Covenant Media Foundation, 800/553-3938
The Christian and Alcoholic Beverages
The goal of this regular
feature is to provide our readers with opposing arguments on topics pertinent
to the Christian life. We hope to encourage the reader to focus on the
arguments involved in each position rather than on personal factors. The
authors selected for the respective sides in the debate are outspoken
supporters of their viewpoints.
Kenneth Gentry opens the debate by arguing that Scripture
permits and even, at points, encourages the faithful to drink alcoholic
beverages in moderation. Kenneth Gentry, Th.D. (Whitefield Theological
Seminary), is pastor of Reedy River Presbyterian Church, Mauldin, South
Carolina, and author of numerous published essays and books, including The Christian and Alcoholic Beverages
(Baker, 1986). Now under the title: God Gave Wine (available from
Covenant Media Foundation).
Taking an opposing position is Stephen Reynolds Ph.D.
(Princeton University), who served on the translation team for the New
International Version of the Bible, and is the author of The Biblical Approach to Alcohol (Intern. Soc. of Good Templars,
1989) and Alcohol and the Bible
(Challenge Press, 1983).
The burden of proof in the interchange is placed on the
person opening the discussion, and so Kenneth Gentry will open and close the
interchange.
ISSUE:
Does Scripture Permit Us to Drink Alcoholic Beverages?
Gentry: Scripture Endorses a Moderate Use of Beverage
Alcohol
Few issues have generated
more heated debate among Christians than that of the morality of alcohol
consumption. The dispute has generated responses ranging from local educational
temperance movements to federal amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Certainly there is evidence of widespread abuse of alcoholic
beverages today; this few would deny.[1]
Furthermore, the Bible clearly condemns all forms of alcohol abuse, by binding
precept and by notorious example.[2] Yet the ethical issue before us is: Does the
Bible allow for a righteous consumption of beverage alcohol? The fundamental
question is ethical, not cultural or demo-graphical; it requires an answer from
a Biblical, not an emotional base.
Among evangelicals the fundamental approaches to alcohol use
may be distilled (no pun intended) into three basic viewpoints. (1) The
prohibitionist viewpoint universally decries all consumption of beverage
alcohol. Adherents to this position do not find any Scriptural warrant for alcohol
consumption, even in Biblical times. (2) The abstentionist perspective
discourages alcohol use in our modern context, though acknowledging its use in
Biblical days. They point to modern cultural differences as justification for
the distinction: widespread alcoholism (a contemporary social problem), the
higher potency distilled beverages (unknown in Biblical times), and intensified
dangers in a technological society (e.g., speeding cars). (3) The moderationist
position allows for the righteous consumption of alcoholic beverages. This
position, while acknowledging, deploring, and condemning all forms of alcohol
abuse and dependency, argues that Scripture allows the partaking of alcoholic
beverages in moderation and with circumspection.
Often, non-moderationist argumentation inadvertently and
negatively affects certain aspects of the Christian faith. It can undercut the
authority of Scripture (in that any universal condemnation of what Scripture
allows diminishes the authority of Scripture in Christian thought). It may
distort the doctrine of Christ (in that any universal censure of something
Jesus did detracts from His holiness). It adversely affects our apologetic (in
that any denunciation of that which Scripture allows sets forth an inconsistent
Biblical witness).
My approach to the issue before us involves three
presuppositions: (1) The Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Therefore (2) the
Bible is the determinative and binding standard for all ethical inquiry. And (3)
the Bible condemns all forms of alcohol abuse and dependence. The moderationist viewpoint in no way
compromises any of these three fundamental commitments.
Undoubtedly, the starting point for any rational discussion
of the matter must be with the nature of the wine in Scripture. The
moderationist position is that the wine righteously employed by and allowed for
consumption among God’s people in the Bible is a fermented quality, alcoholic
content beverage. Consider the evidence for this assertion.
1.
Lexical Consensus. The leading Old and New Testament
lexicons and etymological dictionaries affirm that the major terms used of wine
represent a fermented beverage, a “wine”, not “grape juice.” The most important
terms for the debate that are employed in Scripture are yayin and shekar
(Hebrew) and oinos (Greek).[3]
2.
Translational Consensus. The major English translations of
Scripture translate these words by English equivalents that bespeak alcoholic
beverages, rather than terms such as “juice,” “grape juice,” and so forth.
Translations include: “wine,” “strong drink,” “liquor,” and “beer.”[4]
3.
Lexical Relationship. One of the major words in our debate
is shekar (“strong drink,” NASB). It is the noun form of the verb shakar, which
means “become drunk.”[5]
This is evidence of the inebriating capacity of shekar.
4.
Contextual Usage. Many of the verses that condemn
drunkenness (see footnote 2) make reference to such beverages as yayin, shekar,
and oinos. In addition, yayin is said to “make glad the heart” in a number of
places.[6]
This surely has reference to the effect of an alcoholic beverage, when used in
moderation.[7]
5.
Descriptive Reference. In certain places in Scripture the
aging of the liquid express of the grape is specifically mentioned (Is. 25:5,
6; Luke 5:39). Aging is an essential factor for wine to be alcoholic.[8]
6.
Circumspection Requirement. On some occasions, “strong”
Christians are instructed to forgo the use of wine (Rom. 14:21), when there is
a serious likelihood of “destroying” (Rom 14:15) a “weaker brother” (Rom. 14:1;
15:1). This surely indicates the temporary forgoing of an alcoholic beverage,
rather than grape juice.
7.
Ecclesiastical Expectation. Church officers are required to
use wine in moderation (I Tim. 3:8; Tit. 2:3), indicating its fermented quality
and intoxicating capacity.
8.
Qualified Silence. Interestingly, there are no Biblical
distinctions between “safe” wines.
9.
Scripture lacks any commendation of “new wine” (fresh grape
juice) over and exclusive of “old wine” (fermented beverages). Scripture lacks
any commendation of watered wine over undiluted wine (it even disparages water
wine, Is. 1:22). Scripture lacks any encouragement to retarding fermentation,
which occurs naturally. Evidence exists that wine was intentionally exposed in
order to accelerate the fermentation process (Is. 25:6; Jer. 48:11).
Having demonstrated the fermented quality (and consequently
the inebriating potential) of the wine of the Bible, I will now set forth
several Biblical evidences of its righteous employment.
1.
Righteous Example. In Genesis 14:18 Melchizedek gave yayin
to Abraham in righteous circumstances. There is no evidence of any divine
disapprobation in this episode. (See also Neh. 5:16-19.)
2.
Sacred Employment. The Scripture teaches that both yayin
(Ex. 29:38ff) and shekar (Num 28:7) were used for offerings to God. This is
important for two reasons: (1) These (alcoholic) beverages had to be produced
for worship and (2) they were acceptable as offerings to God. If alcoholic
beverages were unsuitable for human consumption, why were they acceptable in
divine worship?
3.
Positive Blessing. God’s Law allowed yayin and shekar to be
purchased with the Tithe of Rejoicing and to be drunk before the Lord. “You
shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for
wine (yayin) or strong drink (shekar), for whatever your heart desires; you
shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your
household” (Deut. 14:26). In fact, the psalmist attributes to God the
production of yayin, which makes man’s heart glad (Ps. 104:14-15). Surely God’s
provision has in view a righteous employment of alcoholic beverage.
Furthermore, Scripture speaks of the satisfaction of life as illustrated in the
eating of bread and drinking of yayin with gladness (Eccl. 9:7).
4.
Spiritual Symbolism. The rich symbolism of God’s redemptive
revelation makes bold use of fermented beverages. The blessings of salvation
are likened to free provision of yayin: “Ho! Everyone who thirsts, come to the
waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat. Yes, come buy wine and
milk without money and without price” (Is. 55:1). Kingdom blessings are
symbolized by the abundant provision of yayin: “‘Behold, the days are coming,’
says the LORD, ‘when the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of
grapes him who sows see...; I will bring back the captives of My people Israel;
...they shall plant vineyards and drink wine from them” (Amos 9:13-14). Elsewhere
we read: “In this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all people a feast
of choice pieces, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow,
of well-refined wines on the lees” (Is. 25:6).
Clearly, wine—even carefully aged wine—is viewed as a symbol of God’s
blessings.
5.
Christ’s Witness. Interestingly, our Lord Jesus Christ
miraculously “manufactured” an abundance (John 2:6) of wine [yayin] for a
marriage feast. This wine was deemed “good” by the headmaster of the feast
(John 2:10) -- and men prefer “old [i.e. aged, fermented] wine” because it is
good (Luke 5:39). Having “manufactured” wine in His first miracle, it is no
surprise that the Lord publicly drank it. This put a clear distinction between
Him and the ascetic John the Baptizer: “John the Baptist came neither eating
bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man has come
eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend
of tax collectors and sinner!” (Luke 7:33-35).
6.
Prohibitional Silence. Scripture nowhere gives a universal
command on the order: “take no wine at all”. In fact, select groups that forgo
wine are worthy of mention as acting differently from accepted Biblical
practice, e.g. the Nazarites (Num. 6:2-6) and John the Baptizer (Luke 1:15).
Others are forbidden to imbibe wine only during the formal exercise of their
specific duties, e.g. priests (Lev. 10:8-11) and kings (Prov. 31: 4, 5). All prohibitions to partaking wine involve
prohibitions either to immoderate consumption or to abusers: “Be not drunk with
wine” (Eph. 5:18). “Do not be with heavy drinkers” (Prov. 23:20). “Do not be
addicted to wine” (I Tim. 3:8; Tit.2:3). “Do not linger long over wine” (Prov.
23:30).[9]
When all is said and done, we must distinguish the use of
wine from its abuse. Sometimes in Scripture gluttonous partaking of food is
paralleled with immoderate drinking of wine (Deut. 21:20; Prov. 23:21). But
food is not universally prohibited! Sometimes in Scripture sexual perversion is
paralleled with drunkenness (Rom. 13:13; I Pet. 4:3). But all sexual activity
is not condemned! Wealth often becomes a snare to the sinner (I Tim. 6:9-11),
but the Scripture does not universally decry its acquisition (Job 42:10-17)!
Each of these factors in life is intended by God to be a blessing for man, when
used according to His righteous Law.
It would seem abundantly clear, then, that the Scriptures do
allow the moderate partaking of alcoholic beverages. There is no hesitancy in
Scripture in commending wine, nor embarrassment in portraying its consumption
among the righteous of Biblical days. Wine is set before the saints as blessing
and gladness (Deut. 14:26; Ps. 104:14-15), even though it may be to the
immoderate and wicked a mocker and curse (Prov. 20:1; 23:29ff.).
Mr. Gentry argues for what he calls the moderationist view
which is that the Bible allows the partaking of alcoholic beverages in
moderation and with circumspection. In the first place, all readers must
understand that I present my arguments altogether from the Reformation
standpoint that the Bible in its autograph manuscripts in the original
languages of inspiration was inerrant. Some copyists made errors, but usually
these were of very minor importance, did not affect faith or practice, and in
most cases scholars can with some assurance recover what was the original. God
never granted inerrancy to copyists and certainly not to translators. Some
errors of translators do affect faith and practice and should be corrected. A
new translation of both the Old and New Testament is urgently needed. This
should be done not so much by consulting Hebrew and Greek dictionaries but by
upholding the unity and harmony of the whole Bible. If the conclusions of any
translator, dictionary, writer, commentator or polemicist of any kind damage
the unity and harmony of the Bible they should immediately be held up to the
closest scrutiny. God is his own interpreter, and He will make all plain. This
last statement does not mean that it is necessarily easy to find the plain
truth of the Bible on the matter of alcoholic beverages, but the principle is
certain, and we must follow it.
In an attempt to give myself credibility to the reader of
this critique, I must say that I was trained in the moderationist tradition and
lived in it without pangs of conscience for many years. When I broke from it,
it was not for what Mr. gentry calls cultural or demographic reasons, but on
the basis of God’s Word studied in depth in the original languages. Of course,
there were cultural and demographic reasons which came to my attention, but to
my shame as I look back on the past, I accepted the shallow arguments of my
mentors.
My education included a degree from Princeton Theological
Seminary and a Ph.D. from Princeton University and a long career of teaching
Biblical subjects based on the original languages. But for years, I never dug
deeply into the meaning of passages touching on beverages, whether alcoholic or
nonalcoholic. I was asked and accepted the responsibility of being a member of
a translation team working on the New International Version of the Bible, but
no passage touching on alcoholic beverages occurred in the part of Scripture on
which I worked. I did observe that members of another translation team were
following a false tradition touching on what sort of a conscience a Christian
ought to have, and I tried to get this team to correct the obvious error but to
no avail.
I noticed failures on the part of mentors and my fellow
clergymen, who doubtless considered themselves to be moderationists, at least
in theory, to use alcoholic beverages in what even impartial observers would
call circumspection or moderation. Some of these failures I considered more
laughable than sinful, and as such, I could not regard them as sins; so I did
not go back to the Bible to see what it really says. I had the tools of
training in the Biblical languages, but such is the force of tradition I failed
to use them. These sad failures of my own I admit, but I believe they do not
harm my credibility as a student of God’s Word in the original languages when
at last I took up the study of beverages in the Bible.
A careful study of Proverbs 23 in the original freed me
forever from my bondage to the moderationist theory. This chapter contains a
number of prohibitions addressed to all humanity in the second person singular
as are some of the Ten Commandments. They forbid us, each and every human being
addressed as an individual, to do certain things such as removing old landmarks
(stealing land), withholding correction from a child, envying sinners, being
among winebibbers, despising our own mother when she is old and looking at a
drink which in Hebrew transliterated is yayin ki yith’addam. The word yayin is
generally translated wine in English Bibles. In this passage it is correctly
translated wine. It is a beverage we must not look at lustfully. It is
alcoholic wine. Yith’addam cannot (being hithpa’el) mean simply “when it is
red.” The following words are no doubt put in Holy Writ to distinguish the
forbidden yayin from other yayin which is not forbidden.
This prohibition of looking at this sort of yayin
establishes a principle, one to which all the rest of the Bible must conform if
the Bible is in harmony with itself, which it certainly is.
We can no more look to other passages in the Bible, put our
own interpretation on them, and say they negate Proverbs 23:31 than we can find
some passage which we can twist to mean that we can despise our mothers when
they are old and say that this negates verse 22 of the same chapter.
Someone who objects to taking Proverbs 23:31 in its plain
sense has suggested that the entire book of Proverbs is given to us to make us
think and contains no firm commands to be obeyed, but this is against II
Timothy 3:16. If Proverbs gives a command, that command must be obeyed.
Another who objects to taking Prov. 23:31 as a command to
all persons as individuals says it applies only to drunkards. His reason for doing
that is that drunkards are mentioned, but drunkards and the ill effects of
drinking are there to make clear what sort of yayin is prohibited, as there was
nonalcoholic yayin as well as alcoholic. The idea of this objector is a very
improper reason for seeking to avoid a clear command of God, which by reason of
its place in the Bible is to be obeyed by all, not merely by drunkards.
That yayin in the Bible need not refer to an alcoholic drink
is proved by Isaiah 16:10 and Jeremiah 48:33. Here the immediate product of
treading grapes is called yayin, and yet everyone knows that the immediate
product of treading grapes is called in modern (but not 17th
century) English: grape juice.
This is all the evidence needed to affirm that wherever yayin
is praised in the Bible it should be translated “grape juice,” as for example
when it is said that little children not fully weaned cry for it (Lam. 2:12) or
when, in what may be the description of a harvest festival, fresh grape juice
is being enjoyed by the happy harvesters and their friends and is called a gift
of God from the earth to make glad the heart of man (Ps. 104:15).
One who objects to this suggests that yayin is properly
translated wine (meaning an alcoholic beverage) in these passages by a figure
of speech called prolepsis, but the context is altogether against this as can
be proved if Mr. Gentry in a reply attempts to use this argument.
It is therefore certain that yayin in the Old Testament may
be nonalcoholic, as incidentally it can be in modern Hebrew. God used a special
phrase, yayin ki yith’addam to name the alcoholic kind. Furthermore, to make
sure no one misses the point, He described what it does to the user. It bites
like a serpent, stings like an adder, affects the vision and the heart badly,
causes a condition like seasickness, insensitivity to pain and is habit
forming.
This dangerous beverage is forbidden to be looked at in a
series of prohibitions all the rest of which believers have universally
accepted as easily understandable. But instead of saying drink not the
prohibition is look not. This obviously does not mean that we can drink without
looking. The meaning emphasizes the prohibition of verse 20. That verse
commands us not to be among winebibbers. “Bad company corrupts good morals” (I
Cor. 15:35 NAS). Verse 30 adds to the
prohibition of verse 20 the further restriction that every person is forbidden
to look at alcoholic wine lustfully whether in company or alone, because looking
may lead to drinking. Drinking even a little of this beverage is a sin because
it is forbidden to every individual person. This having been established, the
rest of the Bible must be interpreted to harmonize with it, and this is not as
difficult as a student untrained in deep study of the original languages may
imagine.
I hope Mr. Gentry in reply will demonstrate skill in dealing
with grammatical points in Hebrew and Greek and especially in harmonizing
passages where the Bible appears to contradict itself. In his opening
contribution I believe I see evidence of too much reliance on other writers
rather than independent research, or even of proper use of the original. For
example, in note 6, he cites Judges 9:13 as an example of where yayin is said
to make glad the heart of man. This suggests that he was using an English
translation, as the word here translated wine is tirosh and not yayin.
Mr. Gentry cites Dr. E.J. Young on the word shemarim in
Isaiah 25:6. I knew the late Dr. Young
and honor him greatly. He graciously said an exegetical study I did and which
he published was excellent. I do not in any way suggest that my depth of
scholarship is in any way equal to his. I must say frankly that he was greater
in scholarship than I. Nevertheless his conclusion as to the meaning of this
word shemer is formed from insufficient evidence. Shemer (plural shemarim) normally means dregs or lees and appears
elsewhere as an unappetizing substance that settles in the bottom of a liquid.
Shemarim is never presented in a favorable light except here. In Psalm 75:9,
the wicked must drink it as punishment. In Jeremiah 48:11 and Zephaniah 1:12
the word by a figure of speech is associated with men who deserve punishment.
It does not support the unity and harmony of the Bible to leap to the
conclusion that the meaning “wine on the lees” is attached to this word in
Isaiah 25:6 where it appears twice, being used of a delectable substance God
will give to all people. Much more
should be said to explain this verse, and readers can find more in my The
Biblical Approach to Alcohol (Minnesota: International Society of Good
Templars), but I have touched on it as much as I have in order to show that Mr.
Gentry tries to make a point that the beverage at this feast will be “aged
wine,” therefore fermented. He can find this translation in the NIV but it is
only a bad guess. The KJV translates it wine on the lees, but the word for wine
does not occur, only the word normally translated as “lees.” It is certain that
we must dig deeper than either the KJV, the NIV or other translations. If we
cannot determine the precise meanings we should be content to translate it
simply beverages and in the second occurrence of the word beverages purged of
yeast. The words purged of yeast are derived grammatically and philologically.
It is interesting that Martin Luther translates this verse as to be “without
yeast,” a brilliant insight.
Mr. Gentry writes that the non-moderationist argument may
distort the doctrine of Christ “in that any universal censure of something
Jesus did distracts from His holiness.” In fact, it is the people who say Jesus
drank alcoholic beverages and created alcoholic wine in large quantity who make
Jesus an object of scorn. A cartoon was published in an atheistic periodical
showing Jesus and the wedding party at Cana in an advanced state of
drunkenness. If Jesus made a large quantity of alcoholic wine for a wedding
party in a small village He was not teaching a lesson in moderation. The
atheistic cartoonist was making a reasonable inference from the facts as he
understood them, and the moderationist should rethink what he has written so
that the holiness of Christ may be vindicated before the reading public. A
better Bible translation is needed.
The fact which most scholars choose to ignore is that oinos
in Koine Greek could be understood as grape juice. The Septuagint translates
the word yayin as oinos in Isaiah 16:10 where a substance that could not
possibly be alcoholic is mentioned. The Greek of the Septuagint is practically
the same as that of the New Testament. This establishes beyond doubt that oinos
may be unfermented grape juice in the New Testament. Jesus would not tempt
people to commit the sin of drunkenness. Therefore, since oinos may be grape
juice fresh from the press, what Jesus made must have been such a drink.
Of course oinos may be alcoholic. The fact that the same
word may denote either an alcoholic or a nonalcoholic drink should not be
considered incredible. Our English word cider may be either. The English word
“wine” in the seventeenth century had both meanings. When the evil nature of the drink (a mocker, poison) is clear, we
should understand it as alcoholic. Where it is approved we should understand it
to be nonalcoholic. Where the context does not make the distinction apparent, a
Bible translator and teacher must use care.
In Romans 14:21, which Mr. Gentry cites as evidence that Paul was
referring to an alcoholic drink, the weaker brother may have been a Jewish
Christian under a Nazarite vow who would be offended if Paul drank grape juice
in his presence. Therefore, Paul would abstain for the sake of his brother.
Another possibility is that the oinos Paul would forgo was alcoholic, but those
who suppose he may have drunk it under other conditions do not notice that he
did not say that under other conditions he would drink it. He simply did not
address the question. Other passages Mr. Gentry cites may be treated in the
same way. What is certain is that Proverbs 23:31 prohibits alcoholic wine, and
no passage in any part of the Bible inspired later can possibly abrogate it,
for it is part of God’s everlasting moral law.
An absolute prohibition is not abrogated by a partial prohibition.
I have not cited many human, uninspired authors. God alone
is the certain source of all knowledge. We should go to the Source. The Holy
Scriptures in the original languages should be our only rule of faith and
practice. We should not be prone to follow human authority even when it is
enshrined in tradition. For example, Joseph and his brothers are said to have
been drunk (Gen.43:34). The word is wayyishke ru. The Septuagint, Vulgate, and
Luther’s German (early translations) rightly say they were drunk.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that later translators
were shocked at the forthright way God in his revealed Word described one
incident of what was an occasion brought about by God, and over which He
bestowed his blessing. Later translators seem to have thought that the word God
used in this situation exposed both the substance alcohol and the patriarchs to
criticism from which they wished to shield them. They therefore substituted
“they were merry” for “they were drunk.” God, however, is unsparing in his use
of words regarding what is undoubtedly an alcoholic beverage in Proverbs 23.
Elsewhere, he calls it a mocker and refers to its poison. God is also unsparing
when He describes the sins of good men.
One reason for mentioning the Genesis 43:34 incident is that
it shows what every Christian needs to know. This is that when an error is made
by respected persons, especially when it tends to make alcohol acceptable,
almost all later translators, commentators and dictionary writers accept the
error as correct. This tends to make morals decay. It is all the more noteworthy
when it is observed that when matters not having to do with human
self-indulgence are treated in the Bible, translators readily distinguish
different meanings of words, such as ‘elohim, keleb and ro’sh. But when yayin
is found, it is regularly translated wine, and wine is understood to be an
alcoholic drink. This is true even when it is impossible that yayin could be
alcoholic. The verb shakar is translated to be merry in Gen. 43:34 when there
is nothing in the Bible to suggest what mood the people at the family reunion
may have been in. They were drunk, and as confusion took control of their
minds, old resentments may have come up, and they may have engaged in quarrels.
Hebrew had a word for to be merry in general circumstances and even expressions
meaning to be hilarious because of alcohol, usually leading to death, but these
expressions are not used here.
This tendency to make alcohol drinking seem better than it
is should be diligently examined and exposed by the use of the original
languages. Mr. Gentry may be excused for not doing so in depth, but another
scholar, whose credentials to work on Hebrew grammar and vocabulary appear to
be much better than Mr. Gentry’s, does even worse in defending as correct the
error of the NIV in Micah 2:11. In this passage the translators of the NIV
without warrant from the Hebrew text introduced a word, “plenty” which is not
there. This is a very serious wrong, especially as the word introduced gives
quite a different sense to the passage. A limitation of space prevents me from
explaining why the NIV is wrong here, but to strengthen my argument that
scholars go to extremes to remove the thought that God condemns the use of
alcohol even in moderation, I will add that the scholar mentioned above (Prof.
Bruce Waltke) uses a grammatical construction, the constructio praegnans, to
defend the NIV, a defense that is totally inadmissible.
In conclusion, I have to say that I feel called by God to
press on to do all I can with God’s help that a new translation be given to suffering
mankind. I shall issue a summons to all who understand that mankind has been
too long deceived by translators. If any will contribute their skill or some of
the financial resources they have as a trust from God to give the people a
purified Bible let them come forth as volunteers. I myself, who cannot expect
to be given enough time on earth to complete this task, feel moved by God to
establish an endowed trust fund. The need is urgent. Are there other
volunteers?
As I begin my response to my worthy opponent, I must express
sincere appreciation for Dr. Reynolds’ impressive linguistic credentials and
his noteworthy resume, which he has generously shared with us as a major point
in his argument. Though I wholeheartedly disagree with him on this issue,[10]
I am thankful for this gifted linguist’s work in other areas.
A Major Frustration
Despite such credentials, formulating a response to Reynolds
is more frustrating than difficult. He holds so tenaciously to his view that he
must dispute every major English translation of scripture, discount the value
of virtually every major lexicographer, and cast doubt on the majority of
modern commentators. He writes: “[A]lmost all later translators, commentators
and dictionary writers accept the error as correct.” Such plays a large role in
his presentation.
Regarding translations: “God never granted inerrancy to...
translators.”[11] “A new
translation of both the Old and New Testament is urgently needed.” A rendering
by the NIV translation committee is “only a bad guess.” “It is certain that we
must dig deeper than either the KJV, the NIV or other translations.” “A better
Bible translation is needed.” While working on the NIV translation, Dr.
Reynolds felt obliged to engage an entire “translation team” in debate over
what he feels was their “following a false tradition” regarding a translation
relevant to the alcohol question.[12]
“[T]he error of the NIV...” “[T] he NIV without warrant...” “I feel called by
God to press on to do all I can with God’s help that a new translation be given
to suffering mankind.” In short, we need “a purified Bible.”
Regarding lexicons: “This should be done not so much by
consulting Hebrew and Greek dictionaries....” “[A]lmost all later...dictionary
writers accept the error as correct.”
Regarding commentators: Of E.J.Young’s exegetical
conclusions on Isaiah 25:6, we learn that they were based on “‘insufficient
evidence.” “[A]lmost all later...commentators... accept the error as correct.”
The strong impression is left that as Reynolds cuts himself
off from the world of evangelical scholarship, he inadvertently sets himself as
the standard of truth: “I have not cited many human uninspired authors.” “We
should not be prone to follow human authority even when it is enshrined in
tradition.”[13]
Let us turn now to
consider Reynolds’ two basic texts.
Proverbs 23:29-35
Reynolds argues that Proverbs 23 forbids “each and every
human being” to partake of wine. He
writes that ki yith’addam, the words following yayin (“wine”), “are no doubt
put in Holy Writ to distinguish the forbidden yayin from other yayin which is
not forbidden.” This passage is so important that it “establishes a principle,
one to which all the rest of the Bible must conform....” “Drinking even a
little of this beverage is a sin because it is forbidden to every individual
person.” “What is certain is that Proverbs 23:31 prohibits alcoholic wine, and
no passage in any part of the Bible inspired later can possibly abrogate it
....”
There are major problems with his employment of this
passage. In the first place, what he neglects to tell the reader is that this
is the only place in all of Scripture that uses the phraseology yayin ki
yith’addam.[14] If the
Scripture is so unalterably set against the consumption of alcoholic beverage, as
Reynolds imagines, why is this phrase not used elsewhere, especially since it
is employed here especially “to distinguish the forbidden yayin from other
yayin which is not forbidden”? I have shown in my first paper that there are
ample evidences for the alcoholic content of Biblical “wine.”
Second, the text before us clearly issues a warning to a
particular class of individuals. These
are described as ones who have “woe,” “sorrow,” “contentions,” “wounds without
cause,” and “redness of eyes” (v.29). These physiological phenomena are not
associated with moderate consumption.
In fact, it is expressly stated that they are “those who
linger long over wine” (v.30), just as those who rise early and linger late
merely to drink (Is. 5:11). In both Proverbs 23:30 and Isaiah 5:11 the Hebrew
root achar is used, which means “to remain, tarry, delay.” It is found in the
pi’el form in both places, which indicates a more intensive action than the
simple qal. Under such conditions, the wine brings on all sorts of
alcohol-induced sequelae (vv.33-35).
This explains why there are commands to avoid inordinate
consumption of wine rather than prohibitions against partaking wine altogether.
For instance, I Timothy 3:3 and Titus 1:3 employ the Greek paroinos, which
indicates one who sits long beside (para) his wine (oinos). I Timothy 3:8 reads
in the Greek: me oino pollo prosechontas. Notice the word pollo, which
indicates “much” and prosechontas, which with the dative here means “occupied
with.”
Ephesians 5:18 commands: “be not drunk with wine.” It does
not say: “Do not drink wine.” The Greek word is methuskesthe, which commonly
indicates intoxication. In fact, the intoxicated state, which comes by taking
too much wine, is contrasted with another form of intoxication: “Be not drunk
with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled.” The “be filled” here is
plerousthe, which is in the same verb form as methuskesthe (present, passive,
imperative). We are, as it were, to be filled up with the Spirit, not with
wine.
Isaiah 16:10
Isaiah 16:10 is an absolutely crucial passage for Reynolds
to use in his attempt to undermine the lexicons, translations, and
commentators. He feels this verse proves yayin does not have to have alcoholic
content: “Here the immediate product of treading grapes is called yayin,” thus,
it must mean “grape juice.” Of this verse he adds: “This is all the evidence
needed”! Later he adds that oinos (the Septuagint rendering of yayin here)
“could not possibly be alcoholic” and “this establishes beyond doubt” the
non-alcoholic content of that beverage.
As usual, his argument here is unconvincing. It is quite
clear that Isaiah 16:10 is found in the midst of a poetic passage, with its
familiar parallel structure. Poetry often exaggerates for artistic beauty. This
is evident in this very passage: The vines of Sibmah are said to reach “as far
as Jazer,” to “wander to the deserts,” and to “pass over the sea” (v.8). The
poetry speaks of a weeping that drenches (the Hebrew here means to saturate
with moisture) Heshbon and Elealeh (v. 9).
So likewise, those who tread the grapes are said to tread
out yayin. This yayin (“wine”) is the end product sought in treading. The
statement is an effecto pro causa, a substituting of the ultimate effect for
the cause, which is not uncommon in Hebrew poetry.[15]
In fact, there is probably an indication of the failure of the production of
wine here in the taking away of “the gladness and joy” mentioned in 10a,
because yayin is associated with “making glad the heart.”[16]
I am almost out of space, but let me quickly mention the
following.
Reynolds uses question-begging as a tool for sorting out
good (non-alcoholic) from bad (alcoholic) wine: “Wherever Yayin is praised in
the Bible it should be translated grape juice.” “When the evil nature of the
drink... is clear we should understand it as alcoholic. Where it is approved we should understand it
be nonalcoholic.” This is tantamount to arguing: (a) The Bible forbids the
drinking of alcoholic oinos and yayin. (b) We know that oinos and yayin are
alcoholic if they are forbidden.
Elsewhere Reynolds complains “if Jesus made a large quantity
of alcoholic wine for a wedding party in a small village He was not teaching a
lesson in moderation.” (Jesus apparently made about 120 gallons of wine [John
2:6]). How can Reynolds know this was too much wine? How many people were
present? We know of Jesus, His mother, the disciples (John 2:1-2), the wedding
couple, the servants (v. 5), and the headwaiter (v. 9). Surely there were many more. And how long
was this wine to last? Wedding feasts generally lasted a few days. And who says
they had to all drink it at that time? Was there never anything left over after
a wedding?
In reply to my worthy opponent, Mr. Gentry, I must begin by
stating that I must insist that the debate should be decided on the basis of
the Bible, the Word of God revealed in the original languages in which God
chose to make Himself and His plan for mankind known to our finite minds.
I repeat and insist upon it that no translator subsequent to
the closing of the canon of Scripture has been granted the gift of inerrancy,
and I am very insistent that I claim no such gift for myself, although Mr.
Gentry seems to suggest that I think of myself as inerrant. My scholarship has
many flaws, but when God gives me the ability to see the truth and reject
errors I must take my stand as Luther did at Worms. I cannot do otherwise.
Let us honestly and zealously attempt to solve the alcohol
problem by searching the Scripture (John 5:39; Acts 17:11). This searching, if
it is to be sound and effective, must be done in the original languages.
Patient exegesis is the only way, and for this debate to be very meaningful,
Mr. Gentry should seek to destroy my arguments and not waste his readers’ time
and take up space in Antithesis pointing out that my studies may have led me to
be innovative. Innovations which attack the unity and harmony of Scripture
should be opposed, but mine are based on a sound principle which is to
determine what the inspired authors meant readers to understand. As a basis for
making a decision, I seek, by using legitimate tools of exegesis, to relieve
the reader of the idea that the Bible is a confusing book. As commonly translated,
the Bible in speaking of yayin says it is a mocker (Prov. 20:1), is poisonous
(Hos. 7:5 if translated correctly) and is not to be so much as looked at. No
suggestion is made in these passages that if used in moderation it is an
approved drink. The Holy Bible as commonly translated says this same substance
may be purchased by a religious person under certain circumstances with the
money he would otherwise give as a tithe and that he may give it along with
another intoxicating beverage to the fatherless and other needy persons (Deut.
14:26-29). Nothing is said about moderation or withholding the dangerous drug
from children. The implication is that they would be invited to drink freely.
What would we think about a mere human teacher who would
speak so confusingly? If we did not reject him there would be something
seriously wrong with our judgment. I protest that Mr. Gentry’s attempt to
refute me because I don’t follow a well worn but delusive path should be
utterly rejected. Innovations are not necessarily evil. If they discover long
hidden truths and reveal the Bible’s unity and harmony they should be accepted,
unless they can be proved to be linguistically and philologically wrong.
Translators, when indulgence in alcohol or being
self-indulgent in other ways is not in view, have been very properly willing to
translate a word in different ways to uphold the unity and harmony of the
Bible. For example, the Hebrew word ‘elohim when used with a singular verb
regularly means the one true God, and when used with a plural verb, it usually
means pagan, false deities. But in Genesis 20:13 and 35:7, ‘elohim is construed
with plural verbs, but translators are united in rendering it as singular. Why
do they do so? Apparently in the case of Genesis 20:13 it is more comfortable
to assume that Abraham did not deceive Abimelech, a polytheist, by giving the
impression that he too was a polytheist. Yet Abraham was not always guiltless
of deception. If we did not have Genesis 35:7 and Joshua 24:19, it would be
natural to assume that this is another example of Abraham’s deception, but
since we have these other passages, it is possible to say that what appears to
be a rule of Hebrew grammar has a few exceptions. This being established, it is
proper to ignore what otherwise would seem to be a grammatical rule and
translate the passage in Genesis 20:13 as “God caused me to wander.”
This point is made to show to what lengths translators have
gone to preserve the unity and harmony of the Scriptures. They are right in
doing so. Many words are translated in different ways when the translator
thinks the unity and harmony of the Bible demand it. If grammar can be
overlooked for this reason, ought not scholars to admit for the same reason
that yayin, shekar, tirosh, and oinos all have two possible meanings, one a
forbidden alcoholic beverage and the other a harmless, permitted drink?
In a prescientific age it would be natural to name drinks
from their principal ingredient, regardless of their alcoholic content or lack
of it. In English we have an example of this in the word “cider” for apple
juice, whether alcoholic or not.
Gentry makes a point of the fact that the phrase yayin ki
yith’addam is used only once in Scripture. He implies that because it is used
only once the prohibition connected with it may be safely ignored. He thus
appears to be telling God how to teach. God only needs to command once, and
after that one command is given, He expects to be obeyed. An officer in modern
warfare may make one rule, perhaps by prohibiting something, and then go on to
something else and finally close his instruction without repeating the
prohibition. One under his authority cannot disobey the order and then try to
shift the blame to his superior saying, he only said it once. That one act of
disobedience may cause the whole battle plan to fail, and no one is to blame
but the one who disobeyed.
Gentry suggests that the prohibition applies only to the
winebibbers of verse 20 and the drunkards of verse 29 and 30. But no command at
all is given to these winebibbers and drunkards. They are treated as a group.
All the prohibitions in this chapter are in the singular. In verse 20 one
individual (standing for all mankind as in the Ten Commandments) is prohibited
from being in the company of such as are accustomed to drink. Even if he
abstains, he is still not to be in their company. We must treat Scripture
seriously. Are the winebibbers and drunkards addressed and told not to drink?
No; the command not to look at yayin ki yith’addam is addressed to a single
person, and he is not included among the drunkards previously mentioned. To
mean what Gentry thinks it means, the passage would have to be phrased
differently.
The arguments Gentry proposes for translating yayin in
Isaiah 16:10 as wine are unconvincing. He proposes that as a poetical figure of
speech Isaiah was calling grape juice wine as “wine as the product sought in
treading.” This is an example of making the Bible mean what the interpreter
wants it to mean. He cannot know what the Moabites sought. The passage shows
that they were starving. There were no grapes to press, but if there had been
they would have eaten them at once. Hunger was their problem and even if they
were alcoholics they would have to satisfy this need first. Hebrew poetry brings
the reader’s mind to the current situation in vivid language; it does not
distract the mind with an alleged, far-off goal. Mr. Gentry’s idea that “joy
and gladness” suggests wine is contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture.
Alcoholic wine, a dangerous drug, is painted in Scripture in the darkest
colors. In Psalm 104:15, that which causes gladness should be interpreted as a
happy grape harvest festival when the yayin (grape juice) is drunk by the
joyful harvesters as it comes fresh out of the press.
It is not question begging to propose that certain words in
the Bible have more than one meaning. If it were, every translator would be
guilty.
Gentry seems offended that I am critical of Bruce Waltke for
defending the grossly improper rendering of Micah 2:11 in the NIV which
introduces a word (plenty) not in the original. Dr. Waltke’s defense of this
innovation (that it is an example of constructio praegnanas)is totally without
merit, and he has as yet not attempted to defend it in private correspondence
with me. Instead of seriously dealing with the problem, Gentry holds me up to
contempt for even venturing to be critical of Dr. Waltke. This is not the way a
debate ought to be conducted. I believe it is not irreverent for me, a humble
servant of Jesus, to quote what He said in John 18:23: “If I have spoken evil,
bear witness to the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?”
I would urge the reader to reread the wide array of evidence
for the righteous consumption of alcoholic wine in my first installment. Notice
I employ a great many Scriptures and references to the consensus of reputable
lexicons and translations to support my view.
Reynolds, however, employs only a few verses (primarily Prov. 23:29ff
and Is. 16:10) and admits to presenting “innovations...based on sound
principle” in an attempt to “discover long hidden truths.” His case is that
weak.
Despite Reynolds, the wine of the Bible was alcoholic:
People could be intoxicated by it (Gen.9:21; I Sam. 1:14; Is. 28:1; Jer. 23:9).
Believers were urged not to linger long over it (Prov. 23:30; Is. 5:11, 22;
28:1, 7; I Tim. 23:3,8; Tit. 1:7; 2:3). Priests were forbidden wine when
engaging in sacerdotal activities (Lev. 10:9; Ex. 44:21), because it was
alcoholic and could accidentally endanger worship (cf. Lev. 10:1-3). Even our
Lord freely made (John 2:9, 10, cf. Luke 5:39) and partook of alcoholic wine,
which led the Pharisees to falsely call Him a drunkard (Luke 7:33-35).
The Scriptures even allude to the allowed fermentation of
wine “on the lees” and in wine bottles (Job 32:19; Prov. 3:10; Is. 25:6; Jer.
48:11; Zeph. 1:12; Matt. 9:17; Luke 7:37).
Consequently, the preferred wine of Scripture is aged, i.e., fermented
(e.g., Is. 25:6; Luke 5:39). In fact, Scripture allows the partaking of “all
sorts of wines” (Neh. 5:18[17])
when taken in moderation—for the Bible resolutely condemns all inordinate
imbibing which leads to drunkenness (Gen. 19:32; Prov. 23:29-35; Jer. 13:13-14;
Ez. 23:28, 33; Hos. 4:11; Matt. 24:29; Luke 12:45; 21:34; Rom. 13:13; I Cor.
5:11; 6:10; Gal. 5:19,21; Eph. 5:18).
Reynolds argues that Proverbs 20:1 and Hosea 7:5 forbid wine
use by calling wine a “mocker” and “poisonous.” He adds that “no suggestion is made in these passages
that if used in moderation it is an approved drink”! But:
Any unbiased reading of the text, however, clearly shows
that verses 29-30 are quite relevant to the instruction in verses 31-15. In
verse 20 the writer warns (in the singular!) of the danger of being with
immoderate drinkers; such will lead to “poverty” (v.21). Then he warns later
about those (plural) who “linger long” (v.29) over wine: such will be led to
“woe” (vv.29-30, cf. v. 21).
Then the reader (singular, Heb.) is warned of that type of
wine consumption that comes from running with “heavy drinkers.” The writer
rhetorically asks, “Who has woe?” He answers, “Those who linger long at the
wine.” Consequently, after such long lingering he warns his reader (singular):
“at the last” (i.e., after inordinate long lingering, v. 32) wine bites,
stings, and distorts (vv. 32-35). The root of the word “at the last” (Heb.,
achar, v. 32a) is the very one that appears in “linger long” in v. 30! The
individual (singular) to whom he speaks must recognize that, and he must not be
drawn to lingering long over wine (cf. Is.
5:11, 22).
It is clear that the Scripture allows a moderate, wise
partaking of alcoholic beverages. It is just as evident that the Bible
prohibits abusive consumption. There should be no confusion or “hidden truth”
regarding the word here. All is very clear: “In all things moderation!” Let me
close with three Scripture citations.
“He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for
the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; And wine
that maketh glad the heart of man” (Ps. 104:14-15).
“Thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul
desires, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for
whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God,
and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household” (Deut. 14:26).
“And the LORD of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all
people on this mountain; an banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow,
and refined, aged wine” (Is. 25:6).
[1] I will
leave it to my opponent to document the prevalence of alcohol abuse, if he so
desires.
[2] See, for
example: Gen. 9:21; Gen. 19:32; I Sam. 1:14-15; Prov. 23:20-21, 29-35; Is.
28:1; 29:9; 49:26; 51:21; Jer. 13:13-14; 23:9; 25:27; Ezek. 23:28, 33; Hos.
4:11; Joel 1:5; Matt. 24:29; Luke 12:45, 21:34; Rom. 13:13; I Cor. 5:11; 6:10;
Gal. 5:19,21; Eph. 5:18.
[3] See:
Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon
of the Old Testament, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), pp. 406, 1016. Benjamin
Davidson, The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1970), pp. 303, 716. Joseph H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 564. See the English
“wine” in The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1971), 2.3788. See also usch etymological dictionaries as
John M’Clintock and James Srong, Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and
Ecclesiastical Literature, (Grand Rapids: Baker, rep. 1969 [1887]). Carl
Darling Buck, A Dictionary of Selected Synonymns in the Principal Indo-European
Langauges (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949). Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological
Dictionary of the English Language, (New York: Elsevier, 1966). Robert K.
Barnhardt, The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology, (Bronx, NY: H.W. Wilson,
1988).
[4] Authorized
Version (King James); American Standard Version, Moffatt’s Holy Bible: A New Translation;
Revised Standard Version; New English Bible; Weymouth;s New Testament in Modern
Speech; Williams’ In the Language of the People; Beck’s In the Language of
Today; Amplified Bible; New International Version.
[5] Brown,
Driver, and Briggs, Lexicon p. 1016.
[6] Judges
9:13; II Sam. 13:28; Est. 1:10; Ps. 104:14-15; Eccl. 9:7; 10:19; Zech. 9:15;
10:7.
[7]
Drunkenness deoes not ‘make glad the heart’ and is not spoken of in a righteous
context for beverage consumption. Rather, it brings woe and sorrow (Prov.
23:29-35).
[8] Of Isaiah
25:6, E.J. Young writes: “By means of gradation, Isaiah now characterizes the
banquet as one of wine that is matured by resting undisturbed on the lees. A
play upon words as well as a gradation appears between shemanium (fat things)
and shemarim (lees). This latter word
originally signified holders or preservers and then came to designate the wines
that had rested a long time on sediment or dregs, and so had become more
valuable. The wine lay n the lees to
increase its strength and color.” Young, The Book of Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Wm.
B. Eerdmans, 1969), 3.193.
[9] Please
notice that this argument from silence is put last. Nevertheless, it would seem
that if there were a prohibition against the consumption of alcoholic
beverages, there should be evidence in Scripture of the careful handling and
production of grape juice in order to arrest fermentation.
[10] In my The
Christian and Alcoholic Beverages, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), I interact with
Reynolds due to his stature.
[11] I might add
that neither did He do so for independent scholars, such as Dr. Reynolds.
[12] He admits
the futility of his efforts to alter the translational consensus of these
numerous evangelical linguistic scholars: “I tried to get this team to correct
the obvious error but to no avail.” It is sad that a noteworthy team of
evangelical scholars could make such an “obvious” error!
[13] Thankfully
he accepts the “reformed standpoint: (sc., tradition) of the inerrancy of the
autographa of Scritpure.
[14] His
lexical point, which I grant for the sake of argument, is that the highpa’el
verbal construction (which is the reflexive of the pi’el, having a long [i.e.,
dagesh bearing] middle root consonant) of yith’addam suggests ‘makes itslef
red’ more than merely ‘when it is red’.
This, to Reynolds, is indicative of its alcoholic nature, for alcohol
tends to redden the nose and face in an alcoholic.
[15] In Job 3:3
a geber (“mighty man”) is said to be “conceived” in the word. In Job 10:10, Job
refers to his father’s sperm as if it were Job himslef, because he eventually
arose from it.
[16] II Sam.
13:28; Est. 1:10; Ps. 104:14-15; Eccl. 9:7; 10:19; Zech 9:15; 10:7.
[17] Remember
that one allowed alcoholic beveratge is shekar (“strong drink”), which is a
noun related to the verb for shakar (“drunk”) and also to shikkar (“drunkard”)
and shikkaron (“drunkennes”). See Deut. 14:26 and Num 28:7.
[18] He
misunderstands my argument when he makes this statement, however. See my
earlier context to which he refers.