|
Introduction:
As has become our custom at the Franklin Church, we devote the
second Sunday night of the month to answering questions. I am
going to deal with a number of questions on one topic. However,
they are too many to deal with in just one lesson. Therefore, I
will cover some of these questions in the morning and some in the
evening lesson. This month, I am devoting our question and answer
period to issues regarding intoxicating alcoholic drink. Just a
few weeks ago, I preached a lesson entitled “The Proverbs on
Alcohol” in which I tried to take an honest look at what the Proverbs
say about intoxicating beverages. The final conclusion came from Proverbs
31:4, “It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for
kings to drink wine, or for rulers to desire strong drink.”
Also, Proverbs
23:31, “Do not look on the wine when it is red, when it
sparkles in the cup, when it goes down smoothly…” The
conclusion of the proverbialist was not remotely the modern
conclusion of so many Christians that intoxicating drink is
allowed in moderation. The conclusion of the proverbialist was not
only that we should not drink it, but we should not even look at
it. Since that time, I have been asked some questions regarding
other passages and how they fit with the overall point of that
lesson. I will admit I am cheating with this sermon. I want to
address questions I have been asked by brethren here. But I am
also adding in questions that I have been asked before, simply
because I imagine some are asking those questions but haven’t
come to me to discuss them. Further, a good bit of this lesson
will mirror a document that I handed out alongside the sermon I
preached in 2004 entitled “Is Intoxicating Drink Allowed in
Moderation?” Let me assure you that those who have questioned me
from the Franklin Church do not drink alcohol and do not want
others to do so. They have simply had questions about how certain
verses affect what I have previously taught. As always, I
understand that I am not the end-all, be-all to Bible questions.
If you believe I am in error on any of these issues, please feel
free to talk with me about it. Discussion: I.
“How can we say drinking wine is a sin if the Bible
discusses drinking wine positively?” A.
Psalm
104:14-15
says, “He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and
vegetation for the labor of man, so that he may bring forth food
from the earth, and wine which makes man’s heart glad, so that
he may make his face glisten with oil, and food which sustains
man’s heart.” Verses like this seem to be the end of the
matter for some people. Wine is spoken of positively. We
Christians must be allowed some in moderation. However, we must
learn that the Bible uses the word “wine” differently than we
do. B.
In our modern day, the word “wine” equals fermented,
intoxicating juice (usually from a grape). The Bible, however uses
the word very much like we use the word “cocktail.” By itself,
“cocktail” simply means a mixed drink. We have to rely on the
context of the conversation to know if the cocktail is
intoxicating or not. Ordering a cocktail at a local restaurant
typically means an intoxicating drink. However, the commercial I
saw with little kids drinking Welch’s juice cocktail drinks was
simply about mixed juices like Welch’s “Cran-Apple” juice or
“Cran-Grape” juice. C.
Certainly, passages like Proverbs
23:29-31 refer to intoxicating wine. However, there are
passages that speak of wine which clearly cannot be intoxicating.
Consider Jeremiah
40:10-12. This passage talks about gathering in the wine
along with the other summer fruit. This means the wine is still in
the grape. It cannot possibly be fermented and intoxicating.
(Consider also Isaiah
16:10; Jeremiah 48:33). Just because a passage
demonstrates drinking wine in a positive light, doesn’t mean it
is viewing intoxicating wine in a positive light. We have to
examine the context to know for sure that it is intoxicating wine.
D.
You may do your own search. But in my searches, there is
only one passage that is clearly intoxicating wine that even
remotely demonstrates drinking intoxicating wine in a positive
light. That is Proverbs
31:4-6. There, wine and strong drink are to be given to
the perishing who are in bitter pain. That corresponds with what
we have already admitted. Intoxicating drinks may be used for
medicinal purposes like pain killers. However, note in that
passage that it is not for kings to drink or even desire
intoxicating drinks. Remember, we are kings. We are a royal
priesthood (I
Peter 2:9). (By the way, priests have never been allowed
to drink intoxicating wine while performing priestly duties—Leviticus
10:9). E.
One more comment in this regard. Someone might suggest that
Psalm
104:14-15 must refer to intoxicating drink because it is
making the heart glad. Are we to believe that having a glad heart
means being a little tipsy? Consider just a few passages that
mention having a glad heart—Psalm
16:7-9; Proverbs 27:9, 11. II.
“How could the ancient people keep the juice from
fermenting?” A.
The ancient people were not as simple as we might think. We
are often arrogant enough to believe that simple processes like
preserving juice in an unfermented state have only become possible
because of our modern brain power. However, let us keep in mind
that the ancients accomplished feats we still wonder how they
did—e.g. Stonehenge, pyramids, etc. B.
Consider the following quotes from ancient literature. 1.
“If you wish to have must (i.e., grape juice) all year
put grape juice in an amphora and seal the cork with pitch: sink
it in a fishpond. After 30 days take it out. It will be grape
juice for a whole year.” (De Agri Cultura CXX, Marcus Porcius Cato the elder who lived from
234-149 B.C.; quoted from Sipping Saints by Rick Lanning
and also The Bible, The Saint, and The Liquor Industry by
Jim McGuiggan). Thus juice could be kept from fermenting if sealed
and kept below a certain temperature which immobilizes the yeast
from fermenting. 2.
Pliny who lived from AD 61-113 said, “The most useful
wine has all its force or strength broken by the filter.” And
Plutarch who lived from AD 46-120
said, “Wine is rendered old or feeble in strength when it is
frequently filtered. The strength or spirit being thus excluded,
the wine neither inflames the brain nor infests the mind and the
passions, and is much more pleasant to drink” (From the same
sources as above). This filtering referred to a process by which
the yeast would be removed and thus not allow fermentation. 3.
Have you heard someone who
argues vehemently against consuming alcohol claim it is lawful to
cook with? Of course. Why? Because the alcohol cooks out. Alcohol
has a lower boiling point than water. When boiled, the alcohol in
fermented wine will cook out just as it cooks out of the vanilla
you add to your cake recipes. Virgil who lived from 70 to 19 BC
wrote, “Meanwhile his spouse, … over the fire boils down the
liquor of the luscious must, and skims with leaves the tide of the
trembling cauldron” (quoted from The Bible, The Saint, and
The Liquor Industry, p 45). After the wine was boiled down it
became pasty and thick like honey. It was a concentrate and to be
drunk it had to be mixed with water. III.
“Didn’t
Jesus turn water to wine in Cana for those who were already drunk
on wine?” A.
Jesus first miracle is recorded in John
2:1-12. This is the proof text passage for most religious
people who want to drink intoxicating drinks. However, this
passage falls far short of authorizing such. Actually, if this
passage is involving intoxicating drink, it takes us farther than
we all admit we are allowed to go. B.
Let’s assume the supporters of intoxicating drink are
correct. This wedding feast was a whole bunch of people who were
already drunk on intoxicating wine. Jesus then made some more for
them (some suggest what Jesus made was not intoxicating but what
the people had already drunk was). That picture has Jesus
violating I
Peter 4:3, which claims drinking parties are sinful.
Finally, can any of us honestly believe Jesus gave more
intoxicating drink to people who were already drunk? We all
believe being drunk is a sin (Galatians
5:21). Was Jesus helping these people further into their
sin? That is simply untenable. C.
If this passage is a picture of Jesus being at a wedding
feast full of drunkenness and Jesus giving more intoxicating drink
to these drinkers, then what right do we have to stop at saying
intoxicating drink in moderation is all that is allowed? If Jesus
could give more alcohol to drunkards, why can’t we? If He could
do it for them, why not us? The reality is, either this is simply
an issue of Jesus providing more unfermented wine to those who
were not drunk or it calls into question whether or not
drunkenness is really sinful. IV.
“Didn’t Jesus drink so much wine He was accused of
being a drunkard?” A.
In Matthew
11:19 (paralleled in Luke 7:34), Jesus rebuked the
people for their fickle nature. John the Baptist came into the
world. He was extremely ascetic. He would not eat bread or drink
wine. Rather, he ate locusts and wild honey (Matthew
3:4). Many people refused to follow John and claimed he
had a demon because he was so austere. Jesus on the other hand,
ate bread and drank wine. Many refused to follow Him claiming he
was a glutton and winebibber (NASU says “drunkard”).
Interestingly, according to Vine’s Expository dictionary, the
word translated “winebibber” in the KJV and “drunkard” in
the NASU literally means simply “wine drinker.” B.
Back up and remember what we have already learned. Just
because the Bible uses the word “wine” doesn’t necessarily
mean it is referring to fermented, intoxicating drink. We must
logically accept that just because the Bible speaks of someone
drinking wine, it does not necessarily mean they are drinking
intoxicating wine. Finally, just because the Bible talks about
someone drinking a lot of wine does not mean they are drinking a
lot of intoxicating wine. These are all assumptions we make. We
too often assume that any passage condemning heavy drinking of
wine must be condemning drunkenness. The Bible condemns heavy
eating of meat as gluttony, but that has nothing to do with being
intoxicated. Why then would we be shocked that the Bible would
couple with that heavy drinking of wine that was not intoxicating?
Consider Ecclesiastes
10:16-19. The point corresponds with the modern maxim,
“We should eat to live, not live to eat.” C.
The fact that some accused Jesus of being a heavy drinker
of wine did not necessarily mean they were accusing Him of being a
drunk anymore than accusing Him of eating too much bread meant
they were accusing Him of being a drunk. We have to come to grips
with the fact that when it comes to food and drink, God does not
just condemn drunkenness. He condemns not controlling our physical
appetites period, whether it has to do with intoxicating drink or
non-intoxicating food and drinks. Finally, just because the people
accused Jesus, does not mean Jesus was guilty. Jesus was neither a
glutton nor a heavy drinker of wine. He was in control of His
physical appetites. V.
“Didn’t Jesus talk about putting new wine into old
wineskins? Why would He use that as an illustration if
intoxicating drinks were sinful?” A.
In Matthew
9:17 (paralleled in Mark 2:22 and Luke 5:37-38),
Jesus explained that His disciples did not fast while He was
present because it was just inappropriate at that time. I am
afraid that too many have tried to force huge allegorical meanings
on these illustrations when it seems Jesus was simply illustrating
the point that forcing His disciples to fast while He was with
them was as inappropriate as having the attendants of the
bridegroom mourn in the bridegroom’s presence, putting unshrunk
cloth on old garments or putting new wine into old wineskins. B.
The first point we need to make is that just because Jesus
used something to illustrate a principle, does not mean it is
authorized. Consider the parable of the unrighteous manager in Luke
16:1-13. Jesus used this unrighteous manager as an example
of a principle on how to use money in this life. Does that mean
Jesus was giving us authority to be unrighteous in stewardship? Of
course not. This alone demonstrates that the wineskin illustration
does not authorize intoxicants. However, I believe there is more
to this little story than meets the eye. C.
The reason this passage is used is typically to say that
our Bible friends could simply not keep the wine from fermenting.
They could not put the new wine into old wineskins because the old
wineskins would be dried and brittle. As the wine fermented, which
produces a great amount of gas, the old wineskin could not stretch
in order to accommodate the gas production. The old wineskin would
burst. If the wine is fermenting, that is certainly true. Then we
are told that the new wineskin would not be so dry and could
stretch. But is that really true? The reality is that the amount
of gas produced during fermentation is so great most wineskins,
whether new or old, would burst if the wine inside them fermented.
If the wine was going to ferment, the only way to keep the
wineskin from bursting was to put vents in the neck of the
wineskin to release the gas. In that case, it would not matter if
the wineskin was new or old. What we gather is that the wine put
in new wineskins was not expected to ferment. In an old wineskin,
that has been opened and emptied, the yeast left behind from the
already drunk juice will be activated by the contact with air.
When new wine is poured into it the yeast will start the
fermentation process despite the fact that it is sealed up.
However, a new wineskin has no activated yeast in it. The wine
could be put in the new wineskin and sealed off and preserved so
that the wine would not ferment, would not produce gas and would
not burst. Understanding this, we see that this illustration, far
from providing authority for drinking intoxicating drinks actually
demonstrates that the people understood how to keep their juice
from fermenting. VI.
“Didn’t Paul tell Timothy to drink wine in I
Timothy 5:23?” A.
He most certainly did. The first thing we must notice is
that there is nothing in this passage that demonstrates Paul was
talking about intoxicating wine. We can make all kinds of
suppositions about this wine and why Timothy had to be encouraged
to drink it, but there is nothing in the text that proves it was
intoxicating. B.
However, if we grant that it was intoxicating, as most do,
then all we have demonstrated is what we have already conceded. We
are allowed to drink intoxicating drinks for medicinal purposes. VII.
“Why does Paul tell Timothy not to appoint men who are
‘addicted to wine’ as elders, but deacons are not to be
‘addicted to much wine’ in their qualifications in I
Timothy 3?” A.
I
Timothy 3:3, 8
and Titus
1:7
have
been used by many to supposedly authorize intoxicating drink in
moderation. It has been used in various ways, none of which, I
believe, authorizes intoxicating drink at any level. B.
Allow me to begin discussing these passages by giving you
some food for thought. 1.
Why
do we assume this is referring to intoxicating wine? I believe we
only assume this because of our modern debate regarding alcohol.
We have an automatic assumption that if a passage speaks of
drinking a lot of wine or being given to it, it must mean alcohol
and it must mean being a drunk. But, if we remove our colored
glasses and look at this passage again without that biased
approach, we may learn a much greater point. Remember Ecclesiastes
10:16-19. That passage talked about a king who knew the
appropriate time to eat and drink. He understood that eating was
for strength and not for drunkenness. I know that passage uses the
word “drunkenness” but since when does eating ever make
anybody drunk. This passage points out that a land needs a king
who “eats to live and does not live to eat.” A land needs a
king who eats for strength and not just for enjoyment. A land
needs a king who can control his physical passions. Otherwise he
will spend his time fulfilling his physical desires and allow the
kingdom to suffer. 2.
I
believe the qualifications for elders and deacons are similar. I
think it is far stricter than claiming the elder or deacon cannot
be drunks. It is saying the elder is to be a person who can
control his physical appetites. He eats and drinks to live, he
does not live to eat and drink. However, I must admit that few
will accept my explanation of this passage. So let’s assume I am
mistaken. Let’s assume Paul is talking about intoxicating drink
and see if it authorizes moderate drinking of intoxicating
beverages for anybody. C.
The first argument made is that since elders and deacons
are forbidden to be addicted to wine or much wine, then it is
alright for others to drink some wine. The logic behind this is if
these actions were restricted for all Christians then why would
Paul need to restrict it for elders and deacons? Let me make two
points about this. 1.
First, if restricting this action for the elders and
deacons means all other Christians are allowed, it not only
authorizes moderate drinking, but authorizes alcoholic addiction
for everyone but elders and deacons. We know that cannot be true
and in fact, we all agree that is not true. Drunkenness is sin (Galatians
5:21). 2.
Second, if restricting something from the elders and
deacons means that it is authorized for everyone else, that means
not only can the rest of us be addicted to wine, we can also be
intemperate, imprudent, not respectable, not hospitable,
pugnacious, fond of sordid gain, have bad reputations and be
filled with the love of money. Most of the qualifications for
elders and deacons are simply a rehearsal of what it means to be a
good Christian. D.
The
second argument made is that since this restricts being addicted
to wine or addicted to much wine, then obviously, even the elder
and deacon are allowed to drink intoxicating drinks in moderation
as long as they are not given to them. Consider another of the
qualifications of the elders and deacons. They are not to be fond
of sordid gain (NASU) or greedy for filthy lucre (KJV). By the
same logic that supposedly allows the elders and deacons
intoxicating drink in moderation we can also allow elders and
deacons a little bit of sordid gain or filthy lucre, so long as
they are not excessively fond or greedy for it. By the way, this
same logic would mean drunkenness, so long as it was occasional
and not the result of being addicted to intoxicants would be
authorized for the elders and deacons. E.
The
third argument, and by far the most sophisticated, makes a big
deal out of the difference of exact wording between the
qualification for elders and that of deacons. In our English
translations the elder is not to be “given to wine” (KJV) or
not “addicted to wine” (NASU). The deacon, however, is not to
be “given to much
wine” (KJV) or not “addicted to much
wine” (NASU). We are to believe this differentiation
demonstrates two levels of drinking intoxicating wine. Elders are
given the stricter limitation, presumably because of their great
authority. Deacons cannot be addicted to a whole lot of
intoxicating wine, but are allowed to be addicted to some wine.
Elders on the other hand are not allowed to be addicted to any
wine. Does that make sense to you? Where would the line be drawn
between being given or addicted to some wine and given or addicted
to much wine? Further, doesn’t being given to wine imply much of
it? Far from establishing two distinct levels of addiction, Paul
is simply saying the same thing in two different ways. Given to
wine and given to much wine are six one and half a dozen the
other. VIII.
“But didn’t Paul say drinking wine was a matter of
Christian liberty in Romans
14:21?” A.
In Romans
14:21, Paul says, “It is good not to eat meat or to
drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.”
Some therefore claim drinking intoxicating wine in moderation is
obviously lawful just like eating meats. Often, the person who
brings up this verse will also be proud to claim he is the
“big” brother whose understanding is true and strong. Because
of his spirituality, he will not drink or encourage others to
drink because so many have conscience against it. But at the same
time, he will not judge the drinker. Are we to believe such
spirituality is commendable? I do not. B.
First, we
must be very careful as we examine this chapter. We do not know
the situational context in which the person would not eat meat or
drink wine. Romans
14 does not explain it. We often supply the context
ourselves. We think about Jewish laws of unclean meats or possibly
meats offered in pagan sacrifices. We, however, do not know why
some would refuse to eat meats or drink this wine. Therefore, we
have no idea if this is about abstaining from intoxicating wine,
all wine, wine offered as drink offerings. We simply know there
was some situation in which some brethren could not in good
conscience drink wine, just like there was some situation in which
some brethren could not eat meat in good conscience. C.
With that in
mind, from what verse in Romans
14 would we discern Paul to be speaking of intoxicating
wine? One replies, “Well it is obviously intoxicating because no
one has a problem with drinking something that doesn’t
intoxicate.” Are you sure? Someone had a problem with eating
meats and that had nothing to do with intoxication. Perhaps some
were thinking about the Nazirite vows (Numbers
6:3) or some about the Rechabites who refused to drink
wine (Jeremiah
35). Perhaps this had something to do with wine used in
pagan drink offerings. Perhaps it had something to do with the
same Jewish background that caused Daniel to abstain from wine in Daniel
1. If we are
going to use Romans
14:21 to support drinking intoxicants we have to admit we
are basing our opinion on what we don’t know. We are assuming
what is to be proven. We simply cannot use this verse as evidence
that intoxicants were authorized. IX.
“But what if I can hold my liquor and it does not impair
my judgment?” A.
Let me first address this holding your liquor issue. How
did you learn to “hold your liquor”? Was it by drinking more
and more and gaining a tolerance? What we are to assume from this
is that since you have already spent some time sinning and
drinking too much, now you have gained a tolerance that those of
us who have never drunk before do not have. It is alright for you
to drink where it would not be for us because of your past sins.
That makes no sense to me. Interestingly on some of the websites I
researched before preaching this lesson one of the questions asked
to help a person determine if they may be addicted or an alcoholic
was whether or not they had a high tolerance to the effects of
alcohol. B.
Remember what we have learned regarding Ephesians
5:18 and I Thessalonians 5:7. The term for
“drunk” in these passages does not refer to the end result of
drinking too much. It refers to the process from beginning to end.
Someone says, “But I do not intend on getting drunk therefore I
never started the process.” This word says nothing about your
intentions. It only speaks of the action of getting drunk. When
does that process begin? It begins with the first drink. It does
not matter how tolerant you are to the effects of intoxicating
drinks. Once you have taken that first drink you have started a
condemned process. C.
Also, remember the commands of God found in I
Thessalonians 5:6-8; I Peter 1:13; 5:8. We are commanded
to be sober. I
would like to share with you the advice of the Channing L. Bete
Co. to teenagers in a pamphlet that the Mental Health Mental
Retardation of Southeast Texas makes available. It is entitled What
Every Teenager Should Know About Alcohol. Be aware, pp 4-5 of
this pamphlet claim you will do one of three things with alcohol:
1) Not use it, 2) Use it safely or 3) Abuse it. This pamphlet
supports drinking in moderation as safe drinking. Once again we
will notice the honesty of those who do not feel the need to
defend their drinking stance. Page 6 of this pamphlet tells
teenagers, “It takes 1 hour for the alcohol from one drink (12
oz. of beer, 5 oz. of wine, a 1 ½ oz. ‘shot’ of 80 proof
whiskey or mixed drink) to leave the body. So a 150-180 lb. Person
could consume 1 drink per hour and still stay relatively
sober” (emphasis mine –
ELC). In other words, compared to the guy who has drunk two or
three drinks in that same hour I could be considered sober.
However, if I am only relatively sober, then I am also relatively
intoxicated. That is, in comparison to the one who did not drink
any that hour, I can be considered drunk. So, if God’s command
were to stay relatively sober, we might be allowed to have one
drink per hour. But that wasn’t God’s command. His command was
to be sober, period. D.
Despite all of this, the
constant plea from the moderate drinker is, “I am not getting
drunk. I won’t get drunk. And what little I drink doesn’t
impair my judgment.” Here is the problem. The very first think
that alcohol begins to attack is your judgment. If you are
drinking, you are the very last person who is in any state to tell
how much the drink is affecting you. Here is my question. For
those who actually do want permission to drink moderately, why?
The most common answer I get is they just want something to help
them relax. How can they suggest that the alcohol they are
drinking is not affecting them, when the only reason they are
drinking it is for the affect it has of relaxing them? The
relaxation comes as the alcohol enters your bloodstream and brain
and starts depressing your brain’s ability to work. The more
relaxed you get, the less control you are having. You cannot have
it both ways, claiming you are not affected but then saying you
want to drink it moderately for how it affects you. Conclusion: I hope I have answered more questions than I have created. As always, I understand I may have missed it. I may not have studied accurately. I may have missed a verse or misapplied a verse. If you believe so, please, let’s get together and discuss it. I do not desire to allow what God has not. At the same time, I do not desire to limit what God has not limited. However, I hope I have demonstrated that I have not been purposefully deceptive. I have not based my opinion on a few passages while ignoring others. I believe the Bible teaches that Christians must completely abstain from intoxicating drinks unless for medicinal purposes and not only condemns drunkenness, but commands complete and utter sobriety, therefore condemning drinking intoxicating drinks even in the smallest amounts.
Glory
to God in the church by Christ Jesus
|
||||||||||
