by David Griffin
Missouri Labor Day Meeting 1993
Springfield, MO
For a long time, the recreational use of drugs and alcohol has been a widespread problem in America. It is estimated that almost 70% of Americans drink at least some amount of alcohol, and nearly ten million are alcoholics (Strack 40-41). In 2004 nearly 30% of high school seniors polled reported engaging in "binge drinking" sometime in the two weeks prior to the poll (National Center for Health Statistics, 263).1 A 2003 survey indicated that 8.2% of persons polled who were twelve years of age and over reported using an illicit drug sometime during the previous month (259).2 Moreover, even a 1983 study found that at that time 25% of America's fourth graders experienced pressure from their peers to try drugs (Strack 10-11).
Many people recognize the immense societal problem caused by alcohol and drug abuse. However, in order to understand not only the societal but also the spiritual dimensions of the problem, one should consider the teaching of the Bible on the subject. Though the Bible does not specifically condemn, by name, such things as marijuana, heroin, cocaine (or "crack"), or other drugs in modern use, it does condemn them in principle. That is, when the Scriptures condemn "drunkenness," such condemnation is understood to extend to all mind altering, addictive drugs. Thus while most of this article is directed specifically at drinking alcohol, the author believes and assumes that the Bible's condemnation of drunkenness includes, by implication, the recreational use of all mind-altering, addictive drugs by whatever names they may be called.
The Downward Spiral
Virtually no one challenges the idea that drunkenness is condemned in the Scriptures (Luke 21:34; Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 6:10; Galatians 5:21; 1 Peter 4:3). However, some think God condemns certain things just because He wants to take all the "fun" out of life, or because He arbitrarily wants to make people wonder why He condemns certain things. Obviously, this idea takes a rather petty view of God. The reality is that God has very good reasons for condemning the practice of certain things—drunkenness in particular. Simply stated, the Bible condemns drunkenness because it involves a "downward spiral," a series of progressive consequences that are detrimental to godliness. What follows is a discussion of some of the major steps along this downward spiral.
First, drunkenness is wrong because it impairs judgment. Isaiah 28:7 says that "The priest and the prophet have erred thorough intoxicating drink, they are swallowed up by wine, they are out of the way through intoxicating drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment"3 The religious leaders of Isaiah's day, the text says, "stumbled in judgment" as a result of their use of intoxicating drink. They had lost the ability to reason and think in accordance with the will of God; consequently, they came under the condemnation of heaven.
1) The report defines "binge drinking" as "five or more alcoholic drinks in a row at least once in the prior 2-week period" (263).
2) The report defines any illicit drug to include "marijuana/hashish, cocaine (including crack), heroin, hallucinogens (including LDS and PCP), inhalants, or any prescription-type psychotherapeutic drug used nonmedically" (260).
3) Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version.
Even though this passage was written nearly three thousand years ago, it still holds true today. People who indulge in alcoholic beverages "stumble in judgment" (to say the least). W. D. Jeffcoat, author of The Bible and "Social" Drinking, says: "...every increase of alcohol in the blood progressively suppresses the operation of those areas of the brain on which persons depend for clear insights and rational decisions" (90). Undoubtedly, "clear insights and rational decisions" is another way of describing "judgment." Jeffcoat further explains that the area of the brain where clear insights and rational decisions originate is the area first affected by ingested alcohol. Again, "alcohol…depresses the areas of the brain with higher complexity and more integrated functions first. In general, when one to two drinks are consumed (0.02%–0.03% blood alcohol content) the cerebral cortex begins to be affected, resulting in diminished levels of reason and caution" (White 3, emphasis mine, dg). It doubtless goes without saying that this affect occurs even long before the more obvious signs of drunkenness occur, signs such as slurred speech and loss of balance (86-92). In a sense then a drinker of alcohol actually "stumbles in judgment" before he or she begins to "stumble in walking." Therefore, one does not have to be "stoned drunk" to come under the same condemnation as the wayward priests and prophets of Isaiah's day.
The Bible teaches that "judgment" is a moral characteristic to be cultivated, not compromised. The prayer of the Apostle Paul for the Philippians makes this point clear enough: "And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment…" (Philippians 1:9) The word discernment here is rendered by other translations as "judgment" and involves the idea of moral and spiritual "perception" (Vine 622). Thus, Christians, by increasing in the knowledge of God's will, are urged to develop and cultivate the attribute of discernment (or judgment). The author of Hebrews likewise enjoins a similar idea when he says that Christians who are "of full age" (i.e. mature) use the "solid food" of the Word. Those who so do, he says, will "have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil" (Hebrews 5:12-14).
Although it is true that the terms judgment and discernment are used in the Bible in a broader sense than merely the absence of alcohol intoxication, there is no doubt that the consumption of alcohol involves a compromise of the "discernment principle." In fact, it may be said that the decision itself to take that first drink, or experiment with drugs for the first time indicates a lack of discernment in the biblical sense of the term. The individual who ignores the Bible's warning and its condemnation of intoxicating beverages and thence indulges in alcohol or any other intoxicating substance shows a critical weakness in the biblical attributes of sound judgment and discernment.
The actual consumption then only serves further to weaken discernment and ultimately results in a complete breakdown of one's "right mind." Second, the Bible condemns drunkenness because it steals away the drinker's self-control. Again, Jeffcoat states that it has been scientifically proved that, "the desire for alcohol increases with indulgence" (90). That is, the more alcohol one drinks at a given time, the more one desires to drink. Thus, an unavoidable corollary to the destruction of discernment is an erosion of the virtue of self-control. The Apostle Peter admonished self-control as follows: "…for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control…" (2 Peter 1:5-6). The Apostle says that Christians must "give all diligence" to add self-control to their character. Some of the older translations render the word self-control as "temperance," and consequently some have misconstrued this word to mean that a Christian should use "moderation" in the consumption of alcohol. Most modern translations, however, use the word "self-control." Indeed, it seems contrary to this admonition for a Christian to indulge in the consumption of a substance that has the inherent ability to weaken self-control, a virtue that Peter says the Christians should "make every effort" to strengthen.
Again, to make the decision to take the first drink or to experiment with drugs indicates on one level a weakness in self-control out the outset. In other words, to argue that drunkenness is wrong because it steals away the drinker's self-control is not to say this virtue remains completely in tact right up to the moment the alcohol begins to take affect. To the contrary, self-control in the biblical sense of the term is already lacking in the person who makes the decision to indulge. Thence to follow through with that decision and begin using mind-altering substances only serves further to deteriorate, and finally destroy, this essential virtue.
Third, after self-control is destroyed, the drinker is effectively defenseless against other sins. Proverb 25:28 graphic speaks about the loss of self-control as follows: "Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control" (NIV). The picture here relates to the ancient practice of building cities surrounded by high and fortified walls. The purpose of such walls was to protect the inhabitants of the city from thieves, wild animals, and armies of the enemy. If somehow the walls were broken through, the city was vulnerable to plunder and even destruction. The lesson is that a man without self-control is like that city. He has nothing to protect him against the attacks of the enemy of righteousness—the Devil. How many acts of violence, how many acts of fornication, adultery, child abuse, and oftentimes even murder have been committed by people under the influence of alcohol or drugs who otherwise would have never dreamed of doing such things? Countless lives have been ruined by some foolish act committed while good judgment and rational thinking had been dethroned by the tyranny of "too much" alcohol, during a self-induced vulnerable hour when the "walls of self-control" were broken down.
Fourth, prolonged indulgence (or in some cases only brief indulgence) leads to addiction. No one starts drinking with the ambition of becoming an alcoholic, yet 200,000 people per year become just that (McGuiggan 26). In the United States, according to the National Council on Alcoholism, there are nearly ten million alcoholics (Strack 40). The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism estimates that 19 percent of adolescents or 3.3 million young people, ages 14-17, are problem drinkers (43). The fact that alcohol is highly addictive, socially acceptable, and legally approved in America makes it unlikely that these frightening statistics will change much for the good in the near future.
However, the Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans: "Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts" (Romans 6:12). He also said in another place that he would not be "brought under the power of anything"
(1 Corinthians 6:12). It is unarguable that alcohol (and other drugs) enslave (have power over) many of those who use them, because addictive substances have the ability to bring people under their power. Therefore, one should never begin even to experiment with that which has enslaved so many people.
Fifth, alcohol and drugs have led countless millions to physical and spiritual ruin. One of the Proverbs says, "Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaints? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? Those who linger long at the wine, those who go in search of mixed wine" (Proverbs 23:29). This graphic Biblical Proverb describes the deplorable and lamentable condition of chronic users of alcohol. The author of this ancient description appears even to anticipate what modern science has been able to confirm empirically. Most people are familiar with the statistics. Prolonged alcohol abuse has been linked to such maladies as cirrhosis of the liver, brain and nerve damage, disease of the pancreas, impaired resistance to infection, as well as other potentially life threatening conditions (see Strack 44). In fact, Dr. Parran, a former Surgeon General of the United States, said, "Alcohol is the major cause of insanity, and poisoning from it causes more deaths than from all our most infectious diseases" (as quoted by McGuiggan 31).
More than three thousand years ago, Moses said: "Their wine is the poison of serpents and the cruel venom of cobras" (Deuteronomy 32:33). No one in a sound state of mind would deliberately, knowingly drink a cup of poison. Yet millions every day imbibe alcoholic beverages, beverages that have been shown time and again to have consequences that are perhaps in some way comparable to drinking the "venom of cobras"! The reality is that alcohol is a poison; it is a toxic poison that is capable of inflicting death.
To a greater degree though spiritual ruin is the most devastating of that caused by alcohol and drug abuse. The Apostle Paul wrote that those who participate in "drunkenness...will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Galatians 5:21). As one might expect, this type of ruin generally receives no notice from the secular community that is fighting the current "War on Drugs." To illustrate, a number of years ago a First Lady of the United States began the "Just say 'No' to Drugs" campaign. This campaign was designed to urge young and old alike to abstain from the use of drugs. Since then, many organizations, led by concerned and well-meaning people, have used the "Just-Say-No" slogan for the same purpose. They encourage people to abstain from drugs by educating them about all of the terrible things that can happen to people who use them. However, such organizations, in keeping with their secular role in the world, focus entirely on the temporal, earthly consequences of substance abuse. But there are indeed eternal, spiritual consequences. That is why the church must resound the words of the Apostle that those who do such things "shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Indeed, no greater ruin can be imagined than spiritual ruin, the eternal loss of the soul.
What About Drunkenness and "Social Drinking"?
In light of the facts thus far, it should be clear that the Scriptures condemn drunkenness and for very good reasons. Given all of the available evidence that alcohol causes loss of judgment, loss of self-control, and irrational behavior; and given that it brings about addiction, physical maladies, and spiritual ruin, one would think that all people (at the very least members of the church) would be opposed to its recreational use in all forms. However, on the continuum between outright alcoholics on one end of the spectrum and teetotal abstainers on the other end, there exists in the middle a large segment of people who drink only occasionally. They do not see themselves as alcoholics or "drunks," so they cannot imagine that occasional drinking might be classified as questionable behavior. Even some members of the church fall into this category. These are the people who defend the right of so-called "social drinking." Their argument is that the abuse of alcohol is wrong, not the mere use of it for social purposes. As long as a person drinks without getting drunk, they say, no wrong and no harm has been done.
It is interesting though that alcohol is the only drug (at least of which this author is aware) with which people use this kind of reasoning. For example, it is not commonplace to hear someone say, "It is all right to smoke marijuana, or to use 'crack' cocaine, or other drugs as long as you don't use too much and 'get high'." Such a statement would likely sound ridiculous to most people, especially to those who frequently use such drugs. What would be the point of using them, someone might correctly ask, were it not for the narcotic affect such drugs have on the user? Yet strangely, the statement "It is all right to drink alcoholic beverages as long as you don't get drunk" is widely accepted. One has to wonder though if social drinking is popular
4 The fact that English speakers naturally attach descriptive terms to the word drunk (for ex. "giddy drunk," "happy drunk," "sloppy drunk," "falling-down drunk," "dead drunk") indicates an implicit recognition that the word drunk requires an adjective or some other type of descriptor in order to classify "levels" of intoxication, and underscores the fact that intoxication is a progressive phenomenon that begins as soon as drinking begins precisely because the alcohol content does have an affect on those who drink it—even in small amounts. If so, will the honest person be willing to call this affect "drunkenness"?
The concept of drinking alcohol "socially" while completely avoiding drunkenness appears to be at odds with certain words and concepts in the Scriptures. For example, in his letter to the Ephesians, the Apostle Paul said, "do not be drunk with wine" (Ephesians 5:18). The Holy Spirit here directed Paul to use the Greek verb methusko, translated "do (not) be drunk." W. E. Vine offers the following analysis of methusko: "to make drunk, or to grow drunk (an inceptive verb, marking the process of the state expressed in methuo [drunkenness]), to become intoxicated" (343, emphasis mine, dg). Thus, according to this analysis, drunkenness is a "process"; it is a matter of degree and not merely a "state" one reaches only after several drinks have been consumed. This point is important because social drinkers typically assume that a person is not really drunk until he or she reaches the stage of excessive drunkenness where the outright characteristics of slurred speech and loss of equilibrium occur. The reasoning is that a person can drink any amount of alcoholic beverage socially, as long as they do not become "sloppy drunk" or "falling down drunk."4 But as previously shown, a drinker is under the influence of alcohol and is thus "drunk" by the impairment of sober judgment and sound reasoning, long before the more progressive stages of drunkenness are evident. Put another way, a person's level of "drunkenness" is commensurate to the amount of alcohol he or she has consumed. A person who has consumed a lot of alcohol is very drunk; a person who has consumed a little alcohol is a little drunk. Conversely, the person who has consumed no alcohol is not drunk at all.
Even modern English dictionaries reflect the idea that drunkenness involves a whole range of progressive stages. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary defines the word "intoxicate" as follows: "1. To induce, especially by the effect of ingested alcohol, any of a series of progressively deteriorating states, ranging from exhilaration to stupefaction" (emphasis mine, dg). Thus the words "drunk" and "intoxicate" refer to a "series of progressively deteriorating states," beginning with the very earliest to the most advanced stages, and not merely to an extreme state reached only after a person has gone "over the edge." Stated again, the effects of alcohol begin when consumption begins, rather than "slipping up" on the drinker all at once after an extended period of drinking. (For a more complete definition of drunkenness, see "Drunkenness: A Bible Definition" by Ron Courter in the 1990 Preachers' Study Notes).
Common Counter-Arguments
One might object to the ideas stated above because their logical conclusion might prove that a person is drunk after swallowing only one mouthful of beer (or some other beverage). And to say that a person is drunk after swallowing only one mouthful of an alcoholic beverage challenges one's common sense. However, on the practical level, this objection sidesteps the real issue. In most (probably all) social drinking situations no one would consider it fashionable to swallow only one mouthful of an alcoholic beverage and stop there. What would be the point? It is safe to say that the average person in a social drinking situation will typically consume at least one glass of wine or beer or at least one mixed drink—not just one mouthful. Moreover, there is a strong likelihood that more than one drink will be consumed in any given situation. As noted above, the more alcohol one drinks on a single occasion, the more likely he or she is to drink additional alcohol. Given the reality that social settings are by their very nature subject to the dynamics of group behavior and "group think," it appears very likely that if others are having another drink, the social drinker will want to join in. Such a situation provides a powerful external motivation, combined with the internal motivation already present in the bloodstream (i.e. the physiological effects of the first drink) to go ahead and have the second drink, then another, etc. With young people, this social dynamic is usually called "Peer Pressure."
To press the point still further, no one seems to know at what point the practice of "innocent" social drinking turns into "sinful" drunkenness. Is it after the first drink? The second drink? The third? Or after the first mouthful? Does it vary from person to person and from situation to situation? At what point does a person cross the line? Is there a clear line to cross? Does the person doing the drinking decide he has crossed the line, or, since the alcohol has impaired his judgment, must he rely on others to inform him that he has crossed the line? By that time, will it be possible to convince him? If he is in the presence of a crowd of other social drinkers, will their judgment of the matter be clear enough to recognize at the critical moment that he has a problem and call it to his attention? By then, will they care enough to make the attempt? If they are going to warn him that he is about to cross the line, how will they be able to know it until after his behavior is such that he has clearly already crossed it? Once his condition has deteriorated to this level, has he already committed sin?…
The point is clear. These questions lead directly back to the contentions made earlier in this article. Drunkenness involves a process that is set in motion when drinking begins, and for this reason the Christian should avoid that which sets the process into motion.
Another common objection in favor of social drinking is 1 Timothy 5:23, where Paul admonished Timothy—"No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach's sake and your frequent infirmities." As the argument goes, if Timothy was a Christian and Paul said he could drink wine, then it is acceptable for any Christian to use alcohol in social settings. Unfortunately for the social drinking advocate, this argument suffers from the fallacy of hasty generalization. It takes Paul's admonition about a specific situation (using a little wine medicinally) and generalizes it beyond its original context and import. Paul's admonition clearly pertains to the use of wine for controlled, medicinal purposes (use a little wine)—not to general recreational use where typically much wine is used. Many people easily recognize that the medicinal use of a substance differs morally from the recreational use of a substance. Some drugs that may be legally prescribed in controlled doses for medical benefit would become sinful (as well as illegal) if used in uncontrolled, strictly recreational settings.
This hasty argument also loses sight of another valid consideration. If people in the ancient world (as many contend) drank only alcoholic wine because that was all they had available, then why did Paul even think to advise Timothy to drink a little wine? Would it not be the case that Timothy was probably drinking wine all the time anyway, with every meal, on every occasion, and in every gathering of Christians who were also drinking it? The point is that apparently Timothy, even while living in the ancient world where supposedly only alcoholic wine was available, drank "only water" and Paul saw fit to advise him for the sake of his health to try a different course—to "use a little wine" for his ailments. Before Timothy received Paul's medical advice, it does not appear that he thought a glass of wine was his only beverage option.
One more point worth considering on 1 Timothy 5:23 has to do with the strength of ancient wines. Typically, undiluted wine of the first century would have been of a measurably lower 5 [As will be discussed later in this article, it is conceivable that contextually speaking the wine in 1 Timothy 5:23 might even have been non-alcoholic. See under the next section of the article "A Favorite Counter-Argument."] alcohol content that most modern wines. Even at that, it was the usual practice of those who consumed alcoholic wine to dilute it with water as much as fifty percent and sometimes even more, effectively reducing even further the wine's already comparatively low alcohol content. To this writer's mind, it is entirely possible (maybe even likely) that when Timothy received Paul's advice he would have understood it to mean, "No longer drink water alone, but use a little wine in your water for your frequent ailments." This understanding of Paul's words would mean that he was not advising Timothy to drink a cup of undiluted wine once in a while in addition to your usual practice of drinking water. Rather he would have understood it to mean that he should mix in a little wine with his water periodically for its medicinal effects. Obviously, the alcohol content of such a mixed wine would be significantly lower than most modern-day wines that are typically drunk full strength. In this case, not only would 1 Timothy 5:23 not parallel modern social drinking relative to the purpose of using wine, the passage also would not parallel modern social drinking relative to the strength of the wine used. All these considerations taken together therefore demonstrate that 1 Timothy 5:23 offers very little support in favor of modern social drinking.5
A Favorite Counter-Argument
Perhaps the favorite argument used to justify social drinking is that Jesus made wine at the wedding feast in Cana (John 2). The reasoning is that if Jesus made intoxicating wine at a social gathering for the guests to consume, then it is likewise acceptable for people today to drink alcohol "socially." It is true that Jesus did make wine at the wedding feast. To deny this fact would be to deny the obvious. However, upon closer examination it turns out that Jesus' miracle at Cana is not the unassailable proof that some may think it to be.
One reason for doubting the "water-to-wine" argument is that it assumes the word wine in the Bible always refers to a fermented, alcoholic beverage. This is an assumption that the modern reader imposes upon the Biblical text. Though twenty-first century English-speaking people generally use the word wine in the qualified sense of alcoholic wine, the Bible often uses the word in a more general sense to include many different products from grapes. The Book of Nehemiah for example makes reference to "...all kinds of wine" (Nehemiah 5:18). This phrase at the very least suggests that the word wine in the Bible encompasses variety and is not a monolithic term for a single, unvarying substance. Other Biblical passages use the word in such a way as to suggest that at least one of the "kinds of wine" is, in fact, the unfermented juice of the grape. As one instance, Isaiah 65:8 contains the statement "...the new wine is found in the cluster..." The reader may notice that according to this text the juice in the cluster was called "wine."
Fermented wine, however, has never been found already made inside of grapes (Patton 17). Yet this passage speaks of a substance inside the cluster, and that substance is called by the word "wine." The word wine therefore does not in every instance refer to the intoxicating variety (though it often does refer to that). Evidently it can refer to unfermented grape juice as well.
This point may be further illustrated by the fact that sometimes in the Bible wine is spoken of as a blessing and sometimes as a curse. Proverbs 23:31 offers this admonition: "Do not look on wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it swirls around smoothly." The writer of Proverbs speaks here of a wine that should be avoided. It should be avoided, he says, because "at the last it bites like a serpent and stings like an viper" (v 32). From the context, it is clear that it is precisely because such wine is alcoholic that it should be avoided. On the other hand, Deuteronomy 7:13 speaks of wine as a blessing that God promised to the children of Israel: "He will love you and bless you and multiply you; He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your land, your grain and your new wine and your oil, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flock, in the land of which He swore to your fathers to give you." It would seem then that when wine is spoken of as a curse in one passage and as blessing from God in another passage, different kinds of wine are in view—one that intoxicates, another that does not. Accordingly, context must determine the kind of wine referred to in any given passage. Stated another way, the student of the Bible should not automatically assume that wine always means wine of the fermented, intoxicating variety.
In John 2 then where Jesus turned water into wine, the context demands that the wine was unfermented grape juice. This assertion is supported by the fact that Jesus committed no sin and performed no act, especially by the use of His miraculous power, which would be out of harmony with the will of God. Jesus was the divine Son of God. The Scriptures describe Him as "holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners"; one "who did no sin," was "without no sin," and did always those things that pleased the Father (Hebrews 7:26, 4:15, 1 Peter 2:22; John 8:29). He was obviously well acquainted with the Old Testament Scriptures. When He was at the young age of twelve, He confounded the people in Jerusalem with His knowledge of the Bible (Luke 2:47). Moreover, throughout His ministry He constantly quoted the Old Testament Scriptures from memory (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10; Mark 7:6-7). The point is that at the time of the events at the wedding feast in Cana, Jesus was no doubt familiar with the teaching of such passages as Habakkuk 2:15—"Woe unto him who gives drink to his neighbor, pressing him to your bottle, even to make him drunk..." Is it not the case that if Jesus had supplied intoxicating wine to the guests at the wedding feast, He would have compromised a principle in this passage?
Therefore, knowledge of the fact that wine in the Bible can refer to unfermented grape juice, combined with the understanding that Jesus was without sin and was well acquainted with the teaching of the Old Testament Scriptures on the evils of intoxicating drink yields the conclusion that the wine He made for the wedding guests at Cana was "the pure blood of the grape." It seems quite unlikely that He would have used his miraculous power, the purpose of which was to confirm the message of the saving gospel, to produce a substance that has been the cause of immeasurable physical, moral, and spiritual loss. Consequently, the miracle performed by the Lord in John 2 should not be enlisted as a justification for the practice of modern social drinking.
In conclusion, the passages in the Bible that condemn drunkenness indeed must apply to all degrees of alcohol intoxication as well as to the recreational use of any other drugs that impair judgment, rational thinking, and responsible behavior. Nevertheless, even after learning the Bible's warnings on the subject, some people will choose to ignore them. Those who make this choice demonstrate a greater foundational weakness than merely proving that practice wrong will solve. Such people need to be renewed in the spirit of their mind, turning to God with their whole heart. The person who has made this commitment then will let the Bible take the lead on this and all moral issues.
"Wine is a mocker, intoxicating drink arouses brawling:
and whoever is led astray by it is not wise"
Proverbs 20:1
Bibliography
The American Heritage Dictionary. Second College Edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1985)
Jeffcoat, William Dawson. The Bible and "Social" Drinking. (Corinth, Ms.: Robinson Typesetting, 1987)
McGuiggan, Jim. The Bible, the Saint, and the Liquor Industry. (Lubbock, Tx.: International Bible Resources Inc., 1977)
National Center for Health Statistics, Health, United States, 2005. With Chartbook on Trends in the Health of Americans, Hyattsville, Maryland: 2005 at www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus.htm.
Patton, William. Bible Wines. (Fort Worth, Tx.: Star Publishers, 1976)
Strack, Jay. Drugs and Drinking. (New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985)
Vine, W. E. Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. (McLean, Vir.: Mac Donald Publishing)
White, US Pharmacist
Read more!
