Hi 4get_me,

Totally unrelated to this thread, but it strikes our ongoing discussion in "To Tithe or Not to Tithe" head on (I'll copy this post there).

4get_me:

One more thing: let me quickly chip in here that those who want use Deut. 14:26 as the champion excuse for boozing should answer the following questions in all sincerity:

(a) that scripture is connected to tithing and meant for the Jewish people alone - are you a Jew?

I take it you gather the import of what you plainly stated?

God bless

Dear TV01,

My apologies that my very busy weekend schedules slowed down my quick replies to your enquiries about the Cross, and other issues. I hope to do so just before my trip late this afternoon to Amsterdam, otherwise it would have to be after my return in a week.

However, you surely didn't read me splitting hairs about anything here, do you? If you do, please point it out. I'm bemused that you're complaining about "correctness" here - tell me, what do I call all your previous efforts at quoting the Bible and lecturing us on the word "tithing" occuring in the Bible 43 times? I find that kind of sly insinuation uncalled for, my dear.

My submissions on this very interesting topic are that:

  (a) drinking wine is permissible, not commanded

  (b) alchohol consumption is not encouraged among Spirit-filled believers

  (c) anyone who wants to do one or the other should do so on personal judgement

. . . and I've tried to share on why I am persuaded about these from what I see in the Bible. Where the enquiries have pointed out something of an oversight in my posts, I graciously concede that I'm only human and try to offer further help by going back to the Bible to take a second look at the objections. How has that become a scenario of "splitting hairs" and "correctness"?

With regards to the tithing issue, please read me well in the lines above - I wasn't implying that tithing was meant alone for the Jewish people; but rather "that scripture" (Deut. 14:26) in reference to the 'strong drink' was directed to and meant for the Jews alone. That in no way means that everything about tithing should rest on Deut. 14:26, unless you deliberately ignore the flow of my statements in the other points raised.

I hope that we can rub minds simply without recourse to such insinuations as you suggest.

Kind regards.

My people, just one thing that's puzzling to me.

Some wines contains a certain percentage of alcohol. How do I split such wines from from being classified as alcoholic?

As a christian I have taken wines with alcoholic content of just 3%, and I remained a normal person. I did not hic or jerk or stumble. I just remained myself. Did I do anything wrong by drinking that liquor?

ono:

My people, just one thing that's puzzling to me.

As a christian I have taken wines with alcoholic content of just 3%, and I remained a normal person. I did not hic or jerk or stumble. I just remained myself. Did I do anything wrong by drinking that liquor?

No, my brother. . . and that was not liquor you drank - check the meaning, and you'll see why. 

You and I may not make this distinction; but outside here and the several countries I've visited, it is common practice when you go to a liquor store and ask for non-alchoholic wines and beverages, they know at once that you're asking for non-alchoholic drinks including wines of some specialty (even though those wines contain a certain amount of alchohol in them). When I first got to Europe, I was laughed at (my shame) because I thought all wines were alchoholic". If you sit in some restaurants and ask for the non-alcholic wines list, no one would grimace at you - they serve you a list such as this one where you'll find "Non-Alchoholic Meads. . . Non-Alcholic White Wine. . . and Non-Alchoholic Red Wine". (click on the links).

The distinction I made between wine and alchohol (or spirits, brandy, whisky, if you please) is taken in the sense that we all know what they mean in everyday usage - just like the Bible would not have made the distiction between 'wine' and 'strong drink' if they were in the same class.

For the social distinction between wines and alchohol, see these sources and helpful links (Robinvale Wines are good non-alchoholic drinks - scroll to bottom of page). Just because something contains a 'little alchoholic content' does not therefore qualify it to be called "alchohol". Whatever the case, 'take a little wine for thy stomach' (I Tim. 5:23) . . .and forgive me if I dare add (not adding to God's word!): take a little wine for the rejoicing of your soul in parties and functions: God will not vex for you. 

Be careful however, that you don't tend to strong drink, liqour, brandy, whisky, sapele water, scotch, ogogoro, and such like.

         Wine - yes, permissible;
         Alchohol - not encouraged.

I hope that is not too difficult to understand now. Sorry for the confusion anyone might have read.

Blessings. 

What about palm wine? I could do some evil for some palm wine, i miss that drinkkk too much

@ teewhy

I aint making no decisions for anyone. Just gave my opinion. 

Hi 4get_me,

Hope your trip went well and that the Lord prospered your way. Please don't apologise, I always appreciate your replies. Whenever they come, the effort you put into them always speaks for itself.

My "splitting hairs" comment is in reference to your distinguishing between wine and alcohol.
I don't quite get it? To me the very term "non-alcoholic" wine is in some sense an oxymoron. Given, it may be the case these days, but surely not in biblical times? In the real sense of this thread, non-alcoholic wine is not actually wine. It's fruit juice or soda.

The 43 references to "tithe" in my write up was for completeness, whilst I see the differentiation of wine & alcohol as a little pedantic, especially when you conclude like this,

4get_me:


Wine - yes, permissible;
Alchohol - not encouraged.

"Permissable" does not mean encouraged, and "not encouraged" does not mean impermissable.
So my reading of your conclusion is that it's something of a non-statement.

Like I said, I am not insinuating anything or being sly. I say it as I see it. Please don't be offended. In the cut and thrust of lively debate, things can easily be misconstrued. It helps me to stick too the essence of the discussion. You quite frequently use the term "my dear", you may well mean it as an endearment, but I find it patronising. But I don't let it stop me enjoying your posts.

Lets talk,

God bless

Drink to get drunk. When you're drunk, you fall asleep. When you're asleep, you don't sin. When you don't sin you go to Heaven!

what about proverbs 20:1 [authorised king james version says : Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise}

i think too much of the wine is wrong but just a slight drink cannot do much harm after all jesus served his disciple with wine at the last supper which was accounted as his blood [through transubstantiation]
its also worthwhile to think maybe jesus actually drank wine or not although am not sure if he got drunk.

lets see: Luke 7:33-34 which states that "For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax
collectors and "sinners.

Jesus contrasted Himself with John the Baptist. Jesus said that John
did not eat bread nor drink wine, but Jesus did eat and drink. This
gives the impression that Jesus ate bread and drank wine. Furthermore,
because Jesus ate and drank, He was called a "glutton" and a
"drunkard." This implies that Jesus possibly drank wine (although I'm
sure He didn't get drunk!).

i think the word 'wine' appears over 200 times in the king james version of the bible.

correct me if am wrong

i'v read through the replys, i'd like to add that the b ible says , "give alcohol to those u desire that they perish", so if u take alcohol, m y question s to is ,"do u wan t to perish?"

Drink (in moderation) and be happy

Hello TV01,

My trip's been good, but tiring. All the same, I'm enjoying every bit of it - thanks

I'll need to take some time to answer your enquiries in two stages so ambiguities are minimised.

TV01:

My "splitting hairs" comment is in reference to your distinguishing between wine and alcohol.
I don't quite get it? To me the very term "non-alcoholic" wine is in some sense an oxymoron. Given, it may be the case these days, but surely not in biblical times? In the real sense of this thread, non-alcoholic wine is not actually wine. It's fruit juice or soda.

The oxymoron was not mine, but I offer that the Bible would not have taken the pains to distinguish between wine and strong drink if God didn't intend for us to know the difference, wouldn't you agree? Besides, there are other verses that variously translate the same Hebrew word shêkâr as 'strong drink' or 'strong wine' in our English Bibles (see Num. 28:7 and Lev. 10:9 - same word but translated variously). This distinction is implied so we don't just take 'strong wine' as merely 'wine' - they are worlds apart (compare Num. 28:7 & 14). Strong wine is made from wine, and there's clearly a distinction made between the two.

I appreciate your concern, but the point is that God makes a distinction between what is alchoholic wine and what is not. Granted that all wines contain a certain percentage of alchohol in them, no matter how small or insignificant; but a low percentage of alchohol does not qualify any drink as 'alchoholic drink'. I'm not so sure that 'non-alchoholic wine' is not 'wine' - that's not true. You'd be sounding just like laughable me for supposing that if wine is not alchoholic, then it is not wine! There is certainly such a thing as 'non-alchoholic wines' as distinct from 'alchoholic wines'.

Some Details

If you'd like to see a sample of a more comprehensive distinction, then read about the Nazarite vow of separation in Num. 6:3 (note underlined words) - "He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried." Do you notice the degree of gradation?

wine
strong wine
vinegar of wine
vinegar of strong drink
liquor of grapes
moist grapes
dried grapes

The last two, surprisingly, are intoxicating as well, if you take the time to do a study on them. The point is, wine is the least intoxicating in the list above, but I concede that in many places the Bible indicates that there's a certain amount of alchohol in most wines than we realise. The patriachs mostly (not always) took wine with some alchoholic content; but as Prov.20:1 says, those who were not careful did some very foolish things. Noah uncovered himself in his tent after taking wine (clearly the fermented/alchoholic type - Gen. 9:21); and Isaac also drank wine with no reports afterwards of fuzziness (Gen. 27:25).

Wine is not condemned as such in the Bible - and even strong drink/wine was used among God's people, as we've seen so far. Is it not amazing that Scripture says wine cheers both God and man in Judges 9:13? Yet, why do you suppose that in matters of divine communication, there's often an appeal to refrain from wine and strong drink as in Judges 13:4 - "Now therefore beware, I pray thee, and drink not wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing."

Second stage follows shortly.

And here it is

Let's remember: part of the prophetic calling of Jesus was that He was called a Nazarene (Matt. 2:23). Now, it seems from Num. 6:3 that the law of the Nazarite is that he was not to drink anything made from grapes - that is, including wine. However, Jesus drank wine, as is positively suggested by Luke 7:33-34. Does this mean that He broke the law of the Nazarene, or that He even got drunk? Not at all, because after the Nazarene had fulfilled conditions of his vow, then he may (permissibly) drink wine (Num. 6:20).

Now this brings about the second part of your enquiry, TV01: is non-alchoholic wine merely fruit juice or soda and not actually wine?

I'm not so sure it is correct to say that non-alchoholic wine is not actually wine. God's Word says that wine is wine, and there were non-alchoholic wines back in Biblical times. In just a moment in my reply to nike4luv's post, I'll attempt an explanation showing that Jesus actually would have taken wine without getting drunk/drunken.

As for concerns about beer and palm wine, my view is that they are classed under alchoholic drinks - they're fermented to alchoholic states. What I still would offer is that, it is entirely up to any Christian to have a personal judgement about what to do. My personal conviction is that I would rather be filled with the Spirit of God and the Father's love than suck any bottle for a few moments and become fuzzy. Yet, I'm no better than he who drinks wine (alchoholic or non-alchoholic), as it's not in my place to be judgemental towards anyone.

Paul urged (not commanded) Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach's sake and frequent illness (I Tim. 5:23) - and that alone shows me, at least, that wine is not condemned in God's word. All I offer is that if drunkenness is a manifestation of the flesh (Gal. 5:21), and we're asked to be rather filled with the Spirit than with wine unto drunkenness (Eph. 5:18), you'd not want to give any room for careless drinking in your life as a Spirit-filled believer. This does not change my earlier views (and perhaps I should be more specific):

(non-alchoholic) wines - yes, permissible (not condemned nor commanded)

alchohol/alchoholic drinks - not encouraged (as alchohol is a step away from drunkenness).


Second, it's a little hilarious that you could be quick to read my rejoinders as "splitting hairs. . . correctness. . .and pedantic". Wow. But you little realise that you've been doing the same thing. I mean, why are my efforts interpreted as such if you could spend a lengthy page being so 'corrective' and 'meticulous' about tithes/tithing, then come off conveniently calling yours "completeness"? It's simple really: everyone aims at presenting their views in a very convincing manner - and if detail for some is key to reaching that goal, so be it - others will state it in two words and not bother about detail. Let me assure you: I'm not being pedantic - rather, I'm challenged to see any issue from as many sides as I possibly can before drawing a conclusion. The question was about Christians taking alchohol (rather than wine); and I thought the distinction between the two might be helpful.

TV01:

"Permissable" does not mean encouraged, and "not encouraged" does not mean impermissable.
So my reading of your conclusion is that it's something of a non-statement.

Read me well - I did not use "permissible" in any sense to mean "encouraged" - I know the difference, so please don't spin me off. The Bible does not command the drinking of wine or anything else; neither does it condemn it. As far as that is made clear, I don't see the hoo-ha about being corrective in my use of the word "permissible" - I didn't mean it to read as "encouraged" (I'm sure that others would see the sense in my use of the word). 'You may drink wine' is saying that drinking wine is permissible; it does not mean that it is 'encouraged' or 'commanded' or 'condemned'.

TV01:

Like I said, I am not insinuating anything or being sly. I say it as I see it. Please don't be offended. In the cut and thrust of lively debate, things can easily be misconstrued. It helps me to stick too the essence of the discussion. You quite frequently use the term "my dear", you may well mean it as an endearment, but I find it patronising. But I don't let it stop me enjoying your posts.

I've used several terms of endearment besides 'my dear' on others, as various other Nairalanders have at one time or the other used theirs - go through other threads or message boards on the Religion Forum to see for yourself. However, I'll respect your concern (if not objections) and withdraw them henceforth with an apology to you. I'm not offended, and hope you won't read me as such.

Best regards.

nike4luv:

what about proverbs 20:1 [authorised king james version says : Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise}

i think too much of the wine is wrong but just a slight drink cannot do much harm after all jesus served his disciple with wine at the last supper which was accounted as his blood [through transubstantiation]
its also worthwhile to think maybe jesus actually drank wine or not although am not sure if he got drunk.

lets see: Luke 7:33-34 which states that "For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax
collectors and "sinners.

. . . This implies that Jesus possibly drank wine (although I'm
sure He didn't get drunk!).

Dear nike4luv,

Taken in all, there's no reason to suppose by any stretch that Jesus might have been drunk at any time. This would be contradicting the timeless message of Eph. 5:18, because 'drunkenness' and 'Spirit-filled' do not go together, past, present, or future. Drunkenness is one of the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:16-21), and unless we suppose that Jesus was walking carnally or fleshly at any time, there is just no reason to think of Him as such.

I've seen quite a volume of views and articles supposing Jesus drank alchohol, or even worse, got drunk! Whenever I pointed out that this could not be possible, quite often than not, it shows that the people who take such views have not carefully gathered the full picture by looking at all the scriptures on the subject. Granted, some have very strong reasons that Jesus drank wine. My persuasions are that the contexts in which the word 'wine' occurs does not give much room to believe that all wines are alchoholic.

Prov. 20:1 is a wonderful reminder of the difference between wine and strong drink - and timely words there: "whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise"

Well, as concerning the last Supper, we are not so sure what Jesus might have served that night; but there's reason to believe it wasn't strong drink or strong wine. . . lol. First, the synoptic Gospels only said "fruit of the vine" (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:18); and this is why my persuasions are that not all wines (as 'fruit of the vine') were alcholic - in the sense of this topic (Is It Right For Christians to Take Alchohol?).

Now the accusations levelled by some people back then against Jesus being drunk in Luke 7:33-34 does not mean that the maddening crowd was right (they said He was a winebibber - meaning ordinarily that He was a drunkard or given to much wine!). Remember that there were many things people accused Jesus of, but not one of them was true (compare Mark 14:56). The accusations were pejoratively prejudicial (that is, they were bitter and biased), and for all of that, Jesus pointed out their bias as untrue by saying, "But wisdom is justified of all her children." No, Jesus was not drunk, neither were the accusations true.

nike4luv:

i think the word 'wine' appears over 200 times in the king james version of the bible.

correct me if am wrong

You're right about that - the word 'wine' actually appears more than 200 times (I counted 229, maybe more) in the KJV Bible - its first occurence in Gen. 9:21 and the last is Rev. 18:13.

I hope that helps - but again, I'm human and might have failed to see some of the things that others see.

God bless all.

A Nazarite is different from a Nazarene --- they are not the same thing.

God said His people could spend "tithe money" on strong drink.

These two are undeniable facts.

Finally, it is illogical to say that the permission to drink strong wine was only for Jews/Israelites (and thus does not apply to Christians today) while the requirement of "tithing" was not only for Israelites/Jews but still applicable to Christians today ---- when both are n the same verse/passage! On what basis is that verse/passage (i.e. Deut. 14:22-29) bing split in that way?

@ Enigma,

I'm sorry if you got me wrong - study the passage carefully yourself.

Enigma:


God said His people could spend "tithe money" on strong drink.

That's what I meant by "permissive" - He did not "command" them to buy strong drink, so please don't confuse the two. How is "could spend" different from "permissible"?

Enigma:

Finally, it is illogical to say that the permission to drink strong wine was only for Jews/Israelites (and thus does not apply to Christians today) while the requirement of "tithing" was not only for Israelites/Jews but still applicable to Christians today ---- when both are n the same verse/passage! On what basis is that verse/passage (i.e. Deut. 14:22-29) bing split in that way?

I nowhere stated that "the permission to drink strong wine was only for the Jews/Israelites (and thus does not apply to Christians today)." I've always maintained that:

    "wine - permissible" (without making a distinction between Jews/Israelites and Christians today - did I?).

Second, you did not read me using Deut. 14:26 as the verse for tithing, did you? So, I'm afraid you got my piece all mixed up - I didn't split it up as you suppose.

I know that a Nazarite is different from a Nazarene. I'm only sorry that you might have read me tying the two together from Num. 6:3 & 20. No, my friend; not at all. My point is that some people think Jesus might have broken the vow of a Nazarite; and in that reference, I asked, "Does this mean that He broke the law of the Nazarene [that should have been "Nazarite"], or that He even got drunk?" There are two things I'd like you to see there:

         (a) that Jesus was called a Nazarene

         (b) Jesus was falsely accused

By these two, I wanted to share that we should not misconstrue the issues: the accusations levelled against Christ in Luke 7:34 do not hold true in just the same manner that some wonder that Jesus' being called a Nazarene means that He broke the law of the Nazarite. No, he did not.

I'm open to comments if you still read me wrong so I could clear the air. Read my earlier posts discussing Deut. 14:26 and see if I indeed split it as you suppose.

Blessings.

OK 4-getme

Sorry if I misconstrued you in any way.

This fact remains, however: God said His people could spend tithe money on wine OR strong drink.

Again: Wine OR strong drink!

Does it mean that those now saying a Christian should never consume alcohol know better than God?

Enigma:

This fact remains, however: God said His people could spend tithe money on wine OR strong drink.

Again: Wine OR strong drink!

Does it mean that those now saying a Christian should never consume alcohol know better than God?

Thanks Enigma, but here is my answer:

(a) Using Deut. 14:22-26 as the champion verse for spending tithe money on wine OR strong drink misses the point. If anyone wants to spend his/her tithe money of either of those (or anything else on the list in those verses) - it's entirely up to them: God will let them know by experience what He feels about that.

(b) remember that there's something far greater than spending tithe money on wine OR strong drink (or anything else), and that lesson is found in verse 23 - "that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always." This is why I've urged earlier that whatever anyone does in this matter of tithing, one should not miss the underlying factor - to learn to walk in the fear of God.

Walking in the fear of God is a lesson that only wise people can grasp - it is a test of faith and commitment
to God. Indeed, God Himself asked them to make a choice in Deut. 14:26 - notice that He did not
command them. From the references on the fear of God, one can understand that choices are to be made,
for not everyone understands this -

Prov. 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Prov. 2:5 Then shalt thou[b] understand[/b] the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.

Prov. 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

Prov. 15:33 - The fear of the LORD is the instruction of wisdom; and before honour is humility.

It was as if God was laying it before them - it was a matter of choice, rather than of commandment. Could you tell me how those who got drunk on strong drink (or even wine) exhibited the fear of God? The Bible clearly shows that this matter of walking in the fear of God is a choice - you choose to walk in godliness [Prov. 1:29 - For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD].

Now, let's rehearse an example of making a wise choice between drinking wine and walking in the fear of God in Jeremiah 35.

# God instructed the prophet Jeremiah to bring the house (family) of the Rechabites to the house of the LORD and
give them wine to drink (verse 1-2)

# Jeremiah obeys and sets pots of wine before the Rechabites in a chamber of a man of God (Igdaliah), and then he
declares: "Drink ye wine." (verse 3-5)

# The Rechabites objected and declined: "We will drink no wine", even though it was the word of the LORD that the
prophet was giving them to do so; and they clearly explained why - it was because their father Jonadab had made
a choice long ago not to drink wine, and passed this choice down to his family (verse 5-11).

What was the LORD's answer to that?

# God greatly honoured the Rechabites with a time enduring blessing - their family will have a posterity to stand
before God for ever (that is, to serve Him - verse 18-19).

Now, God did not command them to spend tithe money on wine and strong drink in Deut. 14:26 - it was a choice they could make. The wise will choose not to drink; the undiscerning will rush for the booze. No shakings - at the end of days, He will prove His wisdom to those who choose to walk in the fear of the LORD always. That's why I take the view that it's entirely up to the individual - you want wine or booze, check this:

wine - yes, permissible (not commanded nor condemned - use at your own discretion)

strong drink - not encouraged (again, it's your choice to ask if this will help promote your walk with God).

The general tone of Scripture is this: God sets things before you and ask you to make a choice. The outcome of your choice shows where your heart is - and the result will be manisfested from God Himself. Wise people will use wine at their discretion; but Spirit-filled believers seek something greater to quench the inner thirst of their souls - being filled with the Spirit (Eph. 5:18).

Phew! Tasking, and I enjoyed your inputs. . . hope this helps again.

God bless.

(a) Using Deut. 14:22-26 as the champion verse for spending tithe money on wine OR strong drink misses the point. If anyone wants to spend his/her tithe money of either of those (or anything else on the list in those verses) - it's entirely up to them: God will let them know by experience what He feels about that.

God TOLD them to do it!!! That is clear, straightforward and undeniable. If the implication is that God will somehow punish those who do it, then why did God Himself tell them to do it?

If there is no implication that God will punish them, then what is the problem if they spend tithe money on wine or strong drink?


The rest of the last post is either irrelevant or only tangentially relevant to the point in issue ---- for this reason. If God says spend your tithe money on wine or strong drink and you do what God Himself said, how does that show lack of fear of God?


PS by the way, you can drink a strong drink without getting drunk; e.g. a small shot of whisky or ogogoro or fortified wine such as sherry .

@Enigma
So Deut 14:26 is your own excuse for alcohol and wine drinking?

Grin Grin

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-9866.0.html

Kimba

Very funny and also for not "tithing" according to the modern teaching!

Its not everywhere wine was mentioned in the bible  refers to the wine we drink, but as as figurative expression  

for example in Deuteronomy 32:33
"Their wine is the venom of serpents,the deadly poison of  cobras."
This is just an illustration, to get this we have to read this chapter from the
begining but lets start from Verses 30
30 How could one man chase a thousand,
      or two put ten thousand to flight,
      unless their Rock had sold them,
      unless the LORD had given them up?

31 For their rock is not like our Rock,
      as even our enemies concede.

32 Their vine comes from the vine of Sodom
      and from the fields of Gomorrah.
      Their grapes are filled with poison,
      and their clusters with bitterness.

33 Their wine is the venom of serpents,
      the deadly poison of cobras.
The bible was talking about the enemy's rock i.e
their god.
Also in Pslam 60:3 "You have been very hard on us,making us drink wine that sent us reeling."

Psalm 75:8 For the LORD holds a cup in his hand;it is full of foaming wine mixed with spices.He pours the wine out in judgment, and all the wicked must drink it,draining it to the dregs.
Also Jeremiah 51:7, Proverbs 9:2,5, Isaiah 25:6,55:1 to mention but few

What does bible says about wine?  

Look at what Proverb 23:29-35 says

29Who has anguish? Who has sorrow? Who is

always fighting? Who is always complaining?

Who has unnecessary bruises? Who has bloodshot

eyes? 30It is the one who spends long hours in

the taverns, trying out new drinks. 31Don't

let the sparkle and smooth taste of wine

deceive you. 32For in the end it bites like a

poisonous serpent; it stings like a viper.

33You will see hallucinations, and you will

say crazy things. 34You will stagger like a

sailor tossed at sea, clinging to a swaying

mast. 35And you will say, "They hit me, but I

didn't feel it. I didn't even know it when

they beat me up. When will I wake up so I can

have another drink?"(NLT)

Paul even reccomended wine for Timothy because of his health:
1Timothy 5:23    
23Don't drink only water. You ought to drink a

little wine for the sake of your stomach

because you are sick so often.

But God ordered some people not to take waine atall and we can see that those people were speciall and they did great things:

Numbers 6:4 (New Living Translation)
4As long as they are bound by their Nazirite vow, they are not allowed to eat or drink anything that comes from a grapevine, not even the grape seeds or skins.

Alcohol in wine
The alcohol in wine is called ethyl alcohol. It is the result of the transformation of sugars due to the action of yeasts in the grapes. About 20 grams of sugar are needed to obtain 1° (one degree) of alcohol. Alcohol is the base of wine, it is a powerful preservative. Alcohol, such as tannins, allows the wine to age. But the taste of alcohol must not in any case dominate the wine and we can not compare this with the one in gin or hotdrinks, even with the littile volume or non present of alcohol in wine dosen't means that we should take a lot of it (refer back to proverb 23:29-35)

Taking Alcohol as a christaian?
Well, this depends on where you are or where you want to be with God because for God to order some people to separate themself and tasted no wine, I think theres something good about the Abstinence.
If we believe that nothing wrong with taking of small percentage of alcohol in wine its ok but remember what Apostle Paul said to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 10:23-24,33
""You say, "I am allowed to do anything"-but not everything is helpful. You say "I am allow to do anything" -but not everything is beneficial. Don't think only of your own good. Think of other christians and what is best for them".
Verse 33 "That is the plan I follow,too. I try to please everyone in everything I do. I don't just do what I like or what is best for me, but what is best for them so they may be save"
I think this should be priority of all Christians.

This is my opinion
Thank you

@Enigma,

Perhaps you're deliberately reading things that are not there and you keep repeating yourself needlessly as though you don't take the time to read through the replies or spend time looking up the verses a bit more carefully.

   #  "God told them to do it" does not imply that if they did not, He would punish them - did I ever make that inference?

   #  "God told them to do it" - does that sound like He was commanding them to do so or He was setting a choice
         before them?

   #  "God told them to do it" - did I object that He did; or did I state that He did not?

What Deut. 14:26 shows is not a commandment - "whatsoever thy soul lusteth after" sounds like a commandment to you, does it? Then please read the text again carefully. You're trying to see it as though if some did not spend their tithes on strong drink, then they would have contravened His commandment, and thus liable to judgement - that's not my inference, it's yours. If they did not spend tithe money on strong drink, God would not have judged them - it was a choice.

God instructed Jeremiah to set pots of wine before the Rechabites - it was a direct insruction from the LORD to them, but they declined: did He burn them in hell? Please look closely at what I have written before drawing inferences I never made.

Peace.

4get me

No need to get heated up or be unnecessarily sarcastic.

I have actually deliberately not taken you up on whether it was a commandment or not because Iwanted to focus on the bigger picture. But briefly, on that particular point: you seem to be missing one or two things:

(a) the people did not bring up the question of drinking "wine or stong drink"; God Himself did! If it was a choice, for what reason did God give them this choice?

(b) God told them to rejoice in Him if they made this "choice". In other words, God told them that if they "chose" to spend their tithe money on "wine or strong drink" it was part of their rejoicing in God. Therefore, if God told them to rejoice in Him by drinking "wine or strong drink", why did God tell them to rejoice in Him by doing something "wrong"?

(c) The people might have had a "choice" in terms of what their hearts desired, but the whole passage is a commandment because it all invariably starts with "You shall , ", "You shall , "

As I said, whether it was a "choice" and not a commandment is a secondary point.

The real point is if it is soooo wrong to drink "strong drink" --- why did God Himself (without the people even raising the issue) tell them they could do it - and do it to rejoice in Him?

Thanks for setting out the points of your concern, Enigma.

Note these few that you might again have missed:

(1) Nowhere did I state that drinking strong drink was soooo wrong - I have maintained the view that strong drink is not encouraged among Spirit filled believers (Eph. 5:18). Something being so wrong and being not encouraged are two different things - yes?

(2) What you call a secondary point is taken - however, the bigger picture was not the "commandment" or the "choice" to do this or that; I offer you what I have before - the bigger picture was to "learn to fear the LORD always". Think about it for a moment: would it have mattered at all that they tithed or drank water or strong drink based on what God said - if the fear of God was lacking? Clearly, God Himself stated that the whole purpose for the Deut. 14:22-29 passage is just this: "that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always." (verse 23).

(3) The real issue was not the spending of tithe money on strong drink - there was a more important issue than that; which was that they were commanded to tithe (v.22). I use 'commanded' deliberately here because -

          (i) everyone was supposed to tithe - if anyone did not tithe, it would be a contravention of God's word on that

          (ii) not everyone who tithed actually bought strong drink - if some tithed and chose to buy other things, they
               would not be contravening God's commandment on tithing.
    The stronger issue in that verse was tithing, rather than on purchasing strong drink.

Now to answer some of your questions:

(a) that the people did not bring up the issue of strong drink and God Himself did - I did not debate that heretofore. But why then would it be a "choice"? First, because whatsoever your soul longs for is a matter of choice, not commandment; God does not command your soul to lust or long after something - it is matter entirely up to you. Second, the underlying reason why it was a choice was because they were to learn to fear the LORD [their] God always (v.23). You choose to walk in God's fear, and Deut. 14:26 was one way a man could demonstrate it.

(b) Sorry, I didn't say that they did wrong by drinking strong drink and wine. Wine in scripture is spoken of as cheering both God and man (Judges 9:13) - and I've said this a number of times in earlier posts. However, even if wine symbolically represents rejoicing in God, there are loads of scripture warning against its indiscreet use; an example - "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." (Prov. 20:1).

(c) Good point - but not balanced. There could be a choice offered within a commandment and that does not mean that the choice within the commandment automatically becomes a law. Let me put it simpler: "(i)This is the commandment:tithe. (ii) You have a choice to spend your tithe on any number of things."

A commandment is not always established by "Ye shall/shalt" - check the following and correct me where I may be wrong:

              A. Commandments - they had no choice in the matter but to strictly obey what was stipulated:

    Exo. 12:5 - Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats.
    Exo. 12:10 - And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall
                        burn with fire.
    Exo. 12:20 - Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread.
    Exo. 20:23 - Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold.
   
              B. Choices Within Commandments - they were free to make choices between alternatives offered them

    Lev 12:6-7: "And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for
                      a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation,
                      unto the priest: Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue
                      of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.
    Lev 12:8 - "And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt
                      offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.
    Lev 19:5  And if ye offer a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD, ye shall offer it at your own will. (no compulsion)
   
Notice that there was a commandment in Lev. 12:6-8; but there was a choice between alternatives - a woman was not to bring everything in those verses, she was to bring either
                   (i) a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering; and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering
                  (ii) if she was unable to bring the above, she could bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt
                       and the other for a sin offering.
She could not bring all the items in those verses.

This may not be related to tithing and drinking wine etc.; but it just shows that when we read carefully, choices can be offered within a commandment.

My points again:

I did not make the inferences you thought I did. Deut. 14:26 was not a commandment to spend tithe money on strong drink - it was rather a choice among several other things to spend the tithe money on - "for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth." Moreover, notice that God was using that small word ["or"] you missed all this while? He said to buy this or that or the other, etc. It was their choice to buy whatever they chose.

Regards.

Take a look at the Bible.

Those who were warned to stay away from alcohol turned out to be great men of their time. Doesn't that tell you 'alcohol supporters' that ABSTINENCE actually means a lot to God?

Thank you ma broder - that is what I have tried to show all along. Anyone could drink wine and strong drink - their choice. But Spirit-filled believers know how to make choices that make them great men and women of faith. Bless you.

@ Goodguy

Take a look at the Bible.

Those who were warned to stay away from alcohol turned out to be great men of their time. Doesn't that tell you 'alcohol supporters' that ABSTINENCE actually means a lot to God?

What a load of clap trap. Churchill was a great leader and he drank like a fish!

OK 4get_me

Let's see:

Do you agree then:


that it is not necessarily wrong (neither is it necessarily a sin) for a Christian to drink "wine or strong drink" ---- so long as s/he does not get drunk?

ake a look at the Bible.

Those who were warned to stay away from alcohol turned out to be great men of their time. Doesn't that tell you 'alcohol supporters' that ABSTINENCE actually means a lot to God?

Yeah right; that's why Jesus Christ Himself drank alcohol?

@Enigma, what is the question?

You don't seem to have read my posts, if you're asking me that question.

Where did I say it was wrong to do so? And have my views changed so far from what have already been stated all this while? Here again in summary -

wine - yes, permissible (not condemned nor commanded)

strong drink - not encouraged (neither condemned nor commanded)

So what then? - each believer using either: it is entirely up to their discretion.

NT summation - we should not get drunk with wine but be filled (Gk. says to 'habitually being filled') with the Holy Spirit (Eph. 5:18).

Am I missing something somewhere?

Regards.

Enigma:

Yeah right; that's why Jesus Christ Himself drank alcohol?

Jesus Christ came to world because of the sinners, He was on earth a God in the human flesh and he have to be identified with the people.
We can see this in Mark 2:13-17 when Jesus dine with tax collectors and the pharises were complaining. Then Jesus reacted "Healthy people don't need a doctor-sick poeple do. I have come to call sinners, not those who think they are good enough." So if he takes a wine it was for a reason.

4get_me

Well, indeed, your last post has made your position a lot clearer. While your earlier posts did reflect this position, they contained a lot of statements some of which were misleading (to me at least) and some of which are potentially inflammatory (e.g. references to "spirit-filled" believers).

I can accept your position as reasonable even though my own position is more liberal than yours. I believe you can be "spirit-filled" and yet enjoy a shot of whisky or ogogoro or sherry occasionally. Of course, there may be circumstances to abstain e.g. if unhealthy for the particular individual, if the particular individual is prone to alcoholism, or "not to make a brother stumble" etc.

The limit is to make it a rule for every Christian or every "spirit-filled" Christian not to touch alcohol. A lot of your concern seems to be focussed on drunkeness ---- well, even non-Christians (Moslems, Buddhists etc) know that drunkenness is not good. Moreover, even many atheists know that drunkenness is not good.

Drinking a little alcohol, which I understand you equate with "strong drink" (in distinction to "wine", is not the same thing as drunkenness. Having an occasional shot of whisky or an occasional glass of sherry or an occasional calabash of palm wine is not the same thing as drunkenness.

Meanwhile, on your distinction between "wine" and "alcohol", do you know that the "wine" that the early Christians used for communion was alcoholic? If you doubt this, well, some of them even got drunk on communion wine. Whither the distiction between "wine" and "alcohol"? It was also the kind of wine that Jesus drank regularly with His disciples at dinner and at the last supper. Hence even before the "vinegar on the cross" thing Jesus actually drank alcohol ---- which is of course why some accused Him ignorantly of being a wine-bibber.

Well, many "spirit-filled" Christians have enjoyed the occasional alcoholic drink since the earliest days of Christianity and many "spirit-filled" Christians continue to enjoy the occasional alcoholic drink till this day.