Approving Alcohol, Prohibiting Marijuana: An Inconsistent Position

[Mike Harding]

DBSJ 12 (2007): 29–49 WEAKNESS OR WISDOM? FUNDAMENTALISTS AND ROMANS 14.1–15.13 by Mark A. Snoeberger Go to DBTS.edu under resources.

Mark’s article on this critical portion of Scripture is must reading for anyone who wants to have a comprehensive understanding of this subject. Romans 14ff is one of the most misunderstood and misapplied Scriptures today. Cranfield and Moo are also quite helpful on this passage.

I read the article. Wow! Just wow.

“Instead, Paul is speaking narrowly to the NT believer’s newfound liberty from Mosaic restrictions that had not yet been fully accepted by all. The search for a precise connection of the injunctions of Romans 14 with the cultural milieu of today’s church, it would seem, comes up very nearly (and possibly entirely) empty. …In short, except in isolated pockets of the church where Jews are being actively evangelized, this passage has little and perhaps no direct applicability to today’s church.”

Unless my reading comprehension is entirely askew it appears that 21 pages of intellectual nattering boils down to the conclusion that 9.5% of the inspired writ of Paul to the Romans is being deemed irrelevant for all but about a decade or so of church history. Does that mean that the 12.5% of his Book of I Cor. that is dealing with a similar subject is equally irrelevant?

If we take it upon ourselves to parse this passage into complete meaninglessness there is really no end as to where we can and will go in our understanding of Scripture. And our actions will show it as we practice whatever our heart desires at the moment with the smug satisfaction that “Scripture is no longer relevant to this particular matter as it is practiced today.”

Ok SI (where “thinking is fundamental”)—I’m thinking that God is not so inefficient as to provide lengthy passages in His inspired word specifically to placate a handful of squishy believers for a few years but will effectively confuse the rest of His believing church for the next 2000 plus years. Just sayin’………

Lee, the way I’d phrase it is not that Romans 14 and such is not relevant, but rather that the situations Paul describes also describe the way in which it is. There would be some reason that either Jew or Gentile would, or would not, eat meats that neither Jewish nor pagan religion or tradition proscribed. There would be some reasons that either Jew or Gentile would, or would not, observe certain days and times of year.

And in our application of Romans 14, we owe it to ourselves to understand why they’d abstain from some things, because it gives us, in my view, a dividing line where we can truly honor the weaker (or stronger) brother, and not simply use the passage as more or less a bludgeon to enforce one’s own personal preferences on others in the church. Sadly, I think that in many places, the passage does indeed function as a sort of “hostage-taking” where someone whose faith is not impacted in the least uses it in this manner.

Strong drink is directly addressed in Scripture as something that lowers one’s inhibitions, which results in sinful behavior. I think we can take that principle as a measure for whether or not a substance can be used ‘recreationally’. IMO it doesn’t matter if marijuana or opium or Crazy Glue is/isn’t mentioned in Scripture—if the effect of its recreational use is to make you high or make you stupid, then it is foolish, and if it’s foolish, it’s sin.

There are many natural sources of mood enhancers and relaxants, from warm milk to marijuana, but there are some substances that have the particular effect of lowering inhibitions and altering one’s perception of reality, and alcohol and marijuana both have that effect.

I think most of us believe it is perfectly OK to use drugs to treat a chronic condition or disease, it’s the recreational use that divides us.

I personally believe that Scripture overwhelmingly points to strong drink as something to avoid, while acknowledging that alcohol does some have positive medicinal properties. In studies, both red grapes and red wine have been shown to contain polyphenols and antioxidants, which lower blood pressure, reduce inflammation, and prevent the formation of blood clots. Even so, the recommended maximum amount per day is 2 glasses of wine for men, 1 for women. However, people with some health conditions—certain heart conditions, liver disease…—should avoid alcohol entirely. Basically, you can get the benefits and avoid the problems by just eating red grapes every day (grape juice has too much sugar, and is lower in fiber than whole grapes). Not quite as glamorous and sophisticated as a glass of wine.

Marijuana also has several medicinal applications—chronic pain, nausea, and I remember reading about studies to use it to treat epilepsy—and some studies indicate that marijuana contains substances that can be used to fight cancer. But again, the dosage is very small. One or two puffs, or extracted CBDs in oil form, on the recommendation of a physician who should screen for other health problems that marijuana use could make worse.

In conclusion, I agree that there is an inconsistency in promoting the limited recreational use of wine/strong drink while having a wiggins about the limited recreational use of marijuana. IMO, the only way to have a productive conversation is to stop bringing our cultural views into it and focus on the principles, and the facts.

Susan, if grape juice has too much sugar, so do red grapes. Think about it a moment; from whence comes grape juice? Yes, the fiber matrix slows absorption, but not much—the glycemic index is exactly the same for both. Here’s a resource to look them up. The other big difference (beyond the use of Concord grapes vs. vitis vinifera /wine grapes) is simply how quickly you can get a boatload of calories in a juice.

Regarding “getting the same benefits”, that really assumes that the only thing going on is the resveratrol. Other factors which may be found to be significant are the effects of the alcohol, and the relative lack of sugar, in wine. The alcohol in particular is a mild diuretic and blood thinner and suppresses glucose production by the liver, among other things that are worth noting for heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and other issues. The big question is which effects are significant, helpful, and such—I don’t believe the research is conclusive yet.

That noted, please, please, please don’t succumb to the notion that it was all about medicine. There are a lot of places where Scripture notes that it’s a blessing when the fermentation vats are full, that the wine makes mens’ hearts glad, and then of course you’ve got the miracle at Cana. You don’t get that kind of enthusiasm—or or extensive vineyards—from something regarded as cough syrup.

I had a massive heart attack one year ago this month. The Lord has been gracious in giving me a measure of healing but I still have a way to go. I’ve also been seen by more than a half a dozen cardiologists and I asked each of them about this wine/grape juice/grapes debate. Every one of them said that wine was the best of the three choices but none of them prescribed it as part of my regimen. About half of them said that if I wanted to have a glass or two a day it would have a little benefit, similar to an aspirin a day. (I opted out because I don’t like wine.) All of them said that the calories and sugar content of grapes and especially grape juice negated their minimal benefits.

Susan,

In my understanding, Mark’s DBTS journal article correctly interprets the authorial intent of Paul to the situation at hand in the Roman church. Unless one understands that situation exactly, one is going to misunderstand and misapply the text. Though we don’t have a one-for-one situation today as did the Roman church with the Jewish and Gentile believers, there is much benefit in understanding how Paul dealt with his situation, our relationship to the OT Mosaic Law, and a true understanding of real legalism. No one has the right to twist the authorial intent of Scripture in order to make the Scriptures relevant to some modern issue we have today. For further understanding, read Cranfield and Moo, from which Mark draws some of his argument.

[Susan R]

Strong drink is directly addressed in Scripture as something that lowers one’s inhibitions, which results in sinful behavior. I think we can take that principle as a measure for whether or not a substance can be used ‘recreationally’. …

Emphasis mine. A solid observation, which is the very reason I insist, every time this subject comes up, to remind us that beverage alcohol is NEVER the same as drinking any other beverage or eating any other food. There is no other food or beverage in scripture that is singled out as intrinsically exerting a negative moral influence through its very substance, or that uniquely possesses the overwhelming propensity to usher in all forms of immorality, perversity, etc. . It IS a scorner; it IS raging/loud/clamorous (in the same manner as is the harlot of Prov. 7:10 and the woman of folly in Prov. 9:3); it IS going to take you into the path of the “strange woman”; it IS going to influence your heart/mouth towards perversity.

Lee’s comment, summarized, might be that it is morally wrong to provide any wine, because after all, it could lower inhibitions or otherwise change one’s mood. So here is our syllogism:

Anyone who provides inhibition lowering substances is a sinful individual.

God is one (Psalm 104:14-15, John 2, etc.) who has provided inhibition lowering substances.

Conclusion:

Hint; if the logical consequence of your theological position is blasphemy, think it over again. There are great reasons not to drink, but the notion that a mild change in one’s mood amounts to sin is foreign to the Scriptures. Never mind two mood changing substances much loved by fundagelicals, caffeine and sugar, the latter of which is mentioned in Scripture as a mood altering substance—1 Samuel 14:27 and other places.

[Bert Perry]

Susan, if grape juice has too much sugar, so do red grapes. Think about it a moment; from whence comes grape juice? Yes, the fiber matrix slows absorption, but not much—the glycemic index is exactly the same for both. Here’s a resource to look them up. The other big difference (beyond the use of Concord grapes vs. vitis vinifera /wine grapes) is simply how quickly you can get a boatload of calories in a juice.

Regarding “getting the same benefits”, that really assumes that the only thing going on is the resveratrol. Other factors which may be found to be significant are the effects of the alcohol, and the relative lack of sugar, in wine. The alcohol in particular is a mild diuretic and blood thinner and suppresses glucose production by the liver, among other things that are worth noting for heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and other issues. The big question is which effects are significant, helpful, and such—I don’t believe the research is conclusive yet.

That noted, please, please, please don’t succumb to the notion that it was all about medicine. There are a lot of places where Scripture notes that it’s a blessing when the fermentation vats are full, that the wine makes mens’ hearts glad, and then of course you’ve got the miracle at Cana. You don’t get that kind of enthusiasm—or or extensive vineyards—from something regarded as cough syrup.

It is recognized that whole fruits are always better for you than juice, especially the way most juices are processed today which removes some of the nutritional benefits, and with other sweeteners added. So if I’m going to argue wine/grape juice/grapes for their health benefit, I’m going to go with whole grapes, which have the benefit without the buzz.

Although it does appear that fermented wine is regarded positively in Scripture, I believe the very harsh warnings about seeking wine and serving wine make it doubtful enough to just avoid altogether. And then there’s the fact that I’m married to a former alcoholic, so don’t expect me to be objective, ‘cause that ain’t never gonna’ happen.

I don’t believe Scriptures warn us against all mood-altering substances, or we’d have to avoid carbs altogether. Caffeine increases alertness, vigilance, and reaction time—are these characteristics warned against in Scripture?

And don’t nobody be takin’ away chocolate, ‘cause them’s fightin’ words!

Where I was coming from is that we should not just look at substances themselves, but their effects. Why are there warnings against wine/strong drink? Because of their effects. What are the effects? Apathy, woe, strife, wounds without cause, impaired judgment, distortions of the senses and perception.

What are the consequences of the abuse of coffee and tea? Uhm… you get really hyper?

What are the consequences of the abuse of wine? Uhm…someone might do something really, really stupid or dangerous?

These are not apples to apples comparisons. The topic here is a comparison of wine to marijuana, which have much more in common in terms of affecting judgment and productivity, and can have similar destructive consequences. These are behaviors warned against in Scripture.

I’m still coming at this from principle—if we observe all the commands and counsel about being sober, vigilant, productive, bold, and mission-focused, then the recreational use of any substance that would limit our ability to be sober, vigilant, productive, etc… can and IMO should be avoided. The short-term medicinal use, however, is valid.

[Mike Harding]

Susan,

In my understanding, Mark’s DBTS journal article correctly interprets the authorial intent of Paul to the situation at hand in the Roman church. Unless one understands that situation exactly, one is going to misunderstand and misapply the text. Though we don’t have a one-for-one situation today as did the Roman church with the Jewish and Gentile believers, there is much benefit in understanding how Paul dealt with his situation, our relationship to the OT Mosaic Law, and a true understanding of real legalism. No one has the right to twist the authorial intent of Scripture in order to make the Scriptures relevant to some modern issue we have today. For further understanding, read Cranfield and Moo, from which Mark draws some of his argument.

I’ve read the article, and am working my way through the footnotes. I agree that we shouldn’t twist authorial intent in order to get a one-on-one application, but I do believe we can try to interpret the underlying principles to gain wisdom for how to handle issues we face today. Even so, we have to be very, very careful about taking those principles we perceive and preaching them as doctrine. (recalling a 45-minute message I once heard on the dangers of Facebook…)

Susan has some excellent comments. On the issue of wine itself (which was not the main point of my article): If today’s wine is not the same as wine in Biblical times (but is indeed stronger), then the argument to justify drinking today’s wine fails. Look at Geisler’s article in BibSac, for example. I find it disturbing that some who have posted in this discussion are unwilling to condemn drinking scotch, whiskey, and brandy, which would fall under the “strong drink” warnings in the OT. Nor are they willing to dilute their wine, as people did in Biblical times. I suspect that the reasoning used to support drinking wine has more to do with simply an underlying desire to drink wine (for whatever reason) than with any Biblical justification. I am afraid that some here who drink wine (and maybe even stronger alcoholic beverages) will one day see their children or grandchildren become addicted to alcohol because they saw daddy or grandaddy do it. You may be able to handle alcohol. But the example you set for others may come back to haunt you. And, to go back to the point of my article, your children or grandchildren may become regular users of marijuana because they didn’t see any difference between alcohol and marijuana. Why take this risk? Seems very foolish and stubborn.

Tyler: I have always understood your position/belief. What I find odd is that Christians will not equate scotch, whiskey, and brandy with the Biblical “strong drink” and are willing to leave that as a “liberty issue”, which it is not. And yes, some Christians do have a “secret fetish for alcohol”. I’ve seen it in their conversation, behavior, and bragging about alcohol. Once again: The marijuana issue will come back to haunt those who drink alcohol.