Response to Sword of the Lord Book Review
In the July 10, 2009, issue of Sword of the Lord, Dr. Shelton Smith, the paper’s editor, reviews The Christian and Drinking: A Biblical Perspective on Moderation and Abstinence, written by Dr. Randy Jaeggli of the Bob Jones University Seminary faculty.
In his monograph, Dr. Jaeggli presents a wide array of arguments which urge Christians to totally abstain from drinking alcohol. The book’s clearly stated thesis is that followers of Christ should not drink wine or any kind of alcoholic beverages, not even in moderation.
The Sword of the Lord editor’s review misunderstands and consequently misrepresents the book’s clear thesis and supporting scriptural, linguistic, historical, and medical evidence. This critique intends to examine some of these misunderstandings and misrepresentations.
Commendable Acknowledgements
We must express gratitude for Dr. Shelton Smith’s biblical approach in going directly to Dr. Jaeggli with his concerns about the book before he wrote his review. Dr. Smith acknowledged that their conversation was one of openness and kindness, and he accurately presented Dr. Jaeggli’s strong personal position against drinking alcohol in his review. Additionally, he clearly communicated the University’s well-known position denouncing all drinking of alcohol.
The Book’s Primary Thesis
Dr. Smith’s review misses the primary point of The Christian and Drinking, which is written against the moderate consumption of alcohol. In the introduction of his book Jaeggli writes, “As we shall see, a cavalier attitude toward even the moderate consumption of alcohol is not warranted in Scripture” (p. 5). Bookending this statement in the conclusion, the author states, “The beverage use of alcohol is incompatible with growth in personal holiness; it hinders progress in being conformed to the image of Christ. The believer who drinks moderately risks setting a disastrous example for fellow Christians and the children who grow up in his own home” (p.72).
Other similar statements in the book include, “Alcoholic beverages are a potential trap, full of poisonous snakes and as alluring as a crafty prostitute” (p. 28) and “Drinking alcoholic beverages is the medical equivalent of playing Russian roulette with a real handgun loaded with real bullets” (p. 58). The book begins by denouncing the consumption of alcohol, repeats this admonition regularly, and ends with the same conclusion. It’s difficult to see how a reviewer could claim that the book was written to promote moderation in drinking as appropriate for the Christian today.
Wine Drinking in the Ancient World
Dr. Smith’s misunderstanding of Dr. Jaeggli’s book is based on a major historical error. He without support or explanation rejects Dr. Jaeggli’s argument that wine was diluted with water for beverage purposes in Old Testament times and throughout the first century, even though this practice is clearly described in many Greek, Roman, and Jewish accounts of those times (pp. 42-46). There is no question that significant dilution was the common daily practice with the intention of preventing intoxication.
Dr. Smith’s rejection of this idea is a substantial flaw in his review. One of the primary arguments in The Christian and Drinking is that ancient wine drinking was entirely different from modern-day drinking and is no justification for the current practice.
Dr. Jaeggli emphasizes this idea numerous times in his book and presents it clearly in his conclusion when he states, “But drinking today is not comparable to biblical times” (p. 72).
The Bible Interpreter’s Task
In his treatment of wine drinking in the ancient world, Dr. Jaeggli provides a credible explanation for why the Bible may frequently speak positively about consuming wine and not contradict itself. What the Bible strongly warns against is consuming (a) undiluted wine, which is highly intoxicating, like modern wines and (b) over-consuming even the highly diluted wine of the ancient world.
Dr. Smith's dismissive attitude toward this explanation demonstrates a failure to apply one of the standard rules of Bible interpretation accepted by faithful, conservative Bible interpreters. An accurate understanding of the historical and cultural context in which the Scriptures were written should guide the interpretation of the Bible. Though this standard is not the only one that influences how we explain the meaning of the Bible, it is an important one.
Quoting in Context
The review also goes awry by quoting Dr. Jaeggli’s statements about wine consumption out of context. In his book Dr. Jaeggli never encourages or justifies the moderate consumption of alcohol by believers today. In the sections Dr. Smith quotes, the author is merely describing what was practiced in Old Testament times and the first century—the consumption of a water-diluted, usually spiced wine, which was virtually non-intoxicating, unless consumed in extremely large quantities over a short period of time. Failure to read these sections of the book in light of the rest of Dr. Jaeggli’s explanation and argumentation misses this crucial idea.
Linguistic Arguments
Dr. Smith’s review attempts to cast doubt on the linguistic arguments in the book about the use of the Hebrew and Greek words for wine and strong drink by asserting that “other definitive studies” disagree with the author’s conclusions. These sources remain unnamed and uncited, offering no support to justify the reviewer’s claims. In spite of the fact that standard linguistic sources support the conclusions of the book’s author, who is himself a Hebrew linguist and professor, Smith disagrees with the author and rejects what he says.
The case Dr. Jaeggli presents based on the biblical languages is meticulous, stating what the Scriptures say in the various contexts where the subject is discussed and presenting what the standard ancient language dictionaries say about the Greek and Hebrew words for wine and strong drink in those contexts. The evidence presented for the author’s interpretation is thorough and systematic. The only plausible way to refute it is by inventing new meanings for the words for wine or twisting the biblical contexts in which they are used.
Attention to Detail
Dr. Smith asserts that the book “does not, however, have even one single quote by the great men of God who have thundered so loudly about the use of alcohol.” He overlooks the fact that the author cites John Wesley as a great crusader against alcohol consumption (p. 50), favorably states that our fundamentalist forebears preached and worked tirelessly against it (p. 52), and devotes an entire page to quoting a strong statement by Billy Sunday against the use of alcohol—and then states his own agreement with Sunday's perspective (p. 53).
Reasoning from Evidence to a Conclusion
In his book Dr. Jaeggli starts with evidence which includes biblical facts followed by historical and medical information and then draws appropriate conclusions (inductive argumentation), rather than stating his conclusions and then proving them (deductive argumentation). The goal behind this arrangement is to persuade readers who might begin the book disagreeing with an abstinence position. Dr. Smith missed this important fact in his review. Admittedly others have also missed this intentional organizational design, resulting in Dr. Jaeggli’s current efforts to reorganize his material and recast the book in a clearer form.
An Even Deeper Concern
This review exemplifies a deeper problem, and perhaps the most serious one of all. It is an unwillingness to allow for a serious analysis of biblical evidence. This unwillingness to accept biblical evidence, even when it supports a dearly held conviction, underscores the problem.
Scriptural evidence and analysis which clears away weaker arguments for a long-held conviction, replacing them with valid support, exemplifies one of the great ideals of Christian fundamentalism—first carefully determining what the Bible actually says, and then deriving life applications from that accurate interpretation of Scripture. This simple principle for the ministry of the Word always brings with it a revival of biblical authority in the church, and that is a revival all would agree we need.
A Reviewer’s Responsibility
Dr. Smith is a good and diligent servant of Christ; this is his clear testimony lived out over a lifetime of ministry. But his review of The Christian and Drinking is disappointing. It contains surface analysis, obvious omissions, factual errors, misrepresentations and frequent assertions unsupported by evidence.
The review is a showpiece of how one influential reviewer can distort the meaning of a book, misrepresent the competence of its author, and consequently bring the credibility of the institution which published the book into question. Other reviewers are guilty of similar failures in their reviews of this monograph.
Christian writers and God’s people deserve and should be able to expect better from fellow believers whom they trust as credible opinion leaders. It is for that reason that the significant flaws in the review have been pointed out.
Prior to the publication of this critique, these failures were discussed at length with Dr. Smith by the author and the dean of the Bob Jones University Seminary in the editor’s office at the home office of the Sword of the Lord.
The University’s Position
Bob Jones University’s position on alcohol has not changed throughout our history. BJU does not believe the Scripture condones the beverage use of alcohol to any degree by Bible-believing Christians. Please read our complete statement on alcohol use. All members of the administration and faculty, including Dr. Jaeggli, fully support complete abstinence from alcohol and teach and preach this position.
Believing every book can be improved in both clarity and cogency and wanting to avoid any confusion and all offense to fellow Christians, Bob Jones University is temporarily pulling The Christian and Drinking from distribution. Our plan is for the author to rewrite and edit those portions of the text that have been misunderstood and reissue the book. The revised edition, while clarifying earlier in the book that the evidence leads a scripturally sensitive believer to an abstinence position, will continue to approach this issue in a way that differs from some approaches of the past, which have become less tenable over time.
