Approving Alcohol, Prohibiting Marijuana: An Inconsistent Position
- 89 views
My apologies. Because the P&D article is linked here, I didn’t see an issue. I will make sure to not post any comment of yours in any forum ever again. I’ll just provide a direct link, instead. I see no practical difference, and find your reaction rather bizarre, but I’ll respect your wishes.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
The Old Testament referred to just pressed grapes as “wine” (Proverbs 3:10, tirosh; Isaiah 16:10, yayin; Joel 2:24, tirosh). Just pressed grapes produce nonalcoholic wine or grape juice. Notice Isaiah 16:10 refers to just pressed grapes with the word yayin; English translations simply use the word wine.
Scripture even refers to grapes on the vine as “wine’ (Isaiah 65:8).
Jesus referred to unfermented wine as “wine” (Greek word, oinos; Matthew 9:17).
So yes, Scripture and ancient writing commonly used words for wine to refer to both unfermented, and fermented drink.
David R. Brumbelow
Don has replied to my comment (above). He appears upset. My response:
Don:
I’ve spoken in measured tones, and simply disagree. This is not an “attack,” as you claim it is. P&D is not interested in dialogue in the comments section; that much is clear. Why bother with comments?
You and your people are clearly writing for your own constituency, and are not interested in having a conversation. Come to think of it - why not just erase the blog? You’re not interested in a discussion anyway, right?
I wish our interactions could actually be constructive. I tried.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Tyler, this is a side issue. It is fine to post your responses to my comments here, of course, but it is just not right to post something said elsewhere, especially in its entirety without asking permission first. I don’t think that’s too hard to grasp.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
David, so tell me; what was going to happen with the freshly pressed must when it was put into the vat or skin? Why did Jesus note that new wineskins must be used?
Sorry, David, but you are, at least in this regard, quite adept at ignoring the obvious. The clear implication of the very passages you cite is that must quickly became alcoholic new wine (that would make the heart merry), and then became stronger, milder old wine commended by our Lord in Luke 5:39 and made by our Lord in John 2.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Ancient people knew and practiced multiple ways to produce and preserve nonalcoholic wine.
Methods included boiling down fresh wine to a thick consistency that would not spoil or ferment. When ready to drink, they simply added water. This thick, strong wine (grape molasses, pekmez, vincotto) was also used for cooking.
The grape harvest (different harvesting times for different varieties of grapes) lasted six months and certain type grapes would keep fresh for months. These grapes could be pressed into wine at any time of the year (Genesis 40:11).
Dried grapes or raisins were re-hydrated and pressed into fresh un-intoxicating wine, a practice used by many Jews right up to modern times. Ancient warriors were issued cakes of dried grapes to make their own wine as needed.
Nonalcoholic wine was also preserved with salt and lactic fermentation.
For detailed documentation see “Ancient Wine and the Bible.”
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2015/03/ancient-wine-and-bible-book-update.html
David R. Brumbelow
[David R. Brumbelow]But this mixture would be lacking the disinfectant properties of alcohol, so any water would have to be boiled prior to adding to the concentrate. Salty juice sounds horrible and wouldn’t exactly quench thirst. Lactic fermentation (yogurt) assumes milk would be readily available.Ancient people knew and practiced multiple ways to produce and preserve nonalcoholic wine.
Methods included boiling down fresh wine to a thick consistency that would not spoil or ferment. When ready to drink, they simply added water….
And all this is beginning to sound like a lot of work and expense. A lot more than just fermenting. A lot more exegetical work getting around it too… :)
I was going to make this the 2nd point but I will [for the moment] elevate this to the 1st point:
John MacArthur’s personal position on alcohol consumption appears to be abstinence. Yet The Master’s Seminary allows its students to consume alcohol as long as they do not get intoxicated
Seems to be a rule at FBFI to never miss an opportunity to throw John MacArthur under the bus! His position is abstinence! I literally just read a GFY sermon by his this week. No equivocation - abstinence! But if everyone under the reach of his domain doesn’t agree with him - he’s inconsistent! If he doesn’t drive the rule to every corner of his dominance - he really doesn’t hold that position. Seriously FBFI - you are ludicrously lame!
Now to the major point: Approving Alcohol, Prohibiting Marijuana: It’s an inconsistent position … “Christians who accept the consumption of alcoholic beverages will find it difficult to justify prohibiting tobacco and, particularly, marijuana.”
This works only if “alcoholic beverage consumption” [A] = “marijuana usage” [M]
If M = A then if A should be eschewed, M should be eschewed!
The problem is A ≠ M
Follow this along. Alcohol is a drug! Caffeine [C] is a drug. Does A = C? (They are both drugs!)
Therefore when FBFI members consume C (in a nice warm cup of joe at their fellowships, they are promoting A
Only a simpleton would fall for this fallacy. [and since Wally promotes this idea, all of his church members must be simpletons (another logical error)
–––––
Giving:
- If T = 10%
- If giving T is good
- Giving 10 X T must be very good
–––-
I’m not going to get drawn (today) on whether W in 50AD = W in 2017 and the like!
Simply if one cannot see the illogic of A = M, there’s no use discussing it
Beyond the issues of unclean water and reconstitution of grapes Andrew mentions, it’s worth noting that David’s source is Columella, who is said to have had his slaves boiling must in a lead pot (yum) over an open fire 13 centuries before the chimney was invented > 2000 miles from Israel in Cadiz, Spain. He himself noted that if one enjoyed too much of the resulting syrup, one would start to show the symptoms of lead poisoning.
In a nutshell, what he’s claiming is that Israelites would have done the same, exposing themselves to heat stroke, smoke inhalation, lead poisoning. and intestinal parasites all while burning a large portion of scarce fuel in the process.
Personally, I think the ancestors of my Jewish friends were a bit smarter than that. A land where the average farmer ate barley bread three meals per day (or only two) is not one where one will be practicing nonsense like David notes, and there is a reason Thomas Welch became wealthy from his process of safely preserving unfermented juices. It’s because Columella’s method had thankfully been left in the historical dustbin where it belongs.
(it’s funny, though, that David thinks one of the chief ways Israelites processed their grapes was with equipment similar to a “still”)
Regarding the notion of simply squeezing grapes into a cup per Genesis 40:11, all I can say is “give it a try”. There is a reason the wine-press was invented , and all the wine-steward would have gotten if he’d actually tried that is a mess. This is another obvious word picture that is not meant to be taken literally.
I’m sorry, David, but work like yours is a big part of the reason that the world thinks we have lost our minds. You need to repent of it, take your book off the market, burn the existing copies, and destroy the manuscript.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
The total abstention position in America grew out of multiple factors among which were:
- Saloon ownership by the breweries.
- The lack of legal recourse for wives and families of abusive alcoholics.
- The lack of a minimum drinking age.
These factors, among others, lead to Prohibition:
- Alcohol consumption was seen as foreign. The Irish drank beer and whiskey. The Italians and Jews drank wine. The Germans (who also owned breweries that sold the poison to good Americans) drank beer.
- The passage of the income tax. Which meant the Feds didn’t have to rely on either the saloon tax or the excise tax on alcohol.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
I’ll just provide a direct link, instead. I see no practical difference, and find your reaction rather bizarre, but I’ll respect your wishes.
I learned a long time ago that it’s best to provide direct links instead of quoting, as then people can get the fullest possible view and understanding of what’s going on. What conclusions they draw from the interaction is up to them. :)
Completely agree with Jim that the FBFI simply cannot pass up on any chance to throw dirt John MacArthur’s way. Maybe that’s why so many of us appreciate him more than the FBFI…he stays focused on what he’s supposed to do and not engaging in gutter fights with brothers. It might also explain why the FBFI is fading out - people are tired of the “whosoever isn’t with us must be against us” mentality.
As for alcohol / marijuana, I completely agree with David Brumbelow:
We should stay away from the recreational use of mind altering drugs whether they be alcohol, marijuana, opioids, etc.
I don’t have a problem with marijuana or alcohol or opioids for medicinal purposes, but I would be extremely careful with recreational use. Personally, I don’t partake of any of those substances as a result, but that’s my opinion and I think that it’s possible for believers to disagree amiably about it.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Did you ever see a man who couldn’t get through his day with drinking? The first thing in the morning he needs to have one or two to get going. There’s always a drink within reach at his desk. Watch him take his drink, holding it in both hands and savoring its aroma. No “cheap stuff” for him. He knows the best brands. He’ll pay top dollar to drink the finest…let the lower classes get theirs in the grocery store. He knows it certainly has no nutritive value and that its addictive component may raise havoc with his heart and blood pressure but he’s also read reports that it may be good for him, so he’ll go with the latter. His doctor may have told him to cut back or even quit.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
This is probably a hopelessly cluttered topic. So much energy goes into matters that are related topically but not relevant to the main question.
Anyway, as for the main thesis of article that it’s inconsistent to allow moderate alcohol use and not allow moderate marijuana use… This is as clear as day — in any location where recreational marijuana is legal, which will be just about everywhere in a few years.
And to set the record straight on one point: the Bible does not speak positively about non-medical use of alcohol or the specific properties of alcohol. It just doesn’t. Every passage people try to cite in support of this claim either refers to medicinal use or speaks more broadly of the beverage as a whole not of alcohol specifically.
Part-whole fallacy: to argue that what is true of the whole must be true of every part. (Also called fallacy of division: https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-the-fallacy-of-division-250352)
Another popular fallacy in the debate is that abstinence should be dismissed because of its alleged origins in the temperance movement. This fails on two points:
- What’s so bad about the temperance movement? (Sure prohibition didn’t work out, but read up why temperance got off the ground in the first place. Clue: temperance)
- Fallacy of origin. (Also known as genetic fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy): to argue that something can’t be true on account of where it came from.
I’m probably not going to follow this discussion though. Gets too frustrating too quickly and I find it very difficult indeed not to attack the motives of alcohol defenders. I don’t want to do that though. It’s just so hard to avoid going there because the facts of the situation are so clear to me.
But hey, I’ll change my tune completely as soon as someone can find me a verse that warns of the perils of failing to consume alcohol socially. (Not holding breath ;-) )
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
My aim with my comments is not to defend alcohol. I think Christians should stay far away from alcohol, because it doesn’t ever lead to personal holiness. My objection to the fundamentalist abstinence position in general (as it’s typically argued), and Wally’s article in particular, is that they’re really bad arguments.
A few brief comments in response to Aaron:
- I wasn’t arguing that the abstinence position should be dismissed because of its ties to the temperance movement. I was arguing that, if it can indeed trace its modern origins to the temperance movement, then it is a localized and fairly recent development and does not reflect the modern or historical position of the church catholic on the use of alcohol.
- Regarding Aaron’s assertion that the Bible nowhere speaks of alcohol for non-medicinal purposes in a positive light - I am surprised at this statement, because the OT disagrees. What, for example, should we do with this description of Israel’s future restoration - “Yea, how good and how fair it shall be! Grain shall make the young men flourish, and new wine the maidens,” (Zech 9:17)? What about Amos 9:13ff;:
“Behold, the days are coming,” says the LORD,
“when the plowman shall overtake the reaper
and the treader of grapes him who sows the seed;
the mountains shall drip sweet wine,
and all the hills shall flow with it.
I will restore the fortunes of my people Israel,
and they shall rebuild the ruined cities and inhabit them;
they shall plant vineyards and drink their wine,
and they shall make gardens and eat their fruit.
I don’t particularly care about this subject one way or the other. Fundamentalism has its sacred cows, and the FBFI’s usual suspects are MacArthur, music, alcohol, evangelicalism, conservative evangelical leaders in general, and younger fundamentalists. This time, it’s alcohol. I understand that. I just think the arguments are bad here, and broadly representative of the poor way the FBFI usually argues for its sacred cows.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
For those who believe that New Wine in the Bible is unfermented grape juice, take a look at Joel 1:5 where the New Wine is cut off from the drunkards.
I choose to be a total abstainer. I see many liabilities and few advantages in drinking alcohol. But I decry the misuse of Scripture to support a prohibitionist position. A careful study of Scripture reveals prohibition of drunkenness, but temperate use of alcoholic wine.
All of this strikes me as similar, at least in some ways, to the KJVO position. A case for it can be made to the satisfaction of those who are determined to believe it, but those who study the issue more carefully know that truth is not on the side of KJVO.
G. N. Barkman
Discussion