BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 91
January, 1997
Copyright 1997 Biblical Horizons
The square, rectangle, and cross shapes appear all over the sanctuaries God reveals in the Bible: Tabernacle, Solomon’s Temple, Ezekiel’s Temple, New Jerusalem. One thing that can be said right away about these designs, and the occasional perfect circle (the lavers), is that they do not occur in nature. They are not part of the original creation. Thus:
1. They are imposed on the creation by the rulers of creation: God and His assistants, humanity. These shapes are always signs of dominion.
2. They are eschatological, being later than the original creation. These imposed shapes are always signs that the world is being moved forward to its destiny.
I should like to suggest one more aspect of the rectilinear shapes found in the sanctuary, and that is that they reflect the fundamental construction of the world. To put it another way, while straight lines do not occur in "nature," the first creation, the basic rectangle and cross designs can be teased out of Genesis 1 as an aspect of how God designs things. If this is so, then the appearance of these designs in the Tabernacle is not something sudden and new, but reflects a new application of an aspect of the created cosmos.
If we look at Genesis 1, we find on the first four days that the fundamental aspects of the world are created; followed by three days of extension and blessing. These four aspects are found in the four points of the cross formed by the furniture in the Tabernacle (and I suggest also correspond to the four elements of the ancient world).
Day 1: God enthroned above the waters, corresponds to Ark-throne, to Lion cherub, and to element of water.
Day 2: Firmament in the earth-world as platform on which man stands before God, corresponds to Altar, to Ox cherub, to the element of air. Now, this is the upper Altar (= incense), but things are not "good" until the middle of Day 3, when the lower Altar (= bronze) is also made. Thus, conceptually the bottom of the altar is on earth, though the top reaches to the firmament.
Day 3: Land and plants on earth platform, corresponds to Table, to Man cherub, to the element of earth.
Day 4: Lights in heavens, correspond to Lampstand, to Eagle cherub, to the element of fire.
(For more on these models, see my paper, Behind the Scenes: Orientation in the Book of Revelation, and my little book, Crisis, Opportunity, and the Christian Future.)
Now, since heaven is above and earth below, this sequence has a movement down and up. It also has a lateral movement because of the sequence of events. Because of these two factors, a square or rectangle emerges:
| 1. Throne in heaven | 4. Lamps in heavens |
| 2. Altar on earth | 3. Table on earth |
This order of creation is simply reversed in history, as the creation grows toward God and returns to Him:
| 2. Throne era (David) | 3. Lamp era (Restoration) |
| 1. Altar era (Moses) | 4. Table era (Jesus) |
Now, if we apply this movement to the sanctuary configuration seen in the Tabernacle and Temples, we get a cross-shape; thus:
| 4. Table | ||
| 2. Throne | 1. Altar | |
| 3. Lampstand |
Since the Table of the New Covenant unites us to Jesus’ death, we are returned to the Altar as living sacrifices, and the spiral movement begins anew.
1. We start as living sacrifices.
2. We grow to immediate kingly dominion in our calling.
3. We grow to wider prophetic influence in our calling.
4. We are rewarded at the table with Jesus, which returns us to
1a. Starting anew as living sacrifices; etc.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 91
January, 1997
Copyright 1997 Biblical Horizons
Citing Melchizedek in Genesis 14:18-20, James Jordan has written that "the name of God in use among the nations was God Most High’" (Hebrew, `el `elyon; in Through New Eyes, p. 176). In addition to Melchizedek, one could cite the example of Balaam, who invokes the Lord both as `El `Elyon and as `El Shaddai (Numbers 24:16). A survey of the use of the word in a Hebrew concordance, however, indicates that "God Most High" or simply "Most High" are frequently used by Israelites as titles for Yahweh. The majority of the instances of this title in the Old Testament do not come from Gentiles but from Israelites.
Jordan’s point can be sustained, of course, since he does not claim that Israelites never used this name, only that it seems to be a name used by Gentiles. We do find, however, in addition that the Israelite usage of this name often has a Gentile context. That is, the name is used when Gentiles or the whole world are in view.
First, it is worth noting that that the basic meaning of `elyon is "uppermost" or "highest." Thus, it describes the "uppermost basket" in the Egyptian baker’s dream (Genesis 40:17), and it is frequently used in reference "highest" gates, courts, or stories of the temple or city or buildings (2 Kings 15:35; Jeremiah 20:2; 36:10; Ezekiel 41:7; 42:5). In Ezekiel 9:2, the "uppermost" gate apparently means the "northernmost."
Applied to persons, then, `elyon refers to the one with highest authority, the Big Chief. Used of Yahweh, it highlights His pre-eminence over the nations and over other gods. It is "God Most High" who divides the earth among the nations (Deuteronomy 32:8). Yahweh is "Most High" because He is a "great King over all the earth" who brings nations under Israel (Psalm 47:2). As "Most High," the Lord registers Gentiles as if they were the natural children of Zion (Psalm 87:5). Yahweh is exalted as "Most High" above all gods (Psalm 97:9).
Specifically, the Lord manifests that He is exalted above the nations by delivering Israel and protecting her from her enemies. Thus, Psalm 83, a prayer that the Lord would scatter the nations that have covenanted against Israel, ends by calling on the Lord to make the nations know that He alone is "Most High over all the earth" (Psalm 83:18). He manifested Himself as Most High God in Egypt (Psalm 77:10-20), and by His continual deliverance of His faithful people (Psalm 7:17; 9:3; 21:7; 57:2; 91:1, 9). In the wilderness, Israel forgot the Lord’s redeeming work in Egypt, forgot that He was "Most High God their Redeemer" and tested Him (Psalm 78:17, 35, 56).
Isaiah’s taunt against the king of Babylon picks up on these themes (Isaiah 14:4). The king aspires to ascend to heaven, above the stars and clouds, to become like `Elyon (verses 13-14). Instead, he will be thrust down to Sheol and the pit; instead of being highest he will be lowest (verse 15). The Lord proves Himself `Elyon by putting down all who contest His high position.
Thus, though it is not true that `el `elyon is used only by Gentiles, it is most frequently used to specify Yahweh’s relation to the nations; specifically, that the covenant-keeping God of Israel, is also the Highest, the exalted King of the nations and their gods, who casts down all who exalt themselves against Him.
Though the Lord is uniquely `Elyon, there are several places where others are said to participate in His height and exaltation. It is the privilege of Israel that the Lord has set her "high (`elyon) above all nations that He has made, for praise, fame, and honor; that you shall be a consecrated people to the Lord your God" (Deuteronomy 26:19). She will maintain that high position so long as she remains faithful to the covenant (Deuteronomy 28:1). God Himself is Most High, but He manifests His pre-eminence by exalting His people above the nations (Psalm 47:2-3). Likewise, the "gods" of Psalm 82 are "sons of the Most High" (verse 6), though they, like the king of Babylon, will be thrust down (verses 7-8). Israel’s king is Yahweh’s firstborn, and thus inherits His position and becomes the `Elyon of the kings of the earth.
Being set up on a pedestal has its risks, for it means that, should Israel fall, her shame will also be raised high and be conspicuously public among all nations. Thus, the Lord ironically warns Solomon that if Israel departs from the covenant the Lord’s house will be raised "high," that is, it will become a gigantic heap of ruins. It will attract notice and wonder, not because of its glory but because of its ruination, and will become a proverb and byword among the Gentiles (2 Kings 9:8; 2 Chronicles 7:21). Should Israel test the Most High, she will be laid low but also ironically her humiliation will be "raised up" for all to see. And so, there is height and there is height: The people of the Most High will forever be `elyon, but whether for glory or for shame depends on our faithfulness.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 91
January, 1997
Copyright 1997 Biblical Horizons
Some reflections on Jonah’s Big Fish have led to the following essay. Let me afirm at the outset that the Bible presents the story in the book of Jonah as fully factual and historical. There can be no doubt but that the events happened just as they are recorded. Having said that, we can now consider what they meant.
To the people of his day, Jonah’s experience was a prophetic sign. Like Jonah, the people were rebellious and disobedient to God’s Word. (Of course, Jonah’s disobedience was an exceptional event, while with the Israelites it was habitual.) Like Jonah, they were about to be cast into the sea, into the Gentile sea, because they had angered the Lord. As with Jonah, God was going to provide a Big Fish to shelter them while they were in the sea. Like Jonah, they would be vomited back onto the land in due course.
The Big Fish was Assyria. God was sending Jonah to convert Assyria to Him. Assyria would become a place of refuge and protection for Israel while they were in captivity. Eventually they would leave the land of Assyria (after Babylon and then Persia took it over) and return to their own land. (Similarly, in Jonah 4, converted Assyria would be a suddenly-arising gourd plant to shade captive Israel from the sun of God’s wrath.) Even though later on Assyria apostatized, as the book of Nahum records, still there would be a remnant there who would provide a pillow for Israel’s coming experience of captivity.
This allegorical aspect of the history of Jonah would have been pretty clear to his contemporaries, and any who scoffed at it would find out soon enough that it was true. Jesus, however, does something different with the story, indicating a deeper level of allegory or typology.
Jesus says that Jonah’s experience in the Big Fish was equivalent to going into the grave for three days, and then coming back to life again. Jesus might have made this connection simply on the basis of general comparison: Going into captivity is a kind of death, and coming back into the land is a kind of resurrection. Jonah himself, however, in his prayer makes the connection to death and resurrection. He says that he is in the belly of sheol and expelled from God’s sight, but that God is bringing up his life from corruption (Jonah 2:2, 4, 6).
So, then, the time Jesus spent in the tomb is parallel to the time Jonah spent in the Big Fish. Then Jesus is resurrected and goes forth to create a new Church (like Assyria) into which His old people can migrate for safety from the wrath to come upon Jerusalem.
So far, so good.
Analogies, however, can run in a chain. Some analogical chains are not particularly fruitful. Some run the risk of being fanciful. Some suggested chains are just plain incorrect. I believe, however, that there is an analogical chain that is helpful here, and that is that the tomb of Jesus is not just Jonah’s fish, but also the Holy of Holies.
This is clearest in John’s gospel, which has a particular interest in exegeting the meaning of the Tabernacle and Temple. John tells us that inside the tomb Jesus lay on a slab, and when Mary looked in, she saw "two angels in white sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying." No Jewish reader could have missed the association with the Ark of the Covenant, with the two cherubim at either end of its golden cover. Thus, the tomb-room becomes a Holy of Holies, and Jesus’ departure signifies that His work of atonement is finished (according to the Day of Atonement ritual of Leviticus 16). The same thing is meant by the fact that His linen burial clothes have been left behind, for He has taken back His garments of glory and beauty. (Jesus left behind His glory when He came into the world and was tightly wrapped in swaddling cloths. Here at last the swaddling cloths, which bound His body tightly in death, are removed, and His glory reassumed.)
The Big Fish was a place of refuge and protection, and also of death. The tomb of Jesus is equivalent to the Big Fish, and thus is not just a place of death, but also a place of refuge and protection.
When and how do we enter Jesus’ tomb? We do so by personal faith, but the Church as a community does so sacramentally. The Lord’s Supper was established on the same day that Jesus died, as a sign of His death. (Remember that the days ran from evening to evening.) Moreover, in the Supper we show forth His death until He comes. Now, the Supper also points to His person, His resurrection, His coming, and all the rest of what and who He is and has done and will do. The preeminent focus, however, is on His death. In a real sense, the Lord’s Supper is conducted in Jesus’ tomb, which is also the Holy of Holies.
Of course, when the symbolism is allowed to speak in its fullness, we see that Jesus Himself is the Tomb and the Holy of Holies that we enter. The Old Creation soil was a tomb for Jesus, and now He is a Tomb for us. He is the Big Fish that protects us (and thus the fish is an early and enduring symbol for Jesus).
The concept of the Church as Tomb used to be understood better than it is. Some churches still make their Tables in the shape of Cofin Altars, and while I am not personally favorable to this design and symbolism, it does reflect a tradition of understanding that is fundamentally correct. The tradition of burying people in churches probably reflects the same tradition of thinking.
Once a week the Church goes into Jesus’ Tomb and partakes of His death. This is our refuge from the world. But we don’t stay there. With Jesus, we come forth to build the Kingdom of God. Like Jonah, we are spat out again for another week of work.
Rite Reasons, Studies in Worship, No. 49
Copyright (c) 1997 Biblical Horizons
January, 1997
3. Why was wine and strong drink withheld from the priests and people when they were in God’s special presence in the Old Testament? Why were the priests forbidden to drink wine and strong drink? Why were the men who took Nazirite vows (Num. 6:1-21; Lk. 1:15) and became temporary warrior priests forbidden to drink wine? Ultimately the answer has to do with the biblical significance of wine as symbolic of the blessing of God.
3a. As we saw in our discussion of the Old Testament, wine symbolizes God’s blessings. He promises to reward His people’s obedience with the blessing of the abundance of wine (Dt. 7:13; 11:14; Prov. 3:10). The promised land is characterized as a land with the abundance of “grain and wine” (Dt. 11:14; 2 Ki. 18:32).
3b. God gives the gift of wine to His people as a reward for their patient and faithful work. Lamech called his son’s name Noah, saying, “This one will give us comfort from our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground, which Yahweh has cursed” (Gen. 5:29). Lamech’s prophecy is couched in the symbolic language of Genesis 3:17-19. Noah would bring about a typological deliverance from the curse such that man would enjoy sabbath rest as a result of Noah’s ministry. The name “Noah” means “rest.”
Lamech does not specify how this would come about, but the life of Noah fulfills this prophecy. Noah labored for 120 years building the ark and preaching repentance to the people (Gen. 6:3; 2 Pet. 2:5). He patiently toiled in the hope of rest. He trusted that God would eventually give his family rest after the flood. The first thing Noah does when he exits the ark is build an altar and lead his family in the worship of God (Gen. 8:20). Once Noah has given thanks for his deliverance he rests. “Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. When he drank some of its wine, he became sleepy and lay uncovered inside his tent” (Gen. 9:20-21).
This is in fulfillment of Lamech’s prophecy. It is not a moral lapse on the part of Noah. His vineyard and the production of wine bring the promised rest and relaxation for the people of God. The story of Noah’s rest after the flood is the first instance of the production and consumption of wine in the Bible. The story teaches us that wine is associated with Sabbath rest and refreshment. It is a picture of the prophetic blessings promised to believers when they patiently and faithfully work at the task God has given them. When a man’s work is complete at the end of the day, he can relax and enjoy the fruit of his labors. Abraham is gifted with bread and wine by Melchizedek at the conclusion of his military campaign (Gen. 14:18). Wine is Omega or eschatological food � enjoyed at the conclusion of one’s work (1 Cor. 9:7).
3c. Similarly, the Israelites who came out of Egypt looked forward to a feast of wine in the promised land. But it came at the end of their journey. It was given to them as a gracious gift upon the completion of their faithful service.
The book of Numbers, in anticipation of the Israelite occupation of the promised land, gives extended treatment to the “drink offerings" of wine and strong drink (Num. 6:15-20; 15:5-24; 28:7-24; 29:6-38). The descriptions of the sacrifices in the book of Leviticus do not even mention drink offerings because the Israelites were in the wilderness where there were no vineyards and consequently no wine (Dt. 29:6). They had to wait until they reached the promised land. Vineyards, grapes, and wine symbolized the blessings of patient, persevering faith, something all of the first generation lacked (Num. 14:29; 1 Cor. 10:1-10; Heb. 3:17). They never received the blessing.
Likewise, the book of Deuteronomy, delivered to the people of God on the verge of the Jordan river speaks extensively about the blessings of wine that will be enjoyed by the people in the promised land (Dt. 7:13; 11:14; 14:26; etc.). Wine is, therefore, associated with the promised blessings of the kingdom, the eschatological Messianic kingdom feast.
3d. The prophets pick up this promised-land symbolism and project it onto what they foresee as the future Messianic age. The eschatological Messianic kingdom (= the New Covenant) is characterized as a kingdom that abounds with wine (Is. 25:6; 27:2; 55:1; Jer. 31:12; Hos. 2:22; Joel 2:19, 24; 3:18; Amos 9:13-15; Zech. 9:15, 17; 10:7).
3e. “Jesus made very clear the connection of the kingdom of heaven with the feast. He summarized the blessing of the kingdom as sitting at his Table, feasting with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Mt. 8:11; see Lk. 14:15). Drawing on the Old Testament prophecies about the pilgrimage of the nations to the mountain of God (Is. 2:2-4), Jesus said that men will come `from east and west, and from north and south, and will recline at the table in the kingdom of God’ (Lk. 13:29). The coming of the kingdom means that the nations of the earth will gather for a feast at the sanctuary. To inherit the kingdom is to enter into the joyous feast of God (Mt. 25:21, 23).
“Jesus described the kingdom as a wedding feast for a king’s son (Mt. 22:1-14) and conferred the kingdom on His disciples in these words: `And you are those who have stood by Me in My trials; and just as My Father has granted Me a kingdom, I grant you that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel’ (Lk. 22:28-30).” From Peter J. Leithart, The Kingdom and the Power (P&R, 1993), p. 120.
3f. Now, putting all of this together, we are in a position to answer our original question: Why were priests not allowed to drink wine in the tabernacle and temple? Why were the people allowed to feast outside of the environment of the temple, but not inside? Why was wine systematically excluded from the Holy Place and Most Holy Place? Answer: The fullness of the kingdom had not yet come in the Old Covenant. The priestly work was not yet finished. The Old Covenant priests could never rest. There were no chairs in the tabernacle or temple. There was no resting from their priestly labor. They never enjoyed the fullness of the blessings of the kingdom. The priests reminded the people that the final form of the kingdom had not yet come. The blood of bulls and goats never took away sin (Heb. 10:4). Only with the priestly work of Jesus do the people of God enjoy the Sabbath rest associated with the completed work of Christ (cf. the book of Hebrews). The Old Covenant priests might not rest and relax in God’s presence. They were forbidden to do so. They might not drink wine or strong drink in the tabernacle or temple.
4. Just as the priests might not drink wine when they were in the tabernacle or temple sacrificing, so neither did Jesus drink wine when He was performing His high priestly service on the cross (Mt. 27:34; Mk. 15:23). He did, however, drink wine with His disciples just prior to His arrest in Gethsemene as well as after He was resurrected (Mt. 26:29; Mk. 14:25; Lk. 22:18). Now that Jesus has completed His priestly work once and for all, He sits at the Father’s right hand, resting from His work and inviting His bride into His presence to participate in His joyous and festive rest by eating bread and wine. The dinner Table that Jesus spreads before His people and at which He officiates is a Table of thanksgiving and rest, a covenantal memorial of His finished work (1 Cor. 11: 25-26). The New Covenant believer in Christ has full access to God’s special presence and he can joyfully rest in His presence by drinking the sacramental wine.
5. The above is the essential biblical argument for using wine in the Lord’s Supper. But it may be helpful to briefly re-phrase the argument for using wine in the church’s communion. There are other considerations in addition to the biblical-symbolic thread given above that also ought to be considered.
5a. Wine is Omega food � gratefully enjoyed after one’s work is accomplished (Gen. 5:20-21; 9:21-22; 1 Cor. 9:7). It is perfectly suited for the Lord’s Supper. The believer appears in God’s presence at the end of the week to present himself and his work to the Lord in Christ. He has done his best, offering it at the end of the week to his covenant Lord. Confessing his sin, the believer is nevertheless lifted up, forgiven, and his faithful work that week is graciously accepted by the Lord. The Lord then calls the believer to sit down at his Table and relax.
Enjoy the Lord’s presence with the rest of His family! Rejoice in what the Lord has done for you! Rejoice in what you have done with the Lord’s help! Drink wine and experience the shalom of the Lord! Wine is Sabbath drink. Eat bread so that you can receive strength for the coming week’s work.
The important thing to note here is that the elements used in Lord’s Supper are fitting. Bread makes sense. It is Alpha food. Wine makes sense. It is an Omega drink. Grape juice doesn’t fit. People don’t drink grape juice at the end of the day to relax and make merry, just as people don’t eat flat, tasteless wafers at the beginning of the day for energy.
5b. Wine is a festive drink � merrily consumed upon festive occasions that call for joyous fellowship with one’s family and friends. If the sacramental meals of the Old Covenant were meant to be festive and merry occasions, how much more the fulfillment of all of these covenantal meals in the Lord’s Supper (Dt. 12:7, 12; 26:1-11; 27:1-7; Heb. 12:22-24)!
Now, of course, it is a dangerous thing to come to the covenantal meal with an ungrateful heart, both in the Old and in the New Covenant (Dt. 29: 16-18; 1 Cor. 10:1-11; Heb. 6:7-8). Those who come to the Table in unbelief, refusing to acknowledge the Lord’s grace, will be severely judged (Dt. 29:19-21; 1 Cor. 11:28-32). Nevertheless, the covenantal meal is intended to be a time of thanksgiving and rejoicing. The Lord’s Table is such a festive occasion � at least it ought to be! Unfortunately, in Reformation circles we have dangerously overemphasized the introspective, contemplative aspect of Communion.
5c. The Old Covenant typological foreshadowings of the de_nitive New Covenant meal consist of bread and wine (Gen. 14:18, etc.). Again, wine is Omega food � enjoyed at the conclusion of one’s labor (Gen. 5:20-21; 9:21-22; 1 Cor. 9:7). The fermentation of grape juice over time such that it matures into a fine quality wine is a fitting symbol for the maturation of God’s kingdom from Old to New Covenant. The New is not completely new, but is a transformed, fermented Old. What the Old Covenant believers patiently waited for, but were not able to fully experience, has now arrived, and “only together with us” do they joyfully partake of the finished product (Heb. 11:40).
5d. Grape juice does not produce relaxation and merriment. Wine does. We are not merely supposed to think about rest and relaxation at the Lord’s Table, we must in some measure experience it. What we eat and drink is important; otherwise, our Lord would have just told us to get together and contemplate these realities. He didn’t. He instituted a supper with real food. The bread we eat actually fills our belly first; then, as a consequence, it triggers associations and a certain mental outlook. Similarly, the wine we drink goes down like fire-water and produces the feeling of “shalom” (peace) in our guts, which then leads the mind to give thanks and rejoice in God’s gift of salvation.
The Lord said, “Do this as My memorial.” He did not say, “Think about this” or “Contemplate this” or “Meditate on this” or “Theologize about this.” He gave us something to eat and drink. This eating and drinking must come first and any contemplation, mediation, or theologizing must come after and as a result of the fundamental experience of eating and drinking. Here’s how Calvin put it in his Genevan Catechism: “Q. But why is the body of our Lord figured by bread and His blood by wine? A. . . . by wine the hearts of men are gladdened, their strength recruited, and the whole man strengthened, so by the blood of our Lord the same benefits are received by our souls.”
5e. The food we present on the Lord’s Table ought to be the best. The bread ought to taste good. We should not use stale crackers or styrofoam-like wafers, but genuine bread. When the Lord instituted the supper, He “took bread,” not crackers and not make-believe, flat, melt-in-your-mouth wafers. He took bread. Similarly, He “took the cup” and gave thanks for it. In that cup was wine, not grape juice. It was a festive occasion that called for fine wine, not cheap wine and not sour grape juice. When the Father invites us into His house to eat dinner with His Son, His Table is spread with choice food � robust bread that gives us strength and fine wine that induces a feeling of merriment and peace. “Taste and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the man who trusts in Him!” (Psalm 34:8). Unfortunately, in many churches members taste and see that the Lord is stale and sour.
6. The New Testament does have more to say about wine and beer:
6a. The “overseers” of the church in the New Testament are not to be “addicted to” or “enslaved to much wine” (1 Tim. 3:8; Titus 1:7). Compare the rules for kings in the OT.
6b. God’s solemn warnings against the abuse of wine and strong drink are not to be taken lightly. Drunkenness is a dangerous sin expressly condemned in the NT (Lk. 12:45; Acts 2:15; 1 Cor. 11:21; Eph. 5:18; 1 Thess. 5:7; ).
6c. Once again, however, just like in the Old Testament, the solemn fact that such alcoholic wine is liable to abuse, is never used as a practical reason for total abstinence. The OT teaching that wine and beer are good gifts of God given to cheer the hearts of men (Ps. 4:7; 104:14-15; Judg. 9:13) is not modified by the New Testament. Jesus himself provides the means for such healthy drinking when He made wine for the wedding feast at Cana (Jn. 1:1-11). The one who drinks must do so giving thanks to God and without abusing God’s good gift (cf. 1 Tim. 4:1-5).
Neither the OT nor the NT advocate the prohibition of the use wine or strong drink as a defense against the abuse of alcohol. There is a clear difference in both OT and NT between the use and abuse of alcoholic beverages. Prohibitionists and abstentionists condemn the use of all alcoholic beverages, arguing that the liability to abuse alone ought to cause us to refuse to drink. The Bible never argues this way.
This kind of reasoning is fallacious. It necessarily leads to a dangerous form of legalism: The idea that those Christians who are careful to abstain from all alcoholic beverages are somehow more spiritual than those who don’t. If anything, the New Testament says the opposite: Those who understand that there is no sin involved in drinking wine are called “strong” and those who mistakenly believe that drinking wine is sinful are called “weak.”
“Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object that is abused. Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we prohibit and abolish women? The sun, moon, and stars have been worshipped. Shall we pluck them out of the sky?” — Martin Luther
