What is the difference between not given [addicted] to wine and not given [addicted] to much wine (1 Timothy 3:3, 8), and does the latter justify social drinking?

      One of the qualifications of an overseer is “not given to wine” (NKJV), “not addicted to wine” (NASB), “not a drunkard” (ESV) (1 Tim. 3:3; Tit. 1:7). The word Paul uses is pároinos (from para [near, beside] and oinos [wine]), which means pertaining to wine; given to wine, prone to intemperance, drunken.¹ 

     For a man to qualify as a deacon he is “not given to much wine” (NKJV), “not addicted to much wine” (ESV) (1 Tim. 3:8). The operable word here is proséchō, meaning to bring near to, be attentive, apply oneself to, be given or addicted to.² A comparable admonition is stated in Titus 2:3 concerning older women, who are “not given to much wine” (NKJV), “not enslaved to much wine” (NASB), “not … slaves to much wine” (ESV). The verb doulóō simply means to be enslaved or in bondage.

     In the very same epistles Paul gives stern warnings against being proséchō [given to] the leavening influence of false teachers and false doctrines (1 Tim. 1:4; 4:1; Tit. 1:14; cf. Matt. 7:15; 16:6, 11), yet few would suggest that moderate involvement with these is being encouraged. The Bible also alludes to the non-Christian life as being doulóō [enslaved] under the sinful elements of the world (Gal. 4:3) and doulóō [enslaved] to corruption or depravity (2 Pet. 2:19), but does this implicitly support a moderate amount of worldliness and depravity in a person’s life?

      The present controversy is over Paul’s use of the word “much” [polus]. Some have inferred from these passages that deacons, older women, and all other Christians are given permission to drink alcoholic beverages in moderation as long as “much” is not consumed at one time. But is this inference necessary or even valid? Is it reasonable to conclude that a Christian must not be addicted or enslaved to much wine, but to be addicted or enslaved to a moderate amount of wine is permissible? The word “much” is an appropriate descriptive term in the context of addiction, obsession, or distraction, but it does not automatically suggest the acceptability of a little.³

     Later Paul mentions Alexander who had done him much [polus] harm (2 Tim. 4:14). Is it reasonable to suggest that Alexander would have been justified in only doing a little harm to Paul? When the LORD told Israel that their sins could not be washed away with much soap (Jer. 2:22), would it be valid to infer that they could have been spiritually cleansed with a moderate amount of soap? When the Bible says that a mighty man is not delivered by much strength (Psa. 33:16), does this imply that he is delivered by a little strength? Was Ahab exonerated because he only served Baal a little in comparison to Jehu who served him much (2 Kings 10:18)? Since Manasseh was condemned for shedding much innocent blood (2 Kings 21:16), would it have been okay for him to shed a moderate amount of innocent blood? Manasseh also did much evil in the sight of the LORD (2 Chron. 33:6), but would a smaller amount of evil have been permissible?⁴

     The bottom line is, what is the intent of the respective passages? A man addicted to or distracted by much wine is not to be a public servant in the church, and a woman enslaved to much wine cannot be a teacher of good things. Surely it was not Paul’s purpose in 1 Tim. 3:3, 8 and Titus 1:7; 2:2 to legitimize alcohol consumption, and to appeal to these prohibitions in an attempt to draw out a positive affirmation is to go beyond what the texts actually say.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ H. K Moulton, Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised 310. Some have suggested that it might be permissible for an overseer to drink wine moderately as long as he is not addicted to it. However, he is also required to be temperate (1 Tim. 3:2), something expected of other Christians as well (1 Tim. 3:11; Tit. 2:2). This word is translated from nēphalios, which means temperate in the use of alcoholic beverages, sober, clear-headed, self controlled” (BAGD 538); … abstinent in respect to wine … (H. K. Moulton 277). Josephus (Antiquities 3,12,2) and Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4,183) used this word for abstaining from wine entirely. Since elders are to be examples to the flock (1 Pet. 5:3) and have a good testimony among those who are outside (1 Tim. 3:7), surely this would be sufficient reason for total abstinence. Furthermore, Christians are called upon to be sober or watchful [nēphō] (1 Thess. 5:6, 8; 2 Tim. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:13; 4:7; 5:8), which literally means to abstain from wine (The New Englishmans Greek Concordance and Lexicon 592); to be free from the influence of intoxicants (Vines Expository Dictionary of NT Words 1067).

     ² H. K. Moulton, Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised 349.

     ³ If cocaine had been a problem in the first century and Paul had made similar statements concerning it, would it be sensible to assume that a casual or recreational use of this drug is proper for the child of God?

     ⁴ An additional consideration is that Paul may have been warning against the prevalent vice of his day of drinking excessive amounts of unfermented oinos – a vice corresponding to gluttony. In Smith’s Greek and Roman Antiquities, it is stated: “The use of the saccus (filter), it was believed, diminished the strength of the liquor. For this reason it was employed by the dissipated in order that they might be able to swallow a greater quantity without becoming intoxicated” (cf. Patton, Bible Wines 30). Pliny [b. AD 61] affirms that various incentives were practiced to increase thirst and that wines were filtered to break their spirit so that more could be consumed (ibid.). “The most useful wine is that which has all its strength broken by the filter [saccus]” (Pliny, Natural History 23.1).

Addendum: Biblically, as Aubrey Johnson notes, there are two things we know for certain about the consumption of inebriants: (a) alcohol is dangerous (Prov. 20:1; 23:29-32), and (b) drunkenness is condemned (1 Cor. 5:11; Gal. 5:21). “If the Bible said nothing else on the subject, these passages provide ample information for a deacon to make an intelligent decision whether to partake or abstain…. an observant person can see plenty of reasons to steer clear…. The minimal benefits are offset by devastating risks” (Dynamic Deacons 22, 23). Johnson also proposes these questions: “Will drinking make me a better deacon? Will it improve my thinking? Will it strengthen my character? Will it expand my influence? Will it add value to my ministry?” (24).

Related Posts: Here's Why I Don't Drink Beverage Alcohol

Image credit: http://www.sunleafmedical.com/gallery/Alcohol-Abuse-A-Few-Interesting-Crime-and-Treatment-Statistics/Alcohol-Abuse-A-Few-Interesting-Crime-and-Treatment-Statistics1.jpg

Stop getting drunk at church and do it at home?

     Paul writes to the problem-plagued Christian community in Corinth: “For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not” (1 Cor. 11:21-22 ESV).

     Although the English rendering of the verb methúō in this passage is “drunk,” it is set in contrast to “hungry” (v. 21) – not necessarily meaning intoxicated but rather indicative of some having over-indulged in both food and drink (v. 22a), while others were left wanting. Such segregation and partiality among Christians show disdain and contempt for God’s church (v. 22b; cf. Jas. 2:1-9). If this is how they were going to act, they should eat and drink at home before they come to the assembly.

     The infinitive “to drink” in v. 22 does not specify what beverage is consumed any more than “to eat” specifies what is eaten. Earlier Paul had reminded the Corinthians that being a faithful Christian and being a drunkard [méthusos] are mutually exclusive (5:11; 6:10), and elsewhere Paul forbids intoxication [methúskō] (Eph. 5:18). Unless inebriants are necessarily in view, the sense of methúō is simply fullness or excessiveness (cf. John 2:10; Rev. 17:2, 6).

--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Here's Why I Don't Drink, Questions about the Lord's Supper

Related articles: Scott Shifferd's Reconsider Biblical Drunkenness

Image credit: http://images.techtimes.com/data/images/full/50460/drunk.jpg

Premarital Decisions About Non-Optional Matters

     Marrying someone other than a faithful member of the Lord’s church was never a personal option for me. I couldn’t imagine spending my life with someone with whom I wasn’t going to spend eternity. Neither did I want to marry a person with whom I couldn’t pray. If God ever blessed me with children, I didn’t want them growing up in a religiously divided home and likely influenced to take the wrong spiritual path. I determined that if my future wife and I couldn’t go to church together and serve the Lord together, I’d rather be single. And the kind of woman I wanted to marry had to have the same high expectations.

     I’m thankful that I eventually found my prospective bride, and during our courtship she and I discussed other fundamental convictions we needed to share. We both agreed that we ought not wait until after the “I do’s” were said to sort out critical issues. Decisions were mutually reached and set in granite before making such a monumental commitment. Here are some of the things we have never allowed to be optional in our marriage.

1. Divorce. We promised each other that the word “divorce” would not be part of our vocabulary. Our wedding vows included a lifelong devotion to God and to each other, which we have taken very seriously. “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:6b NKJV). Despite the not-so-enjoyable rough patches we have encountered along the way, even when divorce may have seemed like a tempting solution, it has never been considered. We have thus been compelled to work through challenging setbacks, ultimately making our marriage stronger.

2. Dishonesty. Trust is the foundation of any healthy relationship. From the beginning we both agreed to always be honest with each other. If one is caught off guard by the other and asked a pointed question, there is no pause to think about whether or not to be truthful. Even when it might seem unpleasant, there is no automatic switch into lying mode. Honesty really is the best policy, and the tangled web of deceit is thereby precluded. Love “rejoices in the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:6b).

3. Secrets. Keeping secrets from one another is not something my wife and I do, birthday surprises notwithstanding. We share the same bank account and checkbooks, we know each other’s personal identification numbers and passwords, and we have access to each other’s cellphones and computers. If anyone (especially a woman) wants to confide in me in the strictest of confidence, I let this person know from the start that I don’t hide anything from my wife. If she can’t know about it, then I shouldn’t be told. I can keep a secret from anyone but her. “Who can find a virtuous wife?
 For her worth is far above rubies. The heart of her husband safely trusts her” (Proverbs 31:10-11a).

4. Infidelity. While I can’t imagine being unfaithful to my wife and vice versa, I am not so naïve to think that our marriage is uniquely immune from the evil allurements of this world that attack other couples. “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Corinthians 10:12). Making a big difference for us in avoiding this terrible pitfall are the precautions we have deliberately taken, particularly the first three non-optional matters listed above.

5. Consuming Intoxicants. I realize this is a non-issue for a lot of people, but in our premarital conversations it was a deal breaker. We have witnessed too many evils associated with beverage alcohol, and we didn’t want our family plagued by something so easily avoided. Why would we allow anything into our home that has so much destructive potential? If we have to depend on a dangerous synthetic stimulant to enjoy or improve or maintain our marriage and social life, there are deeper problems to address. “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise” (Proverbs 20:1).

6. Not Going to Church. It’s all about priorities. I want my family to be together forever. I want to help my wife and children go to heaven, I want them to help me go to heaven, and we want to take as many souls with us as we can. “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching” (Hebrews 10:23-25). In our family, attending the assemblies of the church is not questioned, negotiated, or debated. It’s simply what we do. God is first, and our extended church family has always been and continues to be such a blessing.

     The above list will unlikely be adopted by the romance novel industry or find its way into many “happily-ever-after” self-help books. But these basic principles have significantly helped our marriage and have provided a solid basis for a healthy and stable home.

--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Preventing Divorce, Here's Why I Don't Drink Beverage Alcohol

Related Articles: Richard Parr's A Successful Marriage, Wes McAdams' Open Letter About Dating, What the Bible Says About Marriage, Dave Miller, When Does Marriage Occur?

Image credit: http://cdn.tinybuddha.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Holding-Hands.jpg