WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT ALCOHOL?

What does the Bible say about alcohol?

 

I hesitate to “talk” about these so-called “grey areas” as it is always evident that the views I espouse are somehow deemed legalistic, intolerant, narrow-minded, and/or any other type of adjective that is usually tossed into the mix of dissenting opinions. Still, with a desire to “set the record straight” let me plod on.

Let me preface my remarks by stating emphatically that these are my personal views I have applied to my life, teach my children and those that God has brought into my ministry. I also am quick to point out that good, godly Christians do have different opinions.

There are, IMHO, sufficient Biblical reasons to refrain from alcohol. Let me briefly list them.

I. Examples

1) The priests who were to minister in the Tabernacle were forbidden to partake of alcohol when they ministered. Lev. 10:9

2) The vow of the Nazarite insisted that he not partake of alcohol or anything to do with the vine. Num. 6:3

3) Proverbs 31:4 states that “it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink.”

4) The Rechabites were commended for keeping their fathers commandment to abstain from alcohol. Jer. 35:6

5) Daniel “purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank…” Dan. 1:8

6) John the Baptist, who was separated from his mother’s womb to prepare the way for the Lord Jesus Christ, refrained from “wine” and “strong drink.” Luke 1:15

It appears to me that if the Lord God forbade His priests from ministering to Him in the tabernacle from partaking of alcohol that He would also abide by His own rules for ministry. It also appears to me that if those, in the O.T., desiring to serve the Lord more faithfully refrained from wine or strong drink that the faithful Son of Man would also minister in like manner. It also appears to me that if some of the O.T. (and N.T. taking into account John the Baptist), felt the necessity to refrain from alcohol to honor the Lord, that His Son would feel the same necessity.

II. Lord’s Communion 

A.  Words Used:

In all the accounts of the Lord’s Supper “wine” was never mentioned.

1) Matthew 26:20-29 – v.27 - “And he took the cup …”

2) Mark 14:17-25 – v.23 – “And he took the cup …”

3) Luke 22:14-20 – v.17 – “Änd he took the cup …”

4) I Corinthians 10:16 – “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ …”

5) I Corinthians 11:23-34

- v.25 – “… also he took the cup …”
- v.26 – “… drink this cup …”
- v.27 – “… drink this cup …”
- v.28 – “ … drink of that cup …”

 

It is significant, as least to me, that wine was not ever used. There is nothing in the Lord’s Supper that demand we believe it is actual alcoholic wine that is used. The emphasis in the Scriptures has been upon the “cup” and what it represented and not upon the elements in the “cup.”

Another point about the Lord’s Supper; this “wine” is symbolic of the blood of Christ. Christ states that He will not “drink of the fruit of vine” until the Kingdom.

The word oinos translated “wine” in the N.T. can be used for either fermented or unfermented wine. The only indication for its usage is the context of the passage. Nowhere, either in classical Greek or the Bible, is it demanded that it be interpreted as only fermented wine.

In classical Greek oinos is also used to refer to unfermented wine. It was commonly understood during the time of Christ that oinos can, and does in many instances, refer to grape juice.

In the O.T. three words were used to refer to wine; (1) shekar usually translated “strong drink” (some even think based upon its usage in other ancient languages that it is the modern equivalent of “beer” as it was made from grain); (2) tirosh usually translated “new wine” in reference to grape juice; (3) yayin usually associated with fermented grape juice but could also refer to unfermented grape juice if it came directly from the winepress. So there are usually no problems with definitions for the Hebrew words for wine.

Unfortunately the N.T. uses only one word to refer to “wine.” In the Greek translation of the O.T. (in use during the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ) tirosh and yayin were translated with oinos. So Jesus Christ and the disciples were aware of the usage of oinos to refer to unfermented grape juice, as it was a common, accepted practice.

In relationship to the insistence that “wine” always had the connotation of fermented grape juice, the historical definition of the word “wine” reveals that just after the translation of the KJV “wine” was also used for grape juice.

According to the Dictionarium Anglo-Britannicum, London, 1708 –

 

"Wine, a liquor made of the juice of grapes or other fruits. Liquor or Liquour, anything that is liquid; Drink, Juice, etc. Must, sweet wine, newly pressed from grape."

 

And, according to Britannica Reformata, 1748 –

 

"1. the juice of grapes. 2. a liquor extracted from other fruits besides the grape. 3. the vapours of wine, as wine disturbs his reason."

Today, almost all references to “wine” reference the fermented wine. It was not the case during the apostles’ time, nor was it the case when the KJV was translated.

b)  The Last Supper

The Last Supper was the Passover feast that Jesus held with His disciples. As you are aware of, this is where He instituted the Communion, (again, as they celebrated the Jewish Passover). Also keep in mind that Jesus has become our Passover.

When God instituted the Passover in the book of Exodus, He was careful to detail exactly what was permitted and not permitted. (I do not really want to get into the details, as I am confident that we all know the Passover story.) Let me bring Exodus 12:19 to your remembrance.

Exodus 12:19 – “Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land.”

Notice that the first word for “leaven” is the Hebrew word seor; meaning “leaven, yeast, or any agent of fermentation,” or as Strong’s states, “barm or yeast cake (as swelling by fermentation).”

The second word for “leavened” is the Hebrew word hametz meaning “anything containing any fermentation,” or as Strong’s states, “ferment, (figuratively) extortion.”

As God further delineates the rules for the Passover, He states emphatically in Exodus 13:7 –  

“Unleavened bread shall be eaten seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee in all thy quarters.”  

Notice that “neither shall there be barm seen with thee in all thy quarters.” Barm, or yeast was “obtained from the thick scum on top of fermenting wine.”

If leaven is not permitted in the bread, what would make us think it would be permitted in the drink? If the Jewish custom was to refrain from leaven, both in the bread and in the wine, what would make us think that Jesus, who instituted the first Passover would violate His own word? 

c.  Wine: Symbolic of the Lord’s blood 

If this “fruit of the vine” is symbolic of the blood of Christ, is it decayed? What type of blood did Jesus Christ have? I am under the assumption that Christ’s blood was untainted by the stain of sin; of Adam’s nature, and therefore was undefiled; not corrupted.

Wine, as it ages becomes fermented, or decayed. It loses its original state. How can fermented wine represent that which is without blemish, holy, and undefiled, when it is itself corrupted, defiled and decaying?

I understand another way to help wine become alcoholic is to add leaven. Yet, leaven in the Bible is depicted as a type of sin. Are we to assume that the blood of Christ has been leavened?

IMHO, if the wine is representative of the blood of Christ, then it could not contain any leaven whatsoever, or the illustration loses its effectiveness. IMHO, if the wine is representative of the blood of Christ, it could not be fermented in any, way, shape or form, because fermentation is a decaying process, and that, again, decreases the effectiveness of the illustration, or memorial service of the Lord’s Supper.

These are serious questions about the Lord’s Supper. They cannot simply be dismissed as meaningless, or avoided as if these questions are not pertinent. 

III. Turning the water into wine

As to the miracle in John 2, let me again briefly touch upon that, hopefully, without redundancy.

According to John 2:10, the ruler of the feast, after having tasted the water turned to wine said,  

”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.”

(Let me preface these remarks with a few observations. IF: (1) The feast had already consumed a lot of alcoholic wine. (2) Mary, the mother of Jesus asked her Son to make more alcoholic wine because the guests had already “well drunk” and they wanted to indulge in more alcoholic wine. (3) When Jesus turned the water into alcoholic wine He made about another 120-180 gallons of alcoholic wine for people who had, according to the ruler, “well drunk.”)

The word highlighted in John 2:10 is the word methusko meaning, according to Strong’s: “to drink to intoxication, that is, get drunk.” So we have the Lord of Lord, and the King of Kings furnishing more alcohol to a group of people already “well drunk.” This is completely contrary to God’s Word, both in the O.T. and in the N.T. Do you really believe that Jesus Christ turned the water into alcohol for a bunch of people who had already been intoxicated?

Of course there is another meaning of the word, methusko that could have the meaning of “to be filled or satisfied.” (It does not fit the passage if the water was actually turned into alcohol. But, if the water was really turned into oinos as unfermented grape juice, then it makes sense.

Notice again, that the ruler stated ”Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine …”  First, good wine is that which is the sweetest wine, that has not had its sugar broken down, and that could be drunk in large quantities without harmful side effects. The worst wine would be that which has been strongly diluted with water because of the sugar breakdown, or fermentation process. Secondly, the meaning of the Greek word for good, kalos, according to Strong’s is  

“Of uncertain affinity; properly beautiful, but chiefly (figuratively) good (literally or morally), that is, valuable or virtuous (for appearance or use, and thus distinguished from G18, which is properly intrinsic).”  

It has the meaning of being morally excellent or fitting. Is it morally fitting for someone to continue providing alcohol to those who have already been identified as drunk (“well drunk”)?

Do not forget the primary purpose of this very first miracle of Jesus. According to John 2:11 it was to “manifest[] forth his glory.” So I am to believe that Jesus Christ, completely contrary to His Word regarding drunkenness, participated in a drunken party and even assisted in providing gallons upon gallons of more alcoholic wine for those very guests, who by their own admission were already “drunk.” And this manifested His glory? His righteousness? His honor?  

Again, we can agree to disagree. I only attempt to point out that it is not a moot point as to whether there are, or are not, Scriptural grounds for abstaining from alcohol.

IV. Misc. Scriptures

If one espouses the “alcohol in moderation” is okay, one needs to address these verses:

1) Proverbs 20:1 – “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.”

2) Ephesians 5:18 – “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;”

3) Romans 14:21 – “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.”

 

Conclusion 

It is not necessarily “a given” that there are not sufficient Biblical reasons for opposing alcohol. Some people believe they have sufficient Biblical reasons to oppose alcohol that have nothing whatsoever to do with being legalistic, or narrow-minded, or intolerant.