In “The Antidote to Drunkenness” of Spiritual Perspectives (10-17-10, scroll down), an examination of Proverbs 23:31 was given. The subject arose from an e-mailer who vociferously attempted to defend his drinking habit—not drunkenness—just a few beers or a few glasses of wine. He insisted that no verse of Scripture ever forbade God’s person from drinking, which is the reason Proverbs 23:31 was called to his attention. No one becomes drunk if they do not take the first drink. Ricky (not his real name) failed to understand or comment intelligently on this verse, as already reported.
He offered several verses and arguments in favor of drinking, and it was obvious that this subject was a hobby with him. What is sad is that someone would waste so much time and energy defending a practice that is not commanded and is not necessary in the first place. Jesus did not command Christians to drink; the practice causes great harm and supports an industry which could not make a profit were it not for those who consume too much. If major companies had to rely on people who only drank lightly or moderately, they would go out of business. Those who are alcoholics, drunks, or binge drinkers keep them solvent.
Most of the Scriptures which Ricky cited were in the Old Testament. Even if the verses did live up to the claims he made for them, it would still not authorize Christians to drink socially because the Israelites lived under a different covenant. God allowed practices under that covenant that are not authorized in the New Testament. One of those was polygamy, which was never God’s ideal plan, according to Jesus (Matt. 19:3-9). God also commanded the Israelites to use instrumental music under the old covenant (2 Chron. 19:25), but He did not repeat this idea in the New. Neither Jesus nor the apostles sang with instrumental accompaniment. None of the churches did, either. In fact, the apostle Paul wrote that brethren are to sing (Col. 3:16), and that is all that our brethren in the first century did.
Numbers 6:1-4, 20
Since the Law of Moses was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14), it would not matter if someone found 100 passages to justify drinking under a former covenant. The question would be, “Where and how does Jesus authorize it?”
The first passage that Ricky presented was Numbers 6:1-4. which reads as follows:
Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When either a man or woman consecrates an offering to take the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the Lord, he shall separate himself from wine and similar drink; he shall drink neither vinegar made from wine nor vinegar made from similar drink; neither shall he drink any grape juice, nor eat fresh grapes or raisins. All the days of his separation he shall eat nothing that is produced by the grapevine, from seed to skin.’”
The conclusion from this passage that Ricky draws is that God knows how to forbid what He does not want done. He has the ability to specify clearly what He will not allow. Of course, God can communicate with human beings, since He made us. However, the fact that He can clarify a point such as this one does not mean that He always does use straightforward language. Jesus spoke in parables for a reason (Matt. 13:13-15).
While God can be absolutely unambiguous when He so desires, He may also provide a principle instead for us to apply (e.g., the authority principle of Colossians 3:17, which states that we can only do or teach what God authorizes). Another principle is Proverbs 23:31, which forbids even looking upon the wine, yet despite such clarity, Ricky has yet to get it—because he refuses to do so. God allows people to choose sin.
The fact that God was careful to spell out what was forbidden to the Nazirites (not drinking anything from grapes or raisins) does not imply that everyone else could or should drink intoxicating wine; the point is that Nazirites exercise extreme caution to avoid even the possibility. That others did not need to be that careful did not grant them a license to drink what they knew to be intoxicating; it just meant that they did not need to be as vigilant as those under a vow.
Ricky also incorrectly states that Numbers 6:20 nullifies what had previously been taught: “Even the Nazirite could eventually drink fermented wine if he chose to.” What would be the purpose of forbidding the Nazirite in no uncertain terms to avoid the fruit of the vine and then tell him it was all right to have alcoholic wine after all? Although a person could be a Nazirite for decades or even all of his life (like John the Baptizer), most people took the vow for a period of time. Verse 13 of the same chapter says: “When the days of separation are fulfilled….” What follows is what occurs at the termination of the vow. After the time had been fulfilled and the appropriate offerings had been made (including his hair), then the Nazirite could drink wine. He may not have had any during the time period of the vow, but he could afterward. Ricky did not read the text carefully.
The word translated “wine” in Numbers 6:20 [3196] is a word that usually means fermented wine, but in some instances it does refer to the unfermented drink. This same word is translated wine three times in Numbers 6:3-4. The two times it appears in verse 3 it is translated “wine,” but in verse 4 the translation is “vine tree” (KJV) or “grapevine” (NKJ), which is obviously not alcoholic (Num. 6:3-4). Therefore, no one can prove conclusively that, when the Nazirite was allowed to consume again the drink that comes from grapes, it was alcoholic.
Deuteronomy 14:24-26
But if the journey is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, or if the place where the Lord your God chooses to put His name is too far from you, when the Lord your God has blessed you, then you shall exchange it for money, take the money in your hand, and go to the place which the Lord your God chooses. And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household.
This is a primary passage for Ricky. Consider some of his comments concerning it. Below is the actual size of print he used, and it was bolded in red.
(A verse like this just rips the heart out of an abstainer.)
Tell me where THIS ONE SIM-PLE-TO-UNDERSTAND BIBLE VERSE SHOWS THE CHRISTIAN WORLD THAT THE LORD BELIEVES THAT THE DRINKING OF ALCOHOL IS SINFUL.
First of all, this passage is discussing the tithe that is to be given to God, and the reader really ought to consider that the phrase, new wine, is mentioned in verse 23, a verse that Ricky suspiciously did not include the several times he repeated the passage.
And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine and your oil, of the firstborn of your herds and your flocks, that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always (Deut. 14:23).
Now the Bible student has a better concept of the context. Although the King James (as well as the ASV and the ESV) renders tirosh [8492] as “wine,” this Hebrew word is comparable to the Greek gleukos and refers to new or sweet wine. Therefore the New King James (along with the NAS and the NIV, not to mention Young’s Literal Translation) selected “new wine.”
Second, if the journey was too long to carry everything with them, they could exchange their goods for money and use that money to buy what they needed for the offering when they arrived. What they bought with the money was to take the place of the tithe that they were unable to take with them when they began the journey. They were allowed to purchase whatever they wanted—whatever their heart desired—to offer up to God at the appointed place. However, buying whatever their heart desired for this offering excluded any “detestable thing” (Deut. 14:3), and these are defined earlier in this same chapter.
Third, this tithe offering was religious in nature. The journey was for a spiritual purpose. How perverted must one be to think that God was approving of the people to get as inebriated as they desired? Does “whatever your heart desires” include gluttony, intoxication, or lascivious behavior? Obviously the Bible student must understand these words in the context of the offering the people were to give God.
Fourth, the Israelites also offered up drink offerings on various occasions (Ex. 29:40-41; Numbers 28:7-10, 14-15, 24, 31). What was sold was for the purpose of the tithe offering to God, which included the new wine. Therefore, whatever they purchased when they arrived at their destination was also for an offering to God, including the wine and similar drink. The text strongly implies this point, and no one can prove otherwise.
Fifth, the feast of tithing was one that the Israelites participated in (v. 23); therefore, when they bought the new items for the offering, they could buy whatever they wanted to eat of themselves (as long as it was not detestable). What the people themselves drank during this feast is not mentioned in either verse 23 or verse 26. The wine was part of the tithe to be offered.
Deuteronomy 14:23-26 does not in any way “rip the heart out of an abstainer” because it is misapplied. A final point to consider here is that God does not contradict Himself! Ricky and all others who seek to defend their drinking habits will go to any lengths to justify themselves—even to pitting one Scripture against another, which is always an act of desperation.
For example, how often, when we have cited Acts 2:38 (which plainly links repentance and baptism and places them as necessary to obtain the forgiveness of sins), has someone immediately said, “What about the thief on the cross?” What is the purpose of such a statement? The individual who takes this approach is trying to invalidate Acts 2:38. Yet we know that the Bible does not contradict itself. Rather than seek for harmonization, however, some just think they can shout down a verse they do not like. Ricky does not like the plain message of Proverbs 23:31; so he takes Deuteronomy 14:23-26 out of its context to try to contradict Solomon, but of course he fails (just as do those who vainly appeal to the thief).
Gleukos
Much of the e-mail correspondence involved the word geukos, which is used only once in the New Testament—Acts 2:13. “Others mocking said, ‘They are full of new wine.’” In his initial e-mail, Ricky stated: “The word for wine here (in Acts 2.13) is gleuchos— highly fermented wine.” He later used gleukos, but his incorrect spelling here either indicates that he is not familiar with the Greek or that he had a mental lapse. But more important was this egregious error about the definition of the Greek word. I wrote him back:
You are mistaken. Gleukos, from which “new wine” is translated, according to Thayer, is “must, the sweet juice pressed from the grape.” This is the only time the word appears in the NT. It is derived from glukus, meaning “sweet.” Whoever told you that the word referred to highly fermented wine misled you.
Ricky does not take kindly to correction—even when clearly wrong. He shot back:
The Bible told me about GLEUKOS. (see Acts 2.13) Gary, you’ve got to be more analytical! Why would the Apostles be accused of being drunk IF the “sweet wine” they were accused of drinking could NOT get them drunk?
Does it ‘pay’ for me to carry on a logical ‘discussion’ with you or not? Gary, I am not your old Sunday School teacher! I’m actually one of those radical ‘nut-cases’ who’s spent most of his adult life studying God’s Word.
Notice how the “logical” Ricky did not offer any evidence for his point even though he was provided Thayer’s definition. I pointed out that he was trying to define gleukos by his (mis) understanding of the text—not by a lexicon. So I gave him a better alternative meaning for the text than the one he had. The men were mocking. It was not a serious charge of drunkenness. Below is part of the e-mail.
What the verse actually means is even a worse insult to the apostles. It was morning. Today, a rough equivalent would be for the critics to say: “These men are drunk. They’re so bad, they got drunk on Kool-Aid.” Mockers and comedians use this technique all the time. “Where did you get your license—from a box of Cracker Jacks?”
Ricky ignored the explanation and continued to try to define gleukos by the text (which he does not understand) instead of by a dictionary.
The VERY PEOPLE who accused the Apostles (in Acts) of being drunk USED THIS WORD! DUH! Don’t you think that IF the Apostles were accused of being drunk through the drinking of SWEET WINE, that this SWEET WINE MUST BE ALCOHOLIC? Come on Gary, this is basic high school reasoning.
This went on for a while, and he finally cited some sources, but they did not prove his case. Strong says gleukos [1098]: “akin to 1099; sweet wine, i.e. (prop.) must (fresh juice), but used of the more saccharine (and therefore highly intoxicating) fermented wine—new wine.” Strong defines it correctly at the beginning but then adds speculation about the word—without evidence. Vine also defines it as “sweet, new wine” and “must” but then cites Acts 2:13 and claims that “the accusation shows that it was intoxicant and must have been undergoing fermentation some time.” Like Ricky, Vine and Strong, after giving the proper definition of the word, then try to re-define it according to their interpretation of Acts 2:13, which is faulty.
Wine that is sweet and new is NOT intoxicating, and that is the reason the apostles’ detractors were said to mock them. If someone says, “You’re as blind as a bat,” they do not mean it literally. Neither did the mockers mean the apostles were literally drunk. According to the Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (a more thorough source than Strong or Vine) by Timothy and Barbara Freiberg and Neva Miller, gleukos means “strictly (unfermented juice of grapes); hence, sweet new wine (Acts 2:13)” (99).
Ricky did not respond to the challenge to find even one source by any Greek writer where gleukos was used clearly of intoxicating wine. Hmm. Is it possible that he is as blind as a bat?