An article by an admitted drinker demonstrates how often this is true. He asks and answers my question this way:

Why drink?

Oh, I know the stock answers as well as anyone. Because of the taste. Because of the camaraderie it encourages. Because it helps me relax. All of which are true, up to a point, and all of which bring to mind government ads of young, attractive twenty-somethings responsibly enjoying a single glass of wine over a candle-lit dinner (rather than binge-drinking, which is what they normally do).

The truth, in my experience, can be more ragged and dark. We drink because at the end of the day we feel like we have a wolverine sitting on our chests and a drink is the only thing that helps us breathe. We drink because our jobs suck. We drink because we want to be someone else. We drink to feel attractive. We drink because we sometimes feel the need to be bad. We drink because we fear the future. We drink because the world is sobering enough as it is.

Why is it that Christians who drink want to claim the fairy-tale view of the wine ads?

By the way, if you read the whole article, you will see that the author is no supporter of my views. He is arguing against further taxation of alcohol in our province, saying that increasing costs are very unlikely to have any effect on reducing problem drinking. I tend to agree with him on that conclusion, but I don’t have any problem sticking it to the drinkers.

1. The Christian and Alcohol: Does the Bible Permit Drinking in Moderation?
2. Popping the Cork on a Can of Worms?
3. Choosing to Abstain
4. One Final Word on Alcohol

Regular readers will know that I don’t subscribe to the two-wine theory, but that I totally oppose the use of alcohol as a beverage for Christians at any time. I actually oppose the use of beverage alcohol for anyone, but my position is very unlikely to gain a hearing in the world at large. My hope is that Christians will get serious about alcohol and totally abstain. There is no good reason for any believer in Christ to ever participate in its use.

Well, what is the Biblical foundation for this statement?

Search and you will find exactly 4 verses that use the words ‘gluttonous’ or ‘glutton’ in the KJV. The NAU adds three more references.

What are they? Here they are in Bible order:

KJV  Deuteronomy 21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

NAU  Proverbs 23:20 Do not be with heavy drinkers of wine, Or with gluttonous eaters of meat; [KJV ‘riotous eaters of flesh’]

KJV  Proverbs 23:21 For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.

NAU  Proverbs 28:7 He who keeps the law is a discerning son, But he who is a companion of gluttons humiliates his father. [KJV ‘riotous men’]

KJV  Matthew 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

KJV  Luke 7:34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!

NAU  Titus 1:12 One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." [KJV - ‘slow bellies’ – a more literal rendering]

So would you say that the Bible makes gluttony the same thing as drunkenness? There are 25 verses with drunken, drunkard, drunkenness in both NAU and KJV. It is included in most of the prominent NT “sin lists”: Rm 13.13, 1 Co 5.11, 1 Co 6.10, Gal 5.21, 1 Pt 4.3. In addition, another 43 verses have the word ‘drunk’ in them, although not all of them refer to drunkenness.

Would you say from that evidence that the Lord looks at gluttony in the same way as drunkenness?

Even more than that, what would you say gluttony is?

Here is the NET Bible note on Pr 23.20 – ‘riotous eaters of flesh’:

The verb … (zalal) means "to be light; to be worthless; to make light of." Making light of something came to mean "to be lavish with; to squander," especially with regard to food. So it describes "gluttons" primarily; but in the expression there is also room for the person who wastes a lot of food as well.

Would you say that what we call ‘overeating’ in our culture is Biblical gluttony? Well, it may be that some of our overeating and wasting of food is gluttony. But remember that ‘fatness’ is a metaphor of God’s blessing in the Bible. I don’t mean to say that we should all be porkers if we want to be Biblical. But it does seem to me that the Bible is addressing something quite different from what we call gluttony when it does address this problem.

And it is quite clear that the Bible addresses drunkenness much more seriously and much more frequently.

So be wise, be submissive, be biblical, and stay away from the buffet line. But even more, stay away from booze.

From what I have observed over the years, the liquor industry and culture Sunday, Jones, et al. faced bares little resemblance to the same industry we face today. If we were to look for a modern parallel, the modern equivalent might be the hard drug market. It was in this milieu the evangelists of old thundered forth against liquor for close to a hundred years and continued on after the repeal of Prohibition.

The first sentence is true enough as far as it goes. Things are different now. But that’s where the accuracy of the statement ends.

To say the hard drug market of today is in any way a parallel with the environment of pre-prohibition temperance preaching is an amazing misunderstanding of history and an incredibly inappropriate comparison (of the proverbial “apples to oranges” variety).

For some resources, I would like to point to you two sites found on this search: “history of drug laws”.

1. History of Drug Laws (notes provided by a psychology prof at the University of Minnesota, Morris)
2. Drug Law Timeline (notes at the Schaffer Library of Drug Policy, prepared originally for a class taken at the University of Missouri, St. Louis)

An examination of these documents, as well as other resources, shows significant differences between the pre-prohibition environment and the current hard drug market.

• First: alcohol was completely legal prior to prohibition. Hard drugs are illegal today.
• Second: hard drugs were legal then too – we live in a state of total prohibition of hard drugs today.

The context in which preachers and temperance workers of the past “thundered” against alcohol was a context of complete legality and freedom of use, exactly the same context for alcohol as we have today.

For a good look at what life was like pre-prohibition, I would recommend a book by James H. Gray, Booze. It is out of print, I believe, but you can get used copies. It’s focus is primarily the state of affairs in Western Canada, so it will not reflect the city life of the east as well, but it will give you a general idea what life was like for those impacted by the drunkenness of the culture of the day in more rural climes. You will also understand why the preachers and temperance workers thundered against the stuff.

One other thing that amazes me about the post I link to is that no one in the subsequent discussion thinks to challenge the author’s basic premise. It is incredible to think that the current illegal drug trade is in any way comparable to the pre-Prohibition legal alcohol trade.

BTW, alcohol consumption dropped considerably through Prohibtion and did not reach pre-Prohibition proportions until after WWII. It seems to me that the current legal alcohol market is exactly the same as the one the pre-Prohibition preachers thundered against.

One recent comment on SI included this paragraph:

To your initial question, I would respond that self control is a fruit of the Spirit and those who do not yield to Him can find themselves where you and your family found yourselves [a reference to a previous commenter’s personal testimony]. Nevertheless, it is clear from Church history and Christian circles where moderation is practiced today that this isn’t as mysterious as we sometimes pretend it is. Those who imbibe in moderation don’t drink wine as though it were Gatorade after a long run. They have it in small quantities with dinner or a beer after work. I’ve often wondered at the large wine glasses and small quantities that they pour. This is apparently not just to enhance the wine’s bouquet but the practice of moderation.

This comment sparked some thinking. Notice the first line: “self control is a fruit of the Spirit”. This appears to be a reference to Gal 5.23 where ‘egkrateia’ is translated by the NAS and ESV as “self-control” (KJV = “temperance”).

Notice that later in the paragraph the idea of self-control is equated with ‘moderation’. “Those who imbibe in moderation…” and “… the practice of moderation.”

Now, we wonders, does temperance = moderation?

A look at the words involved seems to indicate something quite the contrary.

Temperance is a word made from the combination of the preposition “en” [in] and “kratos” [power]. Etymologically, it means “power within”. Ethically, it was used by the Greeks extensively of the noble and virtuous man who by dint of self-control (power over self), one is able to turn away from desires, even for things that are not evil but merely pleasurable, for the sake of achieving ascetic virtue, the virtue of an ‘encratitic man’, a ‘self-controlled man’.

The New Testament doesn’t use this word extensively, it is found only in a few passages. Kittel suggests that this is because Christianity isn’t a religion of the self-made man such as the Greeks followed, but of the submitted man, as Christians submit themselves to Christ. Thus, virtue for the Christian is produced by submission whereas for the Greek, virtue is produced by self-control.

Regardless, wherever the word is used, it does have some particular significance. A verb form is used in 1 Cor 9.25:

NAU  1 Corinthians 9:25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.

The athlete abstains from things that hinder in order to achieve his goal of victory in the games. He says “No” to the pleasure of rest, he says “No” to the pleasure of fatty foods, he says “No” to the pleasures of other’s company, and so on, all for the glory of victory. The athlete in his training is not about moderation, he is about self-denial.

The only other occurrence of the verb is also in 1 Corinthians, at 1 Cor 7.9:

NAU  1 Corinthians 7:9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Clearly here self-control does not mean “moderation”. It means self-denial, i.e., abstinence. Paul isn’t saying “if someone can’t handle moderation in sexual intimacy, well then, let them get married…” He is saying on the other hand, “if someone can’t control their desires (i.e., abstain), it is better to get married.”

It is possible that the Greek ethical idea is completely in view in Acts 24.25 where Paul is preaching to Felix about “righteousness, temperance, and judgement to come” (KJV). Felix trembled under this preaching, for he knew himself. No power within here.

This brings us to the use in Gal 5.23. This is the list of the fruit of the Spirit. It is set over against the works of the flesh. I argued in the earlier piece that Paul is teaching against exhibiting any aspect of the works of the flesh, reasoning from our Lord’s teaching in the Sermon on the Mount concerning the depth of our sinfulness.

Today I’d like to argue from the word “temperance” … “self-control” … “egkrateia”. The Greek philosophers saw this word as distinct from “sophrosune”, another ethical quality that is lightly used in the New Testament. The most clear reference that would highlight the meaning of this word is found in 1 Tim 2.9:

ESV  1 Timothy 2:9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,

The NAU says “discreetly” and the KJV “sobriety”. The idea in this word is the idea of moderation. It looks at the things of this world and isn’t overwhelmed by them, overawed by them, enthralled by them, but is instead using them discreetly and soberly. An illustration of this might be found in the various ways some women ‘make themselves up’. I am not against makeup per se, but when the makeup is so obvious as to call attention to itself, it seems to be too much. And women who use so much makeup that it draws attention all too often seem to be highly insecure in themselves and overly concerned with the world and the things it values. They are not discreet. They are not sober. They are not self-controlled [in this sense]. They are not moderate.

Kittel on sophrosune says:

As distinct from Gnostic scorn for the world Christian faith manifests itself in a proper attitude to it and its goods, 1 Tm. 4:3–5. This correct relation is marked by moderation and contentedness, 1 Tm. 6:6–10, 17–19. aidos and sophrosune (1 Tm. 2:9), i.e., a suitable restraint in every respect is expected of women, cf. 1 Tm. 2:15; 1 Cl., 1, 3. In Tt. 2:5 the reference is especially to chastity … and a disciplined life. … Of interest here is the ref. to egkrateia and sophrosune along with the true Chr. virtues. The way of Chr. ethics clearly leads to Chr. mastery over the world rather than Gnostic contempt for it.¹

Now, the point here is that egkrateia is not the word for moderation. Sophrosune is. Egkrateia is the word for self-mastery which means self-denial.

In arguing that we are called to turn away from the works of the flesh, I am also arguing that if we would have the fruit of the Spirit, we will deny ourselves the pleasures those works of the flesh bring.

If you ‘imbibe’, drink alcohol, for the pleasure it brings, are you walking in the Spirit or working in the flesh? Are you crucifying the flesh with its passions and lusts?

NAU  Galatians 5:24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

There is no need to drink alcoholic beverages today. An argument could be made for need in ancient times when there were limited sources of safe beverages. But even then, it is quite clear that ancient wines and beers were less potent than those of today and the wine especially was drunk diluted. The practice of dilution was in part to protect against the dangers of abuse.

But today no one is practicing moderation by diluting their wine. They drink for the pleasure the drinks bring. They are not denying themselves.

I ask, is this the walk of the Spirit? No.

1. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin., ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey William Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich, electronic ed., 7:1103 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-c1976).

I am not saying that our culture is now so corrupt that alcohol is a worldly device. I am saying that there are good and sufficient reasons for Christians today to totally abstain from alcohol use. We can make the arguments on the basis of wisdom, on the basis of changes in alcohol content and production in modern times, on the basis of clear scriptural warnings, and, I think, on the basis of the prohibition on drunkenness.

I may need to revise my statement on culture in that first sentence at some point, but my purpose here is to develop an argument against alcohol use on the basis of the prohibition on drunkenness.

The first thing we need to establish is this: What do we mean when we talk about the prohibition of drunkenness?

Those Christians who allow for some drinking usually will agree that drunkenness is forbidden by the Bible.

We find examples of special classes of people who were forbidden to drink intoxicating beverages at certain times: the priests ministering in the tabernacle (Lev 10.8-11); those taking on a Nazarite vow (Num 6.1-4); Samson’s mother during her pregnancy (Jdg 13.3-5, Jdg 13.13-14); and Kings (Pr 31.4-5 [it is possible that this prohibition is only during the ‘working day’, similar to the priests in the tabernacle]).

We see prohibitions in the wisdom literature of Proverbs: Pr 23.19-22, Pr 23.28-35.

We see Isaiah pronounce a ‘woe’ (a curse saying ‘you are as good as dead’) on those who are drunkards (Isa 5.11, Isa 5.22) in Israel. In Isa 28.1-8, he pronounces another woe over the drunkards of Ephraim (the northern kingdom of Israel). Amos likewise pronounces a ‘woe’ against those who are at ease in Zion (Amos 6.1) partly because of their drunkenness (Amos 6.6).

We see the eschatological hope of the believer scorned by the drunkard: Lk 12.45, Mt 24.49, tell in parabolic form the dangers stated in Lk 21.34 for those Christians who are not watchful for the coming of the Lord, but instead beat the Lord’s servants and get drunk with the drunken. 1 Th 5.7-8 likewise calls the Christian to sobriety and watchfulness.

We have an exhortation in Rm 13.13, and a command in Eph 5.18 against drunkenness.

We see that the believer is commanded not to associate with another believer who is a drunkard (1 Cor 5.11). We also see that the drunkard will not inherit the kingdom (1 Cor 6.10). Last, along with the list of those who will not enter heaven, we see drunkenness catalogued as a work of the flesh, Gal 5.19-21.

I think that from these passages we can say that drunkenness is prohibited for believers. The Bible treats it as a serious matter.

Now, I am going to carry the argument a bit farther.

The prohibition on drunkenness ought to be considered a command for abstinence by Bible believers.

You may think that an extreme statement, but let’s really think about drunkenness, especially as it is described as a ‘work of the flesh’, Gal 5.19-21.

Think about it this way. Here is our list from that passage:

• immorality (kjv: adultery, fornication)
• impurity
• sensuality
• idolatry
• sorcery
• enmities
• strife
• jealousy
• outbursts of anger
• disputes
• dissensions
• factions
• envying (and murders, kjv)
• drunkenness
• carousing
• and things like these

Now let’s think about a few of these things. I know that immorality is forbidden. What is immorality? We know what adultery and fornication means. Does the Biblical prohibitions on immorality mean only a prohibition on the act of fornication or adultery? Is it permissible for a man to flirt with a woman who is the wife of another man? Is it ok, just so long as, you know, nothing happens?

Consider in this connection our Lord’s elevation of our understanding of God’s will in the Sermon on the Mount:

Matthew 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

So let’s keep looking down this list in Gal 5.19-21:

• What about idolatry or sorcery? Should we only be concerned if someone is actually bowing down to a stone god or actually trying to cast spells? Would it be OK to delve into these things, make a study on them, collect books about them, collect little idols to put on the mantel at home, etc, so long as we weren’t actually going to pray to demons? Were the Ephesians wrong to burn their books? (Ac 19.19)
• What about outbursts of anger, or disputes, or dissensions? Are we OK if we get mad a little bit? Righteous indignation, you know. Just so long as we don’t go into a berserker rage, is that OK?
• What about drunkenness?

At what point does drunkenness occur? In my country, our police consider you to be Impaired at .08 blood alcohol content.¹ You lose your license and learn the virtues of walking for that level of drunkenness.

So for the Christian, would, say, .08 be the line? If you pass over that line you are drunk and have just fallen into the prohibited category. So at .079999, you are OK?

Remember, “everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed …”

Paul calls these sins “works of the flesh”. What is the work in the flesh, of the flesh, by the flesh that produces immorality? Lust. What is the work in the flesh, of the flesh, by the flesh that produces drunkenness?

What would you call that in you?

The love of what? The love of drink? The love of wine? The love of beer? The lust of the flesh.

I think that Christians are taking the prohibition against drunkenness all too smugly and all too lightly.

1. It’s a bit higher in the Excited States.