Category: Questions and Answers

Post your questions on this space

Why is there a discrepancy in geneologies of Jesus found in Matthew and Luke?

Question:

“Jesus descended from the family of David. Solomon and Nathan were some of the children of David. Matthew’s geneology shows Jesus to have come through Solomon (Mat. 1:6) and the geneology in Luke lists Nathan (Luk.3:31). How can such a discrepancy be found in what is supposed to be inspired Scripture?”


Response

According to Biblical genealogies Jesus Christ descended from the family line of King David (Rom.1:3). King David had many children and among them was Solomon and Nathan (1 Chr.3:5).

The genealogy of Jesus according to the Gospel of Matthew is traced through Solomon (Mat.1:6) and the one in Luke is traced through Nathan (Luk.3:31). This raises an important question: How can such a discrepancy be found in Scripture which is supposed to be inspired (“inbreathed”) of God and hence containing no error? The discrepancy leads to two different genealogies as evidenced by different names being stated for the father of Joseph – In Matthew Jacob and in Luke Heli! So, did Joseph have two fathers?

Well, consider this: How would you write the genealogy of a person who has no father? A genealogy is normally traced through males as they are the seed-carriers. This is the challenge that we encounter when trying to list the genealogy of Jesus. However, it is acceptable to either list His genealogy through Joseph, His foster-father, in order to satisfy an earthly (legal) requirement, or to come closer to a natural genealogy by listing Mary, the woman who bore him, on the genealogy. If two lists of such genealogies existed they wouldn’t be contradictory to each other but complementary. This is exactly the case with the two genealogies of Jesus.

When the record of Luke is read in the original language an important clue shows up: In Greek every name in the genealogy, except that of Heli, is preceded with the definite article “the”. That brings our focus to Heli. Thankfully again, a historical source saves us the time to unravel the puzzle: in the Talmud of Jerusalem Heli is referred to as the father of Mary! So, instead of putting Mary on the genealogy, her father’s name was listed. In this light we can actually read Luke 3:23 as, “Joseph, which was the son-in-law of Heli”. It is in that sense that we can say, Yes Joseph had two fathers: Jacob his natural father, and Heli his father in law. Thus, what we have in Luke is a maternal genealogy and the one in Matthew a paternal genealogy.

Find other plausible explanations to the genealogy question here.

 

 

“Andrew, if you were born in Afghanistan, you would have been a Taliban and would have bombed for your God! Faith is not about Truth but what influenced your upbringing!”

How can the truthfulness or falsehood of a fact be determined by where someone has grown or lived? While it is true that an environment can influence a person’s belief, assessment of the truthfulness of his beliefs should be based on the evaluation of facts claimed by the belief system and not the examination of influences that may have led to the belief. For example, Michael Faraday a British physicist and Chemist was a deeply religious man; his obsession of science was influenced by his belief that the underlying power of God unified everything in nature. His faith inspired him to perform a lot of scientific experiments to decipher God’s handiwork in nature.

Now, while someone may disagree with Faraday’s religious convictions it is worthwhile to note that they are what led him to discover electromagnetic induction and electrolysis. So, would it be reasonable to discard electromagnetic induction and electrolysis on the basis of Faraday’s religious influences that led to their discovery?

It is true that science and faith do not use the same instruments of empirical verification, however, it is important to see that they both present facts which can be assessed by  following where the evidence leads. So, although someone may have grown up in a region where a certain religion is practised, as he grows up and gets exposed to knowledge, he should make an informed decision concerning his faith. If a person calls himself a believer but without any reason for his beliefs, apart from carrying on what his family, race or people are accustomed to, then he or she actually does not truly believe! His faith is blind and a product of adaptation. Although there are many people who are Christians in this way, it is important to be aware that there are also some whose faith is based on evidence. Isn’t Faith scripturally defined as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Heb.11:1)?

That is why  some Christians have afterward converted to Islam and others who grew up as well-trained Islamists later converted to Christianity. Likewise, there have been atheists who later converted to theism  – Clive S. Lewis, Anthony Flew, Francis Collins, just to mention three examples.

Such is human life, we grow up and later decide for ourselves what we think is the best explanation of things around us. Similarly, True Faith ais not a blind assumption but an experience of Truth – “I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42:5-6). Faith is not a blind hope; it is a hope grounded in reason – “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Pet.3:15).

“Why did God create Lucifer knowing he would fail?”

Another way this question is often asked is “if God knows the future, why didn’t He prevent evil from the Beginning?

It is important to know that angels and human beings were created to be a family of conscious beings, endowed with Free Will. I find Free Will to be the most mysterious act of God – Just how did He make something to be self-aware and have freedom of choice? I would say, the strongest force in the world is not Gravity but Free Will; the most elusive thing is not Dark Matter but the freedom to choose! Free Will is the ability to think, reason and choose. Free Will was (and is) the only way to have a real world. This real world ought to have love and fellowship. However, Free Will also creates a possibility to commit wrong or evil.

Surely God knew what a world of sentient beings would entail. He knew about the possibility of evil that would exist. Yes, He knew about the temptation Lucifer would experience to rise against God. God’s ability to declare the “end” from the “beginning” sets Him apart – “I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand (Isa.46:9-10). But, it should be noted that His ability to know the future  of a conscious being must not be confused with Him causing the being to do something (that would violate Free Will). However, God graciously (actually mysteriously) provided a way of escape to anyone who would follow His counsel. His wise counsel always stands because he knows what was, what is, and what shall be! It follows that any creature that is wise would follow the counsel of this all-wise and all-knowing God.

Price of Free Will

Some may argue that if God knows the future of something evil about to occur, He should either prevent the evil or guard a person from being influenced by the evil. Well, that cannot be. It is important to appreciate the fact that although God would be able to create such a world; a world that is void of the knowledge of evil but only populated with creatures that are programmed to do good wouldn’t be a true real world. So, despite the possibility of evil, we can say that God was willing to pay the Price of Free Will. Like CS Lewis explained:

If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will – that is, for making a live world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings – then we may take it it  is worth paying.

Lewis again:

Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible  any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata – of creatures that worked like machines – would hardly be worth creating.

So, when man later chose the wrong way in exercising his curiosity, God let him freely abandon the right way; man was free to partake of ‘the forbidden tree’ but he had to live through the ‘fruit’ (i.e. consequences) of his choice – “For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD: They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices” (Proverbs 1:29-31).

Why allow Failure?

From the explanation above a question arises: What is the worth of creating something that you know will fail? Well, it may seem a vain exercise but not so when you perceive the intention of God: The presence of Free Will where the creator promises future redemption for a wrong can be rationalized if there is an intention to let the “vanity” expose the foolishness of a wrong, and hence use this process as a learning experience for the wrong doer. It can thus be explained that God’s willingness to temporarily lose creation to vanity is in hope that the sentient being will through experience come to freely choose God’s perfect will. As the Scripture says: 

For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (Romans 8:20-23).

It is in this context that we can say God permits (or “creates”) evil – (Isa.45:7).

If the creature was to be made to accept God’s perfect will without learning or choice then that wouldn’t be true choice in the first place. We can see God working in the same manner with regards the giving of the Law – “that every mouth maybe stopped and all the world may become guilty before God” (Rom.3:19).  The learning process appears to be the way God lets people follow His Perfect Will but without infringing on their right of Free Will. They chose to follow God’s way by perceiving the goodness and righteousness of God.

So we can say that God permitted evil not as His Perfect Will but as something that was necessary for a world with Free Will. Even so, the same Free Will provides an opportunity to escape a bad end. It is for this reason that the “Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet.3:9). To understand how God knows the future of someone but yet allows Free Will for their escape seems as elusive as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

“Why did William Branham die in a wreck of an accident? Was it a Curse from God?”

The human mind loves to speculate. Let us start from Elijah the Tishbite. This was the man who once shut up the heavens so that it rained not and had called fire from heaven, a showdown against prophets of Baal. His ministry had such a majestic end – he was carried by a chariot of fire! (2 Kings 2:11). He did not experience death. The man after him was Elisha. Elisha had a double portion of Elijah’s spirit. Would his ending be as glorious as Elijah’s? Would that be a true test of the authenticity of his ‘Elijah’ anointing?

Elisha performed great miracles including the healing of men who had eaten a poisonous meal. He also once multiplied bread so that a  hundred people were fed (2 Kings 4:38-44). But as always happens, carnal men must have wondered at his ministry – was he a mere mortal man or he was something more, a divine being? Well, he was a great servant of God but he was still flesh and blood. His death by a sickness showed that. It signified to the people that all glory belongs to God and Elisha was only a vessel of God. Did the death of Elisha mean that God had abandoned or cursed him? Far from it: When a dead man touched Elisha’s bones, he revived and came back to life! (2 Kings 13:21). What else could that mean but that Elisha died serving God?

Next, we have John the baptist. He died a more terrible death than Elisha. After rebuking King Herod of his sinful marriage, he was imprisoned. John may have expected that since the Messiah had been revealed, the Roman empire according to prophecies of Daniel would soon give way to the establishment of the Kingdom of God. But as he lingered on in jail and was about to be killed, he got troubled and sent to ask Jesus, “Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?” (Mattew 11:3). If God wanted he would have revealed to John more events to transpire before the physical manifestation and establishment of the Kingdom of God. However, God only revealed what was appropriate for John to know. John was beheaded. Scorners were certainly there to mock, “If he was truly Elijah why didnt he call fire from heaven to devour his enemies?”

Gentiles in the twentieth century witnessed an Elijah ministry in William Branham. So great a ministry it was that volumes of books and tapes have been recorded testifying of the signs and wonders that occured in his ministry. The ministry was too peculiar for many people. Branham had to be more than a man, they speculated ( a thing William Branham so harshly condemned in no uncertain terms!) Well, it is no surprising that people went to such extremes. Never before had Gentiles seen a mortal see visions and call out people’s names and their diseases, healing cancers and causing the lame to walk, the blind to see, and the dead come back to life. God would literally take over this man as he spoke THUS SAITH THE LORD. But at the end of his ministry, God again showed us that he was only human flesh, a vessel which had only yielded itself into the master’s hands. All glory had to be given to God. Even so, on that accident scene when his hand was made to touch his dead wife and she came back to life, God (like he did with Elisha’s bones reviving a dead man) testified of His presence still on the man. A confusing sign it was: The death confounded some people to reject the man, the revelation of the Word, and testimony of life on his wife, comforted the believers.

The world is yet to see the last Elijah to be sent to the nation of Israel. His ministry will manifest together with ‘Moses’.Together these men will astound and trouble the world. But at the end of it all, their lives will be terminated in a cruel death which will make the world rejoice. The Scripture has already prophesied their  death in Revelation 11. But again, God will do something to raise them up!

Isn’t taking children to church forcing religion on them? Why not let them grow to later decide for themselves?

May I answer this question using this illustration: There are some people who are not happy with their lives and have expressed anger at why they exist. Would it be justifiable then to assert that sexual reproduction is wrong because it precludes the consent of the child to get born? Too ridiculous a question but one which should provoke the common sense in you and I to know that when a male and female decide to bring forth another human being on this planet; much as the new person will later have an independent mind to decide his lifestyle – whether to be a vegetarian or meat-eater, an atheist or theist – he will have no other way to start life apart from first being in the complete control and care of his parents. The control should gradually recede as the person grows older. This situation would not have been so if humans were born adults. But we have found ourselves in a world in which the very initiative and possibility of one’s existence is in the control of his or her parents (i.e. they decided to make love and bring forth the child). Even after the child’s birth, parents will still decide what food or type of schooling is best for the child. When this child grows into adulthood he may adopt an altogether different way of life (become a vegetarian?) and philosophy (adopt theism or atheism?) quite different from his parents. This is acceptable; what should be avoided is indoctrinating the child. In the words of the famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, “What a child should never be taught is that you are a Catholic or Muslim child, therefore that is what you believe.” For once, I agree with him. However, an over-stretch of this statement to mean “carrying your two year old child to church is abuse and indoctrination” would be an exaggeration which would lead to various absurdities of trying to get a child’s consent on different issues which require personal choice (like the afore-mentioned case of birth-consent).

Wise and prudent parents do not force life’s journey on their child; they will give him an opportunity to see the world as they see it, and later when he is mature enough to use discretion, give him space to be aware of other worldviews and let him decide. Is it not for this reason that Richard Dawkins is a man who was raised up by religious parents but himself later became an atheist, and Francis Collins, a son of “free-thinkers”, was an unbeliever but later became a believer? Similarly, John Lennox had parents who, despite being Christians, encouraged him to think and analyse other world views.

In saying all this, however, I do not dispute your observation that some (or perhaps many) people force religion upon their children. Some religions are quite terrible on this. Some Christians are just as guilty when they tell people to believe because they just have to believe. In many churches today, sermons are so much filled with ignorance, even speaking against simple provable facts of science. But to be fair, try to recognise the fact that this is not representative of all Christians; there are still spiritual people (few as they may be) whose faith is not a blind one but one based on evidence and rigorous thought.

“Do you believe in extraterrestrial intelligence?”

“A lot of money has been spent on SETI to search for alien life in space.Why do many scientists believe that we are most likely not alone in the universe? What are your thoughts on extraterrestrial intelligence?”

“Well” I answered: “I also believe that there are aliens out there!”

“Oh, but you are Christian Andrew!” the questioner shrugged.

“Ofcourse, ‘aliens’, as they call them, are first mentioned in the Bible. Is it not the Bible which told us that there is God, angels, and devils, way before the SETI project was ever set up? If the Son of God with angels came today, they wont cry ‘Jesus!’ They will point guns to the sky and alert the world, ‘Aliens have finally invaded!'”

“Is it wrong for a Christian to use donated blood when sick?”

I have seen loved ones become critically ill—and others even die—because of religious beliefs that treat blood as sacred in connection with biblical verses such as Leviticus 17:11, which says, “the life of the flesh is in the blood.” For some, this verse becomes the foundation of a doctrine that forbids receiving blood in any form. Others stretch the idea further and condemn kidney or other organ transplants, believing that accepting another person’s organ somehow interferes with one’s spiritual identity or purity.

These beliefs are not merely theoretical; they have real and sometimes devastating consequences. Families have been torn between medical advice and religious conviction. Patients have refused life‑saving treatment out of fear that accepting blood or an organ violates God’s law. And in some cases, that refusal has cost them their lives.

I remember a case involving a Jehovah’s Witness patient who was critically ill and urgently needed a blood transfusion. Both he and his family refused, much to the frustration of the medical team. When his condition deteriorated further, he finally consented—but it was too late. He died. Few things illustrate more clearly how dangerous and destructive a misguided belief can be.

Here is the point: Life being “in the blood” (Lev. 17:11) does not mean that the blood itself is life. The verse teaches that blood functions as the carrier or symbol of life—not that life is a physical substance contained inside red cells. Life does not belong to the realm of physical matter—something that can be touched, weighed, stored, or transferred from one person to another like a commodity. Blood is simply the medium through which life operates in the body, much like a copper wire is the medium through which electricity flows.

A copper wire is not electricity; it only conducts it. You can cut out a section of that wire and replace it with another piece of copper, and—so long as the properties are the same—the electricity running through it does not become a “different kind” of electricity. The power remains the same; only the conduit has changed. In the same way, replacing blood or even an organ does not replace a person’s identity, spirit, or life. It merely restores the physical channel through which life continues to operate.

Blood, like copper, is a material substance reducible to particles and chemical components. Life, however, is not reducible to any physical element. It is something deeper—something science can observe in its effects but cannot isolate, bottle, or define. Blood is the pathway; life is the mystery that flows through it.

There is no formula that expresses life in terms of elements, chemicals, or mathematical equations. If life were literally the blood in our bodies, then when a person dies, all we would need to do is transfuse “life” (blood) into them and they would return to life. But the Lord Jesus said, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63). And John—the man who affirmed that the universe had a beginning long before modern science used Hubble’s expanding‑universe evidence, the cosmic microwave background radiation, or the BGV theorem—wrote: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… In him was life” (Joh. 1:1, 4).

Emphatic challenge, then a simple Question

It was a strange email. The sender seemed set on trying to correct William Branham’s interpretation of the seven angels of Revelation Chapters 2 through 3. William Branham taught that they represented earthly messengers. The email sender ‘knows better’ – they are heavenly angels and not men! “if [you] read Revelation 1:20, its not literal Seven Churchs Ages; its about seven heavenly angels” he asserted. Well, I asked him: “John was told ‘Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write…’ Kindly explain to me how John, a human being, was suppose to write a letter to a heavenly angel?” I am yet to receive the answer. A scripture came to mind: “Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm” (1 Tim.1:7).

 

Question: Does the Bible allow a Christian to drink alcohol?

Question from Inbox:

Is it right for Christians to drink alcohol seeing that there are a number of scriptures (e.g. 1 Cor.11:22, Psa.104:15, Mat.11:19, 1 Tim.5:23) which seem to suggest so? Many verses quoted by some Christians (e.g. Eph.5:18 and Prov. 23:20-21) seem to actually address and forbid the abuse of alcohol, not its proper use.

white-wine-1761575_1920.jpg

Did Jesus Christ drink wine? Yes. As a follower of Jesus Christ would I indulge in wine drinking? No. How do I reconcile my two answers? Well, you need to read every word in the following explanation to understand.

First, it is important to know that something can be true but yet not contain the truth. A statement or explanation can be true but yet deceptive. And in this day when most Christians are mainly given to Charismatic emotionalism and not serious study of Scriptures, simple matters can become pretty confusing. Consider when Peter said “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt.16:16). Peter must have felt encouraged when the Lord said that was revealed to him by God. However, one day evil spirits cried out saying, “Thou art Christ the Son of God” (Luk.4:41) but were instead rebuked to hold their peace. The statements of Peter and the demons were both true but only Peter’s constituted a confession of Truth. Truth here is not that word you find in a dictionary but the revelation of God’s Word. Without revelation one will read the Bible the same way they read a novel or a research thesis. The Devil is not afraid of that. Like one preacher said, the Devil is actually eager to let you read letters from cover to cover of the Holy Bible as long as you can’t see the life behind the letters (2 Cor.3:6)!

Now the answer to the alcohol question is not a multiple choice type of a “YES” or “NO.” One needs to comprehend the truth of the whole subject. My explanation will begin by first highlighting the main verses used by Christians against alcohol. Hereafter I refer to them as anti-alcohols. Secondly, I will present verses commonly used by Christians in support of drinking alcohol (e.g. Jehovah’s Witnesses). Hereafter I refer to this group as pro-alcohols. Finally, I will present what I believe is fully consistent with the Truth of scriptures.

Anti-alcohols

Scriptures commonly used to speak against alcohol drinking include:

  • Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18).
  • Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise” (Pro.20:1).
  • Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh: For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags” (Pro.23:20-21).
  • It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink” (Pro.31:3-4).

Anti-alcohols are so adamant at supporting their position that they would go to extents of presuming that when Jesus made wine at the wedding of Cana (see Joh. 2:1-11), it had not yet fermented! However, with all due respect to efforts of such Christians, who no doubt are sincerely trying to present a teaching that will prevent people from succumbing to carnal and ungodly lifestyles, it is important to know that we cannot use falsehood to defend truth. One can only stand with Truth. It defends itself. At the wedding in Cana when the ruler of the feast tasted the miracle-made wine he remarked, “Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now” (Joh.2:10). “Good wine” is the fermented one, not grape juice!

Pro-alcohols

Pro-alcohols often use the following verses to justify the drinking of alcohol.

  • In a parable in Judges, wine is said to cheer both God and man: wine, “which cheereth God and man” (Jud.9:13).
  • Paul wrote a letter to the church at Corinth which often abused Holy Communion services by over-drinking the wine. He admonished them saying, “have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?” (1 Cor.11:22). There are two important things to note about this verse. First, this verse exposes the error of Christians who use grape juice in place of wine for the Lord’s Supper. This verse shows that the practice of early Christians was to use actual wine. The Corinthian church was only abusing that which was the normal practice. Secondly, pro-alcohols explain using this scripture that it was permissible for Christians to drink wine in their homes.
  • [God] causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man’s heart” (Psa.104:15). This verse indicates that God made wine to excite man.
  • The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children” (Mat.11:19). A winebibber is a habitual drinker of alcohol, a drunkard! So, it appears drunkards would find great solace in this verse. But, does this verse really mean that Jesus was actually a drunkard?
  • Paul in giving advice to Timothy because of his sickness said, “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities” (1 Tim.5:23).

Before I proceed to present my answer I would like to state here that I have found it interesting to note that both Christians and non-Christians (including drunkards) often despise and doubt the testimony of one who professes to be a Christian but yet is a drinker of alcohol. However, there are worldly people who feel comforted of their situation when they hear someone quote a scripture to support the drinking of alcohol. But,…

What is the Truth?

To see the truth one needs not to look at the ‘trees’ but see the ‘forest’ of Scripture. A common mistake with regards to this (and other similar) subject(s) involves looking at the ancient Jewish custom of drinking wine through the modern setting of consuming beer. When one uses the modern term “beer” in place of the term used in the Bible, “wine”, a subtle error is already introduced so that “Jimmy drinks beer” and “Jesus used to drink beer” means Jimmy does what Jesus used to do. To an undiscerning person that seems to be the case, but yet there is a clear mis-presentation of Jesus into a modern setting of what connotes beer drinking. Beer drinking is well understood today as a practice that has moral issues attached to it. It is for this reason that when a Christian is spotted drinking beer people will talk about it, and they will question his character. But how is this so when in Jewish culture wine was such a well-known beverage that would be taken even by men of God and during holy ceremonies? Firstly, it is important to properly understand what constituted drinking wine in the Jewish culture and in the Torah. Secondly, one needs to understand God’s dealings with His people through time, from the Old Testament to the New Testament. And lastly, it is important for a believer to know that a Christian has an obligation to not only do what is justifiably right but that which will give the right impression for the edification of another person.

Jewish culture and the Torah

Rabbi Menachem Posner notes:

Wine’s ability to bring joy is because it relaxes our inhibitions and weakens the body’s natural defenses. This “weakening of the body” allows the soul to shine through. After taking [wine] one is more easily inspired, because the body offers less resistance. This obviously applies only when one drinks in moderation and on special, holy occasions in an attempt to make them a bit more festive and to introduce an inspirational ambiance (Posner, 2017).[1]

In a perfect world, where every human being was wise, morally upright, subscribed to the same moral code, and worshiped one God, there would be no problem with the subject of wine. There would be no need to include lines in codes of conduct of organisations which forbid officers to be drunk whilst on duty; they would know what to do because they are all morally upright. However, since the Fall in Eden, man has a terrible moral problem so that even when he knows the right thing to do, he finds a thin line between right and wrong, so that on a scale of modest and excess, each person devises their own knobs of what is acceptable to them. In the Jewish society there were the noble and wise who knew the proper use of wine. They drunk wine sparingly and appropriately. And there were also the foolish who indulged in alcohol (Pro.20:1). And then there were Nazarites who were completely consecrated to God and were forbidden to drink wine. These were called to “separate themselves unto the LORD” (Num.6:2-4).

A Nazarite presents an important lesson here. His abstinence represented the ideal practice for mankind.

Some people would drink wine wisely, and others would drink it foolishly. God permitted the foolishness because of the fallen condition of man. Not only did He permit the foolishness (like in the case of Noah getting drunk), but he let hopeless man (born and shapen in iniquity and filled with trouble on his mind) drink it to forget his worries – “It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wineGive strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more” (Pro.31:4-7). Notice here that the noble should not drink wine, but those in misery are to drink it to remember their misery “no more”. But how long is this “no more”? Certainly, it is only as long as one is in his drunken stupor! When he sobers up, the problem and misery is still there! But again, why should God provide such an imperfect solution? Well, we need to understand God’s dealings with mankind through time.

God’s dealings with His people through time

A patient experiences chronic excruciating pain in the head. There is a pain killer, A, he has been prescribed to ease the pain but for which he has been warned that prolonged use may lead to bad side-effects.  He only uses the drug for a week and then a new drug, B, is discovered which is not only more effective but has zero side-effects. It certainly would be ridiculous for the patient to refuse drug B in preferring A!

The Old Testament presents the picture of man as a patient of sin and iniquity. He chose sin wilfully. The gentle God had to let man partake of the fruit of his chosen way – “They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices” (Pro.1:30-31). Even so, God in His mercy was so patient, to the extent of permitting certain things which were unpleasant in His eyes. Some things permitted were divorce and polygamy. However, like the Lord Jesus Christ explained to the Jews, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so” (Mat.19:8). However, note that it is God who spoke to Moses to let people divorce. That doesn’t mean he sanctioned divorce. He permitted it because of the weakness of man. However, God knew that there would come a time when man would be delivered from the bondage of sin by the power of the blood of Jesus and the infilling of the Holy Ghost (Jer.31:31-34, Eze.36:27), and when that happens, that which was permitted would no longer be allowed.

So, in the New Testament we seek the perfect will of God. As was stated earlier, a man in the Old Testament was permitted to drink wine to make his heart merry and forget his misery – “Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more” (Prov.31:7). But the “no more” was only as long as the drunken state. When he sobered up, the problem was still there. That was the agony of hopeless man. Wine could only solve the problem “in part.” It was not THE solution! When Christ came, He gave the invitation, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Mat. 11:28-29). On the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit was given and the believers staggered with the ‘new wine’. The joy that comes with this new wine is abiding. Surely one won’t seek the joy that comes with the drunkenness of the old wine when he tastes the new wine, simply because “when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away” (1 Cor.13:10). When medicine B has come, I don’t want to have anything to do with medicine A.

But, what if someone says, “Well, I don’t drink it to get merry in order to forget problems; I have a clean conscious. I would just take it as a drink to refresh myself”?

We abstain from things that hinder others

The Christian walk is not all about doing something simply because your conscience doesn’t condemn you; it has much to do with what impression you portray to another person and the general community around you. Understand that Jews had a well-developed moral code which was far ahead of many Gentile nations. Jews would never gather in a church and get drunk in a service the way Corinthian (gentile) believers behaved. Clearly, alcohol consumption among gentiles was quite abused. And although they received the Gospel, it took severe rebukes of apostle Paul for them to learn about the new life in Christ. Paul had a hard time establishing the Corinthians in the truth. In the church there were such terrible sins as one of a young man committing fornication with his father’s wife. This was not a heathen but a brother in a congregation. They were certainly so very far from understanding the Gospel. Thus, when Paul admonished them saying “have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?” (1 Cor.11:22) we need to understand that he wasn’t sanctioning their indulgence in alcohol; he was speaking to a morally bankrupt people. Consider this: I have once told a cigarette smoker, “Please sir, kindly smoke outside this room.” That in no way meant I sanctioned his smoking wherever he went outside the room!

I should emphasise here that Paul had a hard time to establish Gentile people. Although now in the Gospel, there were many of them who had a ‘hangover’ of their past life. These were people with a different culture and attitude towards things like wine. A thing like wine which was used appropriately in Jewish religious gatherings found itself being abused among gentiles. To this day, the problem of drinking is widespread around the world. Drinking has become an addiction for many people. The last thing a Christian wants to do is to be identified with the thing which has become a symbol of sin and immorality and is destroying many people’s lives. Wisdom speaks – “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak” (Rom.14:21), and “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend” (1 Cor.8:13). But more than this, know that if you are hoping to one day rule with Christ, then live as a king now, for He has “made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth” (Rev.5:10). And if you are a king then this verse is for you – “It is not for kings…to drink wine” (Pro.31:3-4).


[1] Posner, M (2017). What is Judaism’s take on alcohol consumption? [Online] Available from: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/581082/jewish/What-is-Judaisms-take-on-alcohol-consumption.htm [Accessed October 25, 2017].