Wine, Sex and the Bible: A Moral Analogy Explored

                I want to explore an analogy in moral reasoning to test precisely how much mileage I may get.  It could be that it runs out of fuel rather quickly.  On the other hand, it may gain a surprising bit of traction and continue on going.  Ever the probability exists, however,  analogies--if they possess any beneficial potential at all--which are tested through vigorous dialog can be strengthened through critique and resubmission with 'new and improved qualities' which may not be so easily refuted  >>>

This particular analogy was suggested in a footnote in the late Dr. Robert P. Teachout's exhaustive study of "Wine in the Old Testament", his unpublished doctoral dissertation at Dallas Theological Seminary (Th.D, May, 1979).  Indeed I owe a tremendous amount of debt to Dr. Teachout for revealing in the temperance theologians an unmined vein of gold in considering the issue of wine in the Bible. Let's tease out what Dr. Teachout suggested. 

One may confidently assert that virtually all evangelicals embrace a similar view of sexual intimacy in Scripture.  Despite some dissent at this point, we can surely agree that there is virtual unanimity in Southern Baptist circles that sexual intimacy is to be reserved exclusively for the marriage relationship.

Given such, few would even consider doubting God Himself created sexual intimacy both for procreation and well as pleasure (Genesis 1.28; 2.24-25).  Nor is it wrongheaded to assume that in the 'marriage bed' God Himself gave was there any sexual shame, abuse, deviance or sin (2.25).  Both Adam and Eve were to joyously conceive, be fruitful and multiply, having dominion over the entire earth (1.28).

Hence the kind of sex God created was good, right and pure--all of it.  Nothing impure--inward in the thoughts or external in the ethics of either Adam or Eve--is so much as hinted at in Genesis 1-2.

It wasn't until the historic Fall that sex spawned a rogue shadow--a dark counterpart--that may first be hinted at in Genesis 3.7:  "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." 

Beginning here and moving forward in history, a new kind of sexual intimacy is birthed.  And, while it is surely possible the marriage bed may be 'undefiled, so to speak--and it is even commanded to be so in the marital vow-- never again, not even in eternity, will such sexual intimacy be experienced as our first Ancestors experienced in Eden.

This new sex breed of the Fall would grow in strength and power.  This rogue sexual intimacy would garner so much force and command so much outward beauty that its magnetism would bring Kings to their doom, Prophets to their utter ruin, Samsons would melt and Solomons would easily become fools. 

This kind of sex God Himself would denounce--both those who lie with her and partake of her.  She too--as the rogue breed she now has become--created not by God but by man himself.  Illicit sex...the kind of sex God condemns.

At this juncture there is a bit of speculation involved, although not illegitimate I propose.  For in Eden, fruit was abundant, glorious and wonderful.  Adam and his spouse had the run of the Garden--one limit, obviously.  They were there to till, to sow, to reap and to enjoy. 

Though the Scripture is silent, there is no inherent reason to suppose no grapes were a part of the Garden produce.  Admittedly, it is possible.  But I think it more unreasonable to argue their absence than their presence, given viniculture was such a part of OT blessings and abundance.

If this is so, one could imagine that grapes in the Garden possessed no intrinsic flaws or defilement.  Grapes and the grapes' juice was purist imaginable and hence, no degeneracy via fermentation was there. If there was no fermentation, there was no additive of ethyl alcohol that would later result as consequence of the historic Fall. 

Indeed, one could assume--I believe, without the least bit of unreasonableness--that the quality of both leaven and ferment--were direct consequences of the judgmental Curse God placed on the earth (Genesis 3.17-19, 23).

Given such curse, the consequences Adam received were cosmic in proportion affecting, as it were, not only his progeny, but also his planet.  And, the fruit of the vine--including the Grapevine--which was before only and always a blessing for him to enjoy would inevitably become a curse upon him to ensnare.  Also, just as those who used sex in an inappropriate way were judged, those who used the fruit of the vine inappropriately would suffer judgment likewise. 

But even further, just as illicit sex--sex outside the martial bond--was itself condemned as the wrong kind of sexual intimacy God approved, so wine--the degenerated fruit of the grape--which was both allowed and purposely controlled to ferment into a mind-altering poison was likewise condemned. 

In many ways, toxic wine and unmarital sex have overlapping 'illicit' qualities.  Both possess powers that rob senses, distort morals, desensitize feelings, impair judgment, bring down Kings and make fools out of the normally wise.  Both wine and sex play well the seductress role, magnetizing the unwary into adulterous affairs--both promising rapturous delights, neither delivering fulfillment in the long run.

Thus, if illicit sex is the kind of sex God condemns--both those who employ it and the sex itself--it is both morally analogous and not at all unreasonable to suggest that toxic wine is the kind of wine God condemns--both those that use it to drunkenness as well as the toxin that leads to drunkenness itself. 

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[Katie]

Hi Peter,

I’ve enjoyed your series thus far and it has given much food for thought. Thanks! Lately I’ve been reading Ruth and thinking about some of the passages in that short OT gem in light of some ideas I’ve read here.

In ch. 3 v. 7 we read, “When Boaz had finished eating and drinking and was in good spirits, he went over to lie down at the far end of the grain pile.” We don’t know what Boaz had to drink, but the beverage at mealtime in chapter two was “wine vinegar.” The interesting thing to me is that when Boaz wakes during the night (something startled him) and he discovers Ruth at his feet, he is very clear-thinking. The short conversation he has with Ruth shows that he is thinking and responding quite clearly and there’s no possibility (in my mind, at least) that he was in the least bit intoxicated, despite reading in verse 7 that he was “in good spirits.”

Boaz and Ruth also fit into your moral analogy of today. Besides being pure in their use of fruit beverages, they are absolutely pure in respect to the marriage bed!

Thanks again for the research you’re doing!

Katie

[Chris Johnson]

Brother Peter,

This is an interesting analogy, yet any substance can be substituted for wine and carried out to the same logical conclusion. The fact is that ethyl alcohol is a substance, like salt, like water, like oxygen and could easily be summed up to be lethal by benefit of the fall of man in the garden.

Salt, water and oxygen are all poisons because in high enough quantities they can harm people. Too much salt in a diet can cause serious health problems, hyper hydration can kill athletes, and too much oxygen given to a premature infant can cause permanent blindness.

Are you suggesting that the presence of the substance of ethyl alcohol (poison), because of the fall of man in the garden, is prohibited by God and will always result in intoxication?

I can only assume that if the fall of man had not occurred, we would not be able to kill or be harmed by any of these substances. This type of thinking though is to impose a false logic on what God declares in scripture. It appears that scripture is speaking to a sinning audience indicating there is a level of control among the participants that can be maintained in Christ. So, therefore, to “not be drunk” is attainable and also commanded. Christians are to be controlled by the Spirit, whether drinking, breathing, eating, etc.

The Bible says, for example, to "redeem the time" (Colossians 4:5). Our few days here on earth are so short and precious, in relation to eternity, that we ought never to waste time on selfish things, but to use it only on that "which is good, to the use of edifying" (Ephesians 4:29).

Blessings,
Chris

[peter lumpkins]

Katie

Thanks for the comment. I am grateful what we are attempting here is helpful. And your mentioning Ruth's situation is especially helpful. One needs only contrast Boaz's behavior with that of Lot who lost absolutely all sense of moral sensitivities under the influence of wine and fathered children via his own daughters--a horrid reminder of the effects of alcohol.

Grace, Katie. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Chris,

You make two statements that make me wonder if you read the analogy closely enough:

a)"any substance can be substituted for wine and carried out to the same logical conclusion...Salt, water and oxygen are all poisons because in high enough quantities they can harm people.
b) This type of thinking though is to impose a false logic on what God declares in scripture."

First, Chris, you simply miss the understanding of sex/wine in the analogy I offered. The specific assertion was that there exists two different kinds of both sex and wine. The kind God approves; the kind God does not approve. Are there two different kinds of salt, water, oxygen? Suppose that's so. While one could reasonably speak of quantity or, to continue with the theme here, moderately partaking of the good kind of oxygen, salt, water, would you suggest one could moderately partake of the bad kind of water, oxygen and salt? That, of course, is the point--There is no room to argue for moderately engaging in the kind of sex God condemns. Similarly, there is no room to moderately consume the kind of wine God condemns either.

Secondly, Chris, how you can suggest that "this type of thinking imposes on God a "false logic" is an unproven assertion. I certainly do not intend to impose on God anything. I am attempting to read Scripture consistently. Thus, if you can critique either of the two kinds of sex or wine, be my guest. I am open.

As to your question about suggesting "that the presence of...ethyl alcohol (poison)...is prohibited by God and will always result in intoxication?" I am not suggesting alcohol will always result in intoxication. If I implied such, please annie up. I am suggesting that intoxicating wine was never God's intent to be consumed anymore than He intended molded bread or spoiled milk as a staple on the menu. We created the stuff, not God.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[wade burleson]

Assuming one believes your analogy is logical and does accurately portray the mind of God (i.e. "there exists two different kinds of both sex and wine. The kind God approves; the kind God does not approve") there seems to be only one possible answer to the following question.

Is there a moral difference between a Christian who partakes in an act of adultery or homosexuality (the sex God does not approve ) and a Christian who drinks one glass of wine (the wine God does not approve )? Are temperance advocates calling Luther, Gresham Machen, C.S. Lewis, Calvin, and a host of other evangelical moderationists as immoral as adulterers or homosexuals?

[peter lumpkins]

Wade,

Interesting you should ask such. The question seems to assume that a sin is a sin is a sin is a sin. I do not believe Scripture approves such a 'flat' view of sin. Do you?

If the Bible, then, does not assert all sin is equally sinful, your question loses any real potency.

On the other hand, supposing one to use a substance which God forbids--even in either a moderate sense or in any sense really--just because it may not be as sinful we'll say, as homosexual behavior, that does not wash the sink of all wrongdoing. Sin is still sin even if it is not equally sinful. And, from what we're saying here, God is not pleased to accept the use of alcoholic wine for pleasurable purposes.

Grace, Wade. I hope your vacation is peaceful. With that, I am...

Peter

[Antipodal]

I came across an interesting webpage recently of a church a vice principal of a Baptist Seminary pastors.
http://www.smallboatbigsea.org/

In the description of the church, they commence by saying that their services consist forst of all of sharing together some cheap wine....
Your analogy of sex, Peter, is interesting, for as you progress through their web pages, you come to the arts page.
At the arts page of smallboatbigsea, there are links to church leaders who share their art works.
One of the links to the church leaders' artwork consists entirely of artistic pornography.
http://www.thisisme.com.au/
What do you make of it?

[Strider]

Peter- I am grateful for your posts on alcohol because they have achieved, for me at least, the result you intended. I do not think all abstentionists are blindly following tradition now as I once did. I can see that you have a valid reading of the Word. I think I understand your reasoning and it is not completely ludicrous as I once thought.
To be clear here I do not drink. I have this position because in my personal walk with God He asked me not to drink when I was just 17 and living in Germany where it was perfectly legal to drink and I was encouraged to drink wine by my Godly parents.
Having said all that I remain unconvinced. I still hear you saying that alcoholic wine in itself is evil and I can't agree. I see you sex analogy in a very different light. I believe that Jesus words on the matter of eating and drinking should guide our understanding here. He said that what we eat and drink goes out into the sewer. It is what comes out of the heart that is the issue. As I follow this I see that the sex act created by God is not evil in any way but the condition of my heart is what determines sin or not. When we use sex selfishly, abusing others it is evil. When we have sex as God intended our hearts our open, leading to real intimacy. This kind of intimacy can only be had between a man and a woman who have dedicated their lives to each other in marriage. Any other use of sex is selfish- and I might add that with this understanding sex can be selfish even within marriage. Again, our hearts are the issue not the act itself. So with wine, our heart is the issue not the substance itself.
But to conclude a too long comment: I can see both abstinance and moderation as being biblically supportable and while I will teach abstention as the wise choice I will not condemn my brothers and sisters who choose to drink.
I look forward to reading more from you- I am humbly open to learning more. Thanks.

[Timotheos]

Peter,

A fine analogy, that sex is, but one which I think fails to prove your point. The "act of intimacy" - whether with my wife or with a woman not my wife - is of the same nature (or action, or substance, however you like to define it). "Knowing" by any other name is still "knowing." If I "know" my wife in precisely the same way as I "know" a woman not my wife, the exact same act is either approved, or condemned, according to the context in which the act occurred. The act itself is uniformly unchanged and only becomes sanctioned or condemned in its use (or misuse) by an agent. Your analogy works only if the actual act of knowing is of distinctly different kinds, as you suppose wine to be. I say neither of necessity admit to such a distinction, but depend upon the use of an agent for one judgment or another to be valid - not unlike the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Though you have attempted to cast wine into inherently good (unfermented) and evil (fermented) categories, the attempt owes too much to selective speculation and too little to conclusions based on the full spectrum of data. To assert that fermentation is inherently evil assumes what needs to be proved. What do you think, Peter? Is all decomposition and fermentation a result of the Fall and inherently evil? Do you think decomposition took place in pre-fall Eden? Is yeast inherently evil? Is the activity of yeast evil? Are the by-products of yeast evil?

Grace and peace,

Timotheos

[selahV]

Peter and all others: This is one of the most powerful and finely discussed comment streams I've ever read. On a topic so divisive, an analogy with properties which could provoke explosive temperment, you have all fed me with words of reason and peace. Thank you. My heart needed this tonite. selahV

[peter lumpkins]

Dear Antipodal,

Welcome. Thanks for the input. The site you selected brings up interesting questions. Is this where the young adult Church is going with both their old, but very loose view of wine and sexuality? Also, the 'look', 'feel' and 'lingo' of these young 20-30's crowd appear much like our own new generation of believers here in America.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Strider,

Know your words are a balm...a warm lotion on my tired old aches and pains. I could almost quit now (though, of course, I won't :^).

For a thinking believer such as yourself to affirm some of us old codgers to be basing our belief about wine on the teachings of Scripture (as we see it) rather than the traditions of men stands as the epitome of purpose fulfilled in this series. It simply was getting old every time a voice of objection was somewhere raised in our SBC about a loosening, if you will, of our historic, 'majority view' stance on drinking alcohol, that abstentionists were labeled as tradition-driven rather than being concerned about 'thus saith the Lord'. Thank you, Strider.

I would, before I move on, offer one clarification on your rightful concern that our interior life drives our outward ethic. As for our Lord emphasizing the heart as gauge in determining righteousness of moral act, I haven't the least reservation in embracing your view--"For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery..." (Mark 7.21 ESV).

Rather, the difficulty I find is in your extension of The Christ's Interior Principle when you write:

"...the sex act created by God is not evil in any way but the condition of my heart is what determines sin or not.

If the sex act itself is not in any way evil, I'm wondering how that works out with premartial sex between individuals or post-divorce sex between the formerly married. I further wonder how that works out between adult on child sex.

Even more significantly, if the heart determines whether the sex act is sin, would it not be possible to perceive how rape could be righteous--if not from the rapee's viewpoint, at least from the rapist's? How about bestiality?

My point is, while heart is a significant factor as our Lord surely indicates--even granting it the chief factor as you seem to do--in determining an act moral or immoral, heart is not the only factor. Hearts, no matter how holy we think our motives, are still subject to fallenness, or, in Jeremiah's description, being 'desparately wicked'. I think it can be established Biblically that adultery in heart is one thing; adultery in heart and body is quite another.

Grace, Strider. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Timotheos,

Bravo, my Timotheos, Bravo! You, I must say, went for the heart of my extended analogy and offered me a worthy challenge. I shall call your bet and raise you three hundred shillings. Only, allow me a trek to the office. I'm about to be late. Boss doesn't like me to be late :^)

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

SelahV,

I am glad this thread is edifying. It has been to me. Actually, I've never carried on an extended dialog about wine that I can recall. I hope my vulnerabilities here will be encouragement to all abstentionists that they need not hastily concede so much ground to our moderationist brothers and sisters. The skinny woman has yet to break the glass.

Grace, SelahV. With that, I am...

Peter

[Luke]

Peter,
Riding closely on the heals of what Timotheus has posed, I would like to also add this distinction. You are comparing sex(Action) to Wine(inanimate). The correct analogy should be the comparison of the sex act to the drinking act. I can compare food to wine but I cannot compare food to the drinking of wine because one is inanimate and the other is action. That distinction is not lost on the writer of Proverbs 23:21 where the comparison is between the drunkard(action) and the glutton(action). If such be the case, your analogy would not carry as much weight simply because you are comparing a duck to a fish.(I used that instead of apple to orange just to be unique)

Sex in and of itself is not bad but good as declared by God. But it is sex outside of God's ordained context that is sin. Thus, trying to compare wine itself instead of the use of wine is where I believe this analogy fails.

Good post. I had to think about this one for quite a while.

Luke

[Tim B]

Peter,

Solomon certainly would concur with your analogy. In proverbs 5 he told his "son" to avoid altogether a certain kind of alluring, seductive woman and then follows with a warning of what happens if one does not do so. In proverbs 23 he warns his "son" to avoid a certain kind of alluring, seductive wine and then follows with a warning of what happens if one does not do so. Your analogy is not only accurate but scriptural.

Tim B

[Timotheos]

I like the thoughtful attempt, Tim - it's a wise warning. But I wonder if you have gotten Solomon's thought just right. You seem to be saying all wine is to be avoided, without exception. To make Solomon own the analogy you put forward, he would also have to warn the young man away from all sex - which is a point Solomon would categorically refute, as a casual reading of his Song would show.

As Proverbs 23:20, 30 make clear, it is the drunkard who is to be avoided, and the one who lingers long over wine who is warned - just as Proverbs 5 sounds the alarm over the adulteress woman. It seems to me Solomon is no more condemning all wine than he is condemning all sex.

Grace and peace,

Timotheos

[peterlumpkins]

Luke,

I do not think I quite follow your critique, my brother. If indeed to compare something personal (in this case, making a choice to 'act') to something impersonal (wine as inanimate) constitutes an illegitimate procedure, I am wondering how the Biblical authors get a free pass comparing Someone Personal (that is, Jesus) to something impersonal (that is, a Rock, a Cornerstone, a door, etc.). Or for that matter, God (Personal and Animate) to wind, fire, and water (impersonal and inanimate).

Even more, Luke, why is comparing a duck to a fish illegitimate? Both are animate, both can swim, both eat similar foods, etc. Nor is it necessarily wrong to compare apples and oranges, for it depends on what one is comparing. Oddly, the quality by which you distinguished sex and wine was the animacy (personalness) of one and the inanimacy of the other. But both apples and oranges possess the same quality--inanimacy. Why then could they not be compared at least on that basis? Moreover, both possess the quality of being fruit.

If I were employing the fruit metaphor, I would distinguish between a healthy, juicy apple just begging my teeth to dig down deep to a rotten, spoiled apple, which, I hope most agree, is not to be consumed at all.

Grace, my good Brother. With that, I am...

Peter

[Strider]

Peter based on our previous comments we have established that we respect each other, so I will take that as permission to accuse you a little here! I think that you have said things you really don't mean in the rhetoric of your last comment to me. Specifically, concerning the sex act itself. I think that Jesus settles this when he said that the act of adultery is indeed sin 'But I tell you that he who even looks at a woman with lust' is also guilty of sin. For Jesus the beginning and the end of sin was in the human heart. The examples you gave were all examples of man gone wrong. Rape, bestiality, etc etc is evil first and formost because it is the product of a violently selfish heart. In fact, rape is a good example because it demonstrates two people having God-nonapproved sex but only one, the offender is sinning while the other is being sinned against.
Anyway, I think this bears on your post and on alcohol in general.
I am inclined to heed Colosians 2 on this point which says

23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

I like the KJV in this verse which says such laws of abstaining from certain food and drink are an act of 'will-worship'. So, to conclude I think that if you see a biblical mandate to avoid alcohol altogether then by all means do not drink but do not then think you are better than anyone else (yes Peter, I realize you have never said that you were- I am speaking to the general audience here). Instead let us encourage one another to good works and godliness knowing that whether we drink or not the heart is the heart of the matter.

[Tim B]

Timotheos,

For the life of me, I just don't see where proverbs 23:31 is a warning only for the drunkard any more than the warnings of proverbs 5 is a warning only to the individual who has a problem with adultery. Both Proverbs 5 and 23 follow the same pattern of warning. Proverbs 5:1-6 correlates to Proverbs 23:29-30 in introducing the serious nature of the problem being addressed. Proverbs 5:7-8 correlates to Proverbs 23:31 providing the warning. Proverbs 5:9ff correlates to Proverbs 23:32-35 describes the consequences of ignoring the warning.

Tim B

[Chris Johnson]

Peter,

You are probably correct; I did not operate with the analogy very well. I am not convinced there is logic in the analogy. (1) There is sex, (2) there seems to be the definition for non-alcoholic wine in scripture, (3) and there seems to be a distinct definition for alcoholic wine in scripture…the dreaded trilogy. If they are treated with the same logic, the sinful distinctions are driven from the orders of our Lord. And the Lord brings freedom to all by His orders.

My inclinations for abstaining from strong drink was born from two things: (1) the capful of wine I had in communion really stunk and burnt….so it was nasty. (some may like the taste, but not me); (2) learning about the potentials of intoxication…it appears to me to be easier not to partake….so I don’t. But, regardless of my experience, scripture makes it clear that I may partake and not sin. The understanding that I may drink and not sin is supported “not” by my choosing to abstain, but by the freedom that Christ provides to remain controlled by the Spirit which is based upon His orders. If I break His orders by being controlled by the wine, I sin…which is obviously of no profit to me in the Kingdom.

Blessings,
Chris

[peterlumpkins]

Timotheos,

As promised, I wanted to see you and raise you three hundred shillings.

First, I record myself the first to say, my courageous Brother, that I desire not at all to be within a West Georgia yell of you and your wife when you offer your sophistic rationale to her inquiring mind:

"But Honey, my love: I was not coveting our neighbor's wife; I was knowing our neighbor's wife in precisely the same way as I know you."

The megaton nuclear meltdown following such a telltale explanation, my Timotheos, would offer little hope to sip another cup of cabernet.

You also bring up the valid distinction, at least in your mind, between use and/or misuse of an agent, followed by an illustration of the knowledge
tree. May I suggest, my brother, that such an illustration counts more for my analogy than against it. Allow me.

To suggest something possesses the quality of misuse assumes it also has a valid use. I can misuse my computer keyboard as a weapon of mass destruction and pound the devil out of my computer monitor when a smart alek comments to me. Or I could use it properly and be the smart alek myself :^) I think you agree.

However, I'm now wondering how we ever came to accept that moderation is somehow acceptable when it comes to questionable acts. Take the Tree, for example. Did God tell Adam & Eve that they could moderately eat the forbidden fruit? It seems that would be necessary if we speak in terms of use and misuse. How could Adam misuse the tree God forbade him to touch?

Thus, it seems the Tree example argues not for use and misuse but use and nonuse which is precisely the temperance theologians' view of intoxicating wine.

That is, intoxicating wine cannot be misused. To the contrary, intoxicating wine should not be used at all-- especially when expecting God's blessings any more than the Tree could be used expecting God's blessings. God does not bless the use of that which He forbids use.

As for "selective speculation" of the full spectrum of data, Timotheos, this is where the temperance scholars grab moderationists by the collar and fling them as a rag doll.

Linguistics, Archeology, Semitic studies, moral philosophy, history, Biblical viticulture all point the way toward the temperance thinking. On the other hand, it's the moderationists themselves who, in cliche-like fashion, shoot their mightiest cannon ball: "The Bible condemns drunkenness, not drinking."

But when specifics are garnered in a comprehensive manner--both Biblical and extra-Biblical--the cannon ball morphs in mid-air to a spit wad.

As for yeasting, fermenting, etc being inherently evil, I can only say, as with any decomposing phenomenon: these are the unfortunate, inherent consequences of the Fall, which, I assume to believe with you, Timotheos, will be fully expunged in the New Heavens & Earth.

In addition, when it can be shown--both Biblically and extra-Biblically--that yeast mars judgment, desensitizes morals, impairs bodily reflex, endangers others, destroys relationships, staggers prophets, brings Kings to their knees and makes fools of Solomons--not to mention is described in Scripture as the poison of a snake or sting of an adder, a substance that Scripture admonishes "look thou not upon it"--I will then and there concede to you, my Brother, yeast is a substance from which we should abstain.

Grace, Timotheos. With that, I am...

Peter

[peterlumpkins]

Strider,

One quick clarification: When Jesus was speaking of looking lustfully at others, craving intimacy with them, concluding that adultery was already committed in the heart, I do not at all think He was meaning to suggest that if one were to go ahead, for example, and enter relations with that person, nothing worse would be committed. That seems to be the implication of what you are saying, Strider. Am I wrong to assume such?

My view is lust is precisely what Jesus said it was--adultery in the heart. However, if the act was outwardly intered into, not only has one now commited inward sin--adultery in the heart--but outward as well; that is physical adultery.

If Jesus was not making such a distinction, we have a very difficult time a bit later when Jesus speaks of adultery as a possible condition for divorce: "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality..." (Mt. 19.9; 5.28). Who among the wives of all here does not have a solid case for divorce from any one of us males, if the way I understand you is correct?

Grace, Strider. With that, I am...

Peter

[peterlumpkins]

Chris,

Of course, we are guided by the Spirit. No less obvious is that the Spirit will not free us to partake of that which God forbids. How do I know what God forbids? By the only sure, relaible guide I possess--His Word.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Chris Johnson]

Brother Peter,

I may be missing your point altogether, since you use the word "intoxicating wine". Are you equating intoxicating wine with the substance of ethyl alcohol in wine? This could be the source of my disconnect with your painting the drinking of wine as evil.

Blessings,
Chris

[peterlumpkins]

Chris,

I actually do not state it--or if I do, I do not state it well--as 'drinking wine is evil'. I am more interested in, at least at this juncture, in considering if wine itself, supposing it contains certain properties such as ethyl alcohol which is considered a 'poison' of the mind, is a substance that God approves.

If it can be established that He does not commend such wine which contains those mind-altering properties, from my perspective, the debate is virtually over. If the moderationist concedes such ground, he/she has little else to lose.

I think that's why, for example, on one post our Brother Steve McCoy strained himself, arguing from Prov. 23.31 "Do not look at wine when it is red...sparkles in the cup..." that this is descriptive of the drinker not the wine itself. If it is established that God condemns the substance in addition to the action of the drinker, the abstentionist has won.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Chris Johnson]

Brother Peter,

No doubt, you and I drink from the same cup (so to speak :))

Yet, distinctions are important. There seems to be a point when ethyl alcohol wine that is ingested into the body becomes intoxicating. I don’t think it would be accurate to deem ethyl alcohol wine intoxicating in and of itself. Ethyl alcohol must be ingested and at some point it does become intoxicating to its recipient. When I ingested the capful of wine at communion in 1975, the wine did have ethyl alcohol in it, but I did not become intoxicated, it just tasted nasty when I drank it, therefore the ethyl alcohol wine was not intoxicating. Ethyl alcohol wine is a controlled substance, which is demonstrated all throughout scripture in the various Hebraic languages and processes employed. I believe scripture makes and represents the spiritual distinction based upon control as well. That seems to be the intent of the teaching concerning drunkeness.

I do agree with you in that the arguments used by moderationist’s are a bit self serving, but even if their poor judgment leads them into error at times, it does not give us abstainers any more liberty to purify the grape of “so-called manufactured sin” for consumption.

Blessings,
Chris

[peterlumpkins]

Chris,

We are indeed close, my friend. Though I have to press this: Scripture does not make any graduation of wine such as you suggest. It does, suggest that certain wines are transformed already into snake's 'poison', 'mockers','brawlers' and 'cups of condemnation'. Such wines, Solomon says, 'look not upon' period, with no moderation implied.

In passing, just because you neither experienced any perceived consequences from the cup of brew you took, does not necessarily mean there were none. God told Adam the day he ate, he died. Yet no outward indications were evident he died. His body, though, began to deteriorate that very moment. At least, that's how I read the text.

Thus, 'manufactured sins' cannot come from partaking those things which God Himself forbids.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Chris Johnson]

Peter,

I must believe there are consequences for everything that goes into my mouth this side of the new heavens and earth. The Adamic sin became a vortex for all of creation, and now in response to the gospel and its power, we who are known by the glorified Christ groan for the new, followed by the creation that will serve the glorified.

I look forward to the learning more concerning the genesis of the brew this side of glory….it is fascinating!

Blessings,
Chris

[Luke]

Peter,

MEA CULPA. You are not the first to look at my logic and experience the ole' double take. But rest assured, I am working on a clearer explanation of my position in between my other responsibilities but hopefully by morning, something that you may find a little more palpable though doubtfully agreeable should be posted.
Luke

[Luke]

Peter,
Attempt No. 2

My difficulty in accepting your analogy is due to the fact that I do not believe the categories to be comparable and for this reason.

Sex becomes "toxic" when it is used wrongly. Sex is what it is. It can be partaken of in a holy manner or a sinful manner. It is not toxic in and of itself. Toxic sex is good sex used sinfully. However, you have created the second category of comparison to "toxic" wine which it is contended stands in a division all of itself. "Toxic" wine can not be used in any way but sin according to your final conclusion. Thus, toxic wine is not good wine used wrongly but bad wine not capable of being used rightly.

As far as "toxic" wine being a direct result from the fall. It is interesting I believe that wine does not occur, at least according to my feeble knowledge of the Hebrew, until AFTER the flood. The earliest Biblical recording of wine that I can find is that of Noah getting drunk after drinking it.

And, even though sex before the fall may not be what it was after the fall, we still have passages like Proverbs 5 which do not condemn the "opened eyes" type of desire but rather commends that it is pleasant when enjoyed in the confines of marriage. It is when it occurs outside the marriage bed when it is condemned.

Getting back to wine, I do not think it at all unreasonable then to contend not that wine consumption(of alcoholic content) is in and of itself sin until it is misused in a manner condemned by God. Thus the distinction posed by the writer of Proverbs 23:30 that it is not the general consumer but rather the one that "tarries long" at the wine that has the problem.

with that I remain unconvinced of this analogy.

Luke

PS I do thank you though for causing me to sit and think through this issue now for more than I ever have. I am not a complete tee-totaler for when I have the flu and need to rest, NyQuil is my drink of choice. Other than that, the only fruit of the wine that I drink is grape juice.

[peter lumpkins]

Luke,

Thank you for the second attempt. Also, I am glad that we've thought more about this than normally. I stand with you on that. As I said to SelahV, I've never discussed, at any length before, this subject. So, it is new ground for me, not to mention beneficial ground.

Now for the second attempt, Luke. You seem to concede to me so much in your initial propositions, I do not think the critique recovers. You write:

"Sex becomes "toxic" when it is used wrongly. Sex is what it is. It can be partaken of in a holy manner or a sinful manner.

Tell me, my Brother Luke, how is it that sex between two unmarried adults can be used rightly? Or in a holy manner? Does that sex become "toxic"?

I'm confused how one can argue that sex is somehow neutral when Scripture everywhere forbids it to the unwed. If something is forbidden, how can it be morally neutral?

I am not sure, therefore, the point is well taken.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Luke]

Peter,
Would it be fair to rephrase your question this way:

"Does the immoral use of something good make the good thing immoral itself?"

With that...I am thinking things through a whole lot more thoroughly before I begin to jot down my thoughts for public record.

[peterlumpkins]

Luke,
You ask:

"Does the immoral use of something good make the good thing immoral itself?"

You need to know, quite frankly, my Brother this: No one who asks a seasoned, thoughtful question as this needs be concerned about his writing on the net.

I don't know. I'll take my trusty Case and peel on it a while.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Luke]

Peter,

You asked, "If something is forbidden, how can it be morally neutral?"

Pork was forbidden to be eaten by the Jewish people. Thus, to eat pork was a sin(we can even substitute catfish, crawfish and shrimp if you'd like) Yet pork, as far as we know, is not immoral in and of itself. It would be the act of rebellion against God in doing what He said not to do that was the trouble. Not the pork in and of itself.

Right?!

With that I am now hungry.

[peter lumpkins]

Luke,

The first question, Luke, you ask on which I pondered--"Does the immoral use of something good make the good thing immoral itself?"--would draw a no, not necessarily. The assumption seems to be that one's action is the catalyst that determines the qualitative properties of something/someone else.

As for the pork chops, Luke, are they not categorized as unclean? And, did God not say to the Hebrews--His reasons are irrelevant--that the food, that is, the substance itself, is unclean?

I do not recall our Almighty saying that eating chops would make chops unclean. Similarly, I do not recall God saying consuming alcoholic wine would make it "unclean". Rather, He says, 'do not look upon it..."

I trust your morning well. And, do not eat too many fresh crawfish.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Luke]

That forces me then into asking this question prefaced by some observations. If God created all the living creatures and after doing so said it was good. And later deemed pork unclean as to mean, not good because it defiles/pollutes. Then were pigs initially amongst the animals God created or are they the spawn of Satan? I ask this not in jest at all. I think it does have serious ramifications about a lot. Consider the woman who bled for 14 years. Ritually, she was considered unclean. To touch her made one unclean. To sit upon her couch(if she had one) made one unclean. But is unclean necessarily sin and here we must be careful. After sexual relations, a man and woman were considered unclean until sundown. Is then the sex act sinful when it is in reality obedience to the command to be fruitful and multiply OR is there more to uncleanness than sin?

On a side note, I do not partake of crawfish, shrimp or crabs. I can catch 'em, cook 'em and clean 'em but I do not eat 'em. Just have never cared for the taste. But I do like barbecued pork chops though.

Luke

[peter lumpkins]

Luke,

Sorry. I just don't follow the connection at all. Pigs were dirty as well as hares because God said they were. I don't think we fully know why. Nor do we know why the unclean foods would in the NT are now pronounced clean. I do think we're far afield from the original question though.

And, shame on you. I was told when I lived in Louisiana that one was truly a Louisiainan only if he bit the heads off and sucked the tasty inners. I reminded them I was from Tennessee and would remain a Tennesseean. On the other hand, my daughters did it: bit the heads, sucked the juice.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Luke]

Then I am a sojourner in more than one way.

[Gummby]

You can make your wine argument, but if you tie it to sex, you lose. There aren't two kinds of sex; there is only one. The design and limits of sex are actually implicitly lined out before the Fall. The problem with sex is not that people are choosing to have the bad kind over the good kind, but rather, they are taking something God created good and using it for evil purposes. That's the essence of the Fall, which leaves nothing untouched. Man uses his intellect for evil purposes (the intentions of his heart are evil continually), he uses food for evil purposes (gluttony), and he uses sex for evil purposes (ie., outside the parameters God outlines).

Which brings us back to grapes. You might have some traction arguing that using grapes to make wine is a wrong use, but to arguing that fermented grapes are evil makes no more sense than arguing that decaying bananas or sour oranges are inherently evil - and thus so is banana bread and orange marmalade.

[peter lumpkins]

Dear Gummby,

Welcome to SBCTomorrow.  I appreciate your participation, my brother.  It excites me when new folk is revealed who read some of what we try to do here and even more when he/she logs on.

As for my 'wine argument losing' if it is tied to sex, I beg you to understand the nature of analogies.  Analogies never prove anything.  Instead they serve as illustrations of how one thing is similar to another.  Nor did I either tie sex to wine or base the case I'm attempting here on the analogy. 

What I did suggest is just as within God's post-fall economy there exists two kinds of sex--approved, which God created and disapproved which humans created after the Fall--there are two kinds of wine.

I fully understand you deny this difference I have offered but I do not think your points are well taken, Gummby.

Admittedly, we agree on some things here.  First, I do not dispute that our sexuality was perfectly designed in Eden's glory days (Gen.1,2); or as you rightly state, "before the Fall".  Nor do I dissent from your assertion that the Fall "leaves nothing untouched." 

I will point out though you seem to reveal an irritating tension in your thoughts, Gummby.  For if, from the Fall, remains "nothing untouched" how is it that you argue this:

"The problem with sex is...they are taking something God created good and using it for evil purposes."?

Is not sex a part of the "nothing untouched'?  Or is sex sheltered from the Fall's consequences and hence remains perfectly good, pristine and Edenic until humans taint it or in your words "take something God created good  use it for evil purposes?" 

I have to say, Gummby, my understanding of the Fall is that it set in motion cataclysmic corruption thoroughly saturating the cosmos. That would include affecting all things and I accept as self-evident truth that sex is a thing.

Nor do I accept with you, Gummby, sex as sex was created good.  Rather it was only sex as God designed it within the marriage bed period.  Thus, when you suggest that "the problem with sex is... taking something God created good and using it for evil purposes" I have to ask:  did God ever create as good, weddingless sex? 

If weddingless sex is wrong sex, then weddingless sex is bad sex.  And if weddingless sex is bad sex, no matter what one may or may not do with it, it is still bad sex.  Or, I prefer, the wrong kind of sex.

I do appreciate the credit for "traction arguing that using grapes to make wine is a wrong use..." but I have to decline the kudos.  Indeed I've done my darnedest to stay away from the categories of utility--use.  Though I keep failing, I concede, for the simple reason that utility categories are embedded in moderationists' thinking caps--use and misuse. 

Frankly, I think your basic objection, Gummby, is based on employing such.  But from the Biblical standpoint, there's no wiggle room to speak of misusing what God forbids; instead, it's nonuse.  And, God forbids the use of weddingless sex, not to mention what we are attempting to suggest here--pertaining to certain wines, our Lord also forbids their use.

Finally, Gummby, you suggested I've been "arguing that fermented grapes are evil [and ] makes no more sense than arguing that decaying bananas or sour oranges are inherently evil - and thus so is banana bread and orange marmalade." 

If you can point to a specific passage I've written that suggests this absurd caricature, kindly do so.  If not, I'll just take it as filler.

Grace.  With that, I am...

Peter