This is the last part of our study of the ramifications that Ephesians 2 has for dispensationalism. The Gentiles are full-fledged members of “the commonwealth of Israel” and they are part of the “one new man” that God has made. As such, they partake in the “covenants of promise”. Galatians 3 declares they are “sons of Abraham”, “blessed along with Abraham”, and as they are “Christ’s” they are also “Abraham’s offspring”.
Now we come to the last element of Eph. 2 which is important for how we come to terms with classic dispensationalism’s teaching concerning Israel being totally distinct from the church. Again, I’m quoting from Dr. Kenneth Gentry on this point, from his article on Ephesians and Dispensatinalism.
The rebuilt temple is the Church of Jesus Christ.
The future rebuilt temple is a distinctive feature of dispensationalism. The Dictionary of Premillennial Theology (Kregel, 1996; hereinafter, DPT) states that:
“The prophecy of a future Jewish temple in Jerusalem . . . is part of the greater restoration promise made to national Israel. This promise, made at the close of the first temple period (cf. Isa. 1:24–2:4; 4:2–6; 11:1–12:6; 25–27; 32; 34–35; 40–66; Jer. 30–33; Ezek. 36–48; Amos 9:11–15; Joel 2:28–3:21; Micah 4:–5; 7:11–20; Zeph. 3:9–20), made again by the prophets who prophesied after the return from captivity (cf. “Dan. 9–12; Hag. 2:5–9; Zech. 8–14; Mal. 3–4), and reaffirmed in the New Testament (cf. Acts 3:19–26; Rom. 11:1–32) contained inseparably linked elements of fulfillment. . .” (DPT 404).
Paul is provides a spiritual interpretation of the promise of a rebuilt temple. In Ephesians 2:19–22 he states:
“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.”
The Apostle certainly believes in a rebuilt temple, but not one built of stone. He sees “the whole building” as currently in his day already “being fitted together” and “growing into a holy temple in the Lord.” He allows this despite the fact that the earthly temple is still standing as he writes. And despite the fact that the millennium still lies off in the distance (already almost 2000 years distant, at least).
To make matters worse, Paul sees the rebuilt temple in spiritual terms because it is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” with “Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone.” And the current and ongoing building process involves Christians themselves as the building stones for “you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.”
This is why Jesus could inform the Samaritan woman: “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you worship the Father. . . But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers” (John 4:21, 23). And Jesus presents this “coming” hour as a permanent, final reality not to be withdrawn as a new order of localized, physical temple worship is re-instituted.
This is no stray statement by Paul: he returns to this theme time-and-again. We read of his conception of the spiritual temple in the following verses:
“Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.” (1 Cor 3:16–17)
“Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?” (1 Cor 6:19)
“What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “˜I will Dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people'” (2 Cor 6:16).
The third sample in 2 Corinthians 6:16 is important because it specially applies Old Testament prophecy to the New Testament spiritual temple. Notice how Paul argues: “We are the temple of the living; just as God said, “˜I will Dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.'” The Old Testament backdrop to this “just as God said” statement is Ezekiel 37:27: “My dwelling place also will be with them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people.”
What is remarkable about all of this is that this Paul takes this statement from Ezekiel’s prophecy of Israel’s dry bones coming back to life. Thus, Paul commits two hermeneutic sins: (1) he applies a prophecy regarding Israel to the church and (2) he spiritualizes God’s prophetic dwelling, applying it to God’s spiritual indwelling his people, rather than God’s building a new temple.
I would add that this idea of the church being the temple of God is also taught clearly in 1 Pet. 2. Believers are “living stones… being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (2:5b).
Also, on the “dwelling place of God” theme, I would stress this is a recurring thread from Gen. 22 all the way through to Rev. 21. God promises to dwell with His people. He will be our God, and we will be His people. This was promised to Abraham and we share in that promise, as believers in Christ- the true “seed” of Abraham.
For me, this kind of teaching was not brought home to me as a dispensationalist. Some do stress this as the present church-age reality, but then claim God will go back to the way things were before. Some even stress another physical temple will be made and physical sacrifices offered once more after the rapture occurs to remove the church prior to the tribulation period. This does not seem to do justice to Eph. 2’s teaching in my understanding. Nor does it square with Hebrews and 1 Peter. This passage clearly teaches God has done something new in breaking down this wall of separation, why would He then later build it back up?
Before I conclude, let me stress that good people will disagree with my conclusions here. This side of glory, we won’t ever completely agree on everything. May God grant us grace to comprehend more fully the glories of His Word and the wonders of His grace.
From time to time, I get feedback from readers that they wish I hadn’t gone so far in my reforms and actually abandoned dispensationalism. They view that move as more a pendulum swing on my part or being unduly influenced by the attraction of Reformed thinkers. I admit that such tendencies are real, and we should all watch out for the tendency to be carried away by the charismatic appeal of any given leader whom we respect. But my views on dispensationalism, I hope, are informed by my careful study of Scripture.
I am less hesitant of progressive dispensationalism, and I haven’t necessarily landed when it comes to new covenant theology or covenant theology proper. But when it comes to classic dispensationalism as originally taught by Chafer and Scofield, and as further elaborated by Ryrie, Walvoord and others, I have strong reservations. Certain beliefs and tendencies of classic dispensationalism contradict Scripture in my opinion and affect one’s entire outlook on the Scriptures. For me, Romans 4 and Galatians 3 were significant in directing me away from dispensationalism. Ephesians 2 is also a pivotal passage. I’ve blogged on Romans 4, in my series Understanding the Land Promise. Today I want to start a 3 part series on Ephesians 2.
For this series, I’m going to borrow from Kenneth Gentry’s study on “Dispensationalism and Ephesians”. He shares 6 points from Ephesians that he believes contradict the foundations of dispensationalism. I am choosing the 3 that were meaningful to me, in my own journey away from dispensationalism. Don’t misunderstand me, by borrowing from his blog with its controversial name: AgainstDispensalism.com, I am not advocating a mean and spiteful view of dispensationalists. I held to classic dispensationalism for many years and I know many good people who take a generally dispensationalist approach. I’m borrowing form Gentry’s study purely because I can, and it will make it easier for me to discuss why I believe Ephesians 2 is so detrimental to dispensationalism’s claims.
Without further ado, here is the first point from Ephesians 2 which I find so important for this whole debate.
The Jew and Gentile are forever merged into one body in the final phase of God’s redemptive plan.
The leading classic dispensationalist scholar of the last fifty years is Charles C. Ryrie. On p. 39 in his important 1995 work Dispensationalism he reiterates his 1966 observation from the book’s first edition: “A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct.” According to Ryrie: “A. C. Gaebelein stated it in terms of the difference between the Jews, the Gentiles, and the church of God.” He then states rather dogmatically: “This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist.”
We must note two aspects of the matter that come undermine the system. In dispensationalism’s two-peoples-of-God theology they must hold that God (1) distinguishes Jew and Gentile and (2) that he does so permanently (at least in history, though many carry the distinction into eternity). How are these observations fatal to the system? And in light of our study in Ephesians, how do we see that problem in Paul’s epistle?
Paul notes very clearly and forcefully that God merges Jew and Gentile into one body, which we now call the church. He even encourages the Gentiles with the knowledge that they are now included among God’s people and are partakers of their blessings. They are not separate and distinct from Israel but are adopted into her. Note Ephesians 2:11–19:
“Therefore remember, that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “˜Uncircumcision’ by the so-called “˜Circumcision,’ which is performed in the flesh by human hands “” remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household.”
Note very carefully what Paul states and how it contradicts the notion of a distinction between Jew and Gentile, between Israel and the church:
1. Paul states that the Gentiles were “formerly . . . at that time . . . excluded from the commonwealth of Israel” (Eph 2:12). This is an observation about their past condition.
2. He argues that the Gentiles were “formerly . . . at that time . . . strangers to the covenants of promise” (plural covenants / singular promise). This is an observation about their past condition.
3. He reiterates the Gentiles’ former condition that has now been changed: “But now in Christ you who formerly were far off have been brought near” (Eph 2:19). This is their new experience and condition.
4. He resolutely declares that Christ has effected “peace” in that he “made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall” (Eph 2:14). This is their new experience and condition.
5. He restates this once again by noting that Christ made “the two into one new man, thus establishing peace” (Eph 2:15). This is their new experience and condition.
6. He recasts this very thought noting that Christ determined to “reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.” This is their new experience and condition.
7. He continues by insisting that Christ “came and preached peace to you [Gentiles] who were far away” (Eph 2:17). This is their new experience and condition.
8. He states still again that “through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father” (Eph 2:18). This is their new experience and condition.
9. He declares this fact once again: “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens” (Eph 2:19). This is their new experience and condition.
10. He insists: “but you are fellow citizens with the saints [obviously the Jews], and are of God’s [singular] household” (Eph 2:19). This is their new experience and condition.
11. Paul states once again that the Gentiles are a part of “the [singular] whole building, being fitted together” and “are being built together” (Eph 2:21). This is their new experience and condition.
Dispensationalism distinguishes Jew and Gentile permanently. Paul merges the two into one new body permanently.
I can attest that a separation between Israel and the Church was drilled into me in Bible College. It certainly is the distinguishing characteristic of classic dispensationalism (progressive dispensationalists seem to ditch that point, from what I’ve read). I don’t know how you can read Eph. 2 and come away with the idea that God didn’t break down the barriers and make of the two peoples “one new man”. If that’s what God did, then where do we see here the concept of going back to the two separate peoples again at some point? Parallel to this is Rom. 11, we see there the Gentiles are grafted into a single Olive tree from which unbelieving Israel was broken off of. At a later point Israel may be grafted back in, but they will be grafted back into the single Olive tree, there won’t be two Olive trees, one Jewish and one Gentile.
I’ve already argued extensively that the Bible condones the moderate use of alcohol. In my recent review of Kenneth Gentry’s God Gave Wine, there was a bit of a debate in the comments. I had loaned out my copy of Gentry’s book, and recently got it back, and so I wanted to advance a few more arguments. So I thought I’d share them here.
I’m going to treat the two main lines of reasoning separately. This post will focus on the two-wine theory.
A common way to harmonize the seemingly contradictory Biblical statements concerning wine, is to employ the two wine theory. This is the idea that there are two kinds of wine, alcoholic and non-alcoholic. Wherever the Bible commends wine, it refers to the latter, and wherever it forbids or warns against it, the former sense is in view. Now it should be quite apparent from the start that this approach employs circular reasoning and begs the question.
Lexical Consensus
Against this view is the nearly unanimous testimony of the lexicons, dictionaries, encyclopedias and historians that the terms for wine (yayin in Hebrew, and oinos in Greek) refer to a clearly alcoholic substance. Gentry qutoes a couple lexicons and the TWOT as unequivocally stating that yayin is alcoholic. Strong’s Concordance Dictionary notes: “yayin; from an unused root meaning to effervesce; wine (as fermented); by implication intoxication; — banqueting, wine, wine (-bibber).” Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament (edited by Merril Unger and William White Jr., and part of Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary states: “Yayin… is the usual Hebrew word for fermented grape…. [It] clearly represents an intoxicating beverage.” The article for “wine” in the revised ISBE (edited by Geoffrey Bromiley) states “Both yayin and tirosh are fermented grape juice with alcoholic content; hence both are able to cause intoxication (cf. Hos. 4:11) and are to be distinguished from ‘must’ or unfermented grape juice.”
Gentry alludes to a quote by Merrill Unger. From Unger’s Dictionary, I’d like to share a couple quotes.
In most of the passages in the Bible where yayin is used (83 out of 138), it certainly means fermented grape juice; and in the remainder it may fairly be presumed to do so…. The intoxicating quality of yayin, is confirmed by rabbinical testimony…. although usually intoxicating, it was not only permitted to be imbibed, but was also used for sacred purposes and was spoken of as a blessing (Gen. 49:11-12; Deut. 14:24-26; Ex. 29:40; Lev. 23:13; Num. 15:5). Some, indeed, have argued from these passages that yayin could not always have been alcoholic. But this is begging the question and that in defiance of the facts. Although invariably fermented, it was not always inebriating, and in most instances, doubtless, was but slightly alcoholic, like the vin ordinaire of France. (The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, by Merrill Unger, edited by R.K. Harrison, Moody Press, 1988 )[note: vin ordinaire is ordinary table wine as opposed to fortified wine with an even higher alcoholic content.]
Gentry quotes several prohibitionist writers admitting the lexical consensus as a problem for their position. Robert Teachout is representative: “Unfortunately Bible scholars have been equally misled by public opinion”. Gentry points out the obvious: “But when you search out all the scholars and find them unanimously differing with your opinion, who is really mistaken?” (Gentry, 35)
Origins of the Two-Wine Theory
Gentry provides a quote on the origins of the two-wine theory, from a Christian encyclopedic entry in 1887.
In fact, the theory of two kinds of wine — the one fermented and intoxicating and unlawful, and the other unfermented, unintoxicating, and lawful — is a modern hypothesis, devised during the present century, and has no foundation in the Bible, or in Hebrew or classical antiquity. (“Wine” by Dunlop Moore, A Religious Encyclopedia of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal and Practical Theology, edited by Philip Schaff [Chicago: Funk and Wagnalls, 1887] — quoted by Gentry, pg. 44).
The facts indicate this idea is new, and dates back to the prohibition era. This alone should say something to the biased nature of this idea.
Isaiah 16:10 an Attempt at Biblical Support
In an attempt to find Biblical support, some prohibitionists point to Isaiah 16:10 as an example of yayin being used to refer to clearly non-alcoholic wine. In this passage, and a couple similar ones, yayin is described as being treaded out in the presses.
Therefore I weep with the weeping of Jazer for the vine of Sibmah; I drench you with my tears, O Heshbon and Elealeh; for over your summer fruit and your harvest the shout has ceased. And joy and gladness are taken away from the fruitful field, and in the vineyards no songs are sung, no cheers are raised; no treader treads out wine in the presses; I have put an end to the shouting. (Is. 16:9-10)
Since the product of treading out wine is must, or grape pulp, ultimately squeezed to grape juice, yayin must refer to non-intoxicating juice as well as to the later fully fermented kind. At least that is how the argument runs. On the basis of basically this passage alone, prohibitionist writer and scholar Stephen Reynolds claims: “This is enough to establish the fact that yayin in the Bible need not be alcoholic.” (Gentry, 42).
Before in the comments of my review post, I mentioned an argument by Gentry regarding the poetic nature of Is. 16. Here I’d like to provide some extended quotes from Gentry’s book God Gave Wine:
The poetic license so common in Hebrew poetry will allow the freshly expressed yayin here to be alcoholic, just as it may speak of wine itself as being a “brawler” (rather than the one who actually drinks the wine, Prov. 20:1). A common literary device is prolepsis. Prolepsis is the anachronistic representing of something as existing before its proper or historical time. Prolepsis looks to the end result anticipated in the proleptic observation. The Scripture is filled with examples of prolepsis, several of which directly parallel Isaiah 16:10. For instance, in Judges 9:13 “wine” (Heb. tirosh, a liquid drink processed from grapes) is spoken of as on the “vine,” just as figs exist on the tree (Judg. 9:10-12). But, of course, grapes appear as a solid fruit on the vine — though tirosh is the ultimate liquid drink produced from the grapes. In Isaiah 65:8 we find “new wine” (Heb. tirosh) “in the cluster.” Jeremiah 40:10 speaks of “gathering in wine” (Heb. tirosh) as if the liquid drink itself were in the field on the vine. The Old Testament has a word for grapes, as literal fruit on the vine: enab (Gen. 40:10-11; Lev. 25:5; Num. 6:3-4). Rather than use enab, however, the Old Testament writers chose the poetic, figurative use of the word tirosh in these passages…. And just as biblical writers can say that tirosh (a liquid product) is found in “cluster” (the solid fruit, Is. 65:8), so can they declare that yayin (fermented wine) is “treaded out” from grapes (Is. 16:10). Obviously, tirosh is in the cluster in that it is the product to be derived from the grape.
Gentry also notes how Stephen Reynolds allows for such poetic use in other passages in his book, but does not allow for it in Isaiah 16. Clearly in a poetic context as this section of Isaiah (Isaiah is filled with poetry), we could expect such a poetic allusion. Coupled with the clearly alcoholic nature of yayin elsewhere in Scripture and attested to by the lexicons, we should understand Isaiah 16:10 to be using this poetic allusion. Wine and Joy
But besides the possibility of prolepsis, there are other indications that argue for this understanding. The passage clearly focuses on wine and vineyards, and it also stresses joy. In Scripture there is a link between the finished product of yayin — wine, and joy. Consider the following passages regarding wine’s joy-giving qualities. Again in the context of the harvest, the ultimate product of wine, and its joy would be in view.
You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man’s heart. (Ps. 104:14-15)
Bread is made for laughter, and wine gladdens life, and money answers everything. (Eccl. 10:19)
Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do. (Eccl. 9:7)
But the vine said to them, ‘Shall I leave my wine that cheers God and men and go hold sway over the trees?’ (Judges 9:13)
Then Absalom commanded his servants, “Mark when Amnon’s heart is merry with wine, and when I say to you, ‘Strike Amnon,’ then kill him. Do not fear; have I not commanded you? Be courageous and be valiant.” (2 Samuel 13:28 )
And Abigail came to Nabal, and behold, he was holding a feast in his house, like the feast of a king. And Nabal’s heart was merry within him, for he was very drunk. So she told him nothing at all until the morning light. In the morning, when the wine had gone out of Nabal, his wife told him these things, and his heart died within him, and he became as a stone. (1 Sam. 25:36)
On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha and Abagtha, Zethar and Carkas, the seven eunuchs who served in the presence of King Ahasuerus, (Esther 1:10)
The LORD of hosts will protect them, and they shall devour, and tread down the sling stones, and they shall drink and roar as if drunk with wine, and be full like a bowl, drenched like the corners of the altar. (Zechariah 9:15)
Then Ephraim shall become like a mighty warrior, and their hearts shall be glad as with wine. Their children shall see it and be glad; their hearts shall rejoice in the LORD. (Zechariah 10:7)
This is just a few texts on wine bringing joy. You can see a fuller post covering this topic here. No other beverage is singled out as one which produces joy. And the very nature of alcoholic wine clearly is such that we can understand what is being talked of here. Wine, well before it makes one drunk, is very pleasurable and lifts your spirits, giving one joy. Feasting and wine are interconnected. In Biblical Hebrew the very word for “feasting” literally means “drinking”. ISBE’s article on winestates “a “˜feast’ is literally a “˜drinking’ (Heb. misthe, Gen. 21:8; Jdg. 14:10; 1 S. 25:36; 2 S. 3:20)”.
In case anyone doubts that the alcoholic warming of the spirits is in view with the idea of wine gladdening the heart, look again at the last five passages. They clearly link this joy with alcoholic properties. Yet this spirit-gladdening effect, is something God has given as a gift to be enjoyed.
So once again, back to the passage at hand, the gladdening nature of wine (which we’ve shown Scripturally as referring to alcoholic properties of the fermented wine) is emphasized in the passage. That joy is going to be removed. And one last connection is Zechariah 9’s mention of a shouting associated with drunkenness, and the shouting mentioned in Isaiah 16. The shouting will stop. Drunkenness was a fact of what happened with that drink. Scripture warns against drunkenness, but it often speaks knowingly or comparatively of how a drunken person acts.
So with all of this evidence, there is a strong likelihood that Isaiah 16:10 is not teaching us that there is an exception to the normal rule that yayin refers to alcoholic wine. Rather it is referring to the wine that Scripture everywhere else indicates is alcoholic.
Three Final Points
There are three final points which sound the death knell for the two-wine theory.
First, there are a few passages which speak clearly of alcoholic wine in one verse, and a few verses later wine is referred to in a positive light. Nothing indicates we should assume that the wine was different in the case of the alcoholic variety and the variety which is praised. In 1 Sam. 1:14, Eli tells Hannah to “put your wine away from [her]”. But in vs. 24, Hannah brings wine with her on her trip back to Shiloh. Nothing indicates that the wine Hannah brought would be different than the wine Eli thought she was drinking earlier. In 1 Sam. 25:18, Abigail serves wine for David and his men, then later in verses 36-37 Nabal is drunk with wine. Nothing in the context would lead us to think the drink David and his men received was different from that which made Nabal drunk. The difference of course is Nabal immoderately drank the wine, whereas David and his men didn’t. Joel 1:5, 10 is another similar passage.
Second, Scripture clearly praises alcoholic wine. Isaiah 25:6 is definitely referring to alcoholic wine when it indicates that such wine will characterize the blessings of Christ’s future kingdom: “And 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. (NKJV) “. “Wines on the lees” is translated in most modern versions as “well-aged wine”.
Third, Nehemiah when describing what supplies were given to him as Judean governor, mentions all kinds of wines. Nothing indicates that he did not partake of them. And the context is one of approval, as he is writing inspired Scripture. Here is the passage: “Now what was prepared at my expense for each day was one ox and six choice sheep and birds, and every ten days all kinds of wine in abundance. Yet for all this I did not demand the food allowance of the governor, because the service was too heavy on this people.” (Neh. 5:18 ) So if there is two kinds of wine, this passage indicates Nehemiah partook of both.
This really does seal the deal with regards to the two-wine theory. It doesn’t stand the test of history, it doesn’t line up with the lexical consensus, and more importantly, it doesn’t jive with Scripture.
Written by one who doesn’t drink due to health concerns, God Gave Wine provides a non-biased approach to the issue. What does the Bible really say about alcoholic drink? Contrary to the popular opinion of many American evangelical Christians, the Bible does not expressly forbid the drinking of alcoholic drinks, such as wine or “strong drink”. Rather, it forbids in no uncertain terms, the abuse of alcohol.
Drunkenness is never viewed as a disease, instead it is incumbent on men not to become drunk with wine. Drunkenness is a sin worthy of eternal damnation. It is expressly forbidden and counseled against. Yet the moderate enjoyment of wine is not only allowed, but encouraged.
Kenneth Gentry deals with each relevant passage exegetically and fairly. He traces the Biblical meanings of the words employed for “wine” and other alcoholic drinks. He reveals the circular reasoning behind the two wine theory, that the Bible has two kinds of wine in view (alcoholic, and non-alcoholic) even as it employs only one term. The same wine the Bible warns can lead to drunkenness, is the wine the Bible praises as a gift from God for man’s enjoyment.
As Christians, we should all care most about what God says on any given issue. Arguments from wisdom and expediency are important, but the express teaching of God’s Word is final. Gentry explores the many arguments from principle that Christians use to avoid completely anything alcoholic. He finds these arguments wanting, after a verse by verse study of Romans 14.
If you care about the truth, and if you care about Scripture, you should pick up this book and read it. The traditions of godly men of old are important, but God’s Word is more so. Historically, the avoidance of all alcoholic drink is relatively new, and today is primarily restricted to American Christians. When you see what Scripture has to say, Itself, on this topic, you will at least have more leniency in your views concerning this important issue.
As one who was converted (through a study of Scripture) to the moderate use of God-given wine, I can testify that many Christians drink with joy to the glory of God. Drinking does not make one more apt to sin, nor does it reveal that one has worldly desires. No matter how you conclude on this topic, it would be to your credit to interact with and at least consider what Kenneth Gentry says in this helpful, carefully written, concise book on wine.
Anyone interested in studying this issue out further, can peruse my previous articles on the subject listed Amazon.com or direct from Oakdown Books.
I’ve already 