Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times – Robert H. Stein

The following article was written by Robert H. Stein to describe the use of wine in the first century. The source of the article is noted at the end of this post.

-------

As evangelicals we maintain that the Bible is for us the only infallible rule of faith and practice. It is our final authority in all matters of doctrine (faith) and ethics (practice). Yet the Bible was not written to evangelicals living in the twentieth century. The science—or better, the art—of interpreting the biblical text so that the revelation of God written centuries ago is meaningful and correctly understood today is called “hermeneutics.” The basic principle of hermeneutics, to be somewhat simplistic, is that the question “What does it mean for us today?” must be preceded by the question “What did it mean for them yesterday?” If we do not seek first to understand what the text meant when it was written, it will be very difficult to interpret intelligently what it means and demands of us today. 

My subject here is the use of the term “wine” in the New Testament. Some readers may already be thinking, “Is he going to try to tell us that wine in the Bible means grape juice? Is he going to try to say that the wine mentioned in the New Testament is any different from the wine bottled today by Christian Brothers or Château Lafite-Rothschild or Mogen David?” Well, my answers are no and yes. No, the wine of the Bible was not unfermented grape juice. Yes, it was different from the wine of today. 

In ancient times wine was usually stored in large pointed jugs called amphorae. When wine was to be used it was poured from the amphorae into large bowls called kraters, where it was mixed with water. Last year 1 had the privilege of visiting the great archaeological museum in Athens, Greece, where I saw dozens of these large kraters. At the time it did not dawn on me what their use signified about the drinking of wine in biblical times. From these kraters, cups or kylix were then filled. What is important for us to note is that before wine was drunk it was mixed with water. The kylix were filled not from the amphorae but from the kraters. 

The ratio of water to wine varied. Homer (Odyssey IX, 208f.) mentions a ratio of 20 to 1, twenty parts water to one part wine. Pliny (Natural History XIV, vi, 54) mentions a ratio of eight parts water to one part wine. In one ancient work, Athenaeus’s The Learned Banquet, written around A.D. 200, we find in Book Ten a collection of statements from earlier writers about drinking practices. A quotation from a play by Aristophanes reads: “‘Here, drink this also, mingled three and two.’ Demus. ‘Zeus! But it’s sweet and bears the three parts well!’” The poet Euenos, who lived in the fifth century B.C., is also quoted: 

The best measure of wine is neither much nor very little;

For ‘tis the cause of either grief or madness.

It pleases the wine to be the fourth, mixed with three nymphs.

Here the ratio of water to wine is 3 to 1. Others mentioned are: 

3 to 1—Hesiod

4 to 1—Alexis

2 to 1—Diodes

3 to 1—Ion

5 to 2—Nichochares

2 to 1—Anacreon 

Sometimes the ratio goes down to 1 to 1 (and even lower), but it should be noted that such a mixture is referred to as “strong wine.” Drinking wine unmixed, on the other hand, was looked upon as a “Scythian” or barbarian custom. Athenaeus in this work quotes Mnesitheus of Athens: 

The gods have revealed wine to mortals, to be the greatest blessing for those who use it aright, but for those who use it without measure, the reverse. For it gives food to them that take it and strength in mind and body. In medicine it is most beneficial; it can be mixed with liquid and drugs and it brings aid to the wounded. In daily intercourse, to those who mix and drink it moderately, it gives good cheer; but if you overstep the bounds, it brings violence. Mix it half and half, and you get madness; unmixed, bodily collapse. 

It is evident that wine was seen in ancient times as a medicine (and as a solvent for medicines) and of course as a beverage. Yet as a beverage it was always thought of as a mixed drink. Plutarch (Symposiacs III, ix), for instance, states. “We call a mixture ‘wine,’ although the larger of the component parts is water.” The ratio of water might vary, but only barbarians drank it unmixed, and a mixture of wine and water of equal parts was seen as “strong drink” and frowned upon. The term “wine” or oinos in the ancient world, then, did not mean wine as we understand it today but wine mixed with water. Usually a writer simply referred to the mixture of water and wine as “wine.” To indicate that the beverage was not a mixture of water and wine he would say “unmixed (akratesteron) wine.” 

One might wonder whether the custom of mixing wine with water was limited to the ancient Greeks. The burden of proof would be upon anyone who argued that the pattern of drinking wine in Jewish society was substantially different from that of the examples already ‘given. And we do have examples in both Jewish and Christian literature and perhaps in the Bible that wine was likewise understood as being a mixture of wine and water. In several instances in the Old Testament a distinction is made between “wine” and “strong drink.” In Leviticus 10:8, 9, we read, “And the LORD spoke to Aaron, saying, ‘Drink no wine nor strong drink, you nor your sons with you, when you go into the tent of meeting. . . .‘“ Concerning the Nazarite vow Numbers 6:3 states that the Nazarite “shall separate himself from wine and strong drink.” This distinction is found also in Deuteronomy 14:26; 29:6; Judges 13:4, 7, 14; First Samuel 1:15: Proverbs 20:1; 31:4,6: Isaiah 5:11, 22; 28:7; 29:9; 56:12; and Micah 2:11. 

The 1901 Jewish Encyclopedia (Vol. 12, p. 533) states that in the rabbinic period at least “‘yayin’ [or wine] ‘is to be distinguished from ‘shekar’ [or strong drink]: the former is diluted with water (mazug’); the latter is undiluted (‘yayin hal’).” ln the Talmud, which contains the oral traditions of Judaism from about 200 B.C. to A.D. 200, there are several tractates in which the mixture of water and wine is discussed. One tractate (Shabbath 77a) states that wine that does not carry three parts of water well is not wine. The normal mixture is said to consist of two parts water to one part wine. In a most important reference (Pesahim 108b) it is stated that the four cups every Jew was to drink during the Passover ritual were to be mixed in a ratio of three parts water to one part wine. From this we can conclude with a fair degree of certainty that the fruit of the vine used at the institution of the Lord’s Supper was a mixture of three parts water to one part wine. In another Jewish reference from around 60 B.C. we read, “It is harmful to drink wine alone, or again, to drink water alone, while wine mixed with water is sweet and delicious and enhances one’s enjoyment” (II Maccabees 15:39). 

In ancient times there were not many beverages that were safe to drink. The danger of drinking water alone raises another point. There were several ways in which the ancients could make water safe to drink. One method was boiling, but this was tedious and costly. Different methods of filtration were tried. The safest and easiest method of making the water safe to drink, however, was to mix it with wine. The drinking of wine (i.e., a mixture of water and wine) served therefore as a safety measure, since often the water available was not safe. (I remember drinking some water in Salonica, Greece, that would have been much better for me had it been mixed with wine or some other purifying agent.) 

When we come to the New Testament the content of the wine is never discussed. The burden of proof, however, is surely upon anyone who would say that the “wine” of the New Testament is substantially different from the wine mentioned by the Greeks, the Jews during the intertestamental period, and the early church fathers. In the writings of the early church fathers it is clear that “wine” means wine mixed with water. Justin Martyr around A.D. 150 described the Lord’s Supper in this way: “Bread is brought, and wine and water, and the president sends up prayers and thanksgiving” (Apology 1, 67, 5). Some sixty-five years later Hippolytus instructed the bishops that they shall “eucharistize [bless] first the bread into the representation of the Flesh of Christ; and the cup mixed with wine for the antitype of the Blood which was shed for all who have believed in Him” (Apostolic Tradition XXIII, 1). Cyprian around A.D. 250 stated in his refutation of certain heretical practices: 

Nothing must be done by us but what the Lord first did on our behalf, as that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be offered mingled with wine. . . . 

Thus, therefore, in considering the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered. For if anyone offer wine only, the blood of Christ is dissociated from us: but if the water be alone, the people are dissociated from Christ. . . . Thus the cup of the Lord is not indeed water alone, nor wine alone, unless each be mingled with the other [Epistle LXII, 2, 11 and 13]. 

Unmixed wine and plain water at the Lord’s Supper were both found unacceptable. A mixture of wine and water was the norm. Earlier in the latter part of the second century Clement of Alexandria stated: 

It is best for the wine to be mixed with as much water as possible. . . . For both are works of God, and the mixing of the two, both of water and wine produces health, because life is composed of a necessary element and a useful element. To the necessary element, the water, which is in the greatest quantity, there is to be mixed in some of the useful element [Instructor II, ii, 23.3—24.1].

To consume the amount of alcohol that is in two martinis by drinking wine containing three parts water to one part wine, one would have to drink over twenty-two glasses. In other words, it is possible to become intoxicated from wine mixed with three parts of water, but one’s drinking would probably affect the bladder long before it affected the mind. 

In concluding this brief article I would like to emphasize two points. First, it is important to try to understand the biblical text in the context in which it was written. Before we ask “What does the biblical text mean for us today?” we must ask “What did it mean to them originally?” Second, there is a striking difference between the drinking of alcoholic beverages today and the drinking of wine in New Testament times. If the drinking of unmixed wine or even wine mixed in a ratio of one to one with water was frowned upon in ancient times, certainly the drinking of distilled spirits in which the alcoholic content is frequently three to ten times greater would be frowned upon a great deal more.  

Robert H. Stein is associate professor of New Testament at Bethel College, St. Paul, Minnesota. He has the B.D. from Fuller Seminary, S.T.M. from Andover Newton Theological School, and Ph.D. from Princeton Seminary.

-------

Source:

http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/bible/Doctrines/Holiness/Drugs%20&%20Alcohol/Wine-Drinking%20in%20New%20Testament%20Times.htm

The Most Clever Thief - Ann Landers

The following essay appeared in Ann Landers’ column in the Chicago Tribune and other newspapers on July 28, 1993. She reprinted it on that occasion in response to a reader’s request. I have included that reader’s request at the end of this post.

The Most Clever Thief in the World

I invited her into our home for special occasions. We’d become good friends, I thought. And then I began to look forward to our meeting at the end of each day. After a while, we became so friendly I had to see her every evening.

People began to think of us as a couple. Even the police knew our names. Our identities were too closely linked, I thought, so I began to see her on the sly.

At first, she stole small change from my pocket. I wasn’t concerned. Before long, she crept into my billfold. I wasn’t happy about that, but I enjoyed her company too much to complain.

Friends said I was seeing too much of her and that she had made changes in me they didn’t like. I resented their interference and said so. They dropped me.

My wife and children complained about the time I took from them to spend with her. I said, “If you insist that I make a choice, I will choose her.” And I did. She began to demand so much of my money I could no longer afford new clothes. I heard people at work whisper about my shabby appearance. They blamed her. I was annoyed and distanced myself from my colleagues.

She started to visit me at the office. My boss became upset. He said my friend was interfering with my work. After several warnings, I lost my job. We had some heavy arguments after that. I told her to stay away for a while, so I could think. She said, “So long, buddy. You’ll come back to me before long.” She knew me better than I knew myself. Within three days, I was seeing her again.

Our affair became more intense than ever. We spent every day and night together. I lost my wife, my family and my job. The next thing to go was my health.

When I became so sick I couldn’t eat or sleep, I realized she had taken everything in my life that had meaning. Although I was not religious, I decided to turn to God. He wrapped his loving arms around me and gave me strength I cannot describe to this day. He made me feel whole. My sense of self-worth and sanity began to return. I knew I would never again let my friend back into my life.

Today, though I still bear the scars of that hideous friendship, I am on my way back. With God at my side, I know I will make it. My old friend will always be around the corner, waiting for me to weaken and stumble and come back to her, but I am determined to keep her out of my life forever. I have found a magnificent replacement.

Here is the reader’s request that caused Ann Landers to reprint this essay:

Dear Ann Landers: Ten years ago, you published an essay titled “The Most Clever Thief in the World.” That essay changed my life. The next day, I went to my first meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous. I haven’t had a drink since.

I clipped out that column and carried it in my wallet for many years. I often showed it to people I thought it might help. Unfortunately, I lost the clipping a few days ago and am asking you to reprint it. Thanks, Ann. You and A.A. saved my life.

Just a Little Wine: One Man’s Story, Part Two

Read the introduction and part one of this story here: http://coryhcollins.blogspot.com/2013/12/just-little-wine-one-mans-story-part-one.html.

Part Two

With the sentencing past, a pinpoint of light finally penetrated his gloom. Hope struggled to the surface of an ocean of despair ... and took a breath. It was like those icy-cold winter waters in Malibu, with blackness creeping over the ocean. Like being dragged through the salty sea that threatened to swallow him. And like the calm that finally came to his panicked mind. God entered. And Norvel Young was alive again.

Reflecting back, he said, "I learned how vast and how central grace is in the Gospel. I now actually think in terms of grace. It is wonderful that God allows us to forgive ourselves. And I have observed Him helping many other people in situations similar to mine since that time."

Indeed, Norvel's life after the accident became a parable of grace: every day was characterized by love, by fresh beginnings, by positive energy, by deep and abiding gratitude for each blessing, from the tiniest to the grandest. And his life reflected a deep, settled faith.

But there was another very tangible result of the tragedy: a scholarly, in-depth study on stress was conducted by Norvel Young under the auspices of the University of Southern California Safety Center. Research guidelines were approved by a six-person academic committee: Dr. Seymour Farber, Dr. Hans Selye, Dr. Robert Maurer, Dr. Charles Barron, Dr. Robert Canady and Dr. Meyer Friedman. Dr. John Dreher supervised the research and served as technical advisor. The resulting monograph was published in 1978 by Pepperdine University Press and titled Poison Stress Is a Killer.

In the preface, Dr. Norvel Young wrote, "When all these inputs are evaluated, a very clear message emerges in regard to any activity in which man must compete - the lethal effects of 'poison stress.' This is not the stress that leaves one physically tired, but satisfied - it is that self-generated reaction to external pressures which damages the biochemistry, upsets the emotions, drains the strength, and leaves its victim dangerously open to accident and physical illness."

He concludes his preface with these chilling words: "The physi­cal and social toll of these factors is increasingly identified as a cause of extensive job-connected disability in the work force. The divorce court, the prison, the psychiatrist's couch, and the morgue bear similar testimony."

The words were not simply academic.

In the winter of Norvel's soul, in the frozen aftermath, a thought was trying to form in the minds of people who loved him. That thought would be expressed eloquently nearly a dozen years later in a tribute to Norvel at the 1987 Pepperdine Bible Lectures. Bill Banowsky quoted the "bully" President Teddy Roosevelt, who said in 1910:

It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of Deeds might have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who was actually in the arena, whose Faith is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, if he wins, knows the triumphs of high achievement; and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

The "strong man stumbled" and no one could believe it. Then finally, they realized that he was not a machine. He was just a man. And some were angry because he was just a man - like themselves.

But Norvel Young's time was not yet over. He would have more than 20 additional years to "spend himself in a worthy cause."

There may have been winter in his soul, but he was not a "cold and timid soul," in TR's words. The fire would return to his bones.

THE LONG WAY HOME

Norvel Young had allowed himself to gradually drift far from the home of his heart. He could not have imagined that he would ever be in such a distant place. But he knew the way home.

One of the attendant traits of greatness is the ability to make a comeback against heavy odds. There were people who thought M. Norvel Young was finished as an effective leader in the educational community and at Pepperdine University. And among Churches of Christ.

While most people reacted with compassion, a few chided him with suggestions that "the best thing for Pepperdine University was for Norvel Young to simply fade away into oblivion." But they didn't understand grace. And they didn't understand "The Heart of the Fighter," in the words of Landon Saunders. Character is not about never making mistakes; it involves the strength to confess one's sins and shortcomings, to ask for forgiveness. And to rise again to new levels of understanding and virtue.

Slowly but surely, Norvel made the return to his work. He swallowed enough internal humiliation to sink an ocean liner, but he struggled back to the surface. A lesser person would not have survived, could not have shown his face in public again. Somehow Norvel Young summoned his childlike faith. He

grasped the truth of God's inexhaustible forgiveness. And he even found the grace to forgive himself - at least enough to go on.

Many people were affected by the tragedy of the accident. Certainly, family and friends were shaken, discouraged, embarrassed, as were Norvel's colleagues at the university—and the whole Pepperdine family. But one person lived every painful moment with him: Helen Mattox Young. And she never wavered. She too learned more about God's grace. And she also learned more about the vast goodness of Norvel's heart. Her strength was truly astonishing - for there were times when she had to stand tall for the two of them. When the storm finally passed, it was her victory, every bit as much as it was his.

Future years for Norvel and Helen Young would be years of triumph. For as someone has observed, "Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger." Norvel Young had allowed himself to gradually drift far from the home of his heart. He could not have imagined that he would ever be in such a distant place. But he knew the way home.

THE WILDERNESS

Just four days after the fiery accident on Pacific Coast Highway near the Getty, thousands of people were passing that way toward the Pepperdine Malibu campus. It was September 20, 1975, and the whole vicinity was abuzz with activity. Eventually, a crowd of 18,000 filled the bleachers that had been erected on the parking lot of Firestone Fieldhouse. President Gerald Ford's helicopter landed and he was whisked to the staging area. At the appropriate time, the dignitaries descended the stairs from the Fieldhouse to a platform that had been built above the parking lot - and to a sea of faces, thunderous applause and the music of the U.S. Marine Corps Band. In addition to President and Mrs. Ford, there was Pepperdine President William S. Banowsky, entertainer Pat Boone (who would lead the audience in the national anthem), actor John Wayne (who would lead the Pledge

of Allegiance), editor Reuel Lemmons (to offer a prayer), Mr. Richard Seaver (who would accept the Fieldhouse on behalf of the University), benefactor Leonard Firestone, plus Richard Scaife, Fritz Huntsinger and other friends of the University. They were announced in twos over the public address system.

But at a certain point in the introductions, only one name was called ... Helen M. Young. She smiled and walked regally, with head held high, as she descended the staircase. Some thought the volume of applause increased as she was introduced. Nearly everyone knew of the terrible invisible burden she carried, and their admiration for her soared.

But Chancellor Norvel Young was missing from the most spectacular day of the University's history.

He was in No Man's Land, a wilderness of broken dreams. And he remained in that far country for many months. He resigned his role as the editor of 20th Century Christian magazine. He resigned as an elder of the Malibu Church of Christ. In annual reports and college catalogs, he was listed as "M. Norvel Young, Chancellor (on leave), Pepperdine University." He was removed or put on leave-of-absence from several boards. He was sidelined from the Pepperdine Board of Regents. This man who had lived in the middle of the busy channels of life had drifted into the backwaters. It looked as though the world would go on without him.

But he was not forgotten.

A CONTRITE HEART

Norvel knew of only one way to do it. He traveled all over the country, speaking to people individually and in groups, asking for forgiveness. Roger Coffman, a minister in Georgia, later said, "Norvel, I cannot ever recall one human being standing any taller than you did one evening during the 20th Century Christian dinner at the Abilene Lectureship just after the automobile accident in Los Angeles. To address your peers as you did, candidly and honestly, without making any excuses, but simply asking for forgiveness and help, made a deep and lasting impression on me that I will never forget."

Seaver College Professor of Communication Morris Womack visited Norvel shortly after he returned home from his hospital and recuperation period. Norvel was still staying in bed most of the time, and Womack sat with him in the bedroom of the Adamson Beach House. Norvel said to him, "Morris, I don't even remember getting in my car that day." But he never denied his guilt, never excused the drinking that led to the accident. He only asked for forgiveness. Womack assured him that he was indeed forgiven by people of good will.

On Sunday, December 14,1975, a little less than three months after the accident (which seemed to be a long silence to some people), the following statement written by Norvel was read before the Malibu Church of Christ:

I come before you in a spirit of contrite confession of sin. I have sinned against God, against the two whose lives were lost in the accident, against the one who was injured and against their families, against the church, against Pepperdine University and my associates here. I would give my very life to undo this tragedy, but this is impossible. I must live with the awful realization that my grief cannot bring back a human life or erase the injury to so many. I confess to you that my use of alcohol was involved in this acci­dent. To say that I am profoundly sorry is such a feeble and inadequate expression of my stricken conscience. I have confessed my sin to God and know that he has forgiven me for Christ's sake. I now confess my sin to you and ask your forgiveness and your prayers.

I want to go further in explanation, but not to make any excuse. There can be no excuse. For 50 years I abstained from alcohol and taught against its use. As President of Pepperdine, I attended thousands of functions where it was served, but did not partake. In a mistaken attempt to relieve stress, I began to use alcohol occasionally. In 1969 I developed a heart condition which has reached the point where my heart never beats normally. Later, I had a heart attack and two small strokes. I was put on heavy medication to slow my heart and thin my blood. This medication saps me of physical energy which sometimes results in depression. One of my doctors suggested using moderate amounts of alcohol to relax the heart. I began to do so on occasion, especially in times of stress. I did not keep it at home or serve it. I did not become addicted to the regular use of alcohol, nor am I addicted now. With God's help, I will never use alcohol again in any form. I pray that my tragic experience will serve as a warning to others.

I am humbled and grieved, yet even in the midst of suffering, I know God's mercy and comfort in Christ. I want to make as frank and complete a statement of my sin as I can, taking all the responsibility and asking forgiveness, especially of my brethren.

I leave the future in God's hands. My relationship with Pepperdine University will depend upon the judgment of the court, the attitude and response of the brotherhood, and ultimately the decision of the Board of Trustees.

I sincerely thank you for all your prayers. I ask your prayers for the families of the deceased, the judge, the University, and for me.

- M. Norvel Young

The January 6, 1976, issue of the journal, firm Foundation, carried an editorial by Norvel's longtime friend, Reuel Lemmons, editor of the publication. It said in part, "Here is an excellent opportunity for those of us who claim to go by the Bible to prove that we do it. We who have been forgiven so much can with grace extend it.... The forgiven can go free; it is the unforgiving who wear chains. We have all been the recipients of unlimited grace. Now is the time to extend it." Lemmons went on to reprint the above statement by Dr. Young in its entirely.

Less than six months after the accident, Norvel wrote a long message to his beloved readers of 20th Century Christian magazine. It is worth recording here, in part, because it says so much about the mission of the magazine, as he saw it, and about the essence of his faith. He also gives insight to his struggle and the progressing drama of his ordeal. The message appeared in the March 1976 issue of the magazine, as follows:

To Our 20th Century Christian Family:

For 38 years I have had the privilege of sharing my faith with you through the pages of this magazine. I was one of the small group of young men who founded the 20th Century Christian in 1938, and for the past 30 years I have been its editor.

The 20th Century Christian through these years has sought to exalt Jesus Christ as God's Son and our Lord, to foster faith in the Scriptures as the inspired Word of God, to promote New Testament Christianity in the present age, to affirm the everlasting promises of God, the providence of God and the power of prayer. We have emphasized the Good News of God's amazing grace. We have tried to promote the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. We have encouraged the sharing of the gospel with those who have never heard it. We have stressed faith in Christ, hope in God's promises and love above all.

It has been our purpose to state the message of Christ so as to interest both those who are already Christians and those who are not yet Christians. Our articles have been aimed to help the person in the pew as well as the man in the pulpit. We have opposed sectarianism and eschewed both the extremes of Pharisaical legalism and modernistic liberalism. We have discouraged a judgmental spirit and encouraged a humble dependence on the righteousness of Christ, rather than self-righteousness. In an age of sin and darkness, 20th Century Christian's dedicated writers have tried to light a candle rather than curse the darkness.

Through the years I have urged our readers to rely on God in times of joy and in times of distress. Now I bear witness again to God's grace as I speak to you out of the crucible of suffering. On September 16,1975, I was involved in a tragic traffic accident in which two women lost their lives and the other driver and I were injured. I was responsible. I have admitted my guilt to the church and to the court. I would give my very life to undo this tragedy, but my remorse cannot bring back a single life or erase the harm done.

In the midst of my despair in the hospital, I prayed for forgiveness. I praise God for the cleansing power of the blood of Christ. For 44 years I have preached the forgiveness of God to others. Now I have experienced in a deeper way the healing power of his grace. I thank God also for his love to me which has been shown through the outpouring of compassion from my brethren. Thank God for your overwhelming remembrances of me in my trouble. Your prayers have sustained me and given me courage to carry on. The judge stayed for six months a one year custody sentence. He required me to take a six months' leave of absence from Pepperdine University to give full time to a research and lecture program in traffic safety which can result in saving many lives. This project will be under the auspices of the University of Southern California Safety Center.

Cory Collins

Just a Little Wine: One Man’s Story, Part One

M. Norvel Young was a godly, faithful, well-known leader among God’s people in the 1970s. Having served as the effective preaching minister for the Broadway Church of Christ in Lubbock, Texas, he left that position to become the president of Pepperdine University in Malibu, California. He was also the editor of 20th Century Christian, a brotherhood periodical that blessed and strengthened the faith of many.

His life story is told in the book Forever Young: The Life and Times of M. Norvel Young & Helen M. Young, written by Bill Henegar and Jerry Rushford. It was published by 21st Century Christian in 1999. While the entire book is worth reading, the following excerpt regarding Young’s bout with alcohol is used with permission from the publisher. It is presented here in two parts.

Part One

POISON STRESS

Beneath the seemingly glamorous life of the Youngs in a paradise setting, something terribly troubling was stirring. The stress of knowing that raising the funds for the new campus was primarily on his and Bill Banowsky's shoulders was taking a heavy toll on Norvel. His doctor prescribed Valium to help relieve the pressure. Though the tranquilizer quieted his nerves, it also took away his upbeat attitude and made him depressed. But he found a new "friend." For more than fifty years, Norvel had never touched a drop of alcohol, but now he convinced himself that taking "a little wine for thy stomach's sake," as Paul advised his young friend, Timothy, in the New Testament, might be helpful. Maybe a cocktail now and then would ease the stress and bring back his optimistic spirit.

Months went by and the drinking became regular. But somehow, Norvel was able to keep his new habit hidden. Only a few people saw the telltale signs. Once, he was arrested for driving under the influence, but a friend was able to keep it quiet. Looking back now, it may have been better for Norvel to "take his lumps" at that point, because what happened next was a tragedy of the first magnitude.

On an evening in mid-September of 1975, news reached the Youngs that a young professor at Pepperdine, Dr. Charles E. Wilks, had been riding his motorcycle on the university's rain-slick campus drive and somehow had lost control while heading downhill. He struck a light pole and was killed. Norvel was responsible for bringing the young man to the university -he was sure the new professor would be a wonderful addition. Now the young man was dead. And as Helen went to be by the side of the man's wife and daughter, a depressed Norvel turned to alcohol.

To add to his grief and stress, he was concerned about an upcoming event - the largest one the university had ever seen - which was to take place in about three days. President Gerald Ford was to visit the Malibu campus to dedicate Firestone Fieldhouse (named in honor of benefactor Leonard Firestone) and also the president's home, Brock House (named for longtime friend Margaret Martin Brock). The University had been searching for bleachers that were to go up in the parking lot of the Fieldhouse for the many thousands who were expected to attend the event. Because of a recent attempt on President Ford's life, security was to be tight. And the Secret Service was hounding Norvel and others to get the bleachers in place so that the area could be secured.

Then Norvel was notified that those running the main frame computer had just discovered that the student accounts-receivable total was about $5 million, which meant that the university was owed $5 million of uncollected tuition and other student costs. In addition, they found that the University's accounts payable total was up to about $3 million. The news was a disturbing surprise. Everything seemed to be closing in on Norvel Young's dreams. There was so much to do. Too much. And now the death of a promising young professor ...

The next day, Norvel began work in his Beach House office, going about his usual routine. At about eleven o'clock, he got into his car, drove out the gravel driveway and headed south on Pacific Coast Highway toward Los Angeles. He had made the drive hundreds of times, and today he had a meeting in town with Don Darnell, who served as chairman of the Pepperdine President's Board (later, renamed the University Board).

As his car sped by the backs of the houses that lined the ocean, he was not feeling well at all. The death of the professor and his grieving family were on his mind, along with financial concerns and the anxiety over the biggest event of Pepperdine's history, hosting a sitting president. But he had also consumed some alcohol to "comfort and calm him." As he drove, his mind began to fog over. Then, as he neared Pacific Palisades, he began to experience blurred vision. He tried to clear both his mind and vision ... he shook his head ... then there was blackness. A few hours would pass before he realized what happened next.

Near the J. Paul Getty Museum, his car struck another car that was waiting at a signal light. The violent collision drove the trailer hitch on the front car into its fuel tank, and the gasoline ignited. The car was soon in flames. Then Norvel's car also caught on fire.

The driver of the other car had her mother and her aunt in the back seat of the small two-door car. There was no escape. Both of the older women were killed. The other driver and Norvel were both injured and were transported to the hospital. In fact, a man in a nearby home ran and pulled Norvel from his burning car, probably saving his life.

The Wednesday, September 17, 1975, the Los Angeles Times ran a story with the blaring headline: "Pepperdine's Chancellor Held in Fatal Crash." Apparently, in the reporter's mind, the thing of real importance was that Pepperdine's chancellor was in trouble - he was being "held." The opening paragraph, indeed the first seven or eight words of the article, gave the bias of the story:

Pepperdine University Chancellor M. Norvel Young was jailed on suspicion of manslaughter and felony drunk driving after being involved in a traffic accident in which one woman was killed and two others were critically injured, the California Highway Patrol reported.

THE COMING OF WINTER

When Norvel woke up, he was in a hospital. He had facial lacerations, a brain concussion and internal bleeding. As the haze in his mind lifted slightly, he could see the face of Helen close by his side. He asked her what had happened and she told him he had had an accident and was injured. The awfulness of the situation was beginning to descend on him. li was like having a nightmare, somehow forgetting it, then remembering it again -only to discover that it was stark reality.

He later said, "I turned my face to the wall and cried. It was the worst day in my life. I knew I was completely at fault be­cause I had been drinking, but I didn't know how disastrous my mistake had been." As the details unfolded, he began to gradu­ally recall parts of the accident and the things that led to it.

Norvel Young was absolutely crushed by the guilt. He won­dered why he hadn't just been killed in the accident. He kept thinking of the two older women and the driver. Then he thought of his family. And he pictured the hundreds of thou­sands of Christians in the fellowship of which he was a part. The university campus on the hills in Malibu with all of its people would come into his mind. He had betrayed the trust of many thousands of people. How could he face the world again? How could he live with himself?

News of the accident traveled fast. All the local media cov­ered the story because of its sensational nature. Even Paul Harvey mentioned the story on his national report. And Norvel had no one to blame but himself. He knew he deserved whatever punishment came his way, even imprisonment. Perhaps as never before, he threw himself on the mercy of God. He prayed for the driver of the other car, and he prayed for the families of the two that perished. Again and again he prayed that God would heal the wounds of this unbelievable ordeal.

He entered the winter of his soul.

AFTERMATH

Certainly, the Los Angeles community was distressed by the accident. But the Pepperdine community was in a state of utter shock. And because of Norvel Young's long years of leadership within Churches of Christ, a whole fellowship of people was aghast. Some critical members condemned Norvel, but most were people of good will and they prayed for God to heal the situation as soon as possible.

Within minutes of the news, Norvel's three daughters, Emily, Marilyn and Sara, were at his bedside, along with Emily's husband, Steven Lemley. Norvel's son Matt was in medical school in Houston and he immediately caught a plane for home. The family surrounded Norvel with love. And they prayed. They knew that his soul would need more healing than his body.

Publisher Ralph Sweet, a longtime friend of the Youngs, grabbed a plane and flew in from Austin, Texas, "just to help." Another Texan whom Norvel had known since college days, Reuel Lemmons, editor of Firm Foundation journal, also caught a plane and came to encourage Norvel.

Amazingly, Dr. Paul Davis, the education editor of Reader's Digest, simply arrived with his suitcase from San Francisco saying he would stay and help deal with the situation as long as it took. The hospital put him in a room next to Norvel's and Davis spent four days talking with the press, helping visitors and assisting Helen with the whirlwind of problems.

Calls began to come in from across the nation. And more than 2,000 letters, cards and telegrams poured in to Norvel and the family. Remembering the comfort the communications provided in the terrible aftermath of the accident, Norvel said, "We received thousands of letters that were supportive and helpful. Helen still has all the letters."

He continued, "We began to get checks from people like George Elkins, David Packard and Tex Thornton. Leonard Firestone told us he had a similar thing happen to him." Suddenly the truth was apparent: for years Norvel Young had taken great pains to be kind to every person he met; now that kindness was return­ing to visit him.

Although everyone at 20th Century Christian Publishing was supportive, an emergency meeting was held in Abilene, Texas, and the board decided to accept Norvel's decision to turn over his editorship of 20th Century Christian magazine. He was obvi­ously more than willing to do that. Joe Barnett, minister of the Broadway Church in Lubbock, Texas, was asked to become the new editor in light of the situation.

As for Norvel Young, the days following the accident were filled with terrible bouts with despair and desperation. The feelings would leave for awhile, then return with a vengeance, overwhelming him. Some family members and friends were afraid of leaving him alone. As they observed his mental state, they wondered if he might try to take his own life. But they were not as afraid as Norvel himself. His entire world had shat­tered. Everything he was, everything for which he stood, went up in the flames of the accident. He simply did not believe he could endure the shame. He repeatedly read the book of Psalms, especially Psalm 51, and prayed over and over for forgiveness.

On October 30, 1975, there was a preliminary hearing for Norvel in the Santa Monica Court. Both he and his attorney agreed to waive the preliminary hearing, giving up his right to defend himself and to question witnesses. Later, in the Superior Court the judge asked Norvel for his plea. Norvel quietly said, "I plead guilty, your honor." The judge set December 4,1975, for sentencing.

The December 4 date for sentencing was delayed until January 27, 1976, to allow the judge time to study the large num­ber of letters he had received from interested people. The vast majority of the letters asked for leniency for Norvel Young because of his great contributions to society throughout his life.

When January 27 finally came, a frightened Norvel Young stood before the judge for sentencing. He had no defense. He was at the mercy of the court. The judge sentenced him to one year in jail - but immediately suspended it on the condition that Norvel take a six-month leave of absence from his duties at Pepperdine and perform public service. Specifically, he was to conduct courses for drivers who drink and do research on the kind of stress that contributed to his use of alcohol. He was fined $2,000 and his driver's license was suspended for four years.

Part two may be found here: 
http://coryhcollins.blogspot.com/2013/12/just-little-wine-one-mans-story-part-two.html

Cory Collins