 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
By: Roger Scully Jr.
Since 2 billion dollars is spent each year in the advertisement of alcohol, it should not be surprising that these are the most entertaining
commercials on television. Admittedly, they are quite humorous, thus they remain stored in the memory bank the longest. They are also quite
appealing, seeing as how they feature such beautiful people, having such a marvelous time. Yet, there is something else with which we must
credit these advertisements, and that is their deception. They show everyone having a good time at a party or bar, but fail to show the family
who lost a loved one due to the person driving home from the party or bar. They show the guys having a good night on the town, but fail to show
the family that is left home alone without the needed husband and father, and the abuse which often takes place when he arrives, (for this I
speak from experience). They show the beautiful girls, half naked and happy, but fail to show the drunken rapes that occur. They fail to show
what occurs due to people who drink, thus become incapacitated.
What is worse than that just mentioned, is the militant attempt that is offered, even from Christians, to defend the drinking of alcoholic
beverages. I am utterly shocked, and filled with righteous indignation, at those of a “like precious faith” (2 Pet 1:1), who have gone to great
extremes to justify their dire practices. They have even gone so far as to implicate the Lord, Jesus. They have deceived themselves, and
attempt to do the same to others, into thinking that it is possible to control their drinking behavior, which they have cloaked under the title: social
drinking, or drinking not to get drunk.
Well, now, if this behavior is permissible, then surely the Bible will show it to be so. Likewise, however, if this behavior is condemned then we
also trust that the Bible will show it to be so. So, then, let us look to the Bible, shall we?
The discussion of this article will begin in the negative. Something, I admit, that is not of custom, yet something I feel to be necessary, for in so
doing a proper explanation of the passages to which reference will be made will be given. By the negative it is meant that a refutation of the
arguments in favor of drinking alcoholic beverages will be offered. The first to which attention is called is:
“You can drink as long as you do not get drunk.”
The passage reference offered by those who make such a delusive argument is Ephesians 5:18, which reads, in the KJV: “And be not drunk
with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with Spirit;” and in the NKJV: “And do not be drunk with wine in which is dissipation; but be filled with
the Spirit.” The argument is offered something like this: “Since the word ‘excess’ means an over amount, and since the verse says not to be
drunk to the point of over drinking, then it is ok to drink a little.” The first problem with this argument is that those who make such an affirmation
have decided to define biblical words by their present day English usage. This is something against which we must always guard, for the Bible
was not written in English, but was translated into English from 3 other languages—The Old Testament, from Hebrew and Aramaic, and the
New Testament from Koine Greek. Since the English language is a living language, it is subject to constant change. Koine Greek, however, is
a dead language, thus a language not subject to change, but one that we find frozen in time. Thus, the words can be defined today, just as they
were when written. The word translated “excess” in the KJV and “dissipation,” a preferable translation, in the NKJV is the Greek word ἀσωτία
[asotia], which means: “an abandoned, dissolute life; a condition of unrestrained lawlessness.” This is the same word translated as “riot” in 1
Peter 4:4.
The word “excess,” better translated “dissipation,” is a part of a prepositional phrase, “wherein is excess.” “Wherein” is the preposition, which
is translated from two Greek prepositions, ἐν [en ho], which means “in which.” The verb “is,” which is also a part of the prepositional phrase, is
translated from the Greek verb of being ἐστιν [estin], thus making “excess” the object of the preposition, rendering the meaning of the verse: do
not be drunk with wine, because in this is a state of abandonment of restraint.
The word “drunk” is translated from an interesting Greek word, μεθύσκεσθε [methuskesthe], which is a word of progression, sometimes called
a progressive verb, for it is used in the present passive imperative mode. It is relating an advancing idea, and is not making reference to a
particular state or condition. The word literally means: to begin to get drunk. The negating μη [me], translated “not,” causes the meaning to be,
do not begin to get drunk—in essence, do not take the first drink. This is so because being drunk begins with the first drink. You see: drinking
is a building process. If it takes a person 10 drinks to get drunk, then after the first drink that person is 1/10 drunk. Being drunk is a matter of
one sip to the next, thus from one sip to the next the drinker has become drunken. Realizing that this is a condition, which is impossible to
monitor the Holy Spirit commands that the first drink be not taken, because the first drink leads to a state of lawlessness. Now, I boldly ask,
where is the standard in this? If being drunk is a matter of one sip to the next, then what if a person takes one sip too many? Then that person
is drunk.
Historians tell us that the Ephesians were eager to worship the god of wine, during which time the Ephesian citizens would get drunk and run
through the streets singing the praises of Bacchus (the wine god). It could be, then, that the apostle was commanding that the Ephesian
Christians not participate in these worldly activities, “see then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time,
because the days are evil. Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is. And be not drunk with wine, wherein is
excess; but be filled with the Spirit” (Eph 5:15-18). In contrast to living lawless and carnal, by being drunk with wine, Christians are to be “filled
with the Spirit,” something which is done by “speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in
your heart to the Lord” (Eph 5:19). In the place of being drunk and singing to Bacchus, the Ephesian Christians were to be filled with the Spirit,
singing praises to God.
The next argument offered to justify the drinking of alcohol is:
“Jesus made water into wine, so it is ok to drink.”
The passages to which reference is made is John 2:1-11. Due to the length of this section of scripture the entire text will not be here quoted,
but rather the sections that are applicable, particularly verses 9-10 “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.” The argument goes something like this: “Jesus made water into wine, which allowed the people to be well drunk, thus it is ok
for us to drink alcohol.” Again, the first problem with this is viewing the text through present day glasses. When people in our day see the term
wine, they immediately assume alcohol, but this is not necessarily the case. The word “wine” in our text is translated from the Greek word ο νον
[oinon], which means: the juice of the grape, or grape juice, and alone, apart from any context, has no implications of fermentation. Thus, it is
more than fair, and acceptable, to replace the word “wine” in the text with the word “juice.” Thus causing the text to read, “When the ruler of the
feast had tasted the water that was made juice.” Another Greek word γλευ κος [gleukos] is often used when reference is made to alcohol, such
as in Acts 2:13, “others mocking said these men are full of new wine,” in other words these men are drunk. It seems that if John, the inspired
writer of the text at hand, had been instructed to narrate Jesus making alcohol, then he would have used the term γλευ κος [gleukos], and not ο
νον [oinon].
Further, Jesus lived under the Law of Moses (Gal 4:4), which Law he perfectly kept (Heb 4:15). Under the Law of Moses, it was a sin to get
drunk , or even to give someone else that which could make them drunk (cf. Prov 20:1; 31:4; Isa 28:7; Hab 2:15). Thus, if Jesus made water
into alcohol, then He most certainly violated God’s Law, and was not who He claimed to be, but was a false prophet and a liar.
But, what about the term “well drunk”? This term is translated from the word μεθυσθω σι [methusthosi), which means to drink sufficiently, or
drink until full.
The final argument to which attention will herein be called, though not the last that may be mentioned, the others, however, not being found
worthy of consideration, is:
“Paul told Timothy to drink, so it must be ok to drink.”
The passage to which reference is made is 1 Timothy 5:23, which reads, “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake
and thine often infirmities.” The argument usually goes: “If Paul told Timothy to drink wine, then it is acceptable to drink alcohol.” Several things
are wrong with this interpretation. (1) The word οἴνω [oino] is here used, which is the same word that we have already discussed, only used in
a different case, something that has no effect on the meaning of the word. Thus, there is no proof that Paul was speaking of an alcoholic
beverage. (2) If Paul, in another epistle, has written that it is sinful to take the first drink, as we have already noted (cf. Eph 5:18), then he would
be contradicting himself by commanding Timothy to drink alcohol. (3) Since when does alcohol settle a stomach? I see people having
stomach problems because of drinking; even those who have drank small amounts. In fact medical science has proven that there are no
benefits to a person’s health in alcohol, but that a person’s health can be bettered by drinking grape juice. Notice this report from CNN Health:
“The Flavonoids in grape juice, like those in wine, have been shown to prevent the oxidation of so-called bad cholesterol (LDLs, or low-density
lipoproteins) that leads to formation of plaque in artery walls.
“In a study published in 1999 in the journal Circulation, researches at the University of Wisconsin Medical School in Madison asked 15 patients
who already showed clinical signs of cardiovascular disease—including plaque-constricted arteries—to drink a tall glass of grape juice daily.
After 14 days, blood tests revealed that LDL oxidation in these patients was significantly reduced. And ultrasound images showed changes in
the artery walls, indicating that their blood was flowing more freely.
“Grape juice can also lower the risk of developing the blood clots that lead to heart attacks, according to unpublished findings from
Georgetown University researcher Jane Freedman, M.D. So can red wine, but in this case grape juice is the more practical way to go: ‘Wine
only prevents blood form clotting (when it’s consumed) at levels high enough to declare someone legally drunk,’ says University of Wisconsin
researcher John Folts, Ph.D. “With grape juice, you can drink enough to get the benefit without worrying about becoming intoxicated.’
“What’s more, alcoholic drinks don’t seem to improve the function of cells in blood vessel linings the way grape juice does. And alcohol
generates free radicals—unstable oxygen molecules that can actually cause damage to blood vessel tissues—dampening any of the benefits
that red wine’s antioxidants may offer.
“Even better news…the antioxidants in grape juice appear to linger in the body longer than do those of wine.
“At the University of California, Davis, researchers took a 1996 cabernet sauvignon, removed all the alcohol, and asked a group of nine
volunteers to alternate between drinking the nonalcoholic wine one day and an alcoholic version the next. In their findings, reported in January
2000 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a key antioxidant called catechin remained in the blood for more than 4 hours after the
volunteers drank the nonalcoholic wine, compared to only 3.2 hours for the full-strength cabernet. Apparently, alcohol hastens the breakdown
of the antioxidant in the blood, speeding its elimination from the body.”
Thus proving, beyond doubt, that alcohol does not even offer health befits.
Finally, in closing, I offer some present day statistics for the interested, which show how destructive alcohol is to our society, and why it should
not be desired by the child of God:
--50% of all fatalities are alcohol related.
--Every 30 minutes someone is killed in an alcohol related accident.
--15 million Americans are dependant on alcohol.
--2 billion dollars are spent each year in advertisement.
--90 billion is spent each year in the purchase of alcohol.
--More than half of pregnant women, who drink even small amounts of alcohol while pregnant, give birth to underdeveloped babies.
--Alcohol is the 3rd leading cause of mental retardation.
--Alcohol stays in a baby’s system 2 times longer than in the mother’s who consumed it.
--3 million violent crimes, including murder and rape, occur each year by someone intoxicated.
--3 out 4 domestic violent cases against wives and children are caused by men intoxicated.
95% of all alcoholics start off as social drinkers.
How can we possibly think something that is so destructive is ok? The Bible, not man, but the Bible, thus God, condemns the first drink, as has
been shown, thus to take the first drink is to sin. Shall we stand with God or against Him? “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord”
(Joshua 24:15).
Roger A. Scully, Jr.
