This is a production of World Video Bible School.
To God be the glory!
Frequently, people get together in a setting, such as this,
and along with their dinner they serve wine to drink.
Is there anything wrong with that? Is that appropriate?
You know, popular liquor commercials that air on television conclude with the
words,
"Drink responsibly."
And alcohol commercials depict
healthy, athletic people having a good time and engaging
in outdoor adventures.
Are those commercials accurate? Are they painting a true picture of what alcohol
will do for you? And is it possible to
drink responsibly?
I want to talk with you for a few minutes about the other side of this picture.
I know that alcohol has many defenders,
but I like what Abraham Lincoln said.
He said, "Alcohol has many defenders
but no defense."
I want us to begin by considering the evil effects of alcohol, and I want to start
with a verse from the Bible. Proverbs, chapter 20, verse 1.
The Bible says:
"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is a brawler,
and whoever is led astray by it
is not wise."
In the United States of America everyday there are more than 700,000
people who receive treatment for alcoholism.
In the year 2002, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration,
41% of all the deaths that occurred in traffic accidents
were alcohol related. Now, that means that
every 30 minutes someone was killed in a traffic accident
because of alcohol.
You know, it if there were a disease that that was killing off this many people, the
government would be
vehemently warning against it and funds would be given to study it, and to try
to find a cure.
We'd be having telethons to raise money to find a vaccine.
But alcohol, instead, is promoted and advertised at every turn.
In the year 2000, the alcohol industry spent
$1.42 billion
on advertising through television,
radio, print and outdoor advertising.
The resources spent on advertising alcohol is enough to feed 20,000,000
people.
One study says that young people view approximately 20,000 commercials
each year, of which 2,000
are for beer
and wine.
Now, that's an average of more than five TV commercials per day.
Now, do you think it has an effect?
The median age at which children begin drinking is 15.7 years
old.
One statistic that I read said that college students spend approximately
$5,500,000,000 each year
on alcohol. Now get this.
That is more
than they spend on soft drinks, milk, juice, tea,
coffee
and books
combined.
About 18,000,000 Americans experience problems with alcohol
and 10,000,000 are alcoholics.
Alcohol is involved in
50% of spouse abuse cases,
38% of child abuse cases,
65% percent of drownings. 54% of those in jail for
violent crimes are there because of the use of alcohol.
49% of those convicted for murder or attempted murder,
had been drinking when they committed those crimes.
I can go on and on with statistics like these,
and as powerful as these statistics are,
I'm not going to bore you with any more of them.
Neither do I want to spend all of my time talking about binge drinking or
drunkenness or any of those things.
Because just about everyone would agree that those things are wrong. At least
anyone who
says they respect the Bible,
because the Bible so plainly states it.
Galatians 5:21 says that drunkenness is a work of the flesh
committed by those who will not inherit
the kingdom of God. It's very plain, there's no doubt about it. Everybody
believes that. But you see,
the problem is generally not over what we call "drunkenness." It's over what is
called "social drinking,"
or what some people would call "drinking in moderation."
That is, people
drinking at their meal, like a setting such as this. Or people drinking at a
wedding, or
getting together with other people for the purpose of recreation and just
having a few drinks. Now, that's where the argument starts with a lot of people.
Now, we could approach this subject from several different standpoints. But what I
want to do is to
look at the arguments that are made by religious people, people who say they
have respect for the Bible.
And I want to look at some of the best efforts they make
to defend what we call
"social drinking."
Alright, let's consider some of the arguments that are made in defense
of social drinking.
Number one. Here's the first one.
Sometimes it's said,
"There is not any verse in the New Testament that specifically forbids
drinking in moderation.
All of the verses address only the subject of drunkenness."
What about that?
First, let me say this.
There are a lot of things that are not specifically condemned in the Scriptures,
but are still wrong. You know, using heroin is not specifically condemned.
But who's going to argue that
since the New Testament doesn't specifically command people to
abstain from heroin, then
its use must not be forbidden.
But you know, many things in the Scriptures are forbidden in principle.
Now listen to me.
I do not believe, listen carefully, I do not believe this is the case when it
comes to drinking.
I don't believe drinking is forbidden in principle only,
but rather that it is forbidden specifically.
Now, you say, "Where?"
The answer is,
in every verse that forbids drunkenness. Now, a person might say,
"I don't understand. You're saying that social drinking is forbidden in the
verses that discuss drunkenness? What are you talking about?"
Let me explain this.
In Ephesians 5:18, the King James version, says this:
"And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit."
Now, the phrase
"...be not drunk" is translated from the Greek root
"methusko."
That word means, according to Young's Analytical Concordance,
"to begin to be softened." According to S.T. Bloomfield, "to moisten,"
or "to be moistened with liquor,"
and, in a figurative sense, "to be saturated with drink."
E.W. Bollinger
says, "Methusko means to grow drunk, marking the
beginning of methuo."
Now, this word "methusko" is an Inceptive verb. It's a
word that "marks the process of becoming drunk."
So what Paul is actually saying here is,
"Do not begin the process of becoming drunk."
And when a person consumes alcohol,
he is beginning to be softened.
He is beginning to be intoxicated.
And that's why I say social drinking is condemned
in the verses that discuss drunkenness and in the word "drunk."
The implication here is that
persons
begin to be drunk when they begin to drink. Now, I believe that the reason
people struggle with this is
because of what they see, or perhaps I should say, because of what
they don't see. If they don't see the person staggering or in a drunken stupor
then they don't consider the person be drunk.
But that's not the Bible basis upon
which drunkenness is determined.
And I think science and medical studies also bear out the fact
that when a person begins to drink, they are to some degree,
drunk.
So, how much alcohol does a person have to drink in order to be
affected?
As early as the 1960s, the Journal of the American Medical
Association stated:
"There is no minimum (of blood alcohol concentration)
which can be set, at which there will be absolutely
no effect."
Now, somebody might say, "Well, that's old. You know, we're wiser now. We have
had scientific advancements in the last forty years."
Listen to this quote from the Journal of the American Medical Association,
dated May 3,
in the year 2000.
It says, "Although legal limits for blood alcohol content levels
have been set in most states,
impairment in driving skills can occur
with any amout of alcohol
in the bloodstream."
Now, listen to this.
There's a website, it's overseen by the University of Oklahoma Police Department.
You can go to this website, you can put in your weight, you can put in what
you're drinking, the length of time you're drinking, the number of drinks,
and it will approximate your blood alcohol content. Now, I did some samples
for a 160 pound person. That's approximately
what I weigh.
I put in one drink, five ounces, a fortified desert wine, drinking it
immediately.
It said that it put this person at .05 blood-alcohol content.
A 160 pound person,
one drink, twelve ounces
of reduced alcohol beer, now notice, reduced alcohol beer,
drinking it over a period of one hour,
put them at .02 blood-alcohol content. Now, you say, "That doesn't mean
anything to me. What is .02? What does that mean?"
Another website
at "stopimpaireddriving.org" says
that, "At .02 -
some loss of judgment,
relaxation,
slight body warmth, altered mood,
decline in visual functions
(such as rapid tracking of a moving target), decline in ability to perform two
tasks at the same time (divided attention)."
The world admits, not even considering religious people,
but the world admits some amount of drunkenness, impairment, loss of judgment,
soberness, however you want to say it,
with one drink.
Now, in light of that,
how can a Christian possibly defend social drinking. With one drink, you are
already affected
or impaired
to that extent. And it gets worse with each consecutive drink.
And so, the Bible does condemn social drinking.
And it's in the verses that discuss
drunkenness.
Ok, I want to show you another verse. It's 1 Peter, chapter 4, and verse 3:
"For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the
Gentiles--when we
walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries,
drinking parties,
and abominable idolatries."
Now, I want you to notice that Peter condemns
"drinking parties."
Now, the commentator, Albert Barnes, wrote about this first. Now listen, it's
a lengthy
section we're going to discuss here.
He said, "The idea in the passage is, that it is improper for Christians to
meet together
for the purpose
of drinking..." Now, before we go any further, let's ask this,
"What does that do to the idea of social drinking?"
You know, another reference book by Richard Trench in "Synonyms of the New
Testament" says
that the Greek word here means,
"the drinking bout, the banquet, the symposium
not of necessity excessive...
but giving opportunity for excess."
Now, if that's a correct understanding of this word,
then the idea is that drinking parties are wrong regardless of whether or not
we get drunk.
Alright, let's continue with Albert Barnes' comments.
This is what he has to say about the phrase "drinking parties."
He says the things forbidden by it is in assembling "together for the purpose of
drinking..."
The idea in this passage is
"...that it is improper for Christians to meet together
for the purpose of drinking-- as wine, toasts, etc. ...It would forbid, therefore,
an attendance on all those celebrations in which drinking toasts is understood to
be an essential part
of the festivities, and
all those where hilarity and joyfullness are sought to be produced
by the intoxicating bowl."
And he ends by saying this, "Such are not proper places
for Christians."
Now, let's consider
a second argument.
Sometimes people will appeal to Ephesians chapter 5 and verse 18.
And they will say that this passage shows that "alcohol is only wrong when
used in excess..." Thus, moderate drinking
would be okay.
Let's consider this passage. The King James version says this:
"And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess;
but be filled with the Spirit."
And so the argument says this. The person would argue,
"See, drinking alcohol in moderation is not condemned, it's drinking it in excess
that is a problem."
Now this argument, I believe,
is really a misunderstanding of the word "excess."
The word doesn't refer to an excessive amount of alcohol.
it refers to excessive behavior, ungodly
behavior.
The American Standard says:
"And be not drunken with wine, wherein is
riot..." Instead of using the word "excess" it says "riot." I think that better conveys
the idea.
The idea then is this. And
remember, this is an inceptive verb:
"Don't begin drinking alcohol which brings ungodly behavior,
but rather be filled with the Spirit
which will have the opposite effect." Alright, number three. Let's consider
another argument that sometimes is made in defense of social drinking.
This argument would say that
drinking wine has "health benefits.."
This is sometimes used by people who are seeking to defend social drinking.
And they will refer to a study which states that drinking one glass of wine
per day is actually good for your health.
Now, first I would say that this argument really diverts attention
from the real issue.
When people get together to drink socially,
they're not doing it for the health benefits.
When people have a party and they have an open bar, the purpose is not out of
concern for people's hearts and their medical conditions. This argument is just
a smoke screen.
But anyway,
they're referring to a study that says that there's a chemical substance in
wine
called "resveratrol"
which helps prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer.
I want to read you something from the Mayo Clinic website concerning this
issue, and is dated March 9, 2007:
The American Heart Association
doesn't recommend (it does not recommend) that you start drinking
alcohol just to prevent heart disease.
Alcohol can be addictive. Too much increases your risk of of high blood
pressure, high triglycerides,
liver damage, obesity,
certain types of cancer,
accidents and other problems.
In addition, even small amounts of alcohol can cause
cardiomyopathy--weakened heart muscle--and heart failure in some people."
Now here's one more quote. This is from Martha Grogan, a cardiologist at
the Mayo Clinic.
She's answering the question, "Does grape juice have the same benefits as red wine?"
She says: "There is evidence that drinking red wine may reduce your risk of heart
disease.
This benefit is most likely due to a substance called resveratrol
found in the skin and seeds of grapes-- especially dark red and purple grapes.
Resveratrol is also found in grape juice--
especially juice made from the dark purple concord grapes.
Recent studies have suggested (she says) that
red and purple grape juices may provide the same heart-healthy benefits
of red wine."
And she goes on to say this:
"Both the red wine in grape juice also contain antioxidants...,
which have been shown to increase your... 'good' ...cholesterol
and lower your risk
of clogged arteries..., and may help
lower blood pressure."
And so, this argument's just a smokescreen and really isn't worth considering.
A fourth argument that sometimes people make
is they will say, "Paul told Timothy to drink wine for his stomach's sake."
Let's read it.
It says: "No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach's sake
and your frequent infirmities." 1 Timothy 5:23.
First, I'm not quite sure why social drinkers go to this passage at all,
because this passage isn't talking about having alcohol at a party or
drinking with your buddies.
It's discussing alcohol as a medicine.
You know, most people believe that Timothy's stomach problem was related to
the water in Asia Minor which could be
very dangerous.
And what Paul is saying here is an elliptical statement.
He's saying: "Be no longer a drinker of water
[alone] (water only), but [with it] take a little wine..."
Now, secondly it's worth noticing that Paul had to instruct Timothy to drink
wine for his stomach's sake. Now that suggests two things. First, Timothy had
reservations about doing it.
Secondly, if it was common for the early Christians to do this,
then Paul's encouragement wouldn't have been needed in the first place.
You know, there's a a big difference in
medicine and beer.
The person who wants to defend having a beer with his buddies is not going to
find support for it
in this verse.
Alright, number five. A fifth argument that sometimes is made is people will say, "In
Bible times they had no way to prevent fermentation
and therefore they must had drunk alcoholic wine."
Now, here's how the process works.
Grape juice is composed of two leading elements: sugar and gluten.
The decay of the gluten is what causes the growth of yeast germs.
And in the presence of the yeast the sugar in grape juice is gradually converted
into alcohol.
Now, the ancients actually had figured out a number of different ways to
prevent this process from occurring.
In W.D. Jeffcoat's book "The Bible and Social Drinking," he goes into a detailed
explanation of these processes. But I want to mention just very briefly four
processes.
One is boiling.
The water would be evaporated out so that fermentation could not occur,
then later the water is readded to reconstitute the juice.
A second process
was through the use of sulfur.
The juice was exposed to sulphur fumes, and then sealed and kept until it was
used,
and that would prevent fermentation.
A third process was cooling.
The juice was kept at a temperature below 45 degrees fahrenheit by
placing it in airtight jars
and immersing them in springs or storing them in caves where it was cool.
Fourth, filtration.
The yeast was strained out of the juice, thereby stopping the process.
Plutarch said:
"Wine is rendered old or feeble
when it is frequently filtered.
The strength of the spirit being thus excluded,
the wine neither inflames the brain
nor infests the mind and passions,
and is much more pleasant to drink."
Number six. A sixth argument that sometimes people make
is, they will say, "Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding feast at Cana
of Galilee."
First, it is not the case that anytime we see the word "wine" in the Bible,
that it always refers
to an alcoholic drink.
"The word 'wine' is a generic word,
and it can refer to either fermented or unfermented juice of the grape."
The context has to be used to determine which one is meant,
whether it is alcoholic or nonalcoholic. Now, let's look at some examples.
Here is an alcoholic
passage.
In Proverbs 23:31, the Bible says: "Do not look on the wine when
it is red, when it sparkles in the cup,
when it swirls around smoothly;
At the last it bites like a serpent,
and stings like a viper." Now that was clearly alcoholic.
Now here's an example of
non-alcoholic usage.
In Isaiah 16:20, the Bible says: "...In the vineyards
there will be no singing,
nor will there be shouting;
no treaders will tread out wine in the presses..." Clearly, non-alcoholic. Here's
another example, Isaiah 65:8:
"As the new wine is found in the cluster,
and one says, 'Do not destroy it,
for a blessing is in it,'
so will I do for My servants' sake, that I may not destroy them all."
Now here it is still in the grapes, but it's called "wine."
Now, in all of these passages the same Hebrew word is translated by our English
word "wine." And the same thing is true in the New Testament with reference to the
Greek language.
In the New Testament there are five different Greek terms for wine. The one
most commonly used is "oinos."
It's used sometimes of fermented wine, and sometimes of unfermented wine or grape
juice.
So, a person should never assume that because the word "wine" is used, that he's
talking about alcoholic wine.
Well, what about the argument that Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding
feast,
and therefore He endorsed
social drinking.
First,
the person making that argument has to prove that it was alcoholic wine
which he cannot do.
Secondly,
I believe the context indicates just the opposite.
I want you to notice this passage. In John, chapter 2 and verse 10,
after Jesus had turned the water into wine,
the governor of the feast tasted it and this is what he said in verse 10:
"And he said unto him, 'Every man at the beginning sets out the good wine, and
when the guests have well drunk, then the inferior.
You have kept the good wine until now!'"
Now, what's interesting to note is the phrase
"well drunk."
Some translations translate this
as "drunk freely."
Thomas Summers states:
"'Drunk freely' suggest the idea of drunk largely."
I think the way we would say it today is,
"They had all they wanted until they had had plenty."
Now, if this were truly alcoholic wine,
then these people would have already violated the passages that everyone
would agree
prohibit drunkenness.
And what we would have is this. If it's truly alcoholic wine being considered,
you would have a group of people
who have "drunk freely" of alcoholic wine, they have drunk alcoholic wine until
they were "well-wined." They have drunk alcoholic wine until they "had plenty"
and then
we would have Jesus making a 120 to 160 gallons
more of alcoholic wine for people
who had already finished off the first round.
How could the Lord forbid drunkenness
and then do that?
I think it's also interesting that the governor of the feast
had not yet had his senses dulled.
He could readily discern the good wine from that which was worse,
which would be indicative of the fact that he had not been drinking alcoholic
wine.
So, what's the point of all this?
The point is
that the word "oinos" (wine) can mean either alcoholic
or non-alcoholic.
And the context of John 2 points to non-alcoholic wine.
Here's a seventh argument. Sometimes people will argue from 1 Timothy,
chapter 3 and verse 3,
that elders are required to "not be given to wine," whereas in verse 8, deacons are
"not to be given to much wine."
Now, of course the argument that they make is
that this passage implies that elders can't have any wine, but that deacons can
have some wine just as long as it's not too much.
You know, it's argued that these two phrases "not given to wine" and "not given
to much wine" give implied consent
for deacons to drink wine in moderation.
First, we need to understand that warnings against excess can never be used as
approval
for the action itself. For example,
the Bible says: "... let not the sun go down on your wrath."
Now this verse is, of course,
not approval for practicing wrath prior to sundown.
In 1 Peter, chapter 4, verses 3 and 4, again
shows the fallacy of this implied consent argument.
Verse 3 mentions the "excess of wine."
Now, some folks would say,
"See, that only condemns wine in excess." Or, they might argue that this verse
implies consent for wine
so long as it's not excessive. In other words,
moderate drinking is okay.
But the passage goes on in the next verse to discuss "excess of riot."
Now, if this implied consent argument is accurate, then
in this verse, in this very next verse, the same context,
then we would have divine sanction for riot in moderation.
Certainly that's not a valid argument.
Ecclesiastes 7:17 says: "Be not overmuch wicked..." (the American
Standard Version).
Well, if we want to use this argument
would that imply it's okay to be a little bit wicked?
James 1:21 says: "Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of
wickedness..."
Does that mean it's okay to have wickedness so
long as it's not overflowing? Now,
let me show you where this argument will take you, just how absurd this will get.
Let's assume for a moment
that it's true that
elders can't drink at all,
but that deacons can drink in moderation.
Well, this same phrase that's applied to deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8,
is applied to the aged women in Titus, chapter 2 and verse 3.
And so, the aged woman
could also drink in moderation, if this were true.
But very interestingly,
it's not applied to the younger women.
And so they, the younger women, cannot drink.
In addition, in 1 Timothy 3:11, in describing deacons' wives, the
word "sober"
is used in the King James, the New King James uses the word
"temperate."
The Greek word here means "to abstain from wine."
Titus 2:2 requires
aged men not to come near wine.
Now let's put all of this together and see what we get.
If we were to apply this, elders
can't drink at all,
but deacons can.
Older men can't drink, but older women
can.
Deacons can drink,
but their wives
can't.
Who would believe this?
It's absolute nonsense. But,
that's where these arguments will get you when you're trying to defend social
drinking.
Number eight.
Let's consider another argument that sometimes people use. They'll go to
Luke, chapter 7, verses 33 and 34.
And they will say in that context, Jesus was accused of being a
"winebibber."
Now, they will say this accusation would not have been made had He not been a
person who drank alcoholic wine.
Let's read the passage:
"For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine,
and you say, 'He has a demon.'
The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Look,
a glutton and a winebibber,
a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'"
Now the accusation
is that
He would not have been accused of being a winebibber, or a drunkard, if He had not
been drinking alcoholic wine.
I would ask, "Why not?"
They said that John had a demon.
Where was the evidence for that? There wasn't any, it was a lie.
The point is,
they were jumping to conclusions not warranted by the evidence.
There's really no argument here.
Number nine.
Sometimes it's argued from Colossians, chapter 2 and verse 16, that
we should not impede upon another's liberty. Let's look at the
passage and then discuss it.
It says: "So let no one judge you in
food or in drink,
or regarding a festival
or a new moon or sabbaths."
Now, it's argued that we have no right to judge another person with regard to what
they eat
or drink.
But you know, this passage is dealing with matters of liberty, matters of
opinion,
not matters in which the Lord has mandated right or wrong.
These were issues related to the old law.
And there were some who are trying to bind food and drink issues
of the law of Moses.
The point of this passage is,
don't let any man bind on you what God has not.
The old law had been nailed to the cross and so you're not accountable
to it.
The food and drink issues here
relate to food and drink that had been considered ceremonially clean or
unclean. It has nothing to do with matters
that are sinful
such as drinking alcohol socially.
Number ten.
Sometimes people site famous preachers in defense of social drinking.
And it's been argued that the well-known preacher, Guy N. Woods, recognized that
Jesus only stated
"fruit of the vine" on the Lord's table;
and, therefore, fermented or nonfermented
could be used.
And he does say that. I've read it in his questions and answers.
But first, I would say this
Guy N. Woods is not the authority, the Bible is. But secondly,
I want to read you something else Guy N. Wood's wrote.
He wrote: "Obviously,
any man,
elder,
deacon, preacher,
Bible school teacher, or other person in the church cannot set the proper example
of Christian living
who engages in the use, in any degree,
of that which has been the occasion of so much sorrow, grief and ruin
in the world. Temperance in the use of harmful things,
is total
abstinence. There is no such thing
as a proper moderate use of drugs,
alcohol,
and other harmful substances."
Well,
what if I haven't persuaded you.
What if you're not convinced that the Bible prohibits social drinking.
Then there's still something else that I want you to consider
and that is your influence.
When a person who professes to be a Christian drinks alcoholic beverages,
he is doing something that even the world sees as an adult vice
and he greatly damages his influence.
He's doing something that even the world understands is wrong.
I think he's also doing something that's going to make himself a stumbling block
to young Christians
and certainly to new converts.
I want to read you a passage from 1 Corinthians 8, verses 10-13. The
Apostle Paul is discussing meat offered to idols. Now, I believe the context is
different because he's discussing something that is not in and of itself
wrong.
But of course,
those who argue for social drinking
don't believe that it is wrong.
They believe that it's not necessarily sinful. But listen to what Paul
says:
"For if anyone sees you who have knowledge
eating in an idol's temple,
will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened
to eat those things offered to idols?
And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom
Christ died?
But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak
conscience,
you sin against Christ.
Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat,
lest I make my brother stumble."
Now, Paul was saying,
"Someone may see me doing it and
it may cause him to sin. And in light of that, I will never do it."
Matthew 5:16 says: "Let your light so shine before men.
that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven."
You know, it's going to be a lot harder to do that. In fact, I would say it's
going to be impossible to do that
if you have a beer in your hand.
Several years ago,
I heard a preacher tell about a man in Florida. The man's name was Wilson Thomas.
Mr. Thomas had had a hard day at work and he'd stop to have a drink and
unwind before he went home to his little boy, Randall.
Well, he had a few drinks and he took one bottle home with him. But when he was
almost home, a small boy on a bicycle
came out on the road in front of him, and Mr. Thomas swerved to miss him.
And maybe he would have if his senses had not been dulled by alcohol. Anyway,
he hit the boy and
it killed him.
In a panick, he kept going and he sped home.
Several hours later when the police came to arrest him, they found him in his attic,
crying and drinking.
And it was only then that he found out that the boy that he killed
was his own son, Randall.
"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is a brawler,
and whoever is led astray by it
is not wise."