Let us begin with a few points of agreement. First of all, if you are under 21 and reading this article in hopes of finding some justification for underage drinking, I'm sorry to disappoint you. God has told us,
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
Romans 13:1-2. If the government tells you to do something, as long as it is not inconsistent with God's Word, you need to do it. Remember that the next time you tell yourself it's okay to drive 5 miles per hour over the speed limit because "everybody else is doing it." But in the context of drinking this means that if the government tells you not to drink until you turn 21, don't drink until you are 21. To do otherwise is a sin. Both sides of the drinking issue agree that you should not break the law.
Another point of agreement deals with drunkenness. We'll discuss issues about the proper translation of some Hebrew and Greek terms shortly. But regardless of our differences of opinion, both sides again agree that drunkenness is sinful. A few examples will hammer this point home:
Proverbs 23:20-21: "Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags."
Proverbs 23:29-30: "Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaints? Who has needless bruises? Who bloodshot eyes? Those who linger over wine, who go to sample bowls of mixed wine."
Romans 13:13: "Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy."
Galatians 5:19-21: "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."
Ephesians 5:18: "Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit."
Even Christians who believe drinking in general is not sinful would agree that drinking to the point of drunkenness is definitely a sin.
Unfortunately, that is where the agreement ends. The key question is whether ALL drinking of alcohol is forbidden to believers or only excessive drinking to the point of drunkenness. As is the case with many issues of Biblical interpretation, our differences often lie in the proper translation of the original Biblical languages. For starters, I will try my best to present the case for the total prohibition of alcohol of any kind.
THE CASE FOR TEETOLARY
As English speaking Christians, we often act as if our English translations are the original text. But the Bible wasn't written in English. It was written in Hebrew, Greek, and small amounts in Aramaic. Many Biblical scholars have worked long, hard hours trying to do their best to translate these original languages into English while still staying true to the original meaning. The many translations have met with varying degrees of success.
But one thing we often take for granted is that when the Bible says "wine" the original text meant "wine." People who believe drinking alcohol is always sinful think that our modern translators have often gotten this wrong. Many times when our translations say "wine" the Bible really is referring to unfermented grape juice.
There are many words in the Bible that are usually translated "wine," but there are three that are used most often in the Old Testament and one main word in the New Testament.
The three Hebrew words typically translated as "wine" in the Old Testament are the Hebrew words "tirosh" (sometimes transliterated "tiyrowsh"), "yayin" and "shekar." "Tirosh" refers to new wine. It refers to the initial squeezings from the grapes. "Yayin" is simply translated as "wine." According to people who believe drinking is a sin, it can refer to either alcoholic or non-alcoholic wine (i.e., grape juice). "Shekar" on the other hand is translated "strong drink" and clearly refers to alcoholic wine.
According to the prohibitionist camp, "wine" can generally refer to any grape product, including unfermented grape juice. For example, Isaiah 65:8 in the King James Version states, "new wine is found in the cluster." The word translated "new wine" is "tirosh." But if it is still in the cluster it is also still in the grape and is therefore grape juice, not wine. Words that refer to wine can also sometimes mean unfermented grape juice. Therefore, we allegedly must look at the context in order to determine which usage is intended.
Throughout the Bible, maintaining abstinence from alcohol is presented as a great virtue. For example, the Lord told Aaron, "You and your sons are not to drink wine (yayin) or other fermented drink (shekar) whenever you go into the Tent of Meeting, or you will die" (Leviticus 10:9). This ordinance lasted for all priests, as God commanded, "No priest is to drink wine (yayin) when he enters the inner court" (Ezekiel 44:21). Similarly, some Hebrews would take a special vow dedicating themselves to the Lord called a "Nazrite" vow. One of the requirements for anyone who took this vow was to "abstain from wine (yayin) and other fermented drink (shekar)" (Numbers 6:3). One of the most famous Nazrites was Samson, who also was commanded to "drink no wine (yayin) or other fermented drink (shekar)" (Judges 13:4). Kings also were not supposed to drink wine, at least according to the prohibitionist camp. "It is not for kings, O Lemuel - not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer, lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights" (Proverbs 31:4-5). The prophet Daniel even refused to accept wine from Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon ("But Daniel resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine, and he asked the chief official for permission not to defile himself this way"; Daniel 1:8).
While it is true that wine is often called a blessing from God, this is allegedly referring to grape juice, not fermented alcoholic wine. For example, when Jacob was blessing his son Isaac (thinking Isaac was Esau) he said, "May God give you of heaven's dew and of earth's richness - an abundance of grain and new wine (tirosh)" (Genesis 27:28). "Tirosh" refers to the first drippings from the grapes, and as such allegedly would not be alcoholic.
The New Testament causes a few more problems, but prohibitionists believe these only appear to be concerns based upon our English translations. In fact, many of our references to "wine" are again referring to grape juice. This case is a bit more difficult to present because the New Testament Greek does not typically use separate words for "new wine," "wine" or "strong wine." Instead, the main word used to describe wine in the New Testament is "oinos." Prohibitionist Christians believe that this one word can sometimes refer to alcoholic wine but other times mean grape juice.
There are two pretty obvious problems with the prohibitionist viewpoint if "oinos" always means alcoholic wine. Jesus' first miracle was changing water into wine at the wedding feast of Cana (John 2:1-11). Jesus also offered wine to his disciples at the Last Supper. If either of these stories referred to alcoholic wine, Jesus obviously condoned its consumption.
Supposedly, Jesus did not make wine at Cana, but rather unfermented grape juice. Some of the reasons for accepting this position go back to the Old Testament issues discussed above. Jesus is our High Priest (Hebrews 4:14). If Old Testament priests were forbidden from drinking alcohol, it makes no sense to believe that Jesus would live by a lesser standard. Similarly, if a Nazrite who dedicated his life to the Lord did not consume alcohol, why would Jesus (who was God Himself)?
But regardless of whether or not you believe Jesus Himself would consume alcohol, He certainly would never encourage anyone else to sin. John 2:10 says that after Jesus' miracle the master of the banquet in Cana said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now." From this, those opposed to any drinking whatsoever conclude that the wedding guests were already drunk by the time Jesus performed His miracle. God definitely would not provide more alcohol to people who were already sinfully intoxicated. Even though "oinos" is used to describe the wine throughout this passage, it must not have been alcoholic wine or else Jesus would be assisting people in sinning.
What about the Last Supper? Did Jesus use wine or grape juice? This obviously has implications not only for whether we drink alcohol in our daily lives but also for how we celebrate communion. Many people assume that wine is mentioned during the Last Supper, but in fact the word "oinos" is never used. Instead, Jesus merely refers to the "fruit of the vine" ("gennema ampelos" in Greek). Grape juice is just as much a "fruit of the vine" as is wine. Again, if Jesus was our High Priest, He would not be drinking alcohol, so the "fruit of the vine" in this context must refer to grape juice.
Perhaps most persuasive is the fact that Jesus Himself refused to drink wine when it was offered to Him. At the crucifixion Jesus was offered "wine (oinos) mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it" (Mark 15:23). If we are to model ourselves after Jesus, and He did not drink alcohol, then how can we possibly justify it?
Taking all these considerations together, Christians in the prohibitionist camp believe that the prohibitions against drunkenness apply to drinking as a whole. As such, consuming ANY alcohol is a sin and should be avoided.
Of course, this is not the last word on the subject. Let us now take a look at the case for the license to drink in moderation.
THE CASE FOR MODERATION
Is the "no alcohol" argument as strong as the prohibitionists believe? Personally, I do not believe so, but I will outline the various responses and let you decide for yourself.How about all those Old Testament references to the virtue of abstaining from alcohol? Were priests really required to refrain from drinking wine? Clearly they were not. The very passages the prohibitionists use to make their case show that the ban against drinking only applied when they were serving in the Temple. Leviticus 10:9 says Aaron and his sons were not to drink " whenever you go into the Tent of Meeting." Similarly, Ezekiel 44:21 says a priest shall not drink wine "when he enters the inner court." Priests were not to drink when they were "on duty," so to speak. But the fact that the ban was so narrowly tailored certainly suggests that priests were permitted to consume alcohol when they were not "on duty." Otherwise, why wouldn't God have simply said, "Priests cannot drink wine" and left it at that?
This may also explain why Jesus refused wine at the crucifixion. He was "on duty" as our High Priest at that time, preparing to make atonement for our sins. However, it is equally likely that Jesus was simply refusing the wine because it was mixed with myrrh, which would have the combined effect of serving as a pain killer (which Jesus refused to take because he had to face the full punishment for our sins). If we take Jesus' refusal of the wine as a ban against drinking, then we logically also must take His refusal of the myrrh as a prohibition against taking modern medicine of any kind. Are you sinning when you take Tylenol to relieve your headache?
The Nazrite vow was similar. The ban against a Nazrite drinking wine was also situation specific. This was one of the extra burdens the Nazrite would take upon himself to show his dedication to the Lord, but that did not mean that the average Hebrew who had not taken the vow could not drink. A Nazrite also was prohibited from cutting his hair, but I have yet to meet any prohibitionists who argue that this means it is sinful to get a haircut.Kings were not prohibited from drinking wine. Proverbs 31:4-5 is a general piece of advice, and the point is clear. A king should not drink " lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights." This does not result from moderate drinking, but rather from overly indulgent drunkenness. Again, the prohibition is against getting drunk. There are many proverbs that warn of the dangers of drinking (3:10, 9:1-5, 20:1, 21:17, 23:20-21, 23:29-30, 31:4-6). But this does not mean that drinking is ALWAYS wrong.
Proverbs are general rules. They are not meant to have universal application. For example, Proverbs 26:4 says, "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself." However, the VERY NEXT PROVERB (26:5) says, "Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes." Are we supposed to answer a fool according to his folly or not? At first glance this might appear to be a contradiction in the Bible. In reality, though, the point we are supposed to take is that there are some occasions on which we should not answer a fool according to his folly and others in which we should. We have similar proverbs in English. You have undoubtedly heard the piece of advice, "he who hesitates is lost." We all understand that there are circumstances in which we must move quickly or else we will miss out on an opportunity. But what about the advice, "look before you leap?" This advice is just as valid. There are also circumstances in which we must carefully examine our choices before we make them. These proverbs do not contradict each other. They simply recognize that different advice may be warranted in different scenarios. Neither saying was ever meant to apply universally, nor were the Biblical proverbs. Many poor Biblical interpretations have resulted from taking Proverbs to be broader than they were intended.
Finally, the passage from Daniel is another example (like the Nazrite vow) of the prohibitionist picking and choosing what they like from passage and ignoring what they do not. True, Daniel did not accept wine from Nebuchadnezzar. But he also did not accept food (Daniel 1:8). Does this mean it is a sin to eat food? In reality, Daniel was refusing to accept the food or wine because he was trying to keep himself pure from pagan influences. He was not exemplifying abstinence.Are references to wine as a blessing from God always referring to grape juice? First of all, the notion of "unfermented" grape juice even existing in Biblical times is doubtful at best. Some people contend that grapes actually begin to ferment even while they are still on the vine, but the fermentation process certainly begins once they are removed. Truly non-alcoholic grape juice did not exist until 1869 when Mr. Welch (of Welch's grape juice fame) successfully pasteurized freshly squeezed juice.
Not all references to wine as a blessing from God use "tirosh" to refer to grape juice as proffered by the prohibitionists. Isaiah 25: says, "On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine ("shemer" in Hebrew) - the best of meats and the finest of wines (shemer)." "Aged wine" is obviously the direct opposite of "new wine." If it is "aged" it must be fermented and therefore alcoholic. Yet it still plays a part in God's banquet.
Contrary to the argument for refraining from alcohol, even the Hebrew word "tirosh" does not always refer to unfermented grape juice, if it refers to grape juice at all. Hosea 4:11 says that "old wine (yayin) and new (tirosh) ... take away the understanding of my people." How can "tirosh" take away understanding if it is non-alcoholic? At least in some instances tirosh must be referring to freshly squeezed alcoholic wine.
What about the wedding feast at Cana? Did Jesus assist people in getting drunk? First of all, even if the people were drinking too much, that would not somehow mean that Jesus was complicit in their sin. God is the creator of all things. We as fallen human beings sometimes use God's good creation for our sinful purposes. The fact that we distort what God intended for good in order to use it for sin does not somehow place the blame for our sin upon God. In fact, the Bible specifically credits God with the creation of wine (Psalm 104:14-15; "He makes ... wine (yayin) that gladdens the heart of man"). Why is it not God's fault when He makes wine and we use it to sin, but somehow it is Jesus' fault if He was to make wine and others use it to sin? Leaving that aside, the context of the wedding feast makes it clear that the wine Jesus made was alcoholic. Remember that the master of the banquet said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now" (John 2:10). This does not necessarily mean that the guests were drunk. It simply means that generally speaking, the guests' fine-tuned sense of taste and ability to tell good wine from inferior wine would be lessened after consuming some alcohol. This deadening of the sense of taste occurs far before someone is sinfully drunk. But of course the deadening would not occur at all if the beverage was only non-alcoholic grape juice. The master's comments make no sense whatsoever if the beverage Jesus created was non-alcoholic.
And what about the Last Supper? Quite simply, it is impossible for Jesus to have been using non-alcoholic grape juice at the Passover meal, unless you think He performed another creation miracle and the Bible just forgot to mention it. The grape harvest in ancient Palestine began in August or September (during the Jewish month Elul) and was over by September or October (Jewish Tishri 15-21) during the Festival of Booths (Deuteronomy 16:13). The Last Supper was a Passover meal, which occurs in April (Nisan 14 according to the Jewish calendar). That means seven months would have elapsed between when the grapes that made up the "fruit of the vine" were harvested and when Jesus gave them to His disciples. Modern refrigeration and pasteurization did not exist, so clearly the grapes were fermented.
Besides refuting the prohibitionist "evidence," the Christian who favors drinking in moderation can make a strong affirmative case as well. In some instances, God actually grants specific permission to drink wine. For example, Deuteronomy 14: 26 says, "Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine (yayin) or other fermented drink (shekar), or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice." Here God expressly grants permission to drink not only yayin (wine), but also shekar (strong drink).
God also commanded the priests to use wine for offerings. "With the first lamb offer a tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with a quarter of a hin of oil from pressed olives, and a quarter of a hin of wine (yayin) as a drink offering" (Exodus 29:40). Jesus used wine in a parable. "Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved" (Matthew 9:17). This parable even refers to the fermentation process. It was the fermenting of the wine that would break an old inelastic skin (but not a new one).
The early Christian church also clearly believed that alcoholic wine was to be used at the Lord's Supper. Some people were not respecting the memorial nature of the meal and were actually getting drunk (1 Corinthians 11:21). People do not get drunk on grape juice. Interestingly, Paul also did not tell the Corinthian church to stop using alcoholic wine at the Lord's Supper. Instead, he told them not to drink "the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner" (1 Corinthians 11:27).
Finally, Jesus Himself acknowledged that people accused Him of being a "drunkard." "For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine (oinos), and you say 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners."'" (Luke 7:33-34). The accusation of Jesus being a "drunkard" seems puzzling if He never drank alcohol. But even more importantly, Jesus Himself draws a contrast between the "drinking" He admitted doing Himself ("The Son of Man came eating and drinking") and the "drinking wine (oinos)" that was done by John the Baptist. Clearly when Jesus said He came "drinking," He meant He was drinking wine.
CONCLUSION
In the end, it seems clear that priests under the Old Covenant were free to drink wine as long as they were not serving in the Temple, Jesus created alcoholic wine as His first miracle, He served wine at the Last Supper, and He admitted to drinking wine when people accused Him of being a drunkard. We must take the warnings against getting drunk seriously, but we must not expand the warnings to such a degree that we become legalistic like the Pharisees of old. Jesus called the Pharisees "hypocrites," saying they "nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition" (Matthew 15:6). We must be careful not to do the same. Don't create so many "rules" to being a Christian that you lose track of the free gift of grace that the gospel provides and how it frees us from the yoke of the law.If you choose to forego alcohol for personal reasons, so be it. The Bible permits the moderate consumption of alcohol but it does not require it. For that reason I believe churches are free to serve either wine or grape juice for communion. The commemoration is the same either way. However, giving up alcohol because you believe the Bible requires you to do so is imposing a higher law upon yourself than God asks of you, and it could be an unnecessary stumbling block you are placing between non-believers and the gospel. And I say this as a man who VERY rarely indulges in an alcoholic beverage and would not blink an eye if our country suddenly slipped back into the era of legal prohibition. So I really have no incentive to read moderation into the Bible if it is not there.
One more note is important before closing. Romans 14:19-23 speaks beautifully to this controversy within the Christian church:
Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
If you have read this entire article and remain unconvinced, then please do not drink alcohol. Paul tells us that if you believe something is a sin, even if in reality it is not, but you go ahead and do it anyway, then you have sinned because you have violated your conscience and what you believe is expected of you by God. Paul also tells us not to let petty disputes over our diet separate us. These things are not important.
Finally, Paul tells us to respect the differing opinions of our fellow believers. We are not to "eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall." Some people take this passage so far as to believe that if any Christian thinks drinking is a sin then none of us should drink. After all, you never know when some weak Christian brother may be looking over your shoulder, see you take a drink, and give into the temptation even though he believes it is wrong. I think this is taking this verse far further than Paul intended. After all, this verse isn't limited to eating and drinking, but it includes "anything else." Some denominations believe it is a sin to see a movie of any kind. Others believe women should not wear makeup, cut their hair or wear blue jeans. Should we now all be required to conform to every nuance of even the most minority Christian belief simply to avoid unknowingly tempting a brother or sister in Christ?No. I believe Paul is speaking of conscious situations. In other words, if you are dining with a Christian brother whom you know does not approve of alcohol, don't drink while you are with him. Respect the sensibilities of those around you and do not knowingly offend them. That is a burden we can all easily bear, and it is just common courtesy.
So in the end I conclude that moderate consumption of alcohol is perfectly permissible under God's law. There are surely some people who should not drink alcohol in any amount because they cannot trust themselves not to slip into addiction. But this is not true for everyone. And if you can drink only in moderation, then wine is one of the many blessings God has provided for His people and we have no reason to reject it.
|
