There are some, including some among our
own brethren, who believe that Jesus' turning water into wine, according to
(John 2:1-11), puts God's stamp of approval upon the drinking of intoxicating
beverages for social and recreational purposes. In Paul's listing of the
qualifications of elders and deacons, the expression "not given to wine",
and "not given to much wine"
are sometimes used to support the position that drinking
a little wine for social and recreational purposes is scripturally sanctioned (1
Timothy 3:3, 8).
The same arguments would also justify
the social and recreational use of other drugs, since alcohol itself is a drug.
How many who profess to be faithful Christians are ready for this consequence
and conclusion? I would hope, none!
I wish to emphasize at the very
beginning of this article that I do not believe the above passages,
or any others, can be used successfully and rightfully
to prove that the social and recreational use of alcohol and drugs is approved
of God. I believe this basic issue must be kept before us regardless of the
difficulty of some passages and contexts, and especially in the face of the
mixed signals we may get from "scholars" who have dealt
with this general theme.
Jesus Turned Water Into
Wine (John 2:1-11). What was the
"wine" that Jesus made from water? Many jump to the conclusion that because the
word "wine" is used, Jesus made a fermented, intoxicating drink. I do not
believe that can be proven.
Someone may respond, "Yes, but you
cannot prove it was not fermented" I may not be able absolutely to prove that it
was not fermented, especially to others' satisfaction. It is not my obligation
to prove that. It is only my intention and obligation to prove that just because
the word "wine" is used does not necessitate the conclusion that Jesus made
fermented, intoxicating wine.
The word is used five times in (John 2:1-11),
twice by John the writer of the gospel, once by the
mother of Jesus, and twice by the governor or master of the wedding in
What if Jesus did make fermented
wine? Does that prove that Jesus approves of the social use of alcohol?
Remember, the basic point of this context is the recording of the first miracle
Jesus performed. If Jesus' performing this miracle proves Jesus approves of
"intoxicating wine making and drinking," would not his miracle of casting the
demons out of the man and into the swine and destroying two thousand head of
swine (Luke 8:26-37) prove that Jesus approves of our destroying other people's
property? Would Paul miraculously striking Elymas blind (Acts 13:6-12) prove
that Paul (under God's guidance and power) was giving us approval to punch out
someone's eyes? Are we ready for these kinds of interpretations and conclusions?
I think not! I believe it to be very questionable and dangerous to use the
miracles of Jesus and His apostles to establish approval for something we wish
to do.
(1 Timothy 3:3,8). The
expression me paroinon in verse 3, in the qualification of bishops, is
translated "not given to wine".
Me in the Greek means "no, not, never, no in no wise,"
and is a particle of qualified negation, according to Strong. Paroinon is a
combination of the word
"Not given to much wine"
translated from me oinospolio ptoseehontas (v. 8) is a
similar expression to that found in verse 3. Prosechontas means "to hold to,
signifies to turn to, turn one's attention to" (Vine, p. 211), and polio means
"much or many."
The emphasis in both of these qualifications seems to be
that elders and deacons cannot be guilty of drunkenness or intoxication.
Wine-bibbing, and giving attention to that which will intoxicate one is to be no
part of the life of one considered to be elder or deacon material. Is it not
dangerous to take these negatives toward that (drunkenness) which every
Christian must agree is plainly condemned in the Scriptures and try to turn that
into a positive in favor of drinking moderately, socially and recreationally? In
(l Timothy 3:3) we have a similar construction in the expression
"no striker, not violent."
This could be translated "not given to striking or
violence." Are we to interpret that to mean we can strike a little and engage in
a little violence as long as we don't overdo it?
Admittedly, these are difficult
passages, especially when someone is determined to make them say something they
really do not say. I emphasize again what I wrote at the beginning. While it can
be proven from the Bible that "wine" was used medicinally and sacrificially with
God's approval, I do not believe it can be proven that God approves of the
social and recreational use of alcohol and drugs.
I have known members of the
Solomon said: “Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles
in the cup, When it swirls around smoothly; At the last it bites like a serpent,
and stings like a viper” (Prov. 23:31,
32).
There is no question about the kind of wine he speaks of in this verse. Do you believe what he said? Why try to make Jesus and the Bible contradict such plain statements.
---Leon Goff
"Faith Only": Human Creeds vs. The Bible
The message on the roadside sign at a local
Methodist church recently read: "Faith Without
Works Is Dead" Of course, a truer statement could
not be made than one taken directly from God's inspired Word at James 2:26. In
fact, the entire context of James 2:18-26 powerfully shows the necessary link
between faith and obedience. It is not enough to merely say you believe, you
must show it by what you do. The text specifically says, "by works a man is justified, and not by faith
only" (vs. 24).
We are glad that the local Methodists have
apparently learned this truth, for it has not been the traditional position of
that denomination. Perhaps these folks have not carefully reviewed their own
official creed, wherein we read Article IX that says: "That we are justified by faith, only, is a most wholesome doctrine,
and very full of comfort." 1
The Methodists are not the only ones
who have trouble reconciling the statements in the Book of James to their human
doctrines. For instance, Martin Luther tried to discredit James' entire letter
because of these difficulties. He wrote:
In a
word
Our sincere hope is that the Methodists, the followers
of Luther, and all other denominationalists will fully and completely abandon
their man-made creeds and return to the Word of God as their absolute authority
in all religious matters. As the apostle Peter said,
"If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of
God"
(1 Peter
4:11).
1 The
Book of Discipline 1992;
published by The United Methodist Publishing
House
2 The
Harvest of Medieval Theology,
---Greg
Gwin