“Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging; whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise” (Proverbs xx. 1).
WE are aware of the delicate nature of the subject in hand and it is with reluctance we venture the handling of it. In view, however, of the deplorable abuse of the mercies referred to, we deem it our duty to place before you some considerations, based on the text. When we consider the enormous amount of revenue drawn by our Government from the drink trade and knowing that a large percentage of that amount is due to excessive drinking by both men and women, we consider such a source of revenue more of a scandal than an asset. It is truly vexatious to hear that the young women of the nation are as addicted to strong drink as the men. It is not so long ago since it was a rare thing to see a young woman entering a public bar. Their sense of modesty would prevent them but now it seems to be the proper thing for women to go in with the men. We appeal to the people of our church, both young and old, and whosoever this appeal may reach, to guard against the evil of drunkenness.
Let us now proceed to the consideration of our text from which we shall notice:—
I. The lawful use of wine and strong drink.
II. The unlawful use of them.
III. Proofs of the statement of the text that wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging; and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.
I. While some hold the view that alcoholic drinks should be, in all circumstances, excluded from the human diet, we maintain that there are circumstances, in which these may not only be a lawful part of our diet but it may be essential for us to possess and use them—unless we are prepared to renounce part of the Word of God. We shall therefore notice (a) the circumstances in which the use of these was and may now be essential and (b) in which desirable. The use of wine under the Old Testament dispensation was indispensable. It was an essential part of the morning and evening sacrifices (Exodus xxix. 40). The same applied to the appointed feasts of the Lord (Leviticus xxiii. 13). The words of the Lord Himself, “I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine,” indicated that He tasted of it. Under the New Testament, by Divine appointment, wine is an essential element in the Lord’s Supper. There are also circumstances, in which the use of strong drink and wine is desirable. According to Proverbs xxxi. 6, we are directed to “give strong drink to him that is ready to perish and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.” Then the apostle Paul advised Timothy to use a little wine for his stomach’s sake (I. Timothy v. 23). It is also evident from Ephesians v. 18, that, while he prohibited a “filling of themselves” with wine, he allowed the Ephesians to use it in moderation. Be it noticed, however, that in both cases, whether in the worship of God or in the human diet, the quantity allowed was a very small one. The daily drink offering and the drink offering of the appointed feasts was a quarter of a hin (Exodus xxix. 14), (Leviticus xxiii. 13). Paul again in describing the use of wine to Timothy emphasises the quantity to be taken, “a little.” He also, in reproving the Corinthians for their improper use of wine at the Lord’s Supper, commanded them to eat at home that they might not be hungry coming to the Lord’s Table (I. Corinthians xi. 21). In partaking of the symbols of the body and blood of our Lord, the communicant may eat only a morsel of bread and at the most a mouthful of wine. To exceed this is highly unbecoming. One must, however, partake of these in order to properly observe the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Our duty is, therefore, not to condemn the use of wine and strong drink altogether but to guard against the abuse of them, and we maintain that if these were used only in the circumstances which the Scriptures allow there would be no need of these public houses, which are more of a curse than a blessing in our land.
II. We now come to notice the unlawful use of wine and strong drink. Under this head, we would draw your attention in the first place to the circumstances in which the use of these beverages is prohibited, secondly, the woe that the Word of God pronounces on drunkards, and thirdly, the punishment due to the sin of drunkenness. (1) A Nazarite under a vow was not to drink wine, and we believe that the prohibition applied to him in all circumstances. It was better for him to faint than to taste. This may properly be applied to such as have been addicted to drink but who have, in the mercy of God, been enabled to abstain, much to their own welfare and the pleasure of others. It is better for such not to taste whether they have vowed to do so or not. Addictedness to strong drink has too deeply ingrained itself in the heart to be cast out by half measures. As one of these lusts in the human heart, it must be crucified and that can best be done by totally abstaining from strong drink. Whoever may find the foregoing applicable to his case let him not taste strong drink and as for wine let him confine himself to the sacramental use of it only. The Rechabites have set a good example before such as are under a vow of abstinence. Their faithful adherence to the promise, made to their father, Jonadab, not to drink wine, even when asked by the prophet to do so, was rewarded by the Lord, for He said, “Jonadab will not want a man to stand before the Lord forever” (Jeremiah, chapter 35). We also conclude from the angelic injunction to Manoah’s wife, when bearing Samson, not to drink wine, that it is prohibitive for young mothers to indulge in the use of alcoholic drinks. For their own sake and that of their offspring, they should refrain lest they fall a prey to a real enemy. Only when life is at stake should those in the adolescent age taste strong drink as it is a notorious fact that most confirmed drunkards become so under the age of thirty years. Let not this, however, even suggest to us that after that age we are free from the risk of becoming drunkards. It is a painful sight to see young men and women entering public bars together and still more so to see them staggering under the influence of strong drink. What can be expected but a lowering of the nation’s moral standard, when the parents of the morrow are encouraged to cultivate the habit of smoking and drinking together. Whether people will believe it or not, such forms of social intercourse may prove more effective in our national ruin than Communism or any other “ism,” however undesirable these may be. It is time that the nation’s conscience was awakening to a sense of this real danger. Our national drink and betting bills constitute as grave a danger as any we face. “Look not on the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At last it biteth like a serpent and stingeth like an adder” (Prov. xxiii. 31-2).
(2) God has pronounced his woe on drunkards. In Isaiah v. 11, we read, “Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them.” Of these it is also said that they regard not the work of the Lord, neither consider the operation of his hands.” Sin is the cause of woe which is an intimation of the punishment due to sin. Drunkenness is a sin, hence the woe on such as indulge in it. It is a fruit of the flesh, against which the Lord warned His disciples (Luke xxi.) 34: “And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness . . . and so that day come upon you unawares.” The day referred to is described in the chapter and it will truly be an evil day for many. Socrates was wont to say that evil men live that they may eat and drink, but good men eat and drink that they may live. The woe partly consists in the drunkard being deprived of the means to satisfy his lust for strong drink. In Joel i. 5, the drunkards are told to weep and the drinkers of wine to howl because the wine is cut off from their mouth. Take his strong drink from the drunkard and he deems himself deprived of his all. Ask him to choose between his family and his drink and we feel we may confidently say that the latter is the choice of his heart. Concern how he may procure his drink takes precedence of how to provide for his family. We feel grieved when we see ill-fed and ill-clad children and mothers in these days when poverty need not exist because we feel sure that this needless suffering is due in many cases to reckless spending on drink and betting. Other vices are in the wake of drunkenness such as rioting and dishonesty. Many are the homes which owe their misery and distress to the immoderate use of strong drink. We think it must be very distressing for a woman to see her husband coming home drunken to herself and her family, having profligately spent the money intended for their maintenance. What a bad example such conduct must be to a young family. Sad to relate there are many homes in the land to which this is no exceptional experience. It is still more grievous when both parents drink. The effect of this must be borne by the children, and the fruit of it reaped in future years when malnutrition in infancy and youth will bear its evil fruit. One cannot too much condemn the evil of drunkenness. It has a degrading effect on the moral standard of the individual; self-respect is lost and the language often vile.
(3) Too often drunkenness is not treated as a sin, but if we consider the very strong terms in which it is condemned in the Word of God, we are bound to think of it not only as a sin but as a very heinous one. Under the Old Testament, the persistent drunkard was punished by death. According to Deuteronomy xxi. 20, the parents of the stubborn son, who was a glutton and a drunkard, were to bring their son to the Elders of their city, who were to judge him according to the law, and thereafter, all the men of the city were to stone him to death as a public enemy. Darkness shall pursue the enemies of God, and “while they are drunken as drunkards, they shall be devoured as stubble fully dry” (Joel i. 10). We have every reason to conclude from Matthew xxiv. 48-51 that the same will be the final lot of the impenitent drunkard under the New Testament. That servant whom the Lord shall find smiting his fellow-servants and eating and drinking with the drunken shall be cut asunder and his portion shall be where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Paul, in I. Cor. vi. 10, puts drunkards among the unrighteous, who will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Drunkenness, therefore, is not only most unprofitable in this present world, but persistence in it renders one liable to eternal death. They are truly to be pitied who are the victims of strong drink. A conviction of and a departing from this sin would bring prosperity to many a home. But let us proceed to the last head.
III. We have several proofs of the statement of the text in the Scriptures and it strikes us as grievous that in the first case recorded there, Noah is the guilty party. That Noah was a good man is beyond doubt, but the words of our text were truly fulfilled in his case that day: “He drank of the wine and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent” (Gen. ix. 21). Surely his wine mocked him that day. When he awoke and discovered that Ham, his younger son, had seen his nakedness, he cursed that son’s descendants and the curse has been a raging one to the children of Canaan. If Noah had not been deceived by his wine, the curse on his son’s children might have been averted. The Canaanites might well agree with the statement of the text as they trace the source of their curse, pregnant with indescribable misery and enmity, to the only instance recorded of their father’s drunkenness. Another example is that of Lot, whom his daughters made drink wine for a most detestable purpose. We may safely say that that righteous man, who, when in Sodom, was daily vexed by the ungodly conduct of its inhabitants, had under the influence of the wine he received, surrendered the government of his reason to lust. Otherwise he would not have been involved in abominable sin (Gen. xix. 33). It is also worthy of note that the offspring of that unholy generation were the traditional enemies of God’s covenant people. Moab and Ammon were the implacable enemies of Israel. How true it is that whoredom, wine, and new wine take away the heart (Hos. iv. 11). Another remarkable case in proof of the text is that of the Levite, who sojourned on the side of Mount Ephraim, and took his concubine out of Bethlehem-judah. She played the harlot and returned to her father’s house but after a time her lord went for her to bring her to him again (Judges xix.). On his way home, he was obliged to pass the night in Gibeah, which belonged to the tribe of Benjamin. During that night, he was entertained by an old man of Mount Ephraim and “as they were making their hearts merry” with eating and drinking, certain sons of Belial beset the house and demanded that the man be brought forth that they might know him. To the shame of the Levite, he gave them his concubine, whom they abused until the morning, when she was found dead at the door of the house “where her lord lodged.” Taking her body home, he divided it into twelve parts and sent them into all the coasts of Israel. This rallied the tribes to wage war against Benjamin for the deed of wickedness done among them in the case of the concubine. During the first day of the war, 22,000 Israelites were killed; on the second, 18,000 Israelites, and on the third day, 25,000 Benjamites were slain. Thus was one tribe almost exterminated, all on account of the merriment of the Levite and his company. If they had been quieter they might have concealed their presence, and we can only attribute to either drunkenness or extreme cruelty his throwing a helpless woman to those wicked men. The strong possibility is that if the Levite had drank less that night his presence there would have been unknown and a terrible disaster might have been avoided. We might give other proofs, but we must conclude by referring you to Prov. xxxi. 4 and I. Thes. v. 6-7. May we also be of those who watch and are sober. Amen.