DRINKING

We are in that time of the year generally known as the Holiday Season. I enjoy this time of year. I enjoy the hustle and bustle, the lights, and the crisp air outside. I enjoy getting together with family and friends - all of that kind of thing that goes with this time of year and the fact that people get time off from work. But I recognize as well that this time of year presents some temptations that perhaps might not be quite so obvious at other times.

It may well be that some of us will find ourselves at office parties, social gatherings with those who have little or no respect for the Word of God, and it may be that the alcoholic beverages will be flowing at some of these gatherings. There may even be a little pressure applied to -some of us to go ahead and participate.

You know, 20 years ago when I became a Christian, it didn't seem like I came across too many Christians who would defend what is usually called "social drinking." I ran into one or two every now and then, but not very many. More and more that appears to be changing. Perhaps it is the pressures of business and society that have led some members of the Body of Christ to start to nibble on the fringes of social drinking - and even if they do not personally partake, more and more members no longer openly and strongly condemn it. You can even find congregations now that will close their eyes to this matter and let it go on unchallenged in their midst. It is really no different from a lot of things that brethren used to vociferously oppose - but now, no!

The question is not "Do all brethren oppose or endorse social drinking". The question is, "Is the drinking of today's alcoholic beverages wrong"? The question is "Does it draw us closer to God or does it drive us further away"? The question is, "Is drinking a morally and spiritually neutral matter, the decision concerning it left entirely up to us"? Well, let's see if we can answer these questions.

Let's turn to John 2: 1 -11, the marriage feast at Cana. This is a favorite passage of those who seek justification for social drinking. The passage says, "And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him "They have no wine". Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, "Fill the waterpots with water". And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, 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. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him."

I think when we focus upon the "drinking" or "wine" issue in this passage, we miss the beauty of the lesson taught there. But for this discussion, it is on the "drinking" or "wine" issue that I particularly want to focus. There are at least three points that need to be noted here:

1. Whatever Jesus did on this occasion, it was not sinful. Hebrews 4: 1 5 says, "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, - but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

If Jesus, operating under the Old Law, turned that water into intoxicating wine, then He did sin. How can I say that? Based upon Habakkuk 2:15, which says, "Woe unto him that giveth his neighbor drink-, that puttest thy bottle to him and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!" Someone says, "Wait a minute, that's talking about someone who offers wine with an immoral design, not just someone giving wine." Check carefully and see if there are not separate "woes" given. First, woe to him that giveth drink, and secondly, woe to him that maketh his neighbor drunk to take advantage of him.

If Jesus created intoxicating wine and gave it to people to drink in that wedding feast, then He sinned. I just cannot believe that.

2. The light wines of Bible times cannot be compared with the alcoholic beverages of today. Scholars tell us that the alcoholic contents of Bible wines was about 5 1/2 to 8%. This is the strong drink that was condemned in no uncertain terms by the Word. Look with me at Proverbs 20:1, where Solomon wrote, "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." Proverbs 23:29-35 says, "Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine. Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things. Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast. They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not, when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again."

The alcoholic beverages of today range from beer at 6% to whiskey and such at as much as 90%. To talk about the commercially produced alcoholic beverages of today and the fermented wines of Bible times is to talk about apples and oranges--They are not the same thing.

3. To the best of my knowledge there are eleven Hebrew words (with one Aramaic alternative) and three Greek words used that refer to beverages other than water and milk in God's Word. Those that clearly refer to an intoxicating beverage are never used in a context that shows God's approval. The truth of the matter is that in a passage such as John 2, the word for wine is "oinos," which is used to refer to both fermented and unfermented grape juice - both of which were quite common in Bible times. The context must determine what is meant, and we have already demonstrated that you can't go to this marriage feast for justification of social drinking. It is just not there.

It is interesting that so many are of the opinion that folks in our Lord's day ran around drinking intoxicating wine all the time because, other than water and milk that was all they had available to them. I am amazed that some would risk their salvation on an assumption that is so easily disproved. Those in the time of Christ knew how to prevent the fermentation of the grape juice - this is easily proven. Those in the time of Christ practiced such prevention in various ways - this is easily proven. In the time of Christ unfermented fruit of the vine, served in various ways, was a very common drink - this is easily proven.

We hear people say that it was their "culture" to drink wine and that they didn't think anything of it. Two points need to be made concerning that argument. First, they did not drink of the fruit of the vine regularly, but the unfermented was as readily available as the fermented. Secondly, everywhere in God's word that an intoxicating fruit of the vine is clearly indicated, so is God's disapproval.

Besides that, if something is wrong, does the fact that a culture regularly engages in it make it right? When I was in Ireland, it was part of the country's culture to drink beer - to go into the pub, have a meal and wash it down with a beer. The Christians there did not do that. How about in certain parts of Africa where it is the culture for the women to run around without tops on? Does the fact that it is cultural make such clothing, or lack thereof, modest apparel? Would it make it right for us to do that? Of course not!

I will never forget a time when I was in a restaurant, and I noticed on the back of the menu a wine list. At the top of the wine list were these words, "Paul's advice to Timothy: "Drink a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities" (I Timothy 5:23). I told the waitress then that this was a misuse of that passage, and she thought that I was a nut. Since that time, I have told several Christians that that was a misuse of that passage, and some of them thought I was a fanatic!

I must tell you, if I was trying to find justification for drinking socially in God's Word, this is not the passage I would go to do it. Timothy had known the sacred writings from childhood, according to 2 Timothy 3:15. For whatever reason, Timothy wouldn't even touch the stuff as medicine until Paul told him to do so. That's a far cry from the person who wants to drink an intoxicating beverage just to drink it! The word there is again "oinos." We don't know if Paul is telling Timothy to drink fermented or unfermented juice based upon that word. If he is telling him to use fermented wine, it is from a medicinal standpoint only. It is as reasonable to believe that he is telling him to use unfermented wine, or grape juice, because of the problem caused by water. We know that they had and regularly used unfermented wine in the New Testament times, and I am sure that the Welch's grape juice people would be happy to supply anyone who doubts it with information on the healthful and beneficial aspects of unfermented grape juice. This passage cannot be used as justification for social drinking at all.

Let us go now to I Timothy 3, to the qualifications for elders and deacons. The King James renders verse 3, speaking of elders, "Not given to wine, not a striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous." If we move down to verse 8, speaking of deacons, we find, "Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre."

An argument is made that the elders were not to be given to wine and the deacons not given to much wine, so obviously the elders could drink no intoxicating drink and the deacons could drink a little. There is no basis for that conclusion, for this passage does not even address the subject of moderate, or social drinking. Let me show you what I mean.

The meaning of the phrase in verse 3, "not given to wine" is "one who sits long at this wine." It comes from the compound "paua," meaning "wine." Some have defined it as "quarrelsome over wine." Did you know that translators of the American Standard translated the phrase as "no brawler," indicating the "quarrelsomeness over wine?" The idea is someone spending a lot of time with wine and becoming intoxicated and quarrelsome. The Revised Version renders it, "no drunkard." The New American Standard renders it "not given to much wine." All that we have said thus far deals with verse 3 and the elders.

Now, how about the phrase in verse 8 concerning the deacons, "not given to much wine? The phrase means "not holding the mind on much wine." Interestingly, if you look at I Timothy 1:4, "give heed" is from the same word translated as "given" in 3:8. Do you find any difference between that and "one who spends much time at his wine?" I don't, and neither do the scholars. The two phrases in the two verses mean the same thing!!

Again, the Revised Version that rendered verse 3 "no drunkard" renders verse 8 as "not addicted to much wine." Do you see a difference there? The New American Standard that rendered verse 3 "not addicted to wine," renders verse 8 "not addicted to much wine." Do you see a difference there? How can you addicted to "just a little wine?" There is no difference. The New International Version, which rendered verse 3, "not given to much wine," renders verse 8, "not indulging in much wine." There is no difference in meaning there, either. There is no difference in meaning between these two phrases in these two verses. They mean the same thing and they both deal with excessive drinking.

To argue from I Timothy 3:3 & 8 that folks who are not elders can drink a "little bit" is to completely misuse that passage, and we are people of the book-we do not misuse passages!

There is one final place that I want to look at which forever lays to rest the mistaken idea that a child of God can indulge in any amount of alcoholic beverages. Turn to I Peter 4:3-4. There Peter wrote, "For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you. "

There are three words used in I Peter 4:3 that have a bearing on modern drinking practices. All three words are used to describe the lifestyle of someone living, "in the flesh to the lusts of men" according to verse 2. The Words are translated as "excess of wine," "revellings," and "banquetings."

The first is translated as "excess of wine." In Galatians 5:21, in the works of the flesh, we find "drunkenness." It is translated from the word "Methe" and refers to the habitual intoxication, deep drinking or drunken bouts. "Excess of wine" indicates habitual intoxication, but even more than that. It is a step beyond "drunkenness." It is the down-and-out drunk. In ancient writings, it is the very word used to describe the fatal debauchery of Alexander the Great.

The next word is translated as "revellings." There is a digression in the strength of these three words. The one who practices "excess of wine" is the falling-down drunk. He's the kind of person who, if he swings, is most likely to hurt himself He staggers, stumbles, and even sleeps in his stupor.

The one who practices "revellings" is intoxicated but not to the extent of being in a stupor. The word combines intoxication with merrymaking. It suggests shouting, singing, and dancing - all under the influence of intoxicants.

The next level, and the word we find in I Peter 4:3, is "banquetings." Today's English Version and the New American Standard translate it as "drinking parties." The New English Bible says, "tippling."

The word is "Potos" and literally means "a drinking" without reference to amount. The verb form is found in Matthew 10:42 where Jesus said, "And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward. " "Give to drink" is the verb form; that's simply what it means, and it is not of necessity excessive.

So what we have here is social drinking. You see, the Bible does recognize the different levels of drinking. It distinguishes drinking parties ("not of necessity excessive," "social drinking") from revellings, and excess of wine. And then it condemns all three - period! From the single drink with friends to the falling-down drunkenness associated with the gutter, all levels are condemned as being part of the old life of sin.