03.03. Does the Bible Sanction the Use of Alcohol?

Does the Bible Sanction the Use of Alcohol?

THERE are many men now pleading the Bible as authority for the use of alcohol as a beverage. It is strange that any man who believes that God is the author of that book would use it to estab­lish a habit which the science and medical skill of the age agree in condemning. To me it seems the last extremity for the rum-drinker or the rum-seller when he flies to the Bible for support. Be­fore the courts of medicine, history, and popular opinion, he has lost his cause; and now, as a dernier resort, he betakes himself to the Bible, in the vain hope of finding something, under cover of which he may disappear from public condem­nation. The argument is made upon the word wine, which, it is claimed, contained alcohol. The word wine means "fermented juice of the grape," which always contains alcohol. The Bible sanctions the use of it, and gives it a place along with corn and oil among national blessings. Inspired men of old spoke of it as making the heart glad, and referred to the time of its increase as an occasion of great joy. God required a sacrifice of wine, a libation, which, if it had been wrong for men to use, he would not have done, any more than he would have directed the sprinkling of swine’s broth. These gentlemen rejoice at the wedding in Cana of Galilee, and imagine themselves hilarious from the wine, made by the Savior. Paul’s prescription to use a little wine is suited to their "often infirm­ities," and agreeable to their stomachs. And they are certain that the Savior sanctioned the use of alcoholic wine by the institution of the Supper. Their argument, in logical form, stands thus:

Now it is safe to say that if the word wine, in those passages in which it has the divine sanction, contains alcohol, then there is good support for the use of alcohol as a beverage. But I must now protest against the argument as a whole. They argue that because wine was sanctioned, therefore we are at liberty to use, with­out stint, all the miserable drinks now sold in the market. Now, it ought to be known that wine, at the worst, was only supposed to contain a percent of alcohol; but that it was entirely free from those poisons that now go to make up the staple of other liquors. Alcohol is now being condemned by the entire medical profession as a beverage, and very many of the most learned of the present time deny that it can ever be used as medicine without injury. But whatever may be said of the result of alcohol in the stomach, it ought to be known that the whiskies, brandies, etc., etc., now imported and sold in the market, contain a very small percent of alcohol. In its place, however, they have a large percent of sugar of lead, strych­nine, strontia, potash, soda carbonates, benzine, Brazil wood, logwood, etc., etc. These poisons are much more destructive, both to reason and to life, than alcohol. Hence we now have but very few old men, who are in the habit of getting drunk, from the simple fact that in the use of these mod­ern liquors a man will not live to be old.

Hence, if we were to admit all they claim for the word wine in the Bible, it would not justify the traffic which they seek to protect. Their conclusions are not contained in their premises. Hence, the manifest unfairness of their whole plan of argument. But I now call in question the meaning which they attach to the word wine. I do not deny that sometimes the word has the meaning they give to it; that many times in the Bible it means the fer­mented juice of grapes. I will quote a few pas­sages in which the word contains this meaning. For it ought to be known that the word wine in the Old Testament is a translation of twelve differ­ent Hebrew words, only two of which mean wine in its common acceptation. But here are the read­ings promised:

"And Noah awoke from his wine." Gen 9:24. The son of the Nazarite: "He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink." Num 6:3.

Eli said to Hannah: "How long wilt thou be drunken? Put away thy wine from thee." 1Sa 1:14.

"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." Pro 20:1.

"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 color in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder." Pro 23:29-32.

"Woe unto them that rise up early in the morn­ing, that they may follow strong drink; that con tinue until night, till wine inflame them! And the harp and the viol, the tabret and pipe, and wine, are in their feasts: but they regard not the work of the Lord, neither consider the operation of his hands." Isa 5:11-12.

"Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim, whose glorious beauty is a fading flower, which are on the head of the fat valleys of them that are overcome with wine!" Isa 28:1.

Again, in Isa 28:7, God continues to condemn Ephraim: "But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment." In this sense Solomon uses the word in con­nection with the drinker: "Be not among wine­bibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh: for the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty; and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags." Pro 23:20-21.

There are many other occurrences of the word in the same sense, but not in a single instance does the divine approbation certainly rest upon it. When wine is required as an offering, or spoken of as a blessing, the word is tirosh, which contained no intoxicating quality. There are instances in which the word wine occurs in the common ver­sion when it should have been raisins, figs or dates. Hence those who have an acquaintance with the original can but smile at the parade of texts from the Old Testament in favor of the use of intoxicating wine. The drink from grapes approved in the Old Testament, or even tolerated, does not necessarily mean fermented juice of grapes. And when we listen to its ringing denunciations of that which could intoxicate, we are in no mood to believe that it also recommends the same things which it condemns. The use of intoxicating wine was attended, then, with evil results, on account of which it was con­demned.

"Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart." Hos 4:11.

"Woe unto him that giveth his neighbor drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also." Hab 2:15.

"And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunk­ard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." Deu 21:20-21.

"Awake, ye drunkards, and weep; and howl, all ye drinkers of wine, because of the new wine; for it is cut off from your mouth." Joe 1:5.

They "that drink wine in bowls, and anoint themselves with the chief ointments; but they are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph. Therefore now shall they go captive with the first that go captive, and the banquet of them that stretched themselves shall be removed." Amo 6:6-7.

Let us turn from this condemnation to the sanc­tion of wine. In doing so, however, we come to other words. Concerning most of them we know that alcohol was not meant. I have space here only to quote a few of these passages:

"And Pharaoh’s cup was in my hand; and I took the grapes and pressed them into Pharaoh’s cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh’s hand. And Joseph said unto him, this is the interpre­tation of it: The three branches are three days: yet within three days shall Pharaoh lift up thine head, and restore thee unto thy place, and thou shalt deliver Pharaoh’s cup into his hand, after the former manner when thou wast his butler." Gen 40:11-13.

"The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass’s colt unto the Choice vine, he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes." Gen 49:10.

"Butter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats, with the fat of kidneys of wheat; and thou didst drink the pure blood of the grape." Deu 32:14.

It will be seen at a glance here that the newly expressed juice of the grape is spoken of. So it was in the sacrifices of wine that the Lord demanded of his people. When wine is spoken of that had power to intoxicate, its use was con­demned. The Nazarites and Rechabites were blessed because of their purity, arising from total abstinence., The drinks used by the Israelites, con­taining the power to intoxicate, were employed as the symbols of scourge, and blight, and ruin. From these facts it would seem unreasonable for any man to attempt to find any authority for the use of intoxicating wine in the Old Testament. Indeed, the strongest condemnation of the use of such drinks that can be found anywhere are found there. Hence the Old Testament is clear, in not supporting alcoholic beverages.

These men, who are just now establishing their cause by the word of God, have recently become profoundly learned in the original of the New Testament. They tell us that the oinos of the Greek meant fermented grape juice. And, therefore, the Savior made intoxicating wine at the wedding in Cana of Galilee. My opinion is that oinos does mean the fer­mented juice of the grape, but it also means the unfermented juice, either the newly expressed, or the must, which had been preserved from the at­mosphere, and therefore had not fermented.

Here are a few passages in which alcoholic wine is referred to in the New Testament:

"And be not drunk with wine, wherein is ex­cess; but be filled with the Spirit." Eph 5:18.

"And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." Rev 14:8. Again, in Rev 14:10 : "The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God."

"And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath." Rev 16:19.

"With whom the kings of the earth have com­mitted fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her for­nication." Rev 17:2.

There are two other texts in which intoxicating wine is probably meant: 1Ti 3:8, and Tit 2:3. A bishop, or presbyter should not be "given to much wine."

There are some occurrences of the word in which it is quite as clear that fermented liquor is not in­tended. In Mat 9:17, it occurs three times; in Luk 5:37-38, the same statement is made, in which the word in question also is read three times. In Mark 2:22, the substance of the same is found again, only oinos occurs four times instead of three, as in the other places. "And no man putteth new wine in old bottles, else the new wine doth burst the bot­tles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred; but new wine must be put into new bottles." The bottles referred to were the skins of ani­mals. If they put new wine into an old one, that had stretched all it could, and was brittle and hard with age, the wine not yet having fermented, would be exposed to the atmosphere in this old skin, and would pass through that condition, but in doing so there would be an increased demand for space, which would result in the destruction of the bottle, and the loss of the wine. This is, beyond doubt, the simple teaching of these pas­sages on the word wine. Hence we have ten occurrences in which unfermented grape juice is intended, and six in which intoxicating wine is meant, and two in which alcoholic wine is prob­ably referred to. Wine-bibber is found twice, in which it is quite evident that they meant to accuse the Savior of drunkenness, as well as gluttony. See Mat 11:19. Luk 7:44.

Besides these, the word oinos occurs fifteen times, in which the meaning of the word is more or less in dispute. Then we have once (1Pe 4:3), oinophlugia rendered excess of wine, by which drunkenness is indicated.

Hence when men tell us that oinos in the New Testament always means alcoholic wine, we know that they are not themselves informed in the matter, or are intentionally trying to deceive us. When, therefore, the word wine occurs in the New Testament, we are sure that the blood of the grape is meant; that whether in a fermented or unfermented state, must be determined by the context, not by the meaning of the word itself. On the day of Pentecost some men scoffingly said: "These men are full of new wine." Acts 2:13. The word which they used is gleukous, abbre­viated gleukus, sweet, and oinos, wine. It should be translated sweet wine. Yet this word was com­monly used to mean the new juice of grapes, or the must, or wine that had been kept from fer­mentation. Their being full of sweet wine would not indicate that they were drunken, as they supposed—Acts 2:15. Hence, they said one thing, while they thought it would be understood as meaning more than that. It is, however, by Peter’s reference to the matter, rather than by the word itself, that we know just what they wished to be understood as affirming.

Since the word wine, then, in the New Testa­ment, may mean either the fermented, or the un­fermented juice of the grape, by what rule shall we be able to determine which meaning to attach to it, in those passages yet in dispute? In the Old Testament the words in the original helped us to the meaning of the word wine. And we find in passing over that ground again, that when a word is used that indicates the presence of alcohol, the curse of the Almighty rests upon it. We find that when God requires a libation, or an offering of the fruit of the vine, the newly ex­pressed juice is indicated, that a word is employed that excludes the thought of alcohol. This is also true in those passages in which wine is spoken of as a national blessing.

If this rule in the Old Testament shall guide us in the interpretation of the New, then where we shall find wine spoken of favorably, we are to know that must, or the new juice, is to be under­stood. This is a reasonable rule. Indeed, we cannot suppose for a moment that God would thunder his anathemas, as he does, against intoxicating wine, and then in the perfect law permit, and even encourage its use.

Three New Testament Passages Given by Those Who Want to Drink Alcohol

There are only three passages in the New Test­ament in which wine-bibbers of the present day seek refuge: the wine made at the wedding; the wine used in the Lord’s Supper, and Paul’s recom­mendation to Timothy. We will give each of these a passing notice. The Wedding Feast at Cana

We wilt first consider the wine produced mirac­ulously at the feast. To do this, as we ought, we will read the account:

"And there were set there six water-pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water-pots 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." John 2:6-10.

Usually there is a play made here on the word drunk, and it is forced to indicate that the guests on that occasion were stupid from the free use of wine. But this thought is in no way presented by the passage. The governor of the feast makes no allusion to the condition of those then in attend­ance, but to that which was customary on such occasions. Nor does the phrase "well drunk," indicate that it was customary for the guests to become drunken on such occasions. The language simply means—when they have drunk enough to satisfy them, so that they do not care for more wine. But whether or not they would be intoxicated would depend on the character of the wine, and the amount that would be necessary to satisfy them.

It is claimed that the wine made by the Savior was strong, or intoxicating, because the governor pronounced it the good wine. This raises the ques­tion, "What did they regard as good, or the best wine?" According to Pliny, Plutarch, Horace, Theophrastus, and many others, they denominated the wine that would not intoxicate, "the best wine," the "wholesome," "the innocent," "the moral wine," etc. Pliny expressly says that "good wine was destitute of spirit." Lib. iv. 13. Judging the wine, therefore, by this rule, it was not intoxicating. But a last effort is made to find complicity on the part of Jesus with intoxication, in the quan­tity of wine that he made. So that if it was not alcoholic when made, yet the condition in which it was left would secure to it the intoxicating qual­ity, with the age that it attained before it would be used. But here it will be noticed that our opponents take for granted just what needs to be proved, that Jesus made all the water in those water-pots into wine. A second thought will con­vince us that he made no more wine than was necessary for the occasion, and that it was only that which was drawn out and borne to the gov­ernor that was turned into wine. This would be a double miracle, and would better manifest his glory. Hence there can be found no evidence in this account that Jesus produced that upon which men could become intoxicated, or that he in any way recognized the right or propriety of such drinks. The Lord’s Supper The "Lord’s Supper" is appealed to with con­fidence in favor of the use of intoxicating wine, even in an ordinance of the most sacred character. And while I speak a word upon this point, I am oppressed with the indifference of the religious world on this subject. This question has been raised in religious assemblies, and resolutions re­lating to it have been tabled, as if it were a matter of no concern. I regret this exceedingly, and yet I need not tell you what others have done in this matter, for perhaps we are no more alive on this question than those to whom we have referred. Did the Savior, then, leave an ordinance to be observed by his people, in which alcohol was to be used? Both science and history have declared it to be the greatest scourge to any people using it. In our own America it numbers its victims at 60,000 per annum; it fills the land with corruption and crime, with desolation and want; it is full of rape, and theft, and murder; it stupefies, bloats, blackens, and blisters. It is now withholding mill­ions of children from the common schools; it is filling the land with broken-hearted widows and helpless orphans. Like a withering blight, it blasts all it touches. Do you say that I am prejudicing the question? I deny it. I have only stated a few facts of history. Did the Lord ask his disciples to drink of the cup that has slain more than have ever fallen in battle? Does that narcotic poison, that works only death to body and soul, represent that blood by which we are to be saved from all sin? Did the Lord from heaven give his disciples alcoholic wine, saying: "This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins?"

Some have been alarmed at the word wine, supposing that both our English word, and that oinos in the Greek, indicate the presence of alcohol. But we have seen from New Testament usage that it is not true; that oinos does occur in a number of instances, in which such a meaning is absolutely impossible. Hence there can be no need of sup­posing that alcoholic wine was used on that occasion. The word wine does not occur in the New Test­ament in connection with the Lord’s Supper. On this account some have maintained that the Lord did not use wine on this occasion. This appears to me to be unsafe; for while it may not be abso­lutely certain that wine was used on that occasion, yet we cannot deny that all the probabilities are on that side of the question. The Lord said: "I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine until that day that I shall drink it new in the kingdom of God." Mark 14:25. Indeed, the word cup, used under those circumstances, indicated wine as the contents. Paul says: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?" 1Co 10:16. This seems a clear reference to the Passover, in which they partook of wine four times. The third time the cup was passed it was called the cup of blessing." But it should be remembered that if the Savior took that wine which was on the table at that time to intro­duce this new ordinance, then he did not have in­toxicating wine; for the wine used at the Passover was must, or the juice of grapes that had not been permitted to ferment, mixed with an equal quan­tity of warm water. Believing this to have been the contents of the cup used by the Savior, the early Christians so observed the Lord’s Supper till the time of Justin the Martyr. See his "Apol­ogy for Christianity." Vol. I. page 65.

"…use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake…" But Paul said to Timothy: "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities." 1Ti 5:23. The original would indicate not that Paul would have Timothy to drink no more water, but use wine in its place; not that, but that he should put wine with the water which he used. The paraphrase of Dr. James Macknight sets forth ate thought of the passage in great clearness. He says:

"Thy health being of great importance to the Church, no longer drink pure water, but mix a little wine with it, on account of the disorder of thy stomach, and thy many other bodily infirmities."

Let us note a few facts on the very surface of this passage:

As it is not necessary to suppose that Paul meant alcoholic wine, and as Timothy from his abstinence stand-point would certainly refuse fer­mented wine, as Paul knows this, and as we know now that alcoholic wine would have been injurious, it is quite evident that must, or the unfermented wine, was intended.

We find, then, that the word of God every­where condemns drunkenness, or the use of that which is capable of intoxicating. The Lord will not only at last consign the drunkard to eternal banishment from his presence, but those who keep his company, that eat and drink with the drunken, shall have a portion with the hypocrites, And the word of the Lord pronounces a woe against every man who gives his neighbor drink, who puts the bottle to him and makes him drunken also (Hab 2:15).