Volume 31 – 1990 (PDF) - Searching The Scriptures

Page 12____________________________________________________________________________________________________
quoted by Johnny Stringer in With All Boldness, May
1975).
The Christian who socially drinks and influences
others is not guiltless. Jesus said, "But whoso shall
offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it
were better for him that a millstone were hanged about
his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the
sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must
needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by
whom the offense cometh" (Matt. 18: 6-7)!
Arguments Made To Justify Social Drinking
Believe it or not there are a few Christians who
endeavor to uphold their practice of social drinking by
the Bible. They think that not only did the Lord approve,
but even suggested that we should drink alcoholic
beverages.
1. Some contend that the story of Jesus turning water
into wine (John 2: 1-11) proves that he approved of
drinking alcohol.
The word that is translated "wine" does not inherently
mean fermented wine. While it can include that
(which is determined by context e. g. Eph. 5: 18), it is
also used to refer to unfermented juice of the vine. Mark
2: 22 and Matt. 9: 17 refer to the fermentation
process. The practice was to put new wine
(unfermented) into new bottles (of skin) which would
stretch with fermentation. If new wine were put in old
bottles (already stretched), the bottle would burst and
the wine be lost. The point to be seen is that the Lord
uses the same word "wine) (also the same word in
Greek) that he used in John 2 to refer to unfermented
wine (grape juice). Thus, it is an as-sumption that the
term "wine" in John 2 means that the Lord turned water
into an alcoholic beverage. The word "wine" does not
suggest that at all! The problem may be that we do not
use the term "wine" in that sense today. However, in
the Old Testament that term describes the juice that is
still in the cluster (Isa. 65: 8).
In Luke 1: 15 "wine" is put in contrast to "strong
drink, " which means it was either pure grape juice or a
drink that had far less alcoholic content than their
"strong drink" of the day which contained 5%-8% alcohol.
If the wine Jesus made was fermented, then we could
easily justify excessive drinking as well as social drinking.
When we consider that there was 100-160 gallons,
"It would seem to prove either: 1. Excessive drinking
was allowable, or 2. The oinos in this case was grape
juice. In light of the whole Old Testament condemnation
of wine, it certainly would appear that the beverage
was grape juice" (Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and
Bible History, p. 355).
"It is sometimes objected that this is referred to as
'good wine' (John 2: 10), indicating an alcoholic content.
Upon examination, however, we find no hint that its
goodness was in its high alcoholic content (Harris, BT,
p. 183). Earnest Gordon comments, 'When the creative
hand of the Lord made wine for the guest we maybe sure
that it was superlative even to corrupted tastes... It
isn't likely they would call Christ's wine anything but
good' (SST, 'Note on Open Letters, ' July 22, 1944, p.
514)" (Ibid, p. 355).
2. Some argue from 1 Tim. 5: 23 that Paul encouraged
Timothy to drink alcoholic beverages. Paul said, "Drink
no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's
sake and thine often infirmities. "
Again, the term wine (same word as in John 2) does not
suggest that it was fermented wine. To say that it is
fermented is an assumption!
Furthermore, notice that Timothy was to drink wine
for his stomach's sake and his often infirmities. It was for
medicinal purposes. Thus, if we grant that it was
fermented (alcoholic content) it does not justify social
drinking. It would only justify drinking such for medical
purposes.
3. Several have twisted 1 Tim. 3: 8 which lists "not
given to much wine" as one of the qualifications of a
deacon. It is assumed that it means he can be given to a
little, but just not much. A passage that forbids
excessive- ness (in my matter) does not permit
anything short of that excessive point. Passages that
forbid fornication do not justify anything short of the
overt act. Passages that condemn murder do not uphold
beating a man just as long as we stop short of killing
him.
"It is not affirmed that it would be proper for the
deacon, any more than the bishop, to indulge in the use
of wine in small quantities, but it is affirmed that a man
who is much given to the use of wine ought not, on any
consideration, to be a deacon" (Albert Barnes, comments
on 1 Tim. 3: 8).
Since social drinking cannot be justified by the Bible
and it is plainly condemned by the New Testament, we
can only conclude that social drinking is a SIN!