Old Testament and is a generic term. It can have intoxicating properties which are mentioned in at least 20 of the 140 references and 12 of these are used in combination with "strong drink," (Hebrew "shekar"). The alcoholic "wine" of Bible times was more intoxicating than their other alcoholic drinks, however, this "wine" was a "light wine" compared to the wine of our day. In Bible times the levels of alcohol were not boosted to the higher levels of today. The ability to increase the level of alcohol started in the Middle Ages when the Arabs invented distillation. "Alcohol" is an Arabic word. What is now called "liquor" or "strong drink" (i.e. whiskey, gin, etc.) and "wines" increased to a 20% alcohol level were unknown in Bible times.

B. "New wine" (Hebrew "tirosh") meaning "fresh fruit juice" (Proverbs 3:10). This word is used 38 times in the Old Testament and 20 of these are used in conjunction with grain or oil as the fresh produce of the field. In Micah 6:15 "wine" (Hebrew "yayin) when it is alcoholic is said to be produced from "new wine" (Hebrew "tirosh"). This word for "new wine" is never associated with drunkenness except perhaps in Hosea 4:11 where "wine" (Hebrew "yayin") is also mentioned. It is natural to suppose that this word "new wine," a product often associated with fruitfulness, productivity and blessing, is to be distinguished from the "wine" (Hebrew "'yayin") and "strong drink" (Hebrew "sheka")' which could refer to intoxicating wine. (R. Laird Harris in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, "tirosh,")

Also, I found this checklist about Christians and the use of wine helpful
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1938.htm

 

[MW]

Hi Rich,

I was responding to the general tenor of the thread, not to anyone in particular. Obviously the person who mentioned Russian roulette was overstating the case to make a point. I don't think it warranted a stern rebuke. Further, their resorting to statistics should be an indicator that this is an element of life that is very real for them. Stats differ from place to place and might not be so relevant in your neck of the woods, but they are obviously relevant for that person.

Now that I have your ear, I think it is an exaggeration to say that the freedom to drink alcohol is a matter of gospel-liberty, especially when no person is actually forbidding its use. A deeper analysis of the situation will show that the problem is not so much with its use or non-use, but with the *manner* in which its use or non-use is recommended. We should listen to each other here. One side is saying it is a matter of avoiding legalism, and the other side is saying that it is a matter of avoiding stumbling-blocks.

Which side does the Bible come down on? Undoubtedly on the side of laying no stumbling-block before our brother. Therefore I would suggest if any person does not feel it is a stumbling-block for them personally to partake of alcohol, then they should enjoy their liberty in the privacy of their own lives. When they hear brethren recommending the disuse of this liberty because it can be a stumbling-block, if the shoe doesn't fit they need not wear it. But it undermines our ability to lovingly warn each other as brethren if we maintain a person needs chapter and verse in order to recommend abstinence from a certain action. In fact, I would go so far as to say that such a course is itself legalistic, making the letter of Scripture restrictive of the full operation of its Spirit.

 

[VictorBravo]

As much as I respect Laird Harris (I learned Hebrew from his work), I think he doesn't know much about oenology (winemaking).

One type of wine I make is completely natural, using grapes and native yeasts (found naturally on the grapes), nothing else. The ending alcohol content is between 10% and 12%.

The alcohol content of most wines is almost completely dependent on the sugar level of the grapes. That depends upon growing conditions. In warm climates it is easy to get a high sugar level.

Some wines that end up being stronger than 12% use a variety of yeast developed for higher levels, but native yeast does just fine up to 12%.

Mr. Harris may also have been talking about fortified wines, which do use added alcohol. But most wine is not fortified and is the same strength as one could expect from a good grape crop in a warm climate, even 2000 years ago.

 

[bwsmith]

Sometimes it is wise to avoid something altogether. Wisdom is the knowing when and for whom this is wise. That doesn't make abstinence "nominative". And that's all bwsmith was saying from what I read:






Actually, I don't think bwsmith even went so far as say all Christian's would be wise to abstain from all alcohol. She's mainly been defending her warnings against the abuse of alcohol in some Protestant churches.

Calvin (in the quote supplies) gave the same warnings:

For they either, under pretext of this liberty, shake off all obedience to God, and break out into unbridled licentiousness, or they feel indignant, thinking that all choice, order, and restraint, are abolished. What can we do when thus encompassed with straits? Are we to bid adieu to Christian liberty, in order that we may cut off all opportunity for such perilous consequences? But, as we have said, if the subject be not understood, neither Christ, nor the truth of the Gospel, nor the inward peace of the soul, is properly known. Our endeavor must rather be, while not suppressing this very necessary part of doctrine, to obviate the absurd objections to which it usually gives rise.
...
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.​

Warning people about the abuse of alcohol is not equivalent to a denial of Christian Liberty. You seem to think that bwsmith "would have all mention of liberty buried" when from her posts it is clear she is saying that "if inexpedient for our neighbor, we are to abstain from it".

Thank you again for saying more clearly what I believe – I went to the logic site you recommend, and think that might be a good place for me to spend a bit of time.

Your concluding point sums up what I hope any exhausted lurkers will consider.

 

[Me Died Blue]

A deeper analysis of the situation will show that the problem is not so much with its use or non-use, but with the *manner* in which its use or non-use is recommended.

Exactly. This is the very issue I was trying to get at with my initial post.

 

[Davidius]

I don't think anyone is "recommending" that anyone else drink alcohol. Some of us are trying to respond to one person who has "recommended" that no Christian drink at all. I personally don't give a rip whether bwsmith drinks. However, I do care about being called unwise on account of statistics and other fear-mongering.

 

[bwsmith]

Yes, the beginning of wisdom is a proper fear of the Lord – however, what I said, was “ Since the warnings so clearly describe what may come from use – I believe a healthy fear is wise.”
The warnings to which I referred were warnings that the Lord outlined.

I apologize for misunderstanding your question.

I did not say that truth was found in statistics – nor that we should be afraid because of statistics – but using them and the information they offer is helpful in make use of knowledge.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

A deeper analysis of the situation will show that the problem is not so much with its use or non-use, but with the *manner* in which its use or non-use is recommended. We should listen to each other here. One side is saying it is a matter of avoiding legalism, and the other side is saying that it is a matter of avoiding stumbling-blocks.

I simply don't agree. Again, I have provided ample opportunity for clarification along those lines. Instead of clarity that resulted along a proper motivation, I kept getting more of the same overstatement and blurry explanation.

Which side does the Bible come down on? Undoubtedly on the side of laying no stumbling-block before our brother. Therefore I would suggest if any person does not feel it is a stumbling-block for them personally to partake of alcohol, then they should enjoy their liberty in the privacy of their own lives. When they hear brethren recommending the disuse of this liberty because it can be a stumbling-block, if the shoe doesn't fit they need not wear it. But it undermines our ability to lovingly warn each other as brethren if we maintain a person needs chapter and verse in order to recommend abstinence from a certain action. In fact, I would go so far as to say that such a course is itself legalistic, making the letter of Scripture restrictive of the full operation of its Spirit.

I didn not ask for chapter and verse. I asked for some warrant. The point for the motivation to avoid something or commend something must be for Christ's sake. It is therefore incumbent upon the arguer to present the case in which a certain course of behavior is likely pleasing to Christ. I would even have accepted a line of argumentation along the lines of Romans 6. I take no issue with the idea that "...let not turn our liberty into a license to sin...." I don't need chapter and verse for that to be wise. However the argument is framed, however, it needs to align to a biblical principle, even if broadly, and be couched in terms that can be argued for so that the mature understand how it is applied.

I know you have personal convictions against alchohol use. I personally think that if somebody was arguing against something else using the same tack and not clarifying when challenged with a concern that a Gospel motivation remains unexpressed that you would probably see more clearly the manner in which this was argued from the beginning. To recap the line of argumentation read below and ask yourself: What is distinctively "Christian" about the below arguments?

The way I oppose Russian roulette, I oppose the use of alcohol. But, guess what? Nobody cares.

Indeed -- and I have thought a bit about the use and abuse of alcohol. The Scriptures condemn drunkenness which indicates there is a risk in drinking.

One in four people will be affected by someone else’s use of a substance that produces unexpected “kicks.” For the person who picks a harmless drink, relying on their freedom to do so, somebody else usually picks up your tab – there is no absolute prohibition, but there is a risk, and those who are over thirty have lived to see many who have wrecked so much by exercising their rights.

I know I am on the losing side of this debate –

Because I have seen too many lives wrecked -- and these folks have been well-educated, and often with positions of leadership, some in the church.

Anyone who picks up a drink runs the risk of being ensnared – That is not a condemnation; that's a warning – one that many who dot the “I’ ” and cross the “t” in sound doctrine ignore. Maybe this can be classified as sour grapes Never seen anybody with a couple of drinks in them who was as clever as they thought they were – or as restrained and careful in their speech or conduct.

What would make me feel better is if many in leadership would the epidemic that addictions are in the church . . .

And most will not listen until they've ridden the elevator all the way down. Yet, with so many examples, we think that it can't/won't happen to us. . .

Perhaps instead of coping the church will help each other overcome?
Addictions are worship disorders. Addictions: Banquet in the Grave, by Ed Welch is quite helpful for those churches who have the courage to help hurting people.

Biology may well predispose -- one to alcohol abuse – so does practice. That’s probably why Scripture warns, even though it does not prohibit.

I hope you will consider learning about addictions – “Addictions” are behavior that intersects the hear and its eagerness to idolize physical desires, and the influences on our hearts and nurture.

As a starter, I recommend reading [U ]Addictions: Banquet in the Grave[/U] by Ed Welch. (Christian Counseling and Education Fund)

Abuse of alcohol comes from the heart – a heart whose worship is disordered. With the multiplication of created substances, comes the multiplication of “worship disorders.” These disorders are oh so apparent in the church – and they are real obvious to those who watch.

Insisting on the right to use a substance that “disables” its imbiber – in time of war – remains unwise.

What are warnings about drunkenness if not related to its use; non-drinkers do not become drunk; drinkers run that very use.

The very substance itself mocks, and starts fights – even before intoxication! “Wine is a mocker , strong drink a brawler, And whoever is intoxicated by it is not wise.” Or, as my friend Eugene Peterson puts it: Wine makes you mean, beer makes you quarrelsome — a staggering drunk is not much fun. (Prov 20:1 from THE MESSAGE )

 

[MW]

I know you have personal convictions against alchohol use.

Rich, I drink wine at the communion. It is not my personal conviction that I am against alcohol use. You seem to be misunderstanding what the other side is saying.

 

[MW]

I personally don't give a rip whether bwsmith drinks.

This is the whole problem with your presentation.

 

[cih1355]

I have met Christians who believe that drinking alcohol is sinful because they believe that the purpose of drinking alcohol is to get drunk. I would disagree because I have known people who drink alcohol who had no intention of getting drunk. They were not drinking to get drunk. Getting drunk is not the only reason why a person would want to drink alcohol. For example, Paul told Timothy to drink a little wine for his stomach and his frequent illnesses (1 Timothy 5:23)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich, I drink wine at the communion. It is not my personal conviction that I am against alcohol use. You seem to be misunderstanding what the other side is saying.

I wasn't referring to use in the Sacrament of course. I don't believe I'm misunderstanding at all.

I'm going to say this one more time and then quit this thread because it has been said so many times now that it should be obvious.

It's all about the motivation. As I've asked above, I didn't find anything distinctly Christian in the above arguments. I didn't even find a single point of balance.

It is one thing for me to make a case that a certain course of action may be prudent. If I begin by pointing out that not taking a course of action is likened to putting a gun to one's head and taking a chance that one of the chambers might be loaded then, if I'm arguing Biblically, I need to be able to sustain that point.

If I cannot, it simply does not do when other point out the fuller Biblical position of a thing to continually retreat back into a one-sided presentation of the dangers. If you read the above in their context, every time someone wanted even a simple acknowledgement that there is a Biblical balance to this issue, the responses were as the above: "Well nobody thinks they're going to be addicted."

It's not as if I didn't see the kernel of truth in what bw was saying but her presentation didn't even admit to a fuller Biblical treatment. Nothing about Gospel motivation, simply the terror of a substance that seizes control of you that you have no control over. The Christian, in fact, is no longer a slave to Christ because alchohol, in her presentation, is a substance that seems to possess power in itself to enslave.

In your presentation above, for instance, you make an argument that would even be worth pursuing about private enjoyment vs. social enjoyment of the fruit of the vine. BW's presentation did not even admit to a single aspect where the drink could be responsibly enjoyed as a blessing given by God. It would be interesting to engage on whether she agrees with you on whether wine should be used in the Sacrament as the same line of reasoning is typically used by its opponents about addiction and the like.

Next, as I have repeatedly offered, everything needs to be subjected to our understanding of the Gospel. You'll never see me arguing for liberty for license sake. Nevertheless, alchohol use is a great substance to obscure one's belief in liberty and the way in which Christians are to be taught in how to exercise it. Types of mollycoddling do nothing but have the person focus on the prohibition itself as opposed to why it is being argued for. As I have repeatedly demonstrated, I have not seen anything in her presentation that indicates that the motivation offered to a person would be based on anything other than "...this is in your best interest that you not do this because it will destroy you...." On one level that is a good motivation but it is not a fully developed motivation. I would have liked to see a motivation developed that focused upon our status in Christ and the manner in which Paul argues that we ought to do things that flow out of doxology. Perhaps you detect something in her argumentation that I have missed but I haven't seen a bit of it. Frankly, if we're arguing about a thing in the Law of God forum then this is a requirement and not an option lest we forget how the Law and how wisdom function in the light of the Gospel.

Thus, it's not that I don't see the "warnings and threatenings" and conclude there is no validity in them. It is that we are in the Law of God forum and I have repeatedly asserted that there is a lack of a proper development of how these warnings function. Frankly, one need not go into a Reformed Theology board to get all the warnings about how alcohol can destroy your life. I dare say I've probably had more exposure to the effects of alchohol as a leader of thousands of Marines. I've ordered men and women into treatment. I'm not ignorant of its dangers.

But this is a Reformed board and when we talk about Law and wisdom, it's in light of the Gospel. To argue simply as the world does to warn people of the dangers of alcohol is incomplete. When challenged, bwsmith has repeatedly refused to bring a Biblical balance to her presentation. To chalk it all up to: "Well, nobody knows that alcohol can ruin your life" is dubious as if that's not apparently obvious to the casual observer.

 

[Kevin]

As much as I respect Laird Harris (I learned Hebrew from his work), I think he doesn't know much about oenology (winemaking).

One type of wine I make is completely natural, using grapes and native yeasts (found naturally on the grapes), nothing else. The ending alcohol content is between 10% and 12%.

The alcohol content of most wines is almost completely dependent on the sugar level of the grapes. That depends upon growing conditions. In warm climates it is easy to get a high sugar level.

Some wines that end up being stronger than 12% use a variety of yeast developed for higher levels, but native yeast does just fine up to 12%.

Mr. Harris may also have been talking about fortified wines, which do use added alcohol. But most wine is not fortified and is the same strength as one could expect from a good grape crop in a warm climate, even 2000 years ago.

I have made many (hundreds) of gallons of wine and beer. As well as *ahem* reading about (thats right everthing I know about the distilation process I learned from books) distillation.

The key to alcohol content is sugar. Yeast is a living organism that "eats" sugar. This produces 2 by products, Alcohol and CO2 (fizzzy bubles).

Alcohol levels of 12 % (or more!) are entirely natural. It requires NO outside manipulation or "fortification". This level of alcohol will cause drunkeness if consumed to excess. Heck, we have all seen guys knee-walking drunk on coors lite. That has a level of around 4%.

So unless the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD changed the fundamental laws of the universe, something not even the most radical full-preterist would claim, then these claims are so much nonesense. Any person who claims that "bible wine" has a lower alcohol content is ignorant. Any person who repeats it after having it explained is lying or a flat-earth type of crank.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Would someone just please tell me if I need to cancel our fellowship time at the local brew pub and move it to someplace "safe" ... like Old Country Buffet.

 

[turmeric]

Would someone just please tell me if I need to cancel our fellowship time at the local brew pub and move it to someplace "safe" ... like Old Country Buffet.

Okay, this is not about the Gospel, I have no scriptural warrant for this save love of neighbor - please don't eat at Old Country Buffet! They put something in the food so people won't eat too much of it, (they eat too much anyway) and whatever it is disagrees with my stomach. it isn't a "safe" place to gather In my humble opinion.

 

[Kevin]

Would someone just please tell me if I need to cancel our fellowship time at the local brew pub and move it to someplace "safe" ... like Old Country Buffet.

All of that food! Don't ya know that 1 in 3 people have the potential to be obese??

Why would you put that pot roast in front of someone who could abuse it???

 

[Greg]

I have made many (hundreds) of gallons of wine and beer. As well as *ahem* reading about (thats right everthing I know about the distilation process I learned from books) distillation.

The key to alcohol content is sugar. Yeast is a living organism that "eats" sugar. This produces 2 by products, Alcohol and CO2 (fizzzy bubles).

Alcohol levels of 12 % (or more!) are entirely natural. It requires NO outside manipulation or "fortification". This level of alcohol will cause drunkeness if consumed to excess. Heck, we have all seen guys knee-walking drunk on coors lite. That has a level of around 4%.

So unless the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD changed the fundamental laws of the universe, something even the most radical full-preterist would claim, then these claims are so much nonesense. Any person who claims that "bible wine" hace a lower alcohol content is ignorant. Any person who repeats it after having it explained is lying or a flat-earth type of crank.

Exactly. The fermentation process is the fermentation process...is the fermentation process...

However, out of curiosity, I was doing a search on the net regarding this topic, and what many claim is that the alcohol content was lower due, not to the fermentation process, but rather because the drink was supposedly diluted with water, something like 3-4 parts water to 1 part drink (reminds me of drinking something like a Bud Light).

The two questions I would have regarding this dilution of wine claim is:

1) Is there any credible evidence of this? The websites I read that purport this do not cite any sources. They only assert this to be the case.

2) If it is the case that wine was in fact diluted with water, what exactly was the purpose of doing so?

 

[Calvibaptist]

Exactly. However, out of curiosity, I was doing a search on the net regarding this topic, and what many claim is that the alcohol content was lower due, not to the fermentation process, but rather because the drink was supposedly diluted with water, something like 3-4 parts water to 1 part drink (reminds me of drinking something like a Bud Light).

The two questions I would have regarding this dilution of wine claim is:

1) Is there any credible evidence of this? The websites I read that purport this do not cite any sources. They only assert this to be the case.

2) If it is the case that wine was in fact diluted with water, what exactly was the purpose of doing so?

Understanding that I have NO knowledge of the veracity of the dilution claim, don't these same people claim that the only reason they drank wine so much is because the water was impure? Why would they put this impure water into their wine if they couldn't drink the water in the first place?

 

[Civbert]

...
... As it is, the argument for abstinence has not been built or sustained from a Gospel-motivation but on the basis of personal conviction. ...

Personal conviction is not antithetical to Gospel-motivation. Personal conviction should informed by the Gospel's call to love your neighbor. I am assuming the bwsmith (and everyone else here, even you) is motivated by the same Gospel mandate to "love your neighbor" - and there is the "Gospel-motivation" you seem to miss.

 

[Civbert]

Understanding that I have NO knowledge of the veracity of the dilution claim, don't these same people claim that the only reason they drank wine so much is because the water was impure? Why would they put this impure water into their wine if they couldn't drink the water in the first place?

The alcohol purifies the water.

BTW. I believe the alcohol content of wine is not simply a function of the amount of sugar. The yeast dies after the alcohol level gets too high for them to survive. The wine can contain more sugar, but the yeast will still die when the alcohol the produce gets too concentrated. ... So I wonder how hardy the yeast was back then? Could it produce the same levels of alcohol as todays commercially cultivated yeast? Maybe todays yeast can produce higher levels of alcohol.

 

[BobVigneault]

So Anthony, no one would question bw's motive. It's wonderful. The motive has nothing to do with building a biblical case for or against drinking alcohol. The gospel rebukes autonomous thought however, the gospel is historical fact, the gospel is life changing power and is independent of our sentiments.

 

[BobVigneault]

Today's super yeasts are more able to endure higher alcohol levels but I don't believe this argument needs to be about alcohol level. Alcohol is not the problem, drunkeness is.

The alcohol purifies the water.

BTW. I believe the alcohol content of wine is not simply a function of the amount of sugar. The yeast dies after the alcohol level gets too high for them to survive. The wine can contain more sugar, but the yeast will still die when the alcohol the produce gets too concentrated. ... So I wonder how hardy the yeast was back then? Could it produce the same levels of alcohol as todays commercially cultivated yeast? Maybe todays yeast can produce higher levels of alcohol.

 

[Civbert]

...

1) Is there any credible evidence of this? The websites I read that purport this do not cite any sources. They only assert this to be the case.

I can't say for certain, but I believe it was common practice.

2) If it is the case that wine was in fact diluted with water, what exactly was the purpose of doing so?

Wine is not a cheap as water. But mixing wine with water has benefits. The wine sanitizes and preserves the water by killing of bacteria. And the reason for drinking wine in the first place was for a safe source of water. You drank for the water, not for the buzz. So adding water simply made it possible to drink more water safely - without risking getting drunk.

Undiluted wine may have been save for special occasions or for later in the day. You wouldn't drink pure wine all day because of the costs and the side effects. You simply needed it to hydrate your body.

 

[Civbert]

Today's super yeasts are more able to endure higher alcohol levels but I don't believe this argument needs to be about alcohol level. Alcohol is not the problem, drunkeness is.

I agree. But it helps to know what the wine was like back then, and how it was consumed. They probably drank quarts or gallons a day, but it may have had much lower alcohol content and was often diluted with water. We don't tend to add water to our wine, nor can we drink the same quantities without getting drunk.

I wonder if the several glasses of wine back then would even give you a buzz? Today, I can't drink more than half a glass without it effecting my head. And back then, getting drunk was probably expensive. You'd need to be rich to be an alcoholic them. ... Maybe. ... Just wondering.

 

[BobVigneault]

Wine wasn't expensive. Grapes were abundant. The wine wasn't as strong but when you wanted to use it to relax you just did. Wine is meant to relax. This entire thread could use some.

 

[Civbert]

So Anthony, no one would question bw's motive. It's wonderful. The motive has nothing to do with building a biblical case for or against drinking alcohol. The gospel rebukes autonomous thought however, the gospel is historical fact, the gospel is life changing power and is independent of our sentiments.

No one is claiming that the Bible forbids alcohol. The biblical case for "advising people to avoid alcohol" is "love your neighbor as yourself". What is the best way to go about that?

The Gospel may be independent of our sentiments, but our sentiments should not be independent of the Gospel.

What do you mean by autonomous thought? The Bible does not do the thinking for you. You are to take the biblical mandates to love God and love your neighbor and apply them to the situation and people in your life. The Bible doesn't specifically tell you how to do that. You have to think about it.

 

[Civbert]

Wine wasn't expensive. Grapes were abundant. The wine wasn't as strong but when you wanted to use it to relax you just did. Wine is meant to relax. This entire thread could use some.

You're probably right. Then I think the reason for diluting the wine was simply so you could re-hydrate more easily without worrying about the side-effects. I don't think the sole reason for drinking wine was relaxation. I believe is was consumed through-out the day.

Do we have a relax smilie?

 

[BobVigneault]

You know what, this thread is way too bloated. It's all been said and repeatedly. Some of you are just too intoxicated with this thread to realize that you've had too much. I don't want to add to it. I don't envy the hangover you guys are going to have when this thing wears off. Ugh.

 

[panta dokimazete]

ahurm...in best Baptist fashion...I bring a motion to call this thread "done!"

I'd also like to add it to the potential topics covered in the Debates area.


any seconds?