Kort Opsummering
Denne video undersøger yderligere argumenter for moderat alkoholforbrug og tilbageviser dem ved at analysere bibelske tekster og historisk kontekst. Den fremhæver, at ordet "vin" historisk set har haft en bredere betydning end blot en fermenteret drik, og at bibelsk "druk" refererer til en proces, ikke kun en tilstand. Videoen argumenterer imod brugen af bibelske passager til at retfærdiggøre alkoholforbrug og understreger vigtigheden af ædruelighed og lydighed mod Guds ord.
- Ordet "vin" havde historisk set en bredere betydning, der inkluderede ufermenteret druesaft.
- Bibelsk "druk" beskrives som en proces, der begynder ved første slurk, ikke kun en fremskreden tilstand af beruselse.
- Passager som brylluppet i Kana og Jesu sidste nadver bruges ofte forkert til at retfærdiggøre alkoholforbrug.
- Det er vigtigt at undgå at påtvinge moderne forståelser på antikke tekster og at adlyde Guds ord om ædruelighed.
Videoen introducerer emnet om at undersøge yderligere argumenter, som folk bruger til at støtte moderat alkoholforbrug, og hvordan disse argumenter kan tilbagevises ved at se på, hvad Bibelen siger om emnet. Den bygger videre på en tidligere video, der dækkede nogle grundlæggende bibelske perspektiver på alkohol.
Nogle hævder, at leksika definerer "vin" udelukkende som en fermenteret drik. Selvom leksika er nyttige ressourcer, er de ikke ufejlbarlige. Historisk set blev "vin" brugt bredt om ethvert produkt af druen, uden nødvendigvis at henvise til alkoholindhold, hvilket bekræftes af antikke græske talere og brugen af ordet i hebraisk, latin og engelsk. Ord ændrer betydning over tid, et fænomen kendt som semantisk skift.
Det fremføres, at skriften definerer "druk" som en inceptiv proces, ikke kun en sen tilstand af beruselse. Nogle bestrider dette ved at henvise til andre inceptive verber i skriften, men en sammenligning af brugen af verber i Efeserne 5:18 og Johannes 21:18 viser, at de ikke er parallelle. Efeserne 5:18 fordømmer processen med at blive fuld, mens Johannes 21:18 refererer til et bestemt tidspunkt (at blive gammel). At være ædru betyder at være fuldstændig upåvirket af vin og at afstå fra det.
Argumentet om, at Paulus befaler Timotheus at drikke sig fuld hver dag, er baseret på antagelsen om, at vinen, der nævnes, var fermenteret. Ufermenteret druesaft blev ofte brugt medicinsk, blandet med vand for at lindre maveproblemer. Dette er forskelligt fra selvordineret brug af store mængder alkohol til rekreative formål.
Påstanden om, at Jesus ville have brugt et andet ord, hvis han havde lavet ufermenteret druesaft ved brylluppet i Kana, er falsk, da "oinos" er et bredt ord. Påstanden om, at gæsterne var "fulde" er baseret på flere antagelser, der ikke holder stik. Ordet "methusko" kan betyde "vel fyldt" eller "mættet" uden henvisning til beruselse. Ældre kilder understøtter denne fortolkning, og selv på engelsk har "drunken" tidligere betydet "fyldt" eller "mættet".
Nogle hævder, at Jesus godkender alkohol i Lukas 5:39, hvor det siges, at "ingen, der drikker af den gamle, ønsker den nye, for han siger: 'Den gamle er bedre'". Dette argument antager, at gammel vin nødvendigvis var fermenteret, at den var bedre på grund af alkoholindholdet, og at Jesus gav sin personlige godkendelse. Alle tre antagelser er forkerte. Antikke folk havde metoder til at konservere sød druesaft, og aldring kan forbedre smagen uden henvisning til alkohol. Jesus citerer blot en persons præference for det, de er vant til, ikke at han godkender beruselse.
I Markus 2:22 taler Jesus om at putte ny vin i nye lædersække. Hvis man fyldte en ny sæk med ny, tyk druesaftkoncentrat, ville der ikke ske gæring, fordi gæren ville være blevet dræbt af varmen, og den ville være forseglet. Men når sækken er tømt for første gang, og den ikke længere er ny, ville det være umuligt fuldstændigt at rense frugtkødet og saftresterne, der er tilbage i sækken, og selvom du putter ren ny vin i den gamle sæk, kan den gære ved kontakt med de gamle rester, udvide sig og ødelægge vinen og den gamle sæk, der ikke længere er bøjelig. Der er ingen godkendelse af rekreativt alkoholforbrug her.
At Jesus blev beskyldt for at være en dranker betyder ikke, at han drak alkohol. Det var almindeligt, at Kristi fjender beskyldte ham for ting, der ikke var sande. Konklusionen om, at denne beskyldning betød, at Jesus drak alkohol, er blot en antagelse.
Nogle argumenterer for, at mad er for frådseri, hvad vin er for drukkenskab. Selvom Bibelen fordømmer både frådseri og drukkenskab, er de forskellige. Vi har brug for mad for at leve, og det er tilladt at spise med måde. Vi har ikke brug for at drikke alkohol rekreativt for at leve, og det er aldrig tilladt at drikke med måde.
Påstanden om, at Jesus indstiftede sin sidste nadver med fermenteret vin, fordi druehøsten var i august/september, og påsken var i april, overser, at antikke folk kunne konservere frisk druesaft. Desuden ville alkohol hurtigt blive metaboliseret til eddike, hvis der ikke var en måde at konservere det på.
Selvom jøder og katolikker nogle gange lærer, at det er bibelsk at bruge vin med måde, gjorde de også mange ting, som skriften fordømmer. Vi bør følge Bibelen i stedet for menneskelige traditioner. Påstanden om, at gær blev elimineret under påsken, men at fermenteret vin var tilladt, er falsk, da nogle gærtyper kan overleve alkoholniveauer, som antikke folk ikke kunne producere uden moderne destillationsteknikker. Loven om påsken forbød brugen af enhver fermenteret ting.
Vi bør ikke fordreje skriften eller den historiske optegnelse for at støtte vores personlige ønsker om rekreative stoffer. Vi bør adlyde, hvad Gud siger, og ikke forsøge at undskylde eller bortforklare synd. Vi skal advare folk om den standard, Gud har sat, og vi bør være ædru og afstå fra alkohol.
Summarize any YouTube video in seconds
Get summaries like this one for any video, in your language, with the free Summ app.
Transcript
YouTube Transcript Generator
0:00 in a previous video we looked at some basics of what the Bible says about drinking alcohol now we'll dig a bit deeper and look at even more objections people raise who support moderate drinking first up some will say look these lexicons say the word wine only means a fermented beverage unless we have a good reason to doubt them on a particular Point lexicons are a great resource Scholars would pour over ancient literature and note how different words were used but as intelligent as many of these Scholars were they are fallible and we do have good reasons to doubt this particular claim we documented prominent ancient Native Greek speakers who disagree with him and they predate these modern lexicographers by hundreds or even
0:45 thousands of years what we find is that historically wine is a broad word that is regularly used to describe any product of the grape without reference to alcoholic content not only in Greek but in Hebrew Latin and English if these lexicographers were more familiar with the usage of the word wine they wouldn't have made this mistake words change their meaning over time this documented linguistic phenomenon is called semantic shift proving this is as easy as looking in any modern dictionary they will have archaic or obsolete definitions of words or ways words used to be used and no longer are next we showed that scripture defines drunkenness as an inceptive verb and a
1:31 process not as a late stage of intoxication as is commonly thought today but some claim that in passages such as John 21 18 other inceptive verbs don't have this meaning does this somehow disprove that drunkenness is a process notice in making this argument it's granted that drunk is an inceptive verb let's compare the two verbs and see if they're parallel in Ephesians 5 18 we have a present tense imperative verb in other words you must obey it now and the context makes it inceptive the process of growing drunken is what Paul is condemning on the other hand are old in John 21 18 is in the arist tense it references a particular point in time in the subjunctive mood something that is contingent on certain other conditions
2:17 like living long enough to become old you can see that these two verbs are not parallel in this example only reinforces the argument we initially made by way of contrast scripture could have described drunkenness the way it describes aging but God seems to go out of his way to describe drunkenness very differently as a process that begins without reference to any arrival at a particular instinct or contingent possibility Ephesians 5 18 condemns the process of drunkenness when you begin drinking you may not be as drunken as you possibly could be immediately but you've started the process you weren't supposed to start neither are you as old as you could possibly be when you're a newborn but if Paul said growing old with sinful we'd all be in trouble because young or old we're all growing older we've undertaken
3:05 the process the longer we're alive the older we get and the longer you drink the more drunk you get that's the argument and that's the force of the grammar and context pointing out other inceptive verbs only reinforces the argument this isn't some unique feature of Greek or a strange obscure argument it's essentially the same thing that scripture says elsewhere be sober what does that mean the opposite of intoxication completely unaffected by wine holding no wine wineless to abstain from wine free from the influence of intoxicants the good news is it isn't complicated and we don't have to delve into Greek or grammar to understand it next some say that if one drink of wine makes a person a little bit drunk then
3:51 we have Paul commanding Timothy to get drunk every day this argument assumes that the wine mentioned by Paul was fermented and ignores that unfermented grape juice was frequently used this way historically mixed with water to settle stomachs it's well known today that vitamin deficiencies can cause terrible Health ailments that fruits and other foods can alleviate just like oranges were historically used to treat scurvy a vitamin C deficiency or mixing in brown rice with white rice alleviates berry berry a vitamin B1 deficiency the people making this argument aren't typically advocating for medicinal use of small amounts of alcohol when prescribed by someone else an authority like an apostle of Christ or a doctor they're arguing for self-prescribed use of relatively large amounts of alcohol for
4:37 recreational purposes these two things are not the same next up let's take a closer look at John 2 the wedding in Cana some say if Jesus meant to produce unfermented grape juice he would have used some other word for unfermented wine instead of oinos this isn't true of course because the word oinos is a broad word that includes all kinds of beverages made from grapes okay what about John 2 10 where it says every man at the beginning sets out the good wine and when the guests have well drunk then the inferior look it says they were drunk this line of reasoning is based upon at least six assumptions none of which hold up to scrutiny it assumes the master of the banquet who was speaking here was talking about what happened at this wedding rather than what was the General
5:22 custom it assumes the modern definition of wine rather than the Ancient One it assumes the wine that was previously served was alcoholic it assumes the wine Jesus made was likewise alcoholic it assumes the modern definition of drunk as a late stage of intoxication rather than the biblical definition already established and it assumes that drunk here methusco in the original Greek has only a single possible meaning intoxicated the first four assumptions are obvious simply by reading the passage the fifth was dealt with in the previous video so let's take a look at the last assumptions surrounding the word methusco drunk this word just as in English can be used as an adjective describing the mental state of intoxication or it can be used as a verb describing action indicating someone who was well filled or had
6:08 plenty or satiated careful reading reveals that this isn't an adjective here the master of the feast uses the verb he doesn't say that they were well drunk rather that they had well drunk or as it is rendered elsewhere they had drunk freely or they were well filled or had plenty or were satisfied without any reference to intoxication in fact nearly every Modern English translation Bears the sound clearly intoxicated isn't the only way this word could be rendered looking further back than modern-day Scholars to more ancient sources shows this to be the case as well the Wycliffe Bible from the 1300s renders this passage and when men been fulfilled the ancient Greek
6:56 translation of the Old Testament the decepticent while not always a great translation and we of course don't go to uninspired men for Authority in Hosea 14 it still shows that those Scholars translate the word simply to mean filled also see Psalm 23 5 Psalm 65 10 and Jeremiah 31 14. blumfield's Greek New Testament with English notes regarding John 2 10 he says Josephus Philo and the Septuagint this word seldom denotes more than drinking freely and the hilarity consequent which is probably the sense here the even older classical Greek that predated koine Greek Bears out this meaning as well and little and Scott's lexicon it could mean intoxicated but they say that it could also mean to give to drink to water moisten or to drink
7:41 freely and we need not even go to the Greek even in English the alternate usage is well documented the semantic shift is even pointed out notice here it says obsolete saturated with liquid in other words it was used this way in times past but no longer is in looking at older dictionaries like the 1898 Websters confirms this as well drunken used to commonly mean filled saturated drenched satiated we wouldn't say it this way today but it would have been correct for people to be drunken with water juice milk or anything else they fill themselves with the Bible also often pictures various things like arrows or swords or Wicked murderous people drunk or saturated with blood
8:29 it's understandable that modern people looking at these ancient texts could get confused and make these mistakes even literature that's relatively recent like The Boxcar Children modern readers might be confused at how often the kids were called Gay when what was meant was they were happy the semantic shift is the reason why it's sometimes difficult to talk about this topic in 50 or 100 years we might find well-meaning people who have forgotten that to be stoned used to mean a capital punishment rather than as it means today to be intoxicated when we impose our understanding on Ancient words we can make crucial mistakes that's what's Happening Here next let's take a look at Luke Chapter 5
9:17 and verse 39 and no one drinking the old desires the new for he says the old is better some say that Jesus is approving of alcohol here because old wine would have obviously been fermented there are three critical unstated assumptions here that old wine must have been fermented that it was better because of its alcoholic content and that Jesus was giving his own personal approval all three assumptions are incorrect this argument again repeats the error that ancients had no way to preserve sweet juice they did and as we already noted when preserved this sweet juice would keep good essentially forever so the age of the wine has no relationship to alcoholic content or fermentation foods
10:02 can improve flavor as they age with no regard to alcoholic content some of the best cheeses in meats are aged for many months or even years to develop better more complex flavors and because fermentation reduces the sweetness of the drink and increases its bitterness and negative side effects in the ancient Roman world the best wines were frequently not alcoholic ancient writers from Pliny Horus Plutarch and many more say as much according to Pliny First Century A.D wines are most beneficial when all their potency has been removed Plutarch first and second centuries A.D wine is much more pleasant to drink when it neither inflames the brain nor infests the mind or passions among the Jews as well the mishnah says Rabbi Yehuda permits boiled wine as a
10:49 heave offering because it improves its quality kiddo says such a wine boiled was esteemed among the Jews the richest and best wine theatricum botanicum the weak wines are very Rheumatic and cleanse much those of middle Timber that is to say boiled wine and both made of mustum new wine are most proper for our bodies and most wholesome for our health and most in use for physique the strong wines are very heady and inflame the blood very much further Jesus isn't even the one saying the old is good the one who had been drinking the old is the one who says that Jesus is simply teaching that people tend to prefer what they're used to not that recreational intoxication is okay the purpose of the illustration is not about praising alcohol but to
11:35 correct the Pharisees overestimation of their old traditions they were unacquainted with a new better teachings of Jesus and they preferred their old ways what about Mark 2 22 doesn't Jesus approve of fermented wine here and no one puts new wine into old wine skins or else the new wine bursts the wine skins the wine is built and the wine Skins are ruined but new wine must be put into new wine skins if you read it carefully anything about alcohol is an unwarranted assumption because Jesus doesn't mention anything about old or intoxicating wine here he only mentions new wine so what's going on here if you filled a new skin with new wine boil down thick
12:20 grape juice concentrate no fermentation would occur because the yeast would have been killed by the Heat and it would be sealed but once the skin is emptied for the first time and it's no longer new it would be impossible to completely clean out the pulp and Juice residue left in the skin and even if you put pure new wine into that old skin once in contact with the old residue it could ferment expand and ruin the wine and the old skin that was no longer pliable fermentation can build up pressure high enough to cause even modern glass jars and metal kegs to explode so it goes without saying that even a new wine skin wouldn't be used to hold fermenting wine job acknowledges this in job 32 my belly is like wine that has no vent it is ready to burst like new wine skins
13:05 there's no approval here for recreationally drinking alcohol how about when Jesus was accused of being a drunkard it's true that behind a slander is often a moat of truth but it was common for the enemies of Christ to accuse him and his followers of things that were not true any conclusion that this accusation meant that Jesus drank alcohol is merely an assumption he was no more a glutton than he was a drunkard speaking of gluttony some argue that what wine is to drunkenness food is to gluttony so if one drink of wine makes a person a little bit drunk why wouldn't one bite of food make a person a little bit gluttonous well it's true that the Bible condemns
13:51 gluttony and drunkenness the question is are they parallel or are they different in some important way well of course they're different because we need food to live and food is regularly authorized to eat in moderation we don't need to drink alcohol recreationally to live and it's never authorized to drink in moderation taking in food when you're hungry isn't a little bit gluttonous it's called eating alcohol is condemned because it impairs judgment overeating is condemned because it's wasteful and greedy the two while similar are far from the same in any attempt at drawing parallels falls short of authorizing recreational alcohol use some argue that Jesus instituted his last supper with fermented wine since
14:37 the grape Harvest was in August or September and Passover wasn't until April they couldn't have kept the juice fresh for that long again ancient people went to Great pains to preserve their food and beverages they could and did easily preserve fresh juice for as long as they wanted this argument is also ignorant of how fermentation works because if ancient people had no way to preserve fresh juice then they would also have had no way to preserve fermented wines that long either the alcohol would rather quickly be metabolized into vinegar anytime you hear someone make an argument like this know that it's easily proved to be historically false don't Jews and other groups like the Roman Catholics teach that it's scriptural to use wine moderately yes
15:22 they do sometimes but the ancient Jews and Catholics did a lot of things that scripture condemns unfortunately and we ought to take our example from the Bible instead of human tradition people today incorrectly claim that even though yeast was supposed to be eliminated from a household during the Passover feast the fermentation process with wine killed yeast and the leaves could be filtered out so keeping alcoholic wine for Passover would have been fine this is false however some of the most common wild yeast can happily survive levels of alcohol that reach well beyond what ancients were able to produce without modern distillation techniques in the Bible it was not only living yeast that was prohibited but anything that had been leavened making leavened bread would have certainly killed any yeast but that was still strictly and
16:09 specifically prohibited the confusion comes from some translations how they render Exodus 13 7 as restricting leavened bread but literally the law of the Passover prohibited the use of any fermented thing medieval Rabbi is similar to people today because of their fondness for wine search for any excuse to justify drinking it they claim that fermented wine was permitted for the Passover because only grain beverages can ferment fruit beverages like grape juice supposedly didn't ferment this is obviously wrong because any Observer could see that grape juice is ferment when left out in the sun it begins to seethe or bubble up like fermenting bread dough so there would be no logical reason to hold this belief other than they simply wanted to drink
16:54 alcohol and would make up an excuse to permit it when someone really wants to do something one reason is as good as another we shouldn't jump through hoops twisting scripture or the historical record to support our personal desires for recreational drugs we should simply obey what God says and not try to excuse or explain away sin if we're going to rightly divide the word of truth and not insert modern definitions and assumptions if we're going to preach the whole counsel of God we must warn people of the standard that God has sent we ought to be sober abstaining from alcohol we ought not start the process of drunkenness as Kings and Priests in the Lord's Kingdom we ought to have our senses about us and
17:40 be able to discern right from wrong and avoid anything that would begin to soften us if you have any questions about this lesson please reach out to us at the gospel Broadcasting Network
