PMW 2024-077 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my fourth installment in a series considering passages in Scripture that seemingly prohibit any consumption of alcohol. We are discovering that these verses have to be ready uncarefully and uncontextually. Let us continue.

Proverbs 23:31-32

Do not look upon the wine when it is red,
When it sparkles in the cup,
When it goes down smoothly-,
At the last it bites like a serpent,
And stings like a viper.

Undoubtedly this passage is one of the most frequently employed texts in the debate over wine drinking. Indeed, prohibitionist Reynolds in his Alcohol and the Bible not only opens his major argument (p. 9) with this passage, but closes his book by referring to it (p. 64). He cites this passage over twenty times in his follow up work, Biblical Approach to Alcohol. We may fairly state that, according to Reynolds and those of like persuasion, this passage is the most significant and compelling prohibitionist statement in Scripture. Reynolds comments: “It is the intent of this essay to prove that Proverbs teaches an absolute prohibition against the beverage use of alcohol.” Before interpreting the passage, then, it will be helpful to cite some of Reynolds’s observations on it.

Reynolds’ Argument

In a section entitled “The Absolute Prohibition of Proverbs 23:29-31” we discover the following comments:

“It is true that hyperboles occur in the Bible, but one cannot read Proverbs 23:29-35 without coming to the conclusion that God is speaking of something He loathes as an article for human consumption. There is no suggestion that a good thing which He has given to us to enjoy is in view here. It is viper’s poison (verse 32) and the command is not to look on it.”

The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation
This long-awaited commentary has now been published. It is an 1800 page, two-volume deeply exegetical, academic commentary on the Bible’s most mysterious book.

Click: https://www.kennethgentry.com/the-divorce-of-israel-2-vols-by-gentry-pre-publication-offer/

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Reynolds then argues from what he deems a parallel situation. He observes that when Lot leaves Sodom, God forbids his looking back upon the city (Gen. 19:17ff). This is due to the moral evil that infests Sodom. Hence the absolute prohibition by God. Thus, God “also put an absolute prohibition on looking at a certain sort of yayin (Prov. 23:31). . . . The prohibition is absolute, like that of looking at Sodom.”

In Reynolds’s view the absolute prohibition is here in Proverbs 23 and not at other references to yayin because the wine is specifically designated as “red.” As I have noted previously, the idea behind this “red” designation is that it is alcoholic, causing redness of eyes and nose when indulged in. Thus, he concludes: “It is puerile to suppose this command is not to be taken seriously and that the prohibition is not absolute. All the prohibitions of Proverbs 23 are absolute.”

My Response

Reynolds suggests some intriguing arguments based on lexical considerations supporting his view that “red” indicates “alcoholic.” And he may well be correct in this observation. We can concede his point, however, without at all altering the moderationist argument. Note the following observations on the substance of his arguments:

First, we must divorce this passage from its near, far, and ultimate contexts to bear the construction Reynolds places upon it. The near context is extremely clear: the warning and admonition specifically apply to immoderate abusers of wine:

29. Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaining? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes?
30. Those who linger long over wine, Those who go to taste mixed wine.
31. Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it goes down smoothly;
32. At the last it bites like a serpent, And stings like a viper.
33. Your eyes will see strange things, And your mind will utter perverse things.
34. And you will be like one who ties down in the middle of the sea, Or like one who lies down on the top of a mast.
35. “They struck me, but I did not become ill; They beat me, but I did not know it. When shall I awake? I will seek another drink.”

God’s Law Made Easy

(by Kenneth Gentry)

Summary for the case for the continuing relevance of God’s Law. A helpful summary of the argument from Greg L. Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

How could a context be any clearer? Here Proverbs specifically and carefully describes the person whom it admonishes. This person exhibits all the emotional, social, and physical characteristics of the drunkard: depression (v. 29a), a contentious spirit (v. 29b), and telltale physical appearance. (v. 29c). Here we have before our view those who “linger long over wine” (v. 30). These drunkards have developed alcohol-induced delusions (v. 33), disorientation (v. 34), and detachment (v. 35a, b). But despite all this, such an addict to wine refuses to give it up (v. 35c).

In his later work, Reynolds considers “strange” my argument that this passage confronts the drunkard. He asserts that drunkards are not addressed “directly” because they “are not assumed to be teachable.” Rather, in this context the writer directs the command “thou,” not “this miserable addict.”

This is surely a most remarkable claim: Does the Scripture give up on those caught up in drunkenness? Are we not to minister to the alcoholic and confront him from Scripture? And why is it just the drunkard who is unteachable; why not those overwhelmed by other addictive sins (such as promiscuity or covetousness)? Does not Proverbs 24:15 directly confront the covetous robber:

Do not lie in wait, O wicked man, against the dwelling of the righteous;
Do not destroy his resting place.

Actually the Bible does deal directly with drunkards, warning them of their doom: In the rebellious son legislation, the parents obviously attempt rebuke and correction over a period of time (Deut. 21:20). Though it is not successful, nevertheless the attempt is made. In fact, Joel 1:5 expressly addresses the drunkard:

Awake, drunkards, and weep;
And wail, all you wine drinkers,
On account of the sweet wine
That is cut off from your mouth.

Furthermore, the broader context of Proverbs 23 is almost as helpful. Verses 20-21 prepare us for the warning of verse 31:

Do not be with heavy drinkers of wine,
Or with gluttonous eaters of meat;
For the heavy drinker and the glutton will come to poverty,
And drowsiness will clothe a man with rags.

In addition, Reynolds is surely wrong when he forthrightly declares: “the prohibition of Proverbs 23:31 is not properly explained in any other way than total.” But this no more universally and absolutely prohibits wine drinking than verse 4 of the same chapter universally and absolutely forbids wealth accumulation:

Do not weary yourself to gain wealth,
Cease from your consideration of it.

After all, the Lord grants his obedient people “the power to make wealth” (Deut. 8:18) and promises economic abundance for covenant faithfulness (Deut. 28:1:14; cf. Gen. 13:2; Job 1:1-3). We must understand Proverbs 23:4 contextually. He warns against a wholesale thirst, a driving ambition to gain wealth, which is much like the alcoholic who gives his life over to a wholesale thirst for booze.

Greatness of the Great Commission (by Ken Gentry)

An insightful analysis of the full implications of the great commission as given in Matthew 28:18-20. Impacts postmillennialism as well as the whole Christian worldview.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Finally, the ultimate context is the entire Scripture, which clearly does not forbid the moderate partaking of “aged wine” (Isa. 25:6), “strong drink” (Deut. 14:26), or “all sorts of wine” (Neh. 5:18). The “gladdening effect” of wine is acceptable, at least to some degree (Psa. 104:15; Eccl. 9:7; 10:19; 2 Sam. 13:28; Est. 1:10; Zech. 9:15; 10:7; Judg. 9:13).

Second, Reynolds distorts a figure involved in Proverbs 23:32. The text does not say, “It is a viper’s poison.” Rather, it warns: “at the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like an adder.” A world of difference separates reality (“is”) and analogy (“is like”). It is only “at the last,” after “lingering long” that wine becomes harmful “like” a viper. The abuse of wine is in view here, not the use.

In this respect it is somewhat similar to Isaiah 1:10-14, which reads:

Hear the word of the Lord,
You rulers of Sodom;
Give ear to the instruction of our God,
You people of Gomorrah.
“What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?”
Says the Lord.
“I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams,
And the fat of fed cattle.
And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs, or goats.
When you come to appear before Me,
Who requires of you this trampling of My courts?
Bring your worthless offerings no longer,
Incense is an abomination to Me.
New moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies —
I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly.
I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts,

-They have become a burden to Me.
I am weary of bearing them.

Under the particular circumstances, the otherwise God-ordained sacrifices, offerings, incense, assemblies, and feasts are an unendurable burden to the Lord (vv. 13-14). Obviously the context must inform us why God hates these good things. And it does: the rulers of Israel are living like those of Sodom, the people like those of Gomorrah (v. 10). Their hands are “covered with blood” (v. 15). In short, at this time Israel is a sinful nation,

[A] people weighed down with iniquity,
Offspring of evildoers,
Sons who act corruptly! (v. 4).

God does not accept the worship of the hypocrite and the rebel.

Third, Reynolds’s particular illustration destroys his own argument. A careful reading of Genesis 19 indicates the limited nature of the prohibition to took upon Sodom and Gomorrah. God forbids Lot and his family to look back (v. 17) while God’s wrath is falling upon those cities. Lot’s wife looks back at that moment, and she dies (v. 26). But Abraham looks down upon the cities shortly after the judgment and lives (vv. 27-28). Likewise is it with the long-lingering alcoholic (Prov. 23:30), one who refuses moderation (v. 35) — wisdom forbids his looking upon wine.

Reformed Eschatology in the Writings of Geerhardus Vos
Ed. by Ken Gentry and Bill Boney
This is a collection of several key eschatological studies by the renowned Reformed theologian Geehardus Vos. We have modernized Vos’ grammar and syntax and updated his layout style according to modern publishing conventions (shorter sentences and paragraphs). We did this without changing any of Vos’ arguments.

For information on the upcoming Geerhardus Vos work or to pre-order it, see:
https://axeheadpress.com/pages/coming-soon-vos

Fourth, although Reynolds may be correct in asserting that the reference to “red” in Proverbs 23:31 indicates the wine’s alcoholic content, it is simply not true that “there was no other word in the ancient languages in which the Bible was written for alcoholic beverages.” Reynolds admits differing with the consensus of Bible translations over this point. Earlier in this book I point out that lexicographers affirm what Reynolds denies: oinos, shekar, and other terms do in fact refer to alcoholic wine. And if Reynolds is correct when he asserts that the phrase in Proverbs 23:31 is the only phrase that refers to alcohol, then this one verse becomes the only verse in all of Scripture that warns of alcohol abuse!

God Gave Wine (by Ken Gentry)

A biblical defense of moderate alcohol consumption. Considers all key biblical passages and engages the leading objections.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Tagged: Alcoholic beverage, wine drinking