Approving Alcohol, Prohibiting Marijuana: An Inconsistent Position

Many of us on the FBFI board appreciate overall the writings and ministry of John MacArthur, though we don’t totally agree with every position or practice he takes. John argues for an abstinence position in his Ephesians Commentary. He gives a fair treatment of the subject. John MacArthur does not personally drink alcoholic beverages and he advises pastors not to. If he does allow drinking in his college or seminary (and I do not know for certain whether he does or not), it is probably because of the nature of the equality of Elders rule in which he was not able to get unanimous agreement to his position.

With regard to Ron’s comment, it’s worth noting that when one gets to the point of the alcoholic—the person whose very body rebels when their BAC gets too low—they tend to actually choose the cheap stuff simply because they cannot afford anything drinkable in the quantities they’re drinking. That’s the reason people talk about “bum wines”, “forties”, and “rotgut” liquor, and that’s at the core of the message (see above) of “Beer Street and Gin Lane”. The King had authorized the free production of gin to absorb a grain surplus, and not surprisingly new suppliers cared more for alcohol content than taste. Arthur Guinness’ brewery in Dublin is in part a response to this—by brewing good beer that was affordable, he ended up reducing the amount of alcohol drunk by Irishmen.

With regard to Aaron’s claim that the Bible never commends the non-medical use of wine, exactly what are we to make of the cup at the Last Supper, and exactly what are we to make of the second chapter of John? Was not Christ making wine that at least tasted like ordinary wine with alcohol for the enjoyment of wedding guests? Why exactly would our Lord note in Luke 5:39 that the old wine is better, if there were no point to actually enjoying it? Would we think our Lord would have been pleased if the drink offerings provided to Him were “bum wines”? Do you think that the extensive mentions of wine in Scripture, not to mention the extensive evidence of wineries all around the Mediterranean, are because pious people believed that it was wrong to enjoy the stuff except as medicine? Seriously?

Honestly, guys, if we’re trying to prove that Mencken was right about us, keep up the good work. God created any number of things for our enjoyment, and wine is one of them. Some shouldn’t partake because of alcoholism, some never develop a taste for it, and that’s fine. But let’s not pretend that something we don’t use was grown in huge quantities solely as medicine simply because we’ve got a cultural bias against it.

Many of us on the FBFI board appreciate overall the writings and ministry of John MacArthur, though we don’t totally agree with every position or practice he takes. John argues for an abstinence position in his Ephesians Commentary. He gives a fair treatment of the subject. John MacArthur does not personally drink alcoholic beverages and he advises pastors not to. If he does allow drinking in his college or seminary (and I do not know for certain whether he does or not), it is probably because of the nature of the equality of Elders rule in which he was not able to get unanimous agreement to his position.

I appreciate SI posting my article from Proclaim and Defend. I know the administrators look at many posts, so I appreciate the notice of my brief article.

The purpose of the article is not to argue (or reargue) the alcohol abstinence debate. Much ink (digital and actual) has been used in that debate.

My point is really very simple: Many Christians approve the consumption of alcoholic beverages yet also disapprove of using recreational marijuana. Those Christians who oppose using marijuana often use certain Biblical principles as justification for that opposition. Yet those same principles can be used to oppose the consumption of today’s alcoholic beverages. Those who believe that abstinence from today’s alcoholic beverages cannot be supported from Scripture principles and practical reasons will have much difficulty telling someone that recreational use of marijuana is wrong. Although alcohol use certainly involves the principles of wisdom, holiness, and maturity, if we are not willing to take the next step and prohibit consumption of alcoholic beverages because they do violate these principles (and instead leave the matter to “Christian liberty”), then, when faced with the use of legal, recreational marijuana, we will not be able to prohibit its use among people in churches because we are not willing to prohibit the use of alcohol either. Many of the same arguments that are usually used to defend consumption of alcoholic beverages can be used to defend use of recreational marijuana. The only difference in the arguments is that wine and strong drink are mentioned in the Bible and marijuana is not mentioned in the Bible.

Contrary to being a weakness to my argument, the non-mention of marijuana in the Bible is actually a strength of the pro-marijuana position. The argument could be stated as follows:

1. Marijuana is not mentioned in the Bible.

2. Recreational marijuana is a legal product.

3. Therefore, marijuana use is a matter of Christian liberty and choice.

If someone objects to the above reasoning by using health concerns or possible addiction problems to oppose marijuana, those same reasons can be used to oppose consumption of today’s alcoholic beverages. If you support the consumption of alcoholic beverages or, at least, you are not willing to tell someone that consumption of alcoholic beverages is wrong, then on what basis will you tell someone that using recreational marijuana is wrong? If you argue that marijuana use is unwise, unhealthy, and potentially addictive, those same arguments can be used against consumption of alcoholic beverages. Exactly what arguments will you use against the use of recreational marijuana? By allowing consumption of today’s alcoholic beverages, you have reduced your available arguments against marijuana to practically nothing. The unbeliever will not care that the Bible mentions wine favorably at times but does not mention marijuana. The believer will not see the difference between alcohol (especially whiskey, scotch, and brandy) and marijuana. Older believers might, but younger believers will not.

Some Christians, in order to justify consumption of alcoholic beverages, emphasize the examples of people in the Bible who used wine (and, of course, they did drink wine since beverage choices were limited and wine could be a water purifier) and sometimes minimize Proverbs’ warnings about wine and strong drink. I am amazed that people such as Trueman and Witherington see nothing wrong with consumption of certain strong alcoholic beverages. At a minimum, their approval and use shows foolishness, calling into question their judgment and fitness to teach in their seminaries.

If someone wishes to use Biblical example as justification for alcohol consumption, then, to be faithful to their example, you must dilute the alcohol as they did (usually 3 parts water to 1 part wine). The same example could be used by supporters of marijuana use. They could dilute the strength to weaken the impact. But, of course, since Christians who drink wine never dilute their wine, the users of marijuana will not dilute their marijuana.

So the problem here is consistency. Holding the position that consumption of modern alcoholic beverages is allowed for Christians yet the consumption of recreational marijuana is not allowed is a distinction without any real difference.

If your belief is that we cannot tell another Christian that drinking wine is wrong, then are you willing to tell another Christian that drinking whiskey, scotch, or brandy is wrong? If so, why? If not, why not? Let me ask a specific question to those in this discussion who approve of drinking alcoholic beverages: Are you willing to tell someone that recreational use of marijuana is wrong? If so, or not, what are your reasons? If you are not willing to tell another Christian that drinking whiskey, scotch, or brandy is wrong, then what do the warnings in Proverbs about strong drink refer to, and do they have any relevance to believers today? Why do conservative Evangelicals overlook the use of scotch and brandy by people like Carl Trueman (there are others as well), as if it’s simply a disagreement among Christians? Part of the reason is that they have capitulated on drinking wine and have very little argument left to oppose other alcohol. TMS knows this and wouldn’t even discuss the issue with me. Once those who approve alcohol but oppose marijuana get beyond their emotional reluctance against the use of marijuana, they (or the next generation after them) will eventually not oppose marijuana either. And that is a point to remember: The present generation may not see the inconsistency, but the next generation will see it, won’t tolerate it, and eventually will approve the use of marijuana (I suspect it’s already happening among Evangelicals in their 20s).

Could not the principles behind the strong warnings about alcohol in Proverbs (20:1; 31:4) also apply to other substances like marijuana? (Most of the 22 mentions of “strong drink” are either negative or have restrictions on use.) Could not the principles behind Paul’s warnings about slavery to sin (Romans 6; 1 Corinthians 6:12; 10:23) be applied to marijuana? Could not the warnings about personal example be applied to marijuana (1 Corinthians 8:9,11; 9:27)? Could not the strong emphasis in the Bible about having a pure, clean mind be applied to marijuana? If so, then could they not be applied to today’s alcohol? The fact that many Christians do not apply these principles to alcohol will result in reluctance or inability to apply them to marijuana as well, thus leaving them with practically no credible reason or justification to oppose marijuana. That is the point of my article.

Some in this discussion have stated that marijuana is not addictive. Note these links: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/marijuana-addictive and https://www.addictions.com/marijuana/ . Impossible to know before using marijuana or alcohol if you will become addicted. The person who insists of his “right” to drink or use recreational drugs ignores the danger. The person who approves of alcohol use but disapproves of marijuana use ignores the danger. To compare the danger of alcohol and marijuana to potential problems with coffee is absurd. When did someone cause a car accident because they had too much caffeine? The comparison is ludicrous and a feeble attempt to muddy the issue.

Some of the comments attempt to connect the abstinence position solely with the Temperance Movement, another attempt by some to raise the “cultural Fundamentalist” label. The same thinking could be applied to slavery. Opposition to slavery in America and Europe began approximately 200 years ago, so that must be a cultural position as well and therefore not binding today. Of course, no one will (nor should) make that argument, but the “cultural argument” can be applied to many issues, not just the one we’re discussing.

I suspected it would happen, and, sure enough, it did: Some of those responding in this discussion are open, to some extent, to the (limited) recreational use of marijuana and cannot offer any Biblical reason to oppose it. Additionally, none of those criticizing my position stated any concern or opposition to the use of whiskey, scotch, and brandy by certain Evangelicals. “The Sounds Of Silence” are deafening.

I used MacArthur and TMS as illustrations, not because I want to “throw dirt” at anyone. Statements like that assume motive, which none of the critics can possibly know. I have benefited a great deal from MacArthur’s ministry. But to point out inconsistencies is not “throwing dirt”. Early last year, Trueman taught a course on the Reformation at TMS and even hinted (jokingly) in one lecture about his drinking. I can only wonder what message that sends to students.

Some like to use the phrase “sacred cows” in reference to this issue. Yet “sacred cows” can be found everywhere. The “right” to drink wine and even hard liquors has become a “sacred cow”, and anyone who questions that “right” is caricatured and labeled. Certain Evangelicals are “sacred cows” and to question aspects of their ministry is considered bad form.

Some have said that the issue of alcohol and marijuana is one they “don’t care” about. I find that sad. One reason I wrote the article is that I DO care about this issue and how weak reasoning leads to inconsistencies and acceptance/toleration of what is wrong and dangerous.

I am also amazed at how the discussion here quickly focused on alcohol and avoided marijuana. Again, I am not interested in rearguing the alcohol issue here. The main concern: For those who approve of consumption of today’s wine (and even stronger alcoholic beverages) or those who will not oppose that consumption, if you oppose legal recreational marijuana use, what are your reasons? My point is that you don’t have any reasons left. Yet, as revealed in some of the comments, some posting here ARE being consistent: they approve of (or will not oppose) alcohol consumption and approve (or will not oppose) using recreational marijuana. At least they are being consistent, but, sadly, consistently wrong. If recreational use of marijuana is wrong, then consumption of today’s alcoholic beverages is also wrong as both have similar dangers and problems.

He says: “John MacArthur’s personal position on alcohol consumption appears to be abstinence”

Hey Wally … do a little research

Google: ‘john macarthur abstinence alcohol” (it’s really really easy … even a caveman … (oh nevermind)!”

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/80-380/Christians-and-Alcoh…

https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B110809

It is puerile and irresponsible for any pastor to encourage the recreational use of intoxicants—especially in church-sponsored activities. The ravages of alcoholism and drug abuse in our culture are too well known, and no symbol of sin’s bondage is more seductive or more oppressive than booze. I have ministered to hundreds of people over the years who have been delivered from alcohol addiction. Many of them wage a daily battle with fleshly desires made a thousand times more potent because of that addiction. The last thing I would ever want to do is be the cause of stumbling for one of them.

Besides, deliberately cultivating an appetite for beer or a reputation for loving liquor is not merely bad missional strategy and a bad testimony; it is fraught with deadly spiritual dangers.

[Mike Harding]

Many of us on the FBFI board appreciate overall the writings and ministry of John MacArthur, though we don’t totally agree with every position or practice he takes. John argues for an abstinence position in his Ephesians Commentary. He gives a fair treatment of the subject. John MacArthur does not personally drink alcoholic beverages and he advises pastors not to. If he does allow drinking in his college or seminary (and I do not know for certain whether he does or not), it is probably because of the nature of the equality of Elders rule in which he was not able to get unanimous agreement to his position.

From The Master’s Seminary 2017-2018 Catalog (page 62):

”Students are required to abstain from such practices as gambling, the use of beverages
for intoxication, the misuse of prescription drugs, the use of illegal drugs, and tobacco.”

https://www.tms.edu//nas/content/live/tmsbones/m/CATALOG-2017-2018-10.4.17.pdf

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-

From The Master’s University 2017 Student Handbook (page 25):

“Drugs and Alcohol
The Master’s University seeks to foster an alcohol- and drug-free environment in which students
work, live, learn, and grow. As a Christian University, we approach alcohol and drug use with a
combination of direct compassion, encouragement and instruction from a biblical perspective. In
addition to Appendix 4 The Master’s University Drug and Alcohol Abuse Policy and Prevention, the
following applies to students while they are “On Contract.”
• It is a violation of University policy to possess or consume: alcoholic beverages, drugs
(including medical marijuana and the misuse of prescription drugs) and tobacco products (including
e-cigarettes and vapes) at any time on or off campus while “on contract.”
• It is a violation of University policy for any student to supply: alcohol, drugs or tobacco
products to students “on contract.”
• It is a violation of University policy to host or in any way assist in promoting an off-campus
gathering that violates this policy.
• It is a violation to be in the company of students who are violating this University policy.”

http://www.masters.edu/media/870364/2017mastersuhandbook_829.pdf

Jim: You seem to be very good at sarcasm and put-downs. I criticize positions, not people. Your MacArthur quote illustrates my point: Such strong words about alcohol, but allows its consumption by students. If he believes that strongly, and TMS approves alcohol consumption anyway, why not resign from TMS? That’s one reason I use the phrase “appears to be”. He says he personally believes abstinence, but allows non-abstinence among students. We all know that if he insisted, he could have an abstinence policy for students. TMS has such a policy for tobacco. Read the TMS catalog. The student handbook used to be publicly available, but that access has changed.

I appreciate comments. Avoid sarcasm. It doesn’t help.

Lactic fermentation does not require milk and was commonly used in ancient times. For example, pickles were preserved by lactic fermentation until pasteurization become common.

There are numerous ancient references to mixing salt, or sea water with wine (thereby producing lactic fermentation). Columella said, “Since some people – and indeed almost all the Greeks – preserve must with salt or sea-water.” Pliny referred to a kind of wine that had sea-water mixed in. Of course, this was just one method of preservation. They had nonalcoholic wine, and they had alcoholic wine; and could preserve either.

You can also get modern day books on lactic fermentation.

As far as wine purifying water – that just did not happen in ancient times. Ancients did not have modern day knowledge of germs, etc., but they knew how to distinguish clean water from bad. They often drank water. Just do a quick concordance search of water in the Bible.

I’ve never found an ancient reference to mixing wine with water to purify the water, never. If you have such an ancient quote, I would love to see it. Yes, they mixed wine and water, but for reasons other than purifying drinking water.

Regarding Genesis 40:11, this practice is also spoken of in ancient non-biblical writings, including the early church practicing the Lord’s Supper.

But back to the main point, stay away from using any mind-altering drugs for recreational purposes!

David R. Brumbelow

[WallyMorris]

Jim: You seem to be very good at sarcasm and put-downs. I criticize positions, not people. Your MacArthur quote illustrates my point: Such strong words about alcohol, but allows its consumption by students. If he believes that strongly, and TMS approves alcohol consumption anyway, why not resign from TMS? That’s one reason I use the phrase “appears to be”. He says he personally believes abstinence, but allows non-abstinence among students. We all know that if he insisted, he could have an abstinence policy for students. TMS has such a policy for tobacco. Read the TMS catalog. The student handbook used to be publicly available, but that access has changed.

I appreciate comments. Avoid sarcasm. It doesn’t help.

The links I posted (and quote from) don’t match your claims. Do you have some evidence to cite that supports what you say?

[David R. Brumbelow]

Lactic fermentation does not require milk and was commonly used in ancient times. For example, pickles were preserved by lactic fermentation until pasteurization become common.

There are numerous ancient references to mixing salt, or sea water with wine (thereby producing lactic fermentation). Columella said, “Since some people – and indeed almost all the Greeks – preserve must with salt or sea-water.” Pliny referred to a kind of wine that had sea-water mixed in. Of course, this was just one method of preservation. They had nonalcoholic wine, and they had alcoholic wine; and could preserve either.

You can also get modern day books on lactic fermentation.

As far as wine purifying water – that just did not happen in ancient times. Ancients did not have modern day knowledge of germs, etc., but they knew how to distinguish clean water from bad. They often drank water. Just do a quick concordance search of water in the Bible.

I’ve never found an ancient reference to mixing wine with water to purify the water, never. If you have such an ancient quote, I would love to see it. Yes, they mixed wine and water, but for reasons other than purifying drinking water.

Regarding Genesis 40:11, this practice is also spoken of in ancient non-biblical writings, including the early church practicing the Lord’s Supper.

But back to the main point, stay away from using any mind-altering drugs for recreational purposes!

David R. Brumbelow

Look up lactobacillus sanfranciscii if you want to know about lactic fermentation—that’s the bacteria that gives San Francisco sourdough its characteristic sour taste. The trouble with David’s hypothesis, however, is that both lactobacilli and yeast come from the air, and the ancients had no way of choosing which microbes would predominate, and the very white powder on the surface of grapes on the vine is, of course, yeast. So there’s no way they could have “chosen” one over the other, and furthermore, there’s no historical evidence that they did. As Scripture and history tells us, they enjoyed their wine, sometimes responsibly and sometimes not.

Which is to say that, as usual, David is torturing and mangling science to pretend he’s got a case. Honestly, if alcohol doesn’t kill pathogens, why is there a bottle of the same in every hospital and medical exam room in the world? It’s only denatured, or isopropanol instead of ethanol, to stop people from drinking it—cooking wines are salted for the same reason. Moreover, while it’s true that Pasteur discovered the biological agents of contagion in the 1860s, people all over the world had been using alcohol to purify their water for a long time before that. Those who are students of history know well what happened to the Puritans and Separatists (Pilgrims) when they ran out of liquor—foul water started killing them, and quickly.

Besides, 1 Timothy 5:23. Scripture itself tells us that wine was key to Timothy’s health, so what David’s doing here is not just spouting off nonsense science and history. He is attacking the First Fundamental and Sola Scriptura. Again, David; repent!

And salted drinks? First of all, as appealing as the lead pot jelly he endorses, as evidently he never learned that drinking salt water dehydrates a person and kills him quickly. Again, if it was ever actually done, thankfully that practice died a well-deserved death.

Interestingly, Bert, Don Johnson believes this Scripture clearly proves that the Apostle Paul assumed an abstinence position, but made a medicinal exception for Timothy’s sake for health reason. I’d never heard this before. I think it is very, very bad.

It’s actually not bad at all. That Timothy was an abstainer is the view of Hendrikson, JND Kelly, (HNTC) Knight (NIGTC), and is suggested by Lea and Griffin (NAC). So yes, it is a common view, and really the only view that makes good sense of the passage. For whatever reason, Timothy had started drinking only water, and Paul is commanding him to use a little wine.

It matters, exegetically, because the only reason to tell Timothy drink wine was because he wasn’t. If, as some suggest, wine was a common drink and total abstinence was unknown, Timothy would have already been drinking and the command to drink wine would have been useless.

Tyler, I would guess that what you refer to is a mainstream interpretation in fundagelicalism, but I don’t think it holds up scientifically or historically. If it were a matter of sickness, and the default position in Ephesus were abstinence, why would only Timothy be getting sick? Waterborne disease affects all of the young, old, and sick, and a good portion of the healthy—just ask the Pilgrims or anyone who’s been around cholera. So if the default position were abstinence, Paul’s comment should have been in Ephesians, and it would have directed the entire church to have a little wine because they were getting so sick.

What I think is historically more likely is that since the Masoretic time, there had been a strong strain of Jewish asceticism (see book of Judith in the Apocrypha) that held that the enjoyment of everyday pleasures was inherently worldly, these pleasures including marriage, meat, and wine. So I’d guess that Timothy was fasting from these pleasures and getting sick as a result, and so Paul is saying implicitly “It’s OK—there is nothing inherently worldly about this good gift.” You see another hint of this in 1 Cor. 11:21, where the congregation is rebuked because at love feasts, some are going hungry while others are getting drunk. If the default position of the ancients were “dry”, what better opportunity for Paul to tell them that? Instead, Paul tells them to share.