Drinking, Cheeseburgers, and Marijuana?

[Jim]

alex o. wrote:

I have a medical procedure today but should be lucid sometime tonight and will consider your post.

“use a little wine for your stomach’s sake”

wine has some medicinal applications as we all know but it doesn’t cure everything or alleviate all suffering. Pretty funny comment though.

To Larry,

Thanks for your concern and wishes. The doctor found nothing, which, in this case, is good news.

I assure you that I never meant anything with a backhand. We owe each other and others love. However, we are supposed to “be frank” with each other when warranted.

You have made another long post and I have read it. You should know I am a “hunt and peck typist” and I didn’t get much sleep last night drinking all that Gavilyte (sp.?). I am clear headed but beat. The next two days will be busy for me but I will answer you, just not now.

since you agree essentially to most of my points but have other questions, in a real sense the debate has ended.

I think you need to think about my guns and alcohol argument some more as the argument speaks to “what is inherent” in things and people. It is a very valid argument which you have dismissed.

anyway, I hope you will draw close to Christ and approve things that are worthy.

All the best,

Alex Krause

[Mike Harding]

Those who insist that Jesus served between 120 to 180 gallons of fully fermented wine to those who already had been drinking fully fermented, undiluted wine during the week long marital festival may be deficient in their Christology. As Don Carson explains in his commentary on John, it was common during the NT era for Jews and Greeks to dilute their wine between one-third and one-tenth of the original strength in order to reduce the possibility of intoxication. Also, according to Carson and Westcott, the fresh wine (a term Carson uses twice— “freshly”) more than likely had been drawn from the well directly, though it is possible that it came from the six water pots. The fresh wine had no time to go through the first fermentation. That much fully fermented wine given to those who had already been drinking for nearly a week would have contributed directly to their drunkenness in clear violation of Hab 2:15, 1 Tim 3 (“not given to wine”; “not much wine”), Paul’s instruction to Timothy to only use “a little wine” with his water, and the various commands to be sober-minded (“wineless” in its etymology) which is mentioned numerous times in the NT epistles, particularly the book of 1 Peter. The water represented the old order. It had come to completion. The Christ is now beginning his Kingdom ministry announcing something new, fresh, free from sin. What better way to symbolize the new era being announced than the fresh, fruit of the vine, with all of its nutrition and natural sweetness. Intoxication and the Kingdom of God do not mix.

Carson clearly states that this was wine not fresh grape juice. “Freshly” refers to “drawn”, not the wine. It was freshly made wine. To say that Carson says this was unfermented grape juice is misreading him. This is not up for debate, I am just pointing out error.

Alex, I agree that it was freshly made wine. Fresh wine needs time to go through the fermenting process, which in time it would. The first fermentation takes between four days and a week depending upon conditions.

[Mike Harding]

Alex, I agree that it was freshly made wine. Fresh wine needs time to go through the fermenting process, which in time it would. The first fermentation takes between four days and a week depending upon conditions.

Hi Mike,

Let’s not parse a commentary and its use of “freshly made”. The Bible text says “wine” and would be a ‘trick’ in my mind if the guests or MC were now to drink grape juice after their previous wine drinking. The whole purpose of treading the grapes was to prepare it for fermentation, and not immediate drinking.

The godly use of alcohol, to the uninitiated, is dynamic. Meaning that one is always expelling alcohol in respiration (breathing) and thereby diminishing its commendable effects (in moderation). All the dancing, eating, and social interaction would require a continual “topping up” by wine.

Mike, you seem to be really trying hard to prove godly people such as Jesus and the disciples didn’t drink alcohol. This is contrary to the record since Christ’s opponents labeled Him a “drunkard and glutton.”

Mike, you and your prohibitionist friends have a mountain to climb in order to make any headway for your position. No credible Biblical scholar believes what you folks affirm. I do not know what your (plural) motivations are in affirming your stance so doggedly but I fear the ‘Christian witness’ of your ministries is going to suffer a gap in credibility.

Alex, I don’t want to rehash everything I have written on this. My position is fully written out on our website. You can check it out at fbctroy.org. You obviously don’t understand my position by what you have just written.

Pastor Harding, I think the point missed between you and Alex is your use of “wine” fermenting. In normal usage, “wine” doesn’t ferment. “Must” does. Wine is wine because it has been fermented. In this case Alex’s position would be that this wine was newly created and in that sense fresh, but with the appearance and, more importantly, the properties of age

Good point Dave. I think that is the nature of the disagreement. And it is possible that the participants would have diluted the wine created by Jesus, if it was indeed fermented, between one-third and one-tenth as they had done with the previous wine. Wine is a generic term as well such as our modern-day use of “drink” or “cider”. Placing fresh wine in the old wineskins causes the skins to eventually burst due to the process of ongoing fermentation (Matt 9:17). Even while the wine is in the presses before fermentation, it is still called wine (Isa 16:10). While the fresh wine is being poured out of the vats, it is still called wine (Prov 3:10). The vats overflow with fresh wine in Joel 2:24. Even grapes on the vine are called wine in Isaiah 65:8. This is sometimes called “hanging wine”. The grape harvest lasted up to six months and could have been pressed freshly into wine at any time, much like was done for Pharaoh by his cupbearer in Gen 40:11. My point is that there is ample precedent for calling fresh wine that had not yet reached its first fermentation “wine”. The wine that Jesus created was fresh wine. There was no reason not to call it wine simply because it had not had time to go through the first fermentation. In the light of the circumstances in a week long imbibing of diluted wine, the implication that some may have already been partially inebriated (“methusko”), and the fact that the wine by Christ was freshly and miraculously created, it is reasonable to interpret wine as the undiluted, natural-fresh-sweet “fruit-of-the vine” that had not yet experienced its first fermentation. Being fresh there would be no need for dilution at this point, enhancing its sweetness and taste. This protects Christ against the sin of contributing to the drunkenness of those at the wedding. It is also consistent with the symbolism I mentioned before. Providing 120 gallons to 180 gallons of fully fermented, undiluted wine to people, some of whom are already partially inebriated, seems highly irresponsible as best and sinful at worst. Causing one’s neighbor to get drunk is certainly sinful. Enabling one’s neighbor to get drunk under such circumstances is questionable and appears inconsistent with the cautions, restrictions, and instructions of the Apostle Paul.

[Mike Harding]

Good point Dave. I think that is the nature of the disagreement. And it is possible that the participants would have diluted the wine created by Jesus, if it was indeed fermented, between one-third and one-tenth as they had done with the previous wine. Wine is a generic term as well such as our modern-day use of “drink” or “cider”. Placing fresh wine in the old wineskins causes the skins to eventually burst due to the process of ongoing fermentation (Matt 9:17). Even while the wine is in the presses before fermentation, it is still called wine (Isa 16:10). While the fresh wine is being poured out of the vats, it is still called wine (Prov 3:10). The vats overflow with fresh wine in Joel 2:24. Even grapes on the vine are called wine in Isaiah 65:8. This is sometimes called “hanging wine”. The grape harvest lasted up to six months and could have been pressed freshly into wine at any time, much like was done for Pharaoh by his cupbearer in Gen 40:11. My point is that there is ample precedent for calling fresh wine that had not yet reached its first fermentation “wine”. The wine that Jesus created was fresh wine. There was no reason not to call it wine simply because it had not had time to go through the first fermentation. In the light of the circumstances in a week long imbibing of diluted wine, the implication that some may have already been partially inebriated (“methusko”), and the fact that the wine by Christ was freshly and miraculously created, it is reasonable to interpret wine as the undiluted, natural-fresh-sweet “fruit-of-the vine” that had not yet experienced its first fermentation. Being fresh there would be no need for dilution at this point, enhancing its sweetness and taste. This protects Christ against the sin of contributing to the drunkenness of those at the wedding. It is also consistent with the symbolism I mentioned before. Providing 120 gallons to 180 gallons of fully fermented, undiluted wine to people, some of whom are already partially inebriated, seems highly irresponsible as best and sinful at worst. Causing one’s neighbor to get drunk is certainly sinful. Enabling one’s neighbor to get drunk under such circumstances is questionable and appears inconsistent with the cautions, restrictions, and instructions of the Apostle Paul.

Mike,

I read you article at your church website and must say it was well-written. Do I agree, no. No doubt this is a sensitive matter for you and I seem to recall a personal pain in your past that you attribute to alcohol use in your family. Of course I am sorry for your past hurt which you suffered. It was not alcohol that you should blame however but the effects of The Fall on humans. Each of us is responsible for their own sin, it will not do to ‘shift the blame’ to a substance. Humans alone possess depravity not things. Soteriologically you (and Larry) are wrong saying that the effects of alcohol are evil or that Alcohol caused this or that harm. It is the human who miss used a substance which exacerbated the effects of the harm (but not evil or caused evil in itself).

Thanks Alex for taking the time to read my position. Thank you as well for your words of kindness and empathy. Last Monday we just buried one of my cousins who died from complications directly related to alcohol consumption. He has five children and was not a believer. The abuse of Alcohol has destroyed many people on both sides of my parents’ families; the death and destruction continue unabated. I understand your position and certainly agree that it is the human heart that chooses to abuse this world and not use it for good ends. No disagreement there. An article recently came out in CT justifying the recreational use of marijuana based on the creation motif. Other damaging substances will eventually follow in time.

My opponent in the debate/discussion describes himself on his Reclamation website as an “alcoholist”. He has strengthened his home-brewed beer to 12%–about three times the normal strength of a typical beer sold at the grocery store or ball park. Beer tends to be imbibed in much larger quantities than wine. A twenty ounce mug is not uncommon. For this reason he cautions his customers to be careful, because if you drink too much of his beer, he says, then you might need two (not just one), yes two men, to help you back into your car and then drive you home. This cavalier attitude to such a serious matter reminds me of the prophet Micah who condemned the false prophets of Judah when he said, “If a man comes with windy words and lies deceptively, ‘I will prophecy for you wine and beer,’ he would be the preacher for this people” (Micah 2:11). What is Micah saying? That this is the type of prophet that every unregenerate person desires. Those who rejected God’s true prophets and their warnings of judgment would accept only one kind of “prophet”–-namely, a liar promising them wine and beer. I am not suggesting that Micah was advocating abstinence here, but the emphasis of a ministry certainly shouldn’t be the cavalier promise of wine and beer. On that note I hope we can agree.

[Mike Harding]

Thanks Alex for taking the time to read my position. Thank you as well for your words of kindness and empathy. Last Monday we just buried one of my cousins who died from complications directly related to alcohol consumption. He has five children and was not a believer. The abuse of Alcohol has destroyed many people on both sides of my parents’ families; the death and destruction continue unabated. I understand your position and certainly agree that it is the human heart that chooses to abuse this world and not use it for good ends. No disagreement there. An article recently came out in CT justifying the recreational use of marijuana based on the creation motif. Other damaging substances will eventually follow in time.

My opponent in the debate/discussion describes himself on his Reclamation website as an “alcoholist”. He has strengthened his home-brewed beer to 12%–about three times the normal strength of a typical beer sold at the grocery store or ball park. Beer tends to be imbibed in much larger quantities than wine. A twenty ounce mug is not uncommon. For this reason he cautions his customers to be careful, because if you drink too much of his beer, he says, then you might need two (not just one), yes two men, to help you back into your car and then drive you home. This cavalier attitude to such a serious matter reminds me of the prophet Micah who condemned the false prophets of Judah when he said, “If a man comes with windy words and lies deceptively, ‘I will prophecy for you wine and beer,’ he would be the preacher for this people” (Micah 2:11). What is Micah saying? That this is the type of prophet that every unregenerate person desires. Those who rejected God’s true prophets and their warnings of judgment would accept only one kind of “prophet”–-namely, a liar promising them wine and beer. I am not suggesting that Micah was advocating abstinence here, but the emphasis of a ministry certainly shouldn’t be the cavalier promise of wine and beer. On that note I hope we can agree.

Yes, Mike, I agree that we are not to live for ourselves or for the sake of pleasure, a hedonistic position. Also, there is a time and place for everything. The priests were not to drink any wine when they went into the Temple (specifically the holy and most holy place-the bible uses “temple” to refer to the whole temple sometimes and the holy places sometimes).

In response to the Princeton PhD who saw the proverbs passage as overarching, no warrant really exists for him to do so. The passage speaks against centering around the substance for the purpose of intoxication as an end result, at least in my thinking. He would need to show more proofs which would be hard to do given the other passages which speak to responsible use and godly enjoyment.

Paul condemned the symposium when he spoke against “abominable drinking parties”. Drinking should never be the focus of a person of God, it is always ancillary to the meal or gathering. As I mentioned the dynamic nature of drinking it is not cumulative if used moderately. Alcohol is always being dissipated by breathing.

So sorry to hear about your and the children’s loss.

If you think about the sacrifices and ratio of wine used, it was a small amount in relation to the animal being sacrificed. Historically, Jews are not known for heavy drinking according to Jewish studies. Could it be that they learned moderation due to the Law of the sacrifices?

You know the old adage: if you want someone to do something, just outlaw it. This creates a forbidden fruit for already fallen humans and they tend to go overboard every time.

All the best,

Alex O. Krause

Soteriologically you (and Larry) are wrong saying that the effects of alcohol are evil or that Alcohol caused this or that harm.

Not to belabor this or get back into it, but (1) where did I say the effects are evil or that alcohol caused this or that harm, and (2) what does soteriology have to do with it? You made that statement earlier but I still don’t know what you are talking about.

It is the human who miss used a substance which exacerbated the effects of the harm (but not evil or caused evil in itself).

This is what I have said from the beginning. The effects of it contribute to evil that is already in the heart. That’s not disputable, Alex. People who get drunk sometimes do things they otherwise wouldn’t do, and often those things are evil.

I reproduce your words in a post above:

In the final analysis, the Bible warns us about alcohol because of its effects on us. If those effects weren’t sinful, or didn’t exacerbate sin, it’s hard to know why we would be warned.

Larry, I seem to be out of compliance with the terms of this site so I need to end my time here. I will not post with the specter of banning hanging over me.