Thank you, Brother Jay, appreciate that song. I hope you know and understand that God's been good. The truth of the matter is, God can't be anything but good. Let's open our Bibles, if you would, to 2 Peter. 2 Peter 1, and as you're turning there, I'm gonna give you a little bit of a preamble. 2 Peter is... one of the last books that was penned in the New Testament, certainly one of Peter's last writings that we have a record of. And he begins in the first few verses talking about the salvation that we have in Christ. And he finishes that first section in verse number 11, where he says, for so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Then he says in verse 12, wherefore, because you have this abundant entrance, because you know Christ as your Savior, I will not be negligent, he says, to put you always in remembrance of these things, though you know them and be established in the present truth. Even though you know them, I'm gonna put you in remembrance again. Yea, I think it meet or fitting, he says, as long as I am in this tabernacle, referring to his body, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance, knowing that shortly I must put off this, my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ has showed me. Moreover, I will endeavor that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. And then he tells him, for we have not followed cunningly devised fables when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory And he quotes that voice. This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased. And this voice, which came from heaven, we heard, he says, when we were with him in the Holy Mount. And if Peter were here today, he would look out at all of us today, and he would say this, we also have a more sure word of prophecy. More sure than what? More sure than standing on the Mount of Transfiguration with Christ and hearing the voice of God audibly declare, this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased, we have a more sure word of prophecy and you and I can have it in our hands today. And then he says, whereunto Ye do well that ye take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts, knowing this first that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation, for the prophecy not, I'm sorry, the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God speak as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. That's what you and I have in our hands. a more assured, a more sure word of God than standing on the mount of transfiguration with Christ. That's an amazing statement. Peter made it in this passage. And as we continue our series on wine in the Bible, I'd like to remind us all that the Bible is our authority. The Bible is where we go when we wanna find truth. We go to the word of God because it's a more sure word of prophecy. And so whatever you may think or believe, make sure that you're evaluating everything in the light of God's word. Let's have a word of prayer and ask God's blessing upon this time together. Heavenly Father, we are grateful for your word, it's instruction to us. Lord, we're thankful that we can have a sure word of prophecy in our hands. Lord, I pray that you help us to treat it as we ought, that Lord, we would be studying it and reading it and divining what you would have us know from it, Lord, that we might be seeking truth in it. And God, as we come to your word to study it, that we might come with humble hearts. so that we can let the word of God instruct us instead of the other way around. Be with us this evening, Lord, as we look to your word. I pray that you'll help us to study, I pray that you'll help us to examine these things that we're gonna look at today. I pray that everyone will be attentive to your word, and Lord, that you'd be pleased by what we do and say this evening. We'll ask these things in Christ's name, amen. So we're continuing. This is the fourth installment on the Wine and the Bible series. And we're gonna continue. Last week, not last week, but two weeks ago, we looked at the topic on the Hebrew words in the Old Testament. that are translated wine in our Bibles today. And we saw that there were three words that are the predominantly used words for wine and strong drink. Actually, we looked at those as well. And we saw one of those Hebrew words was a word that was called yayin. And we know that the word yayin can have a connotation of use where it's either referring to something that God commends in some occasions, And in other occasions, it's used as something that God condemns. And we realize that because of the nature of the word yayin, and the nature of the substance that is defined by that word yayin, that that substance can be either fermented or unfermented wine or grape juice. And we demonstrated in previous weeks, the notion, the idea, the understanding that there have been and are two different ways, or two different meanings that the word wine can have, fermented and unfermented. Now, the unfermented wine in our day is not very common, and sometimes that'll happen with the passing of time, that words take a semantic shift away from where they originally were. But in any case, we looked at that word yayin in Hebrew, and the word yayin in Hebrew can mean either fermented or unfermented, either alcoholic or non-alcoholic wine. And we gave scriptural examples of each of those cases. One case where God commends the use of yayin, and another case where God condemns the use of yayin. And we understand those verses without discrepancy, without conflict, because we understand they're referring to, fundamentally, the two different natures of the word yayin. In fact, it's interesting. I have a couple of history books on my shelves at home. on wine history, not written by Christians, written by the secular world. And both of those books, at the very beginning, they talk about the fact that in the time of Christ and even before, wine was referred to as a drink with two faces. And they acknowledged the fact that there was schizophrenia going on with this thing, that there was two things. And they didn't necessarily attribute it to alcoholic and non-alcoholic, but they did attribute it to the fact that sometimes it has a happy face, and sometimes it has a sad face when things don't go so well. I'm not sure that they meant alcoholic and non-alcoholic. They may have meant, you know, just a casual use versus an immoderate use. I won't go that far. But I will say that they did acknowledge that there's two different natures in that drink. And yayen is the Hebrew word that was a generic word that would apply to either alcoholic or non-alcoholic wine. Then we looked at the second Hebrew word, which is the word tirash. And the word tirash, you recall, It's a word that signified wine always being a commended of God, never being condemned by God. And so we take away from that, that the word tirash is always referring to non-alcoholic wine. And then we looked at the word shakar, and we saw that that word, which is translated strong drink in our Bibles, seems to have a predominant usage of alcoholic drink And some will quibble over maybe there's one or two places where it looks like it's non-alcoholic. The truth is it doesn't hurt my head either way, and it doesn't hurt my position either way. And so I don't make a fuss over that one. But I like the symmetry of the fact that there's one word that can be either or, there's one word that is always non-alcoholic, and there's one word that is always alcoholic. And those three words seem to have that symmetry to them, that nature to them. So when we turn our attention then to the New Testament, of course, the New Testament was written in Greek, not in the languages of the Old Testament, which was written predominantly in Hebrew, some Aramaic. But we see in the Greek New Testament, An interesting pattern that shows up, and I suppose some of it is a little contrived. You'll see what I mean in just a moment. But the word oinos, excuse me, the word oinos is the Greek word that's translated wine in our Bibles. In fact, it's 32 times in your New Testament, the word oinos is translated wine. And I have put here, I've listed, that this could either be good or it could be bad. In that sense, it's like our word cider today, or it's like the Hebrew word yayin. It can have both connotations. Either instances where God commends its use, and at the same time, instances where God condemns its use. And so we must discern from the context that we read that word oinos in the New Testament, is it referring to an alcoholic beverage or a non-alcoholic beverage? An example of a good passage is John 2 9-10, where Jesus turned the water into wine. That is non-alcoholic, and you have to take that as a bold-faced assertion for the moment, but we're going to spend a fair amount of time going over that verse so that you understand it. Typical bad passage might be 1 Peter 4.3, for the time passed of our life, may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles when we walked in lasciviousness, lust, excess of wine, revelings, banqueting, and abominable idolatry. That's the word oinos as well. And so that may indicate a bad passage or a usage where oinos has the connotation of being an alcoholic beverage. And so the way we deal with the fact that we see the word oinos being both commended and condemned as we understand and discern from the context, whether it's referring to an alcoholic beverage or a non-alcoholic beverage. Now about this passage in John chapter two, Many people would say, wait a minute, what makes you think that's non-alcoholic wine that Jesus made? And I oftentimes, when I'm asked that question, I turn that question around and say, what makes you think it was alcoholic? What evidence do you have that that beverage is alcoholic? Really the only evidence you have is the evidence that says Wine always is alcoholic in the scriptures. And so when you come to this passage, it's wine, it must be alcoholic. And therefore Jesus must have made alcoholic wine. But the premise is wrong. The premise that there's only alcoholic wine in the Bible is wrong. There are two kinds of wine in the Bible, alcoholic and non-alcoholic. And we have to discern from the context. And so in this case, we have this verse, which there could be some quibble over. So the moderationist says, how can you tell this is a good passage when Jesus made alcoholic wine? Well, what makes him say that? Because all wine is alcoholic to the moderationist. So we'll have a discussion about that verse. What evidence is there that the wine that Jesus made was alcoholic? Well, it's assumed that the description given by the governor of the feast, to the wine provided by Christ as the good wine means a high quality alcoholic wine. That's the way we would use that today. If you asked all your neighbors, not in this room, but maybe your neighbors around you at home, if you ask them about what good wine might be, oh, that might be that alcoholic wine that's aged and it's got dust on the bottle and the bottle's been held in the right carafe and they make sure the cork stays moist and all that kind of stuff. That's the good wine. And so when they see in this passage of scripture, that the governor of the feast is referring to the wine that Jesus made as the good wine. they interpret that to mean it's alcoholic wine. Now let's just turn to that passage of scripture in the gospel of John, chapter two, so that we can see it in its context. And I'll try to give you a little flavoring around the context, because context is always a helpful thing when you're trying to discern if he's talking about an alcoholic beverage or a non-alcoholic beverage, and we're trying to figure out which one, the word oinos used here, which one is it. In John, chapter two, It tells us on the third day there was marriage in Cana of Galilee and the mother of Jesus was there. And both Jesus was called and his disciples to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, they have no wine. Now, when it says they wanted wine, it means they lacked it. And so when the wine ran out, if you will, The mother of Jesus says unto him, they have no wine. And Jesus says, woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come. I'm not gonna deal with that verse. We'll take that up another time. His mother saith unto the servants, whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And there were set there six water pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Now, I don't know about you, but I'm not familiar with the firkin. And I'm not sure how big of a vessel that is. But they tell me that a firkin is nine gallons. That's what, if you look it up and try to find out how big a firkin is, it's nine gallons. That's a pretty good-sized container. And these water pots contain two or three firkins apiece. And Jesus says unto them, fill the water pots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he said unto them, draw out now, and bear unto the governor the feast. And they bear it. So when this wedding was going on, Jesus and his mother come to this wedding. When they get there, sometime after they arrive, they are told that the wine is gone. And I'm sure the bridegroom was in great distress because he provided the refreshments and the catering or whatever for the wedding there. But the wine was all gone. And so Jesus' mother there is intervening on behalf of the poor beleaguered bridegroom. And Jesus then takes matters into his hands. And he performs the first miracle that we have recorded in the scriptures. I'm sorry, the first miracle that Jesus performed in the scriptures. And he says, woman, what have I to do with thee? Excuse me. And they filled up the pots with water. And he saith unto them, draw out now and bear unto the governor. So they said, he said, okay, now go dip your ladle or your cup or whatever in that. water and carry it to the governor of the feast. Now the governor of the feast, I view him as being perhaps like the head caterer. He's responsible for, maybe he's the wedding coordinator. I'm not exactly sure his position, but he was some official that had cognizance and awareness of the goods. I tend to think of him as being the head of the catering service that's providing the food and the drink. It says, when the ruler of the feast, that's that governor, when the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine and knew not whence it was, he didn't know where it came from, only the servants which drew the water knew, the governor of the feast called the bridegroom and said unto him, every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine. And when men have well drunk, then that which is worse, but thou has kept the good wine until now. You save the best stuff for the end. Usually they bring out the best stuff first. And then after everybody's kind of had their fill, they've drunk a lot of wine, then they bring out the crummier wine later, so they can keep the beverages flowing, but people are a little less discerning after they've had some wine. And so it raises the question, what is the nature of this oinas? And when the governor of the feast said that thou hast saved the best wine, Until now, thou hast kept the good wine until now. What did he mean by that? Well, let me go through a couple of thoughts here. We think of vintage wine as good quality wine or alcoholic wine, I mentioned that. And we never talk about the vintage grape juice. A bottle of expensive alcoholic wine can cost hundreds of dollars, but a bottle of Welch's grape juice costs $1.98. Now, it may be more than $1.98 these days, because it's been a while since I prepared the chart, but you get the point. Nobody would call Welch's grape juice the best wine. Most of your neighbors won't anyway. I would, because I happen to like Welch's grape juice. But nonetheless, one of the reasons why we make the assumption is because we're accustomed to thinking of the good quality wines being that expensive stuff that costs $100 a bottle or whatever. And it tells us when the guests have well drunk, they're usually less inclined to notice that the last glass of wine was not as high quality as the first. And there's an interesting phenomena that happens here. It occurs in verse number 10. Every man at the beginning does set forth good wine, and when men have well drunk. That word, well drunk, is a Greek word, methuo. Now, you don't need to worry about that. But it turns out that that word, there's some question about what does that word really mean. And it's a strange phenomenon because the moderationist, they want to insist that that expression, when they have well drunk, does not mean they're intoxicated. And the reason why they don't want it to mean intoxication is because they don't want Jesus accused of adding to their drunkenness by making more wine. And the bizarre flip side of that is the exclusionists, or the abstentionists, they want to insist that the expression, when they have well drunk, does mean that they're intoxicated. because it strengthens the argument that Jesus made non-alcoholic wine, and they need that strength because they feel the moderationists have the upper hand with a comment by the governor of the feast about the good wine being saved to the last. And so the abstentionist wants it to mean they're drunk, because then they can say, you see, Jesus wouldn't have made alcoholic wine for a bunch of drunk people. That would be just making them more and more drunk. We already agree, everybody agrees that drunkenness is sinful. Why would Jesus contribute to their sin by making more alcoholic wine when they're already drunk? The moderationist on the other hand says, no, no, it doesn't mean they're drunk. It just means they've drunk a lot. I'm only sharing that with you because it's an interesting flip-flop, I will, if you will, about the nature of that word. But the truth is, it kind of doesn't matter for me. I'll show you why. So, I've got several points here I'm going to run through. The first point is, and this is another one of those that's, I suppose, somewhat debatable, is it easier to have and keep fermented wine or unfermented wine? Well, most people who are moderationists will tell you that it's easier to keep fermented wine. In fact, they will claim that the reason why we know that wine was always alcoholic in Jesus' day is because they didn't know how to keep it from fermenting. They didn't have any refrigerators. They didn't have any pasteurization techniques. And so, eventually, it was all going to turn into alcohol anyway. And as a result of that thinking, if you buy that, and I don't buy that, by the way, completely, and I'll talk a little bit about that, would it not be then more precious, the grape juice? Because maybe extraordinary means were necessary to preserve it in that state, and any old run-of-the-mill person could make alcoholic wine because it kind of does that on its own, almost. And so maybe the more precious juice of the grape was the non-alcoholic version because it did require something extra to keep it from fermenting. That's the idea behind that comment. Now, turn over to the book of Luke. I wanna look at a passage of scripture here. Luke chapter five and verse 36. The Bible tells us, and he, referring to Jesus, spake also a parable unto them, and he says this, no man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old. If otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, or a tear, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old. And so I asked myself the question, Which is the better garment, the new garment or the old garment? And I think the conclusion we would come to from that is the new garment is better. Would you rather have new garments or old garments? Well, I think I would rather have the new ones. The old ones have holes in them, maybe they don't fit so well, they're a little worn out. And so we think of the new garments as being preferred over the old garments. And by the way, the context of this, I believe, is Jesus trying to teach them about the blessings of the New Testament, the New Covenant, as compared to the Old Covenant. He's trying to contrast the way the Jews were living under the law, if you will, with living under grace that Jesus has come and has been teaching them while he's been on the earth. And so he's trying to contrast the new way, his way, the grace way, if you will, with the old way, which is the way of the law. Then in verse 37, he says, and no man put his new wine into old bottles. else the new wine will burst the bottles and be spilled and the bottle shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles and both are preserved. So you ask yourself the question, which were the best bottles? The new bottles or the old bottles? The new wine skins or the old wine skins? Well, it seems like Jesus is teaching that the new is better. And again, he's giving them another illustration to show them that the New Testament is the better way compared to the Old Testament. Then he says in verse number 39, no man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new, for he saith, the old is better. I thought the new was better. In the last two illustrations, the new was better, wasn't it? The new garment is better. The new wineskin is better. Why would it say the old is better in the third of the three illustrations Jesus gives? Well, notice that Jesus didn't say the old is better. Who says the old is better? Those who have drunk old wine say the old is better, you see. And so that's a perspective that goes against the grain of what Jesus is trying to teach. And so we can infer from that, that unless you've been drinking old wine, you're not gonna prefer old wine. It's only those who are drinking old wine prefer old wine. And so I would take from this, given the nature of the parable, Given the teaching that Jesus is trying to convey, that Jesus made it clear by having two of the three examples clearly point to the new bottles and the new garment being better, that the new wine must be better. And in this case, the old wine is only better to those people who have been drinking old wine. Now the significance of that is that new wine, that expression new wine, refers to wine that hasn't fermented. That's why they call it new wine. And so if the new is better, then Jesus' instruction as he's teaching this understanding about the new covenant versus the old covenant, Jesus' instruction is with these three examples, that the new garment is better, and the new wineskins are better, and the new wine is better. And so, at least in Jesus' mind, the new wine, the non-alcoholic wine, is better than the alcoholic wine. That's the way this passage appears to me. That's point number two. And so the question is, does it teach that the old wine is better, or does it teach that only those who have drunk old wine prefer old wine? And so, what was the point of the parables while we talked about that? Let's see. Here's a couple of other, these are secular examples, but let me go ahead and give them to you. The Roman poet Virgil, who lived, as you can see, in the years before Christ, 70 to 19 BC, mentions that the sackcloth, which was referred to in Latin as cola, is one of the standard pieces of equipment of the wine press. Its purpose, as Pliny the Elder had stated, was to remove from the juice those substances which favor fermentation. So one of the things that they would do in those days, and we have the testimony of the Roman poet Virgil and of Pliny the Elder, we have their testimonies written, you know, contemporary with the time of Christ, if you will. that it was possible to filter out those substances which favor or tend to make alcohol ferment, make wine ferment. And then he says, wines are most beneficial when all their potency has been overcome by the strainer or the filter. We must remember that wine is grape juice that has acquired strength by fermentation. And so we see here in this example that the most beneficial wines are the wines that have not fermented, at least according to Virgil and Pliny the Elder. Now, I have another example, Plutarch, first century Greek biographer and moralist, after speaking of the filtering process in very much the same words as Pliny says, Wine is rendered old or feeble in strength when it is frequently filtered. The strength being thus excluded, the wine neither inflames the brain nor infests the mind and passions and is much more pleasant to drink. Which is much more pleasant to drink? The wine that has been filtered and as a result of having been filtered, has not been permitted to ferment. So there's a couple of things we learn from these secular historians or secular writers. One of them is, They did keep grape juice from fermenting in those days. They had techniques. By the way, they were real sophisticated in the winemaking business. The more you explore about the history of winemaking and read some of these ancient authors, the more you realize just how sophisticated they were. They were a master. We had nothing on them other than we have fancy equipment these days. But you would be amazed if you could read all the stuff they tried to try to make it taste better, try to make it last longer, try to make it all these different things. But the truth of the matter is that here's at least one gentleman from that period who said that the non-alcoholic wine was much more pleasant to drink. Let's see, I think I did this. So, this one I find particularly compelling. If the wine consumed prior to Jesus' miracle was alcoholic and the wedding guests had consumed all that the bridegroom had on hand, how drunk might they already have been? I don't know. Now, I can make another assumption. I can assume that it was non-alcoholic and that none of them were drunk. But the moderation just wants all wine to be alcoholic. And so they would say that, you know, they have to have consumed some, their blood alcohol level must be a little higher than usual because they have consumed already some wine, which we already know is only alcoholic. That's what the moderation would say. And so the question I ask is, would Jesus add to their drunkenness by making another 100, 160 gallons of wine? That's how much wine is in those water pots. And so a four-ounce glass of wine would mean that there would be 4,000 to 6,400 glasses of wine. And I state, based on the evidence, that this would be enough wine to place over 1,000 average formerly stone-cold sober individuals over the legal limit of 0.08% blood alcohol content. It only takes actually two glasses of wine for a male to be over. That's the limit. And so here they would have four. They would have twice as much. They would be way over the limit of what we would call intoxicated or under the influence today. And we've already agreed together that we already believe that drunkenness is a sin, and we have yet to define what drunkenness means. But at least in our society, this 0.08% is some standard somewhere about when we have become too influenced, too under the control, of this beverage to drive as an example. And so is that what the Bible means when it says drunk? Could be. Well, when, you know, 10 years ago when it was 1%, was that drunk? This 0.08% drunk? Is 0.05% drunk? That's what the limit is in Europe. In any case, does it make sense that Jesus would make enough alcoholic beverage to place over 1,000 people, even if they had been stone cold sober prior to this, over the legal limit of what we would understand as being drunk in this country. It doesn't make any sense at all to me. And so I contend that this is more evidence that the best wine that Jesus made, that the governor recognized, was that wine that was perhaps more precious because it was harder to preserve. It was more precious because it was more pleasant to drink, as testified by these secular historians, secular writers in those days. And that it was also the preferred wine, the best wine, because Jesus wouldn't have made 4,000 wine glasses of alcohol to give out to these wedding guests. That makes no sense. If we believe that being drunk is a sin because that would mean that Jesus provided enough alcohol for them all to be completely obliterated. You know what I mean? And that doesn't make any sense. So, I thought this was an interesting verse which I'll share with you. It's in Numbers. And God is referring here to some of the blessings that we receive or the children of Israel received. They would receive all the best of the oil, all the best of the wine and of the wheat, firstfruits of them which they shall offer unto the Lord, them have I given thee. And so you ask yourself the question, well, what does Numbers think the best of the wine is? Well, it turns out we have a clue because that word wine in Numbers chapter 18 and verse 12, is not the word Yahyan. The word wine in Numbers 18 and verse 12 is the word tirash. And we've already found that the word tirash always refers to non-alcoholic wine. And so in Numbers, when it refers to the best of the oil and the best of the wine, it uses the terminology that it's unambiguous that it's non-alcoholic wine that is referred to as the best of the wine. You see that? So we have biblical evidence. We have logical evidence about what we know about the character of Christ. We have evidence from the scriptures in the book of Luke. about what the governor of the feast might have understood was the better wine, the new wine or the old wine. There's lots of places where we see and can come to the conclusion and so I will contend that the best wine was unfermented wine and that the wine that Jesus made was unfermented, non-alcoholic wine. And, interestingly, this raises another question. If this is all true, if you follow this logic so far, and you get to this point, and you say, you know, I guess it does look that way, like the wine that Jesus made was non-alcoholic, and I believe that it was, by the way, I believe it was unfermented grape juice that Jesus made. You have to ask yourself the question, if it's okay to drink in moderation, why did Jesus make non-alcoholic wine? It's just a thought question for you to consider. It's not particularly compelling, but just something for you to think about. I have so many other examples. This actually is a reference or discussion about oinos being both fermented and unfermented. I won't go through this. If you're interested, I can share with you these other examples and these other explanations where oinos can refer to both fermented and unfermented wine. And this one is interesting, and I find it fairly compelling. The Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament scriptures, that was done before the time of Christ, that's Septuagint, the Hebrew word for grape juice, tirash, is translated 33 times by the Greek word oinos. So tirash is always unfermented in the Old Testament, and those people who probably would have known best, living in the time of Christ, when they translated that Hebrew word tirash into Greek, they used the word oinos. And that helps me understand that the word oinos can be either-or, because it's also a translation of the word yayin. So, that's the first word. It's oynas. That's the word that's like the word yayin, and it can be either or. This is the word glukas. Now, I say that some of this may feel a little contrived only because the word glukas only occurs one time in the Bible. And it's really, really a stretch to try to draw any firm conclusions when you have a data point, a data set of one. And so I accept that. I accept that that's an interesting challenge for my thesis, that the word glucose is always good. However, if you look in the secular literature, glucose is always used of new wine. never used of alcoholic wine. And while it's only used one time in the Bible, it's used a lot in the secular literature. And in all those cases that I'm aware of, it is a reference to a non-alcoholic or the new wine. And so I claim that the typical good passage is Acts chapter two and verse 13, which states, others mocking said, these men are full of new wine. So let's turn to Acts chapter two and let's take a look at that passage of scripture. Acts chapter 2, you recall what's going on in Acts chapter 2, the day of Pentecost was fully come, and the Holy Spirit came upon them, and the Bible tells us that they all began to speak in other languages, and the people, all the people that were gathered around there, it tells us in verse, starting in verse number 9 of chapter 2, Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and dwellers of Mesopotamia, and Judea, and Cappadocia, and Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, and Egypt. Parts of Libya are about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews, and proselytes, Greeks, and Arabians. We do hear them speak in our tongue, in our language, the wonderful works of God. They were all amazed and were in doubt saying one to another, what does this mean? How is it that we can all hear in our language? I can hear it in English and Rafi can hear it in Armenian and the Filipino folks can hear it in Tagalog. How is it possible that one man speaks one thing and everybody can hear it in their language? They were marveling about that. So there was a group of people that were amazed. There was another group of people that weren't so amazed. In fact, they were mocking the disciples. It tells us that in verse number 13, others mocking said, these men are full of new wine. That new wine is the word glucose. And so you ask yourself the question, wow, if new wine is non-alcoholic, Why would they accuse the disciples of being drunk on a non-alcoholic beverage? New wine must be alcoholic, otherwise they wouldn't have used that to describe the disciples because they thought they were drunk. Did they think they were drunk? Well, let's read on, let's find out. Peter standing up with the 11, lifted up his voice and said unto them, ye men of Judea and all ye that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known unto you and hearken to my words. These are not drunken as ye suppose. You see, they thought they were drunk. That was their explanation for the phenomena that they saw going on there. They thought they were drunk. Well, why then would they use the word glucose instead of the word oinos? Why wouldn't they say, these men are drunk on oinos, which makes a lot more sense? Why would they use the word that, in every case known, refers to a non-alcoholic beverage? I believe there's only one answer to that question that makes any sense at all. If you can think of another one, please share it with me. The only answer that makes sense is the disciples had a reputation and a testimony of not drinking alcohol. And when the people saw them and the people thought they were drunk, they said, oh, you guys have been drinking a little bit too much of that grape juice lately, eh? They were mocking them. That's what the word mock means. If they were just calling them drunk, they would have said, hey, you guys are drunk, you've been drinking too much wine. But the fact that they said they were mocking them, and they used the word glucose instead of the word oinos, indicates to me that there must have been a reason why they said it like that. And like I said, if you can come up with a better reason, I'd be happy to hear it. But to me, it only makes sense if they were known as people who didn't drink alcohol. Now, when people think they're drunk, they accuse them of being drunk on grape juice because they had a reputation of drinking only grape juice. And they were mocking them with those words. I think I've just flipped through the next several slides. I did. Too much of that grape juice. So there's two important conclusions we can draw. First of all, glucose does not refer to alcoholic wine, we already know that. And we can conclude that perhaps the apostles and followers of Jesus were known as abstainers from alcoholic wine. Now, is that foolproof? Is that bulletproof? Is that beyond a shadow of a doubt? No. I've already told you, you can never prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. But is it good evidence? Yeah, I think it's good evidence. Unless you can come up with another explanation for that verse, how they're mocking them by saying you're drunk on grape juice. You got another explanation for that, please share it with me after, not now. So that, again, continues to support my contention that the word oinos can be either or. The word glucose is always good, and the word secara is always bad. And in that sense, it's like the word shekar in the Old Testament. And so, again, I like the symmetry. I've got yayin and oinos, which both can be either or. I've got TROSH and GLUCOS, which are always good, and I've got SHAKAR and SECARA, which are always bad. Now, my always bad comment, I've got a database of one example in the New Testament, and so I accept that, all right? But I like the symmetry. And by the way, if SECARA can be either good or bad, it doesn't hurt my position a bit. OK? So you pick which one you like there and you won't hurt me or I won't feel bad about it. But the only place where it's used. is when it's referring to John the Baptist. And it says, of him, he shall be great in the sight of the Lord and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. And he should be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. So that seems to be a condemnation, if you will. I would claim that it's not a strong condemnation, but I don't wanna get into that as to why that's true. Because it turns out that it was a Nazarite vow that Sam, not Samson, John the Baptist was being asked, it was being asked of him, or it certainly had the attributes or characteristics of the Nazirite vow from the Old Testament. And in the Old Testament, the Nazirite vow required people to abstain not just from alcohol, but even from non-alcoholic grape products, including grapes themselves and raisins, which are clearly non-alcoholic. And so in that sense, I can claim that the word strong drink could be either or, and it doesn't offend my sensibilities again. However, it does not in any way undermine the idea that there's two wines in the Bible, and we have to discern from the context whether it's talking about alcoholic or non-alcoholic wine. Now there's a bunch of other words, like there was in Old Testament days, there was a bunch of other Hebrew words. There's the word oinopotes, which obviously has the word oinos at the front end of it, which means wine bibber. And then there's the word peroinos, which we're gonna spend some time talking about, hopefully this evening, if I don't ramble too long, which is translated given to wine. And then oinoflugea, which means excess of wine. And again, you can see the word oinos, those are really compound words all containing the word oinos. Other than that, there's no word in the New Testament that's translated either wine or strong drink. And so, thus far, by way of summary, there appears to be contradictory evidence in God's Word regarding the acceptability of alcohol consumption for Christians. Some passages seem to allow for it and even encourage it. Some passages seem to condemn it. And there are three ways, I put two of them, I listed two of them, I've been talking about two of them, of how we rationalize this discrepancy. Moderationists believe that moderate use is okay and only excessive use is condemned. Abstentionists believe that God never approves of alcohol consumption for his people. Versus approving it are referring to a non-alcoholic beverage versus condemning it are referring to alcoholic beverages and The so-called to wine theory as I put in quotes because it's not really a theory anymore as we've seen Has biblical and extra biblical linguistic and historical evidence to support it. That's the summary thus far now along the way of coming to that summary we've examined several passages of scripture and we may not have hit your favorite one yet but we may have hit at least one that you've thought about the passage in hosea 4 11 which, you know, for my purposes, I can take it either way as whether T. Ross refers to an alcoholic drink or non-alcoholic, but I think it refers clearly to a non-alcoholic drink. In Hosea 4.11, we talked about that. Deuteronomy 14.26, where the word shakar seems to be referring to something that God commends, and we spent some time talking about that, and I could probably spend a whole hour just on that one topic. In John chapter two, we looked at that passage. We looked at Proverbs chapter 31. I'm not sure how much time we spent with Proverbs 31. And so as I was going through my list, I thought, you know, I'm gonna take a peek at that with y'all today. So let's turn to that passage of scripture in Proverbs chapter 31. Proverbs 31. The words of King Lemuel, a prophecy that his mother taught him. Thank the Lord for godly mothers. I don't know where I would be without a godly mother. And I thank God for the godly mother of my children. And King Lemuel, whoever he is, and we think we know who he is, but I won't get into that debate right now, His mother taught him, and she's giving him some instruction, and she said, what my son, and what the son of my womb, and what the son of my vows, give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings. It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine, nor for princes strong drink. So she's telling her son, don't drink wine. Now, is this alcoholic or non-alcoholic? Well, I contend it's alcoholic. If you want to make it non-alcoholic, OK, then you can't have any Welch's grape juice. I can, and that may fall into the category of most people prefer to believe what they prefer to be true, you know? I prefer to believe that grape juice is okay. But in any case, certainly for kings, now, the rebuttal to that by the moderation is, but I'm not a king. I'm just an average, you know, Joe Bloke, you know? I'm not a king. Well, it turns out that we are kings, according to the New Testament. We're priests and kings. And so as befitting a king, in fact, if you look at why she says so, it is not for kings to drink wine nor for princes strong drink, lest they drink and forget the law and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted. Now, I don't think drinking grape juice causes me to pervert the law. And I don't think drinking grape juice causes me to pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted. And so that's why I feel comfortable in drinking my Welch's grape juice, and you should too, I think. But do you see what happens if we allow ourselves to drink alcohol? What happens? Well, we forget the law. Now notice, it doesn't tell us, she doesn't say, it's not for kings to drink wine to excess. Did you see that she didn't say that to him? She didn't say, it's okay to drink moderately, moderation is okay, son, but don't drink to excess. If you only drink moderately, that's okay because none of this stuff will happen. She doesn't say that. She says, don't drink it. Why? Because you'll forget the law. and pervert judgment of many of the afflicted. Now, I take that to mean it's gonna affect my ability to discern. It's gonna affect my ability to judge between right and wrong, between what am I supposed to be doing, reading the scriptures, try to interpret the scriptures properly and correctly. It's gonna affect me. When will it affect me? I don't know. But for Lemuel's mom, the line was zero. Zero wine, not one glass, not just one can of beer, none. And so I tend to think that that's a good path of the scripture. Now, what she does say following that is what causes problems, because up to that point, I think we're okay. In verse six, she says, give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink and forget his poverty and remember his misery no more. So, Mrs. Lemuel, or whatever her name might be, she seems to be saying that it's okay to give alcohol to some people. Wow. That doesn't strike me very well. I would rather it didn't say that. And so, it causes me to have to do a little tap dance to figure out how do I rationalize that with my understanding about alcohol consumption and whether anybody should be drinking alcohol. Well, there's two different, actually, perspectives here. One of them is those that are ready to perish and those that are of heavy hearts. And I can almost make the case that this is medicinal application, much like we would do for someone who is near death, and we give them medication to reduce their level of anxiety, so that they don't thrash about, they don't have a panic attack, they don't cause themselves to have a heart attack, just by virtue of being afraid and in panic. And that may be that she's referring to a medicinal use. But I tend to think of it a little differently, and I'm going to tell you a little story that happened to me when I was younger, and see if you don't think this maybe is why she said it. First of all, you need to know she's not giving instructions about when it's OK or not OK to drink alcohol. She's giving instructions to her son. She's not giving instructions to people that are dying. She's not giving instructions to people that are with heavy hearts. She's giving instructions to her son. Years ago, I worked at A&P. Maybe I told this story. It's starting to sound like my words are being repeated here. If I told it before, just nod and smile at me, and I'll continue with it anyway, all right? And repetition is the best form of learning anyway. When I was in high school, I worked at A&P, the great Atlantic and Pacific tea company, which was a grocery store chain back in Michigan. And one day, I was working the beverage aisle, and that means I had to stock all the sodas and whatnot that's in the beverage aisle. And I had a man come up to me as I was stocking in the beverage aisle, and he looks at me and he says, where's your cheapest beer? And I said, well, you know, we've got a six-pack of this down here is 89 cents, you know, or whatever it was. And he said, OK, thanks. And he picks up a couple of six-packs of that, puts it in his cart, and he motors away. And I'm, you know, continuing to stalk the beverage aisle. And then, I don't know, not even five minutes later, just a couple minutes later, he comes back to me, and he says, I'm just using it to kill the slugs in my garden. He was so embarrassed that I would think he's some cheap drunk buying the cheapest beer. He had to come and explain it to a strange kid, a young kid working in the grocery store, that he's not really a cheap drunk lush. He's going to use it to kill the slugs in his garden. That's a great usage, by the way, for beer, I think. There's probably better slug-killing devices. Can you see Lemuel's mom saying it's not for kings to drink wine? Use it to kill slugs in the garden if you must. Do you know what I'm saying? She's not instructing about bug killing or slug killing. She's telling him that he has a special position as king and so do we. And we ought not to partake of alcoholic beverage because we are priests and kings. And her instruction to her son, the king, is just exactly that. So I don't recall if I went over that, but I put it on this list and so I said, I'll take tonight and I'll go over it. Now, I'll remind you that the consumption of alcohol is a discretionary activity. You don't have to do it. If you find out that wearing white socks is sinful, or you're unsure if it's sinful or not, It's just Krishna, you don't ever have to wear white socks again. Unless it's part of a uniform or something. Then maybe you might have to, I don't know. But certainly drinking alcohol, you don't have to. Now, I'm running out of time for tonight, and I'm hoping that the next time we meet, I'll be able to finish up. I have several passages of scripture I want to go over with you. I have a little wine for thy stomach's sake. not given to wine, not given to much wine, the difference between pastors and deacons. And a couple of other ones, Lord's Supper, you know, Jesus made alcohol or served alcohol at the Lord's Supper. And I'm going to go over each one of those next week. So please do not miss next week. I'm hoping that I'll be able to wrap up next week so we don't make this a 40-week series. Because I know people can get tired of it soon. But I'm hoping that it's helpful to you. And by the way, could I remind us all, myself included, because it's all too easy for me to fall into that habit or pattern where my sinful flesh overtakes me and I start laughing at people who believe differently than I do, They'd be mocking them like they mocked the disciples at the day of Pentecost. And I don't want to do that. I want my attitude and my spirit to be Christ-like as I present the information and as I study. And so ought you. You ought to examine your own heart to make sure that you, if you ever do interact with anybody on this topic, that you do it with the proper heart and the right spirit. And I think God would be pleased and blessed to have us do that rather than be obnoxious. Even though we have the right position, sometimes we can be obnoxious. And I'm not sure that God is pleased with that. He would like us to have the right position and be not obnoxious. You know what I mean? So let's try to make that a focus of our hearts. And then secondly, another takeaway that I'd like for you to consider before the pastor comes to lead us in the invitation, I'd like you to consider that when you come to God's word, that you come not having already formed an opinion, but that you come letting God's word inform you. One of the things I've discovered is that our population today, especially in this country, is filled with people who let the media form opinions for them. And if you ask people what you think about this or what you think about that, they will spew the same comments that the media would say because the media said it. They won't know why they believe it, but they heard it on the media, and they repeat it, and they embrace it as their own. Don't do that. This is where truth is. and to the law and to the testimony. And if it isn't in accordance with this word, run from it. Let's always make sure that when we come to God's word, we're not coming with a preconceived notion, but we're letting God's word teach us and instruct us, not the other way around. Pastor, could you come and close us in invitation time?