by Dr. Jeffrey
K. Boer, D.Min.
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
November 29, 1998 (updated 4/23/08)
(click here for a printable version of this sermon)
During the last three evening sermons, we’ve been studying what the Bible has to say about the Christian’suse of alcohol. We’ve been looking at this question in the context of our study of the Westminster Larger Catechism’s exposition of the 6th Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” In that exposition, the Catechism lists, among other things, under the duties required in the 6th Commandment, “a sober use of...drink.” And under the sins forbidden in the 6th Commandment, it lists, among other things, “immoderate use of...drink.”
We looked at the Scriptures and also cited historical and confessional support that defends the Christian’s moderate use of alcohol, both in everyday life and in the Lord’s Supper.
Up until now, we’ve been focusing on the Biblical view of the Christian’s use of alcohol, but many of the same principles could be applied in discussing the Christian’s use of tobacco products. The biggest difference, obviously, is that the use of tobacco products is nowhere commanded in Scripture while the use of wine is commanded in the Lord’s Supper. While the use of tobacco is not commanded in Scripture, its use is not forbidden either. In fact, there is both Biblical and scientific evidence that would indicate that smoking tobacco, in moderation, though not required, is consistent with the teachings of Scripture and consistent with godly, Biblical Christianity.
The pertinent sections of the Westminster Larger Catechism Q. & A. #136 are as follows:
Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are [among other things listed], ...immoderate use of meat, drink, labour, and recreations...and whatever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.
This implies, of course, that Christians should be concerned for the health implications of drinking alcohol, smoking, eating various foods, and participating in various activities as well. But when the Westminster Larger Catechism says that the 6th Commandment forbids “whatever...tends to the destruction of the life of any,” we must take care that we don’t go overboard in interpreting the meaning of that phrase.
For example: Is it a sin to live in the city because the air pollution there is significantly higher than in the country and would, therefore, “tend to the destruction” of one’s life? Is it a sin to put sugar on your corn flakes in the morning, since sugar is apparently not very nutritious and may leech vitamins from your system and give you cavities in your teeth? Or is it a sin to add a teaspoon of sugar to your coffee? And if eating sugar is a sin, then drinking Coke or other sodas with nearly 8 teaspoons of sugar (in the form of high fructose corn syrup) in every can must be a cardinal sin! And that’s not to mention the carbonated water, and various other chemicals that all “tend to the destruction of one’s life,” at least to some degree.
And if we’re going to call smoking a sin because it tends, at least to some degree, to the destruction of one’s life, then do we not have to outlaw a lot of other things as well?
Actually, when it comes right down to it, there’s a health risk, to one degree or another, associated with almost everything we do! Driving a car on a busy expressway isn’t exactly risk free, as we all know! You’re constantly exposing yourself to the risk of an accident. In taking an airplane flight to Atlanta, you’re exposing yourself to the risk of a plane crash, not to mention the possible exposure to all those germs that are being recycled through the air circulation system of that plane in flight. When you eat raw or rare seafood or raw hamburger or raw eggs, you’re exposing yourself to at least some risk of hepatitis B or mad cow disease or salmonella poisoning.
My point is that I don’t believe that the Westminster Assembly intended for that phrase, “whatever else tends to the destruction of the life of any,” to be taken in an absolute and unqualified sense. It’s talking about things that are an obvious and serious, immediate danger to one’s health or life, such as playing Russian roulette, or mainlining cocaine, or sniffing glue. There are many jobs, many foods and drinks, and many pleasures which carry with them at least a moderate risk to our health and well-being. Are all such things sinful for Christians? I think not.
The question I want to deal with first of all, is whether or not smoking tobacco can be classified as a substantial enough health risk to make it a sin? We’re bombarded today with anti-smoking campaigns by various cancer organizations and by political lobbyists. After all, every pack of cigarettes and most packages of pipe and cigar tobacco in America now contain warnings that say something along these lines: “Pipe and smoking tobaccos and cigars contain/produce chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer, and birth defects or other reproductive harm.”
Now I believe that smoking tobacco immoderately may increase the risks of certain kinds of cancers. That fact needs to be weighed, however, with at least three other facts:
1. First of all, some studies show that eating margarine, peanuts, and many other foods increases the risks of certain kinds of cancer. So does fluoridated and chlorinated water. So margarine and peanuts and most tap water, along with many other foods, also contain chemicals known to the state of California (and to all the other states as well) to cause cancer. In fact, most of the things we eat and drink every day, including our fluoridated drinking water, contain chemicals known to cause cancer, if consumed in certain amounts.
And that brings us to the second fact that needs to be weighed:
2. Smoking doesn’t always cause cancer. The question is, “In what quantity does smoking become dangerous?” Does all smoking cause cancer? No. Does really heavy chain smoking all your life cause cancer? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Why? Nobody knows for sure.
3. The third fact that needs to be weighed is that smoking tobacco has been found, by some studies, to have certain beneficial effects on health which need to be weighed against the negative risks to health.
In various scientific studies that I have read, for example, smokers have been shown to have:
*50% less cancer in general (those who inhale cigarettes immoderately have an increased risk of lung cancer, but many other types of cancer risk are actually reduced by smoking).
*Even in the case of lung cancer, Japanese men, who are twice as likely to smoke as American men, not only live longer but also, remarkably, have lower rates of lung cancer than Americans.
*In fact, there’s a stronger relation between medical radiation, such as X-rays and lung cancer, than there is between smoking and lung cancer.
*Smokers have 50% less Alzheimer’s disease.
*Smokers have 50% less Parkinson’s disease.
*Smokers have 50% less prostate cancer.
*Smokers have 50% less uterine cancer (or endometrial cancer).
*Smokers have 50% less ulcerative colitis.
*Smokers have 30% less colon cancer.
*Smokers have 5 times less osteoarthritis.
*One study of 300 women showed that those smoking a pack a day for four years had a 54% decrease in breast cancer over those who did not smoke at all.
*Thyroid cancer is significantly less common in women who smoke.
*Moderate smokers have less gum recession than nonsmokers. Smokers are actually at lower risk from gum disease than non-smokers.
*Nicotine prior to major surgery reduces memory loss due to that surgery.
*Nicotine stopped the growth of antibiotic resistant tuberculosis in laboratory tests, even in small amounts.
*Smoking lowers rates of sarcoidosis and allergic alveolitis (both of these are lung disorders).
*Smokers have less acne.
*Smokers suffer less obesity.
*Tourette’s syndrome improved within 24 hours while wearing a nicotine patch.
*Attention Deficit Disorder patients showed dramatic improvements as well with nicotine.
*Smoking has been shown to stimulate alertness, dexterity, and cognitive capacity (Which might be one reason why the Synod of Dordrecht, which met in the Netherlands in 1618-1619 to discuss the doctrines of Calvinism, allegedly gave free cigars and beer to all the commissioners during their deliberations!).
*Smoking can also counter both depression and excitability.
*Smoking inhibits blood clotting, thereby dissolving harmful clots in the arteries and relieving ischemic heart disease. Smokers also have a much better chance to survive, heal, and do well after heart angioplasty.
*Nicotine produces new blood vessel growth around blocked arteries.
*Smoking by women during pregnancy has been shown to significantly decrease the risk of high blood pressure, eclampsia, Down’s syndrome, and many other conditions related to pregnancy.
*Smoking by men was shown to cause a lowering of cholesterol.
*Children of smokers have a lower incidence of asthma.
*Study after study failed to find any consistent, positive correlation between smoking and musculoskeletal birth defects. In fact, many studies showed a negative correlation – that is, smoking during pregnancy could result in fewer defects than not smoking.
*Studies have shown that nicotine acts as an analgesic, or painkiller, in humans.
Now I realize that there are many scientific studies which purportedly show smoking to be unhealthy. But all scientific studies have to be judged on the basis of logic, and consistency, and bias, and other standards of scientific accuracy. And no scientific studies have the authoritative weight of the infallible Scriptures. So all should be taken with a grain of salt.
What about side stream smoke? Are smokers endangering the health of those around them when they smoke? This theory has been one of the major weapons of the smoke-phobia crowd to promote their political agenda against smoking.
But a study by Drs. Gori and Mantel in 1991 showed that side stream smoke is drastically diluted compared to directly inhaled smoke. Dr. Gori writes, “For the average environmental tobacco smoke exposed individual, this estimate translates into an annual dose equivalent of far less than the mainstream smoke of one cigarette evenly dispersed over a 12-month period.”
Dr. William Campbell Douglass II, MD, voted “Doctor of the Year” by The National Health Federation, recently published his new book, “The Health Benefits of Tobacco: The Surprising Therapeutic Effects of Moderate Smoking and Second Hand Smoke: A Smoker’s Paradox” [Rhino Publishing, S.A., World Trade Center, Republic of Panama, 2004]. In this book, Dr. Douglass marshals scientific study after scientific study showing the health benefits of smoking in moderation. He says, “It has been known for over ten years that passive smoking does not cause lung cancer. The UN has suppressed this sensational information because this falsehood is the only effective weapon they have to bludgeon smokers into quitting” [p. 154].
Dr. Douglass also writes, “One study, funded by the National Cancer Institute, found that nonsmokers have no increased risk of lung cancer as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke during childhood, in the workplace or from living with a pack-a-day smoker for as many as 40 years” [p. 157].
He later writes, “Another study, conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and funded by the World Health Organization, similarly concluded that secondhand smoke poses no significant health risk” [p. 157].
Economically speaking, tobacco is THE most valuable non-food cash crop in the world, and a major contributor to the global economy. No other crop creates as much employment per acre of cultivated land as tobacco.
I’m not going to take the time in this sermon to cite all of the supporting documentation for those statements, but I’ll attach them to the e-mail version and I’ll also make them available to anyone who wants a copy of them. Many more resources can be found in Dr. Douglass’ book as well. [This book can be found at: http://www.rhinopublish.com/]
Most of these studies included cigarette smokers, many of whom would probably not be considered to be moderate smokers, and most of whom inhale the tobacco smoke. Most of the negative health risks associated with smoking tobacco are associated with heavy smoking and inhaling. And yet, these studies seem to show that even heavy smokers derive certain health benefits from smoking along with the increased health risks of certain other kinds of diseases.
Moderate smoking carries with it far less health risks than heavy smoking, according to certain studies that have shown that 5-10 cigarettes can be quite easily assimilated over the course of a day with relatively little risk.
Heavier cigarette smoking is related to increased risk of emphysema (which takes @ 30 years of smoking to develop). And heavier smoking is also related to increased risks of lung cancer and certain other diseases. But even these risks are 5 times lower in cigar and pipe smokers who do not inhale.
A slight increase in the risk of mouth or throat cancer may be related to the fact that many “chew” their cigars while smoking them. So overall, according to these studies, it’s apparently quite safe, and even beneficial, in some ways, to your health, to smoke several cigars a day, especially if you don’t inhale and you don’t “chew.” The point of all this is to say that the health benefits of moderate smoking appear to substantially outweigh the health risks. Even cigarette smoking appears to be fairly low risk, when done in moderation, since moderate smoking doesn’t carry with it all of those higher risks that are often associated with heavy smoking. It should also be noted that taking vitamin supplements, such as vitamin C, D, E, A, folic acid, and others, has been shown to further reduce the health risks of smoking.
Why do I cite all of this medical stuff in a sermon, when I’m not a medical doctor, and when we know that medicine, unlike Scripture, is a very inexact science?
I do so because, as Christians, we’re responsible to weigh the results of science and of medicine in making certain decisions in our lives. We have to apply the Scriptural principles associated with the 6th Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” taking into account the best scientific and medical knowledge we have available today, but also recognizing that the Scriptures must be our ultimate, infallible guide to ethics.
I’m arguing that the medical information we have available today does not automatically outlaw all smoking as a sinful violation of the 6th Commandment. Just because some studies show that smoking “is bad for you,” that doesn’t mean all smoking is a sin any more than drinking Coke is a sin. There are plenty of studies showing that Coke “is bad for you.” Many other studies have shown that fluoridated and chlorinated water is bad for you. In making any such decisions we must weigh the risks with the benefits and the enjoyments.
To move on to another argument, some have said that Christians should exhibit “self-control” and abstain from such “worldly pleasures” as smoking. But if abstaining from legitimate God-given pleasures and activities is how we are to demonstrate Biblical “self-control,” then why not abstain from all pleasures? And if abstaining from all God-given pleasures is NOT the way to demonstrate Biblical self-control, then what’s the point of abstaining? Why not use such things Biblically and in moderation as the Scriptures would encourage? Isn’t that also demonstrating self-control?
Ecclesiastes 5:18-6:2 says, “Then I realized that it is good and proper for a man to eat and drink, and to find satisfaction in his toilsome labor under the sun during the few days of life God has given him – for this is his lot. Moreover, when God gives any man wealth and possessions, and enables him to enjoy them, to accept his lot and be happy in his work – this is a gift of God. He seldom reflects on the days of his life, because God keeps him occupied with gladness of heart. I have seen another evil under the sun, and it weighs heavily on men: God gives a man wealth, possessions and honor, so that he lacks nothing his heart desires, but God does not enable him to enjoy them, and a stranger enjoys them instead. This is meaningless [or “vapor”], a grievous evil.”
The book of Ecclesiastes contains numerous similar passages, indicating that the enjoyment of the various God-given pleasures of life is not sinful.
“What about the example you’re setting for your children?” some might ask.
Well, what example should we set for our children? Asking that question betrays an automatic assumption that there’s something wrong or sinful about smoking. What example are you setting for your children when you drive a car? Well, hopefully, you’re setting a godly example of responsible driving.
As we saw in the case of alcohol, moderate, responsible use is the normal, Biblical way to demonstrate responsibility and self-control. That’s not to say that it’s the only way – or that there are never Biblical reasons for abstaining from legitimate pleasures. But partaking of God’s good gifts in moderation is being a good example for your children, because you’re teaching them the proper use of these gifts of God. To argue for total abstinence from all alcohol and tobacco products may mean that you’re teaching your children that the “Fundamentalist” views of alcohol and tobacco are correct – that these good things of God are somehow evil or sinful in themselves. As Reformed Christians, we know they’re not.
In I Timothy 4:1-8 and Colossians 2:20-23, Paul discusses these matters in quite dramatic terms. Instead of preaching “total abstinence,” Paul warns against those who preach “total abstinence.” He emphasizes that godliness does not come through “total abstinence” from things in God’s good creation. In fact, in I Timothy 5:23, Paul recommends that Timothy stop “abstaining” and start drinking alcohol (in moderation) for his health.
I now want to take a few minutes to show, from Scripture, that smoking is not unnatural for man, but that the Scriptures show that it’s fully consistent with his nature, being created in the image of God.
The Scriptures are clear that God appreciates the sweet-smelling incense or smoke of man’s sacrifices and prayers that are offered up unto Him. Of course, God is a Spirit and He doesn’t have a physical nose to smell things, but the Bible talks about God in human terms for the sake of man’s understanding, and the Bible indicates that God enjoys nice smelling smoke. If nice-smelling smoke is said to be pleasing to God, and if we’re created in His image, how then can smoking, in moderation, be evil?
In Isaiah’s vision of God in His temple in Isaiah 6:3-4, we read, “And they were calling to one another: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.’ At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.”
Similarly, Revelation 15:8 says, “And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God and from his power...”
I doubt very much that this cloud of smoke that filled the temple had a foul smelling odor. I’m sure it was a wonderful smelling smoke.
The point is this: If our God uses a cloud of sweet-smelling smoke in order to manifest His presence and in order to manifest His glory, it goes without saying then that smoke, in and of itself, is not evil. And smelling such smoke is not evil either.
Exodus 30:7-8 says, “Aaron must burn fragrant incense on the altar every morning when he tends the lamps. He must burn incense again when he lights the lamps at twilight so incense will burn regularly before the LORD for the generations to come.”
This sweet-smelling incense or smoke was to constantly be offered up on the Lord’s altar. It was seen as good smoke. It’s called fragrant smoke. That’s the Hebrew word, “sam,” referring to “good smelling” smoke.
Psalm 141:2 says, “May my prayer be set before you like incense; may the lifting up of my hands be like the evening sacrifice.”
And Revelation 8:3-4 says, “Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all the saints, on the golden altar before the throne. The smoke of the incense, together with the prayers of the saints, went up before God from the angel’s hand.”
It’s a natural thing, then, for man, created in the image of God, to enjoy the pleasing smell of aromatic incense and smoke. Since man is not an animal who has descended from other animals, but who was created in the image of God, we can’t argue that the desire to smell smoke is an “unnatural” desire, as some want to imply.
Now to our text, in Proverbs 27:9: This verse says, “Perfume and incense bring joy to the heart.”
“Incense” is nothing more than a substance that was burned to produce an aromatic, sweet-smelling smoke. There were various kinds of incense, but all of them were burned for the nice smell of their smoke. Incense was even one of the three gifts mentioned in Matthew 2:11 that were brought to Jesus by the Magi. It says, “On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshipped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh.”
That incense was to be burned to create a nice smelling smoke. Jesus would have inhaled some of that smoke. That was not a sin. Inhaling nice smelling smoke is not a sin, at least not when done in moderation.
Cigars and cigarettes and pipe are all in the same category as incense. They’re burned for the nice smell they give. Just like the perfume and incense mentioned in our text, they “bring joy to the heart.”
Now I know some of you may say, “They don’t bring any joy to my heart! I can’t stand the smell of cigarettes or cigars.” Some of you may even be allergic to some kinds of smoke – just as some people are also allergic to various perfumes and other substances that are not sinful. Obviously, we must all be careful that we don’t wear heavy perfume around people that are allergic to it, if we can help it, and we shouldn’t smoke around people that are either allergic to smoke or who can’t stand the smell. In short, we should be courteous to those around us.
But that still doesn’t mean that smoking is a sin or that wearing perfume is a sin. We should also weigh the health risks and benefits of smoking. We should consider, according to the best of our knowledge, what is a moderate level of smoking, so that we’re not immoderate in our use of these good gifts of God. And as godly, Bible-believing Christians, we should give thanks to God for both wine and aromatic smoke as well as for any other things that God has created to “gladden the heart of man.”
May God’s Name be praised for the good gifts He gives man to enjoy. And may He be praised especially for the good gift of His precious Son, Jesus Christ, who gave His life for us that we might have life abundant, even eternal life in Him! Jesus Christ is the embodiment of that fine wine that gladdens the heart of man! Jesus Christ is the embodiment of that sweet smelling incense that brings joy to the hearts of both God and man!
Amen!