A biblical theology of drinking

Seventh-day Adventists have not felt compelled to develop a theology of wine until recently, when surveys of their young people revealed an increasing percentage of them to be drinking alcoholic beverages, especially wine. For these youth the traditional stance of total abstinence is obviously no longer a compelling deterrent. What is the scriptural position?

A surface reading of the biblical texts might seem to suggest that wine drinking in moderation is not condemned. However, such "proof-text" approach is not an acceptable way of determining Bible truths. Our young people demand clear biblical statements on issues affecting their lives. If we are a people of the Word, then we need to demonstrate the biblical command not only in doctrine but also in lifestyle issues. With that in mind I have attempted an honest look at wine consumption in the Bible and how it is perceived by inspired biblical writers. This article will examine only those texts that speak to the moral issues surrounding the use of wine and/ or drunkenness.

Wine in the Old Testament

The Old Testament primarily uses two words for wine: yayin (more than 140 times) and tirosh (38). Where tirosh is used, no moral issues are involved. Indeed, tirosh is most often understood to be "new wine," and The New King James Version translates it as such 37 times. Therefore this study will be limited to major texts that use yayin. Yayin occurs throughout the Old Testament. Standard scholarly works define yayin as the fermented juice of the grape, indicating such to be the usage in Scriptures. ¹ Although attempts are made to demonstrate that yayin can refer to fermented as well as unfermented grape juice, there simply is no proof for this.² Some point to Isaiah 16:10 as using yayin to speak of unfermented grape juice. The text reads, "No treaders will tread out wine in their presses." ³ Wine fresh from the presses cannot be femented, and therefore the text must refer to unfermented grape juice. However, such interpretation has some problems.

First, this reference is found in the middle of a prophecy concerning Moab, a prophecy full of symbolic language. To force a literal reading of yayin would, therefore, be a violation of sound biblical hermeneutics. Second, even if the text were to be interpreted literally, it does not necessarily imply fresh wine. Both fermented and unfermented grape juice can be said to come from winepresses. Third, the weight of evidence points to yayin as fermented grape juice. Why would the biblical writers use yayin for unfermented grape juice when they had asis (juice of grapes, not yet fermented) and mishrah (a drink made from macerated grapes). Indeed, Numbers 6:3, listing the products of the grape forbidden to the Nazarites, uses both yayin and mishrah.

Whether yayin indicates both fermented and unfermented grape juice is a modern question. Biblical writers seemed to have no interest in defining words like yayin. When they used yayin, it can be assumed that their readers understood them to mean fermented grape juice. If they wanted to make a point that the grape juice used in connection with cultic services, covenants, vows, or religious celebrations was not fermented, they could have done so.

Pentateuch

The first biblical mention of wine is found after the Flood (Gen. 9:21, 24). However, the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:37, 38 indicate that wine was known to the antediluvians.⁴ "But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage." While it cannot be shown that "drinking" here is associated with wine or other intoxicating beverages, it seems odd that the Lord would condemn the mere act of eating and drinking any more than He would condemn the act of marriage. What Jesus is describing is an attitude of a people who, despite the seriousness of the times and repeated warnings of God's impending judgment, continued to live heedless of those warnings.

Back to Genesis 9. Noah was lying naked while drunk, and Ham saw his nakedness. Shem and Japheth went in backward and covered their father. The incident led to the cursing of Ham. It shows that at least to Noah, Shem, and Japheth, a son seeing his father's nakedness was considered a sin. The laws on sexual sins in Leviticus ("The nakedness of your father... you shall not uncover" [Lev. 18:7]) are a later reflection of this understanding. God's wrath is visited upon the Canaanites for participating in these sins. "Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you.. .. Therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants" (verses 24, 25).

Genesis does not speak of Noah awaking from his sleep, but awaking "from his wine." The language is significant: whether Ham's sin was intentional or not, this experience would not have happened if Noah had not become drunk. Thus the abuse of wine does play a role in this story. A larger story, however, is being told here. Ham's descendants, the Canaanites, were a condemned people (Lev. 18:25, 28) because of their own immorality and the immorality of their forefather. The story provides the Israelites with an explanation of why they had the right to drive the Canaanites out of Canaan ("I am casting out [these nations] before you. For the land is de filed" [Lev. 18:24, 25]). The Israelites knew that the actions of Noah and Ham on that evening changed their history.

A story that also changed the history of Israel is found in Genesis 19. Lot and his daughters, following the destruction of their native cities, found themselves in a cave. The two daughters convinced themselves that the only way that their father's lineage could be continued was for them to have sex with him. They knew that their father would never con cede to this, and the only way to accomplish this was to get him drunk. Why Lot agreed to drink to the point of stupor for two consecutive nights is not known, but we have here an intentional misuse of wine for evil purposes. Wine (or strong drink) was a necessary ingredient in the evil.

Both daughters bore sons who were the progenitors of the Moabites and Ammonites, bitter enemies of Israel. Sorrow, trouble, and grief caused by the actions of Lot's daughters seemed to be the main purpose of telling this story. There is no mention in the text of anyone being condemned. However, the daughters knew that incest was considered a sin, at least by their father. A later reflection of this understanding is seen in the laws given to Israel (cf. Lev. 18). Lot's daughters must have also known that drunkenness lowers a person's resistance to behaviors in which one would not normally engage, and that extreme drunkenness carries an inability to be aware of one's actions or the actions of those around. Thus, these two stories, although not primarily concerned with the drinking of wine, carry an implicit condemnation of drunkenness.

This condemnation is explicit in Deuteronomy 21:18-21, which speaks of punishment of sons who are stubborn and rebellious. A son so accused was to be taken before the elders of the city by his parents who would say, '"This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones" (verses 20, 21). While stubbornness and rebelliousness describe attitudes, glut tony and drunkenness describe behavior arising out of these attitudes. Both attitude and behavior stood condemned as grievous sins.

Thus to the writer of the Pentateuch, drunkenness is to be avoided not only because of the consequences it might bring, but also because it simply is sinful.

Historical section

Consider the Hannah-Eli episode. Hannah's grief over her barrenness led her to the Temple to pray. "Hannah spoke in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard. Therefore Eli thought she was drunk. So Eli said to her, 'How long will you be drunk? Put your wine away from you!'" (1 Sam. 1:13, 14). Eli, the priest, was disgusted and dismayed by what he perceived as Hannah's drunkenness and rebuked her. It can be assumed, then, that drunkenness in Israel was an offense, and some thing that the priest considered sinful. And Hannah, too, understood this to be the case; she said, "Do not consider your maidservant a wicked woman" (verse 16), or a daughter of Belial (Hebrew for worthless, reckless, lawless). In the Scriptures "Belial" is associated with idolatry (Deut. 13:13), homosexuality (Judges 19:22, 10:13; cf. Gen. 19:5), sacrilege (1 Sam. 2:12-17), drunkenness (1 Sam. 25:17, 36), and ultimate destruction (2 Sam. 23:6). Therefore, by protesting that she was not a "daughter of Belial," Hannah was telling Eli that the sins associated with the worship of Belial, which included drunkenness, were undescriptive of her. She under stood that God abhors drunkenness.

Second Samuel 11 provides another message on drunkenness. Desperately trying to hide his sin, David called Uriah from the battlefield and sent him home to his wife. Uriah wouldn't go. A frustrated David made Uriah drunk and hoped that Uriah's desire for his wife would be stronger than his principles. This also did not work. David arranged for Uriah's death in battle.

The story is not about the evils of wine, but about how far sin and deception can take a person. However, the story does carry a message on drunkenness, similar to the one in the case of Lot's daughters. A person's resistance to sinful or abhorrent behavior while sober becomes less so in a drunken state. It's hard dealing with sin while sober; to try to deal with temptation while drunk makes it all the more problematic.

The story of Absalom's plans to kill his brother Amnon (2 Sam. 13) for raping their sister Tamar also deals with wine. Absalom invited Amnon and others for a celebration. Absalom commanded his servants to kill Amnon when his heart was "merry with wine" (verse 28). This they did. It is not clear from the text if Amnon simply had his guard down and did not expect the attack, or if he was drunk and could not resist the attack. Whichever it may be, wine drinking was perceived as necessary to accomplish the evil. As with the experience of Lot's daughters, and with David and Uriah, wine was an integral part of the plan to commit evil.

Now, if our hermeneutic tells us that biblical stories, teachings, and prophecies have local immediate applications, then the Israelites reading or listening to these stories could not escape the mes sage that drunkenness can lead to behaviors that are condemned by God.

Proverbs

We shall consider four references from Proverbs.

1. Proverbs 20:1: "Wine is a mocker, intoxicating drink arouses brawling, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise." The text does not indicate how wine becomes a mocker. But we know that when a person is mocked, he or she is belittled and scorned; is given no respect or value; and is even pitiful (in a pejorative sense) in the eyes of the mocker. The mocker treats the mocked with impunity, as someone less than human. Wine does this to those created in God's image and diminishes human personhood. Further, wine arouses brawling and leads one to irresponsible and violent ways.

Whether the text is speaking of simple wine drinking or the abuse of wine is not clear. The language, however, seems to suggest condemnation of drunkenness.

2. Proverbs 21:17: "He who loves pleasure will be a poor man; he who loves wine and oil will not be rich." This text is an example of Hebrew parallel ism, in which the second line repeats the thought of the .first line. The issue concerns a lifestyle or a life attitude that places pleasure or sumptuous living be fore all other considerations. When the love of pleasure (literally mirth) interferes with responsible living, it leads to poverty. The wine and oil are symbols of "things" that are valued above all else. The same thought is expressed more graphically in Proverbs 23:21: "The drunkard [wine] and the glutton [oil?] will come to poverty."

3. Proverbs 23:29-34 speaks of a person who has either gotten drunk or is an alcoholic. That person has woe, sorrow, contentions, complaints, wounds, and redness of eyes. That person sees strange things, utters perverse things, and generally acts the fool that "linger[s] long [achar = to stay beyond a due time] at the wine" and "go[es] in search of mixed wine." Clearly such behavior is not for a Christian, for it is demeaning to God. The passage condemns drunkenness, with verse 31 explicitly forbidding drinking: "do not look on the wine when it is red."

4. Proverbs 31:4,5 admonishes kings and princes not to drink wine or intoxicating drink, for they are charged with providing judgment and leadership to God's people. The text warns that drinking lessens the ability to act in accordance with the law. The "law" here is chaqaq, meaning "decrees." Even though what these decrees are is not clearly set forth, the context suggests laws that protect the poor in Israel: the kings and princes (the dispensers of justice) who drink might possibly "pervert the justice of all the afflicted." The Hebrew word translated "afflicted" is ben oni. A cognate word, ana, means poor, helpless, humble, or lowly. The text, then, is a warning: drinking be clouds the perception of what is right and fair in judicatorial matters touching the poor.

Thus in Proverbs we have the first texts that possibly condemn wine drinking, and not just drunkenness. If this is true, here is evidence of a progression in Israel's attitude concerning wine. This progression continues in the prophetic section of the Old Testament. There the warnings are against drinking, not just becoming drunk. What caused this progression of thought? Did the Israelites come to the conclusion that it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to control the use of wine, and, therefore, it was better to avoid it altogether? Or did God, perceiving this weakness, cause the writer of Proverbs to pen these statements?

The Prophets

We shall approach the prophetic books in a chronological order. We be gin with Amos, a book of judgment. Chapter 1 speaks of judgment that will fall on Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, and Ammon. Chapter 2 begins with judgment on Moab, and then devotes most of what follows to judgment on Israel. Each section describes both the judgments and the specific sins that caused them.

Before spelling out the judgment on Israel, God recounts His goodness to them: "It was I who destroyed the Amorite before them. . . . Also it was I who brought you up from the land of Egypt, and led you forty years through the wilderness, to possess the land of the Amorite. I raised up some of your sons as prophets, and some of your young men as Nazirites. . . . But you gave the Nazirites wine to drink, and commanded the prophets saying, 'Do not prophesy!'" (Amos 2:9-11)

Here we have the story of a people who, even though led and protected by God in the past, are now telling Him by their actions (giving wine to the Nazirites) and words (telling the prophets not to prophesy) that they will thwart His attempts to lead them. God gave them Nazirites. Why is not stated, but two previous and one subsequent Nazirite--Samuel, Samson, John the Baptist--were sent by God to lead His people in some way. Each Nazirite was "holy to the Lord" all the days of his "separation," and was required to take specific vows (see Num. 6). One vow was to abstain from all grape products, including wine. Why God issued this prohibition is not told, but suffice it to say that God had a purpose and that both God and the Nazirite considered the vow to be sacred. The Israelites of Amos' day knew all of this, and they knew that the Nazirites were people especially devoted to Jehovah. In giving wine to the Nazirites, Israel was mocking not only God but also the Nazirites and their vows. In effect Israel was saying to God, "We don't care about You or Your people, and if You continue to raise up these people we will defile them, showing our utter contempt for You and them."

Here wine drinking was not used to commit an evil deed, but the drinking itself was perceived as evil, for it was being forced on the Nazirites in direct violation of their vow to God. However, forcing the Nazirite to drink was only one among various ways by which Israel displayed its contempt for God and His people. They also did this by "selling] the righteous for silver," by "pervert[ing] the way of the humble," by "a man and his father gofing] in to the same girl," and by "command[ing] the prophets saying "Do not prophesy" (Amos 2:6, 7, 12). Is there a cause and effect relation ship here? Earlier we saw that wine drinking coupled with gluttony, both literally (Deut. 21) and figuratively (Isa. 22), led to sexual perversions (Gen. 9, 19; Isa. 28), and an unresponsiveness to God's word and His calls for repentance. Does drinking lead to these other sins or is it a symptom of a deeper attitudinal problem (cf. comments on Hab. 2)?

We come now to Isaiah's time. Israel's lack of sensibility to the Lord's workings in their midst was accompanied by a lusting after wine. The result was disastrous: "Therefore my people have gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge. . . . [The] people shall be brought down, each man shall be humbled" (Isa. 5:13, 15).

By the time we come to Isaiah 22 the situation had worsened. We see a people who neither turned to God for their defense nor listened to His call for repentance: "And in that day the Lord God of hosts called for weeping and for mourning, for baldness and for girding with sackcloth. But instead, [there was] joy and gladness, slaying oxen and killing sheep, eating meat and drinking wine: 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!'" (Isa. 22:12, 13).

The people had abandoned all hopes of escape from the armies of Sennacherib. Yet they refused to go into mourning, even though God wanted them to do so. Instead, there was eating and drinking. Note again: the text is dealing not with drinking wine but with Israel's disregard of God's word and the seriousness of the times. "Drinking wine" and "eating meat" are symbolic of a scorn toward the Lord's call for weeping and mourning (and fasting?) for sins.

The most virulent attack against wine drinking (and intoxicating drink) in Isaiah is found in chapter 28, verse 7: "But they also have erred through wine, and through intoxicating drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through 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."

Not just the people of Israel, but their spiritual leaders also have come under the sway of drinking. God communicated His truths, His will, His grace and forgiveness to His people through the priests and prophets. Neither the prophets ("they err in vision") nor the priests ("they stumble in judgment") were able to perform their ministries properly be cause of drinking. The implication is clear: wine and intoxicating drink be cloud the mind to the point where it is difficult or impossible to hear God's voice (cf. Lev. 10:9, 10).

Isaiah 28 is a broadside against those who abuse wine. But that's not all: there is evidence that drinking in any amount is condemned, for wine is mentioned in conjunction with "intoxicating drink" (shekar - beer). As William Shea points out, yayin may not be universally condemned in the Old Testament, but shekar certainly is.⁵ One reason that shekar as beer is universally condemned but yayin is not is that one is the direct product of an intent to produce an alcoholic beverage, while the other is not. As made from grain, shekar can only arise if one deliberately sets out to make beer. But grape juice can naturally ferment whether one wants it to or not.

Wine in the New Testament

The Greek term for wine is oinos. Whether it stands for fermented or unfermented grape juice is again a modern question. Standard New Testament lexicons and dictionaries take for granted that oinos means fermented grape juice.⁶ In most cases the context demands this translation. Another Greek word, gleukos, meaning new wine, sweet wine, or grape juice, appears only once in the New Testament (Acts 2:13), where the apostles are accused of being drunk. We must assume, then, that, at least for Luke, gleukos was a drink that caused drunkenness.

All the New Testament texts, except one, that use oinos or speak of drunkenness in a pejorative sense do so in the form of teachings. Three are from Jesus and the rest are from Paul. We will begin with the teachings of Jesus.

Gospels

In Matthew 24 Jesus speaks of the need to be ready for His second coming (see verse 44). The "faithful and wise servant" (verse 45) will be found per forming the duties assigned by the master. This servant is called "blessed" (verse 46). The "evil servant" is impatient and restless at what he thinks is his master's delay and "begins to beat his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunkards" (verses 48,49). That servant will be "cut in two" (verse 51), and his portion will be with the hypocrites.

This theme of two types of people that will be found when the Lord returns is repeated five times in the immediate context (24:40, 41; 45-51; 25:1-13; 14- 30; 32-46). One group will be ready for the Lord's return. The other group will not be ready.

The unready servant is described as being violent to his fellows and as eating and drinking with the drunkards. Yet violence and eating and drinking with drunkards are not the cause, but a sign, of his unreadiness. While condemning the irresponsible behavior of the evil servant, Jesus states that his greater sin is hypocrisy (Matt. 24:51). Such a teaching is also found in the parables of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1 -13), the talents (verses 14-30), and the sheep and the goats (verses 31-46). Therefore, the drunkenness mentioned in Matthew 24:49-51 seems to describe a people who profess to be part of God's people, but live a life contrary to His will.

What is interesting is that Jesus chose drunkenness to illustrate His message--just like the Old Testament prophets. Thus in this passage there is at least a tacit condemnation of drunkenness.

Our next text is perhaps the most difficult in the Gospels touching this issue. In Luke, Jesus defends John the Baptist: "John . . . came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Look, a glutton and winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'" (Luke 7:33, 34).

First, there is no evidence that Jesus ever drank fermented grape juice. The only accusation that He did comes from His enemies. When exegeting an ancient document, to take at face value an accusation about someone from that person's avowed enemies is gullibility at best and poor scholarship at worst.

Second, Jesus' words must be under stood in their context. Jesus argues that John did not seek for his ministry the approval of the religious leaders in Jerusalem, and they, therefore, dismissed him and his message. John's insistence on preaching in the wilderness, the harshness of his message (cf. Matt. 3:7-12), and his somewhat unorthodox eating habits and dress caused them to conclude that he must be possessed. Jesus had already declared an affinity to John (cf. Matt. 21:23-27) that made Him suspect to the religious leaders. He too refused to seek for His ministry the sanction of the religious leaders. He associated with fishermen, prostitutes, tax collectors, and other "profligates." Hence guilt by association: Jesus, "a friend of tax collectors and sinners," must be sharing their lifestyle of glut tony and drunkenness.

Jesus' response to such charges can not be taken to mean a condoning of drinking.

The writings of Paul

The apostle Paul mentions wine and/ or drunkenness 10 times in his Epistles, all of which are didactic. Seven passages condemn drunkenness not only because it is wrong (Rom. 13:13; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:18) but also because of the impact it has on relationship with God (Rom. 14:21; 1 Cor. 5:11; 6:10; 11:21). The other three passages are somewhat problematic and need to be looked at more carefully.

Paul counsels Timothy that deacons are not to be "addicted" to much wine (1 Tim. 3:8). He writes to Titus that the older women are not to be "enslaved" to much wine (Titus 2:3). By themselves these texts may suggest that drinking wine is acceptable within limits. When these texts are compared with Paul's advice to Timothy to use a little wine for his frequent infirmities (1 Tim. 5:23), one is left with the impression that wine drinking is acceptable as long as it does not lead to addiction. It must be remembered that in the other seven passages in which Paul talks about oinos it is drunkenness that is condemned, not wine drinking per se. Consistency demands that we cannot make oinos fermented in one passage and unfermented in another just to fit our preconceived notions. Oinos is oinos.

How, then, should we understand Paul's counsel to Timothy and Titus? Other passages come to our help. Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 6:19: "Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are riot your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body" (cf. 1 Cor. 3:16, 17). What is it about wine drinking that glorifies God? The power of this text is that it shifts the burden of proof onto wine drinkers!

Consider further the metaphor of the temple. Nothing unclean or common was allowed to come into the Temple. Only that which was clean and sanctified was permitted in the Temple, be it sacrifice or priest. If that understanding is applied to these Corinthian passages, the conclusion is inescapable: God expects us to care for our bodies. Drinking can hardly do that!

Does drinking wine in moderation defile our bodies? The scientific data (which is too numerous to cite) confirms that it does. The most important consideration for Christians is that the drinking of alcoholic beverages, even in moderation, disrupts our ability to think clearly. Now, since it is only through our minds that we can know the will of God in our lives, then it behooves us to abstain from anything that would becloud those lines of communication.

This conclusion, however, is in apparent conflict with Paul, for Paul is telling Timothy to take a little wine. Is Paul approving the defilement of the temple of God? How do we solve this dilemma?

For an answer we must go back to Paul's time. In the first century when modern scientific medicine was nonexistent, the ancients must have through experience understood wine to have some healing powers that other remedies did not have. Such use of wine was accept able to Paul. Some will dismiss this answer as being too simplistic. Others will think that the answer is ignoring or twisting the evidence. However, as a Bible student and as a person who believes that the Bible does not contradict itself, this for me is the only satisfactory solution.

Conclusion

Out of our consideration of the biblical texts, we may draw some tentative conclusions.

First, wine drinking is not a major issue in the Scriptures. Although wine appears throughout the Old Testament, only a few passages say anything about its use. In the majority of cases wine is simply a part of the scenery of the Old Testament, often mentioned along with "oil" and "bread." Wine is often used in a symbolic sense.

Second, one of the major themes of Scripture is God's repeated attempts to win back His people from sin, rebellion, and death. Given this, and in light of the stories recounted here, it is apparent that wine drinking, and especially drunkenness, is not only not helpful but absolutely harmful to that endeavor of God. Those who argue that the Bible does not condemn the use of wine will look in vain for any teaching, story, or text that extols the virtues of wine. Granted, there are passages that speak, both literally and symbolically, of God's people using wine in celebrations over their enemies (Eccl. 9:7; Isa. 55:1; Joel 2:19,24; Amos 9:14; Zech. 9:17; 10:7) and in religious celebrations (Gen. 14:18; Deut. 12:17; 14:23, 26; 1 Chron. 12:40; Prov. 3:10; Isa. 55:1; 65:8; Jer. 31:12). Perhaps such celebration use of wine had some corporately understood cultural (and religious?) symbolism among the Israelites that we are not aware of. But to use these texts as proof that the Bible does not condemn the use of wine is unwarranted. One needs only to review the scriptural record of grief, trouble, and woe that the use of wine brought to individuals and families. Further, the Bible mentions wine both symbolically and literally more frequently in the context of judgment than in the context of celebrations. Now, to argue from numbers is weak, inconclusive, and unscholarly. However, those who point to texts that speak of wine in celebrations must also take cognizance of texts that place wine in a judgment context.

Third, a question of intent. This article is not intended as a weapon against any person in the church struggling with the use or abuse of alcohol. This is not my intent! Some would perhaps want these conclusions to be stronger in condemning the use of wine and alcoholic beverages. I can only say that I cannot make the texts say some thing simply because that is what I want them to say.

However, I hope this article says something not only about us, but about God as well. If we believe God is the Creator of all things, including our bodies, then it follows that He knows what is best for both our bodies and our minds. Science has made us aware that alcohol causes changes in the central nervous system affecting both the mind and the body. God already knew that. And in an age when we need to be especially clear in our thinking, particularly in religious issues, should we not avoid anything that would interfere with thinking?

Finally, an even more practical application. Our primary purpose on earth is to praise and glorify God and to allow ourselves to be His ministers of reconciliation. That ministry reaches out to those both inside and outside the kingdom of God. It seems that the best way of engaging in that ministry is to do it free of alcohol or other drugs, giving heed to the counsel of the Apostle Peter: "Gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance; but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct" (1 Peter 1:13-15).