In This Issue

• "ELIJAH HAS ALSO COME"
• THE CASE FOR TOTAL ABSTINENCE
• GOD DOES NOT ASK ABOUT OUR ABILITY OR OUR INABILITY, BUT ABOUT OUR AVAILABILITY
• MORE INFORMATION...

"ELIJAH HAS ALSO COME"

In Mark 9:2-10, Jesus took Peter, James and John up on a mountain, and there He was transfigured, that is, His physical features changed, even as they watched. There also appeared the Old Testament personalities, Moses and Elijah. Elijah had gone into heaven bodily about 850 years earlier. Moses had been dead for almost 1,500 years.

The appearance of Elijah reminded the apostles of a prophecy found in Mal. 4:5-6. Malachi had quoted "the LORD of hosts" as saying, "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD. And he will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to their fathers..." Most likely, Peter, James and John thought they had just witnessed the fulfillment of that prophecy, and expected Jesus to confirm their assessment of the situation when they asked, "'Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?' Then He answered and told them, 'Indeed Elijah is coming first and restores all things. And how is it written concerning the Son of Man, that He must suffer many things and be treated with contempt? But I say to you that Elijah has also come, and they did to him whatever they wished, as it is written of him.'" (Mark 9:11-13). Matthew 17:13 tells us the apostles understood Jesus' words - that Malachi's prophecy had already been fulfilled spiritually in the coming and ministry of John the Baptist. Further confirmation of the correctness of their understanding is found in Matt. 11:13-14 and Luke 1:13-17.

It is also significant that, Jesus, in addition to answering their question about the Malachi passage, also reminded them that the Scriptures foretold that "the Son of Man… must suffer many things and be treated with contempt." Several Old Testament passages did indeed foretell Christ's crucifixion, including Isaiah chapter 53, the 22nd Psalm, and several passages from Zechariah. In Isaiah 53:3, the prophet had written, "He is despised and rejected by men, a Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him." By associating such passages with the expression, "the Son of Man," Jesus was identifying the suffering Servant of Isaiah's prophecy with the triumphant Messiah of Daniel 7:13. It was commonly understood among the Jews of Jesus' day that the "Son of Man" in prophecy was the Messiah or Christ who was to come.

By use of such passages, Jesus sought to prepare His apostles for the crucifixion that would soon become a reality, but it did not fit in with their concept of the Messiah, and for now, they were not able to receive that truth.

--Clarence R. Johnson

THE CASE FOR TOTAL ABSTINENCE

Some questions have been discussed for centuries. There is often a revival of interest in them. They need to be studied anew, and often. Such is the question denoted by the heading of this article.

This question should be studied in a manner as free from prejudice as possible. One should give due emphasis to "intellectual honesty." He should not be swayed by popular opinion. What does the Bible teach?

DID FIRST CENTURY CHRISTIANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DRINK MODERATELY?

Those who take a dim view of "total abstinence" have one thing in common - they all try to construct a case from the New Testament showing that moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages was permitted in the first century. Almost without exception they use 1 Tim. 5:23; 3:8; Titus 2:3; and John 2. These, and some other passages, use the word "wine" in such a way as to indicate that Christians, on occasion, did drink it. They assume this was intoxicating wine. On this basis they try to construct a case of the Christian's moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages with divine approval. They fail in their assumption that all wine was of alcoholic content. Was it?

The word wine (Greek, oinos) was a general word used to translate more specific Hebrew words. Sometimes it did mean wine of the intoxicating variety. But not always. Isa. 65:8: "Wine is found in the cluster." There the word refers to the juice of grapes while they are still on the vine! Josephus, (Antiq., Bk. 2, Ch. 5, Sec. 2) tells of three clusters of grapes hanging from a vine, "and that he squeezed them into a cup which the king held in his hand; and when he had strained the wine, he gave it to the king to drink." These are but two of numerous recorded historical uses of the word "wine" when it could not possibly refer to an intoxicant.

Furthermore, the wine with alcoholic content was not strong except in cases of "mixed wine." Yeast, found in the hulls of the grapes, causes the fermentation of grape juice. When the alcoholic content gets to approximately 14%, the alcohol kills the yeast and the process of fermentation stops. Many times the process is stopped early so that the alcohol content is far less than the maximum 14%. Cannon Farrar says: "The simple wines of antiquity were incomparably less deadly than the stupefying and ardent beverages of our western nations. The wines of antiquity were more like syrups; many of them were not intoxicant; many more intoxicant in a small degree; and all of them, as a rule, taken only when largely diluted with water. They contained, even undiluted, but 4 or 5 per cent of alcohol."

Some writers assume that there was no way of preserving the juice of the grape without fermentation in the first century. However, various ancient writers give different methods for so doing. The new Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary says: 'Means for preserving grape juice were well known: Cato, De Agri Cultura CXX has this recipe: "If you wish to have must (grape-juice) all year, put grape-juice in an amphora and seal the cork with pitch; sink it in a fishpond. After 30 days take it out, it will be grape-juice for a whole year."

Thus, it is an unwarranted assumption to declare that all wines in New Testament days were alcoholic.

WHAT IS DRUNKENNESS AND HOW MUCH IS MODERATION?

Those who attempt to defend moderate drinking usually admit that drunkenness is sinful. They argue however, that wine was a legitimate beverage for first century disciples. They plead for moderation. But these words need to be defined. What is drunkenness? How much does one have to drink to be drunk? How much is moderation? Who determines the dividing line?

What is drunkenness? Does one have to pass out? Wobble when he walks? Be unable to think clearly? Unable to drive a car? Or to be mentally affected? Consider the following:

"Blood alcohol of 1/10 of 1% can be accepted as prima facie evidence of alcohol intoxication recognizing that many individuals are under the influence in the 5/100 of 1% to 1/100 of 1% range." (Minutes of the 1960 annual meeting of the American Medical Association.)

In a booklet entitled, "Are You Fit To Drive?" which was published by the American Medical Association, this statement is made: "You do not have to be 'drunk' to be dangerous. There is ample evidence to prove that as little as two drinks or two beers is sufficient to produce a definite impairment of the judgment and reactions of many persons"

The National Safety Council, in 1957, released this statement: "Drinking to any extent reduces the ability of any driver. Small amounts of alcohol reduce self-control and driving ability." In 1989 they issued this statement by the Committee on Tests for Intoxication: "The Committee concludes also that there is no minimum amount of alcohol in the body fluids which can be accepted as indicating absolutely no impairment by alcohol." 

In the Journal of American Medical Association, this statement is made: "There is no minimum (blood-alcohol concentration) which can be set at which there will be absolutely no effect."

If one cannot feel the effects of alcohol, there is no point in drinking. If he can, he is mentally impaired to that degree.

How much is moderation? Who is to determine it? Those who have counseled with problem drinkers and alcoholics well know that their definition of moderation is quite different from that of a beginning drinker. Can one assert that "The Christian has the liberty to drink an alcoholic beverage in moderation" so long as the word moderation is so loosely handled?

MANY THINGS WRONG WITH IT

One may say "Nowhere does the Bible say that it is morally wrong to drink an alcoholic beverage." But he cannot accurately say, "Nowhere does the Bible teach that it is morally wrong to drink an alcoholic beverage." The Bible does not have to say a thing, in so many words, in order to teach it. If that be the case, what about gambling, pornography, or marihuana? The Bible teaches against many things which are not called by name. In various ways can one find the Bible teaching against drinking alcoholic beverages in any degree: in influence, in contributing to the downfall of the nation, in assisting the liquor industry in their work of destruction, in that which drinking leads to, in the company it attracts, and on and on.

DOES THE BIBLE SPECIFICALLY CONDEMN IT?

After all this is said, the question again arises: "Does the Bible specifically condemn it?" The answer is unequivocal: YES, Peter said, "Abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul." (1 Peter 2:11). Note three things: (1) Alcohol is a fleshly lust. (2) It wars against the soul. (Who will deny that?). And "Abstain" does not mean to practice in moderation.

--W.T. Hamilton, Firm Foundation, Aug. 23, 1966

GOD DOES NOT ASK ABOUT OUR ABILITY OR OUR INABILITY, BUT ABOUT OUR AVAILABILITY

"God does not ask about our ability or our inability, but about our availability." The thing that keeps people from serving Christ is not what they "can do" or "cannot do," but what they are "available to do." There is a good example of this in Acts 24:24-26. The apostle Paul was invited to speak before governor Felix and his wife Drusilla. He spoke concerning the faith in Christ and reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come. It is said, Felix trembled "I would imagine he was shaken about thoughts of judgment to come." The governors response was, "Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee." It is obvious that the truth made some kind of impact on this man of rank but he had a serious problem. He was not "available" for service to Christ. This problem is still with us. The problem of "availability." We must make ourselves available to the Lord, not on our terms, but on His terms which we find in the New Testament. We are all invited to serve the Lord and be saved. The problem is not our ability nor our inability, but our availability.

--W.R. Jones, The Messenger, Vol. 2, Number 24.

MORE INFORMATION...