Can Abstentionists and Moderationists Find Common Ground?

QUOTES AND MORE:

40% of all vehicle fatalities are alcohol related (MADD).

In Texas alone Alcohol-related accidents cost the taxpayers 10.3 BILLION dollars in 1999. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration).

The speed in which one drinks increases ones BAC. If just 10 ounces of wine is consumed over an extended period of an HOUR it will increase the average (200 lb) man’s BAC from .00 to .02. If it is 15 ounces it becomes .04. 20 ounces an hour = .06 (Michigan State University).
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s study on impairment effects revealed that even at a BAC of .02 “the majority of participants were SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIRED…on important measures.” (National Highway Safety Administration). IN OTHER WORDS, JUST 10 OUNCES OF WINE CONSUMED IN AN HOUR WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIR ONE’S DRIVING!

CAN ABSTENTIONIST AND MODERATIONIST FIND COMMON GROUND?

In 1962 Thomas Kuhn wrote a book, which challenged the concept of absolutes (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). While he reached implications that were erroneous, he nevertheless provided a truth, which is enlightening for our present discussion.

Kuhn, revealed that many who were involved in scientific revolutions spoke past those who held different presuppositions. For example, many of those who believed the world to be flat COULD NOT hear the validity or evidence of it being round; because they knew it was flat.

It is the same conundrum we see in the evolution/creation debate. If one begins with the presupposition that supernatural events cannot occur, then Creation is impossible no matter how much scientific validation it has. It is only when one admits the possibility that creation COULD occur that he is able to search for scientific validity for or against it. Further, it is only when one admits creation could occur that legitimate conversation can take place between Creation scientists and Evolution scientists.

This lack of communication is also evident in the current discussion on alcohol. It centers on the word “oinos.” Until abstentionists admit it could mean intoxicating drink and until moderationists admit it could mean wine diluted with water we will forever be talking past each other. While I am willing to admit that it can mean intoxicating drink, I am UNwilling to admit it can ONLY mean intoxicating drink.

This seems to be the crux. For moderationists to insist that “oinos” can only mean intoxicating drink not only negates its other uses, but it negates its normal use. NT Scholar Robert Stein has shown unambiguously, oinos normally referred to a wine/water mixture. The purpose of such mixture was to purify the water. This mixture was used for survival purposes. They drank this mixture as their normal hydrating substance. It is similar to Sweet Tea in the Old South.

I enjoy working outside in my vegetable garden, but it is work! Usually after two hours in the summer heat I come in and quickly consume two to three large glasses of tea to rehydrate my body. Can you imagine coming in and quickly consuming two to three large glasses of warm wine for rehydration? Talk about a midday drunken stupor.

Inevitably, it will be argued that they drank water. But the water had to either be “living water” (flowing water from springs, which was limited) or purified. Otherwise, it could make one ill, similar to water in third world countries today. The easiest and most inexpensive way to purify water was with alcohol. This mixture was known as "oinos." If wine and strong drink were used to purify water as both Jewish and non-Jewish cultures testify then we must consider it a possibility.

When I go to India I am told, “don’t drink the water.” I do not, but I do brush my teeth with it. On one trip, a student got sick, apparently, from brushing his teeth with it. Some Indians can drink and not get sick; I can have minute amounts without getting sick; while the student could not even place it in his mouth without an effect. I shall assume that germs, genetics and immune systems have not changed significantly in the past 2,000 years and therefore the NT dead water had similar effects. Thus, there were some who were able to survive on the water in Palestine with no problem (John the Baptist), while others would get sick (Timothy).

While many Indians drink the dead water, those who can afford to purchase purified water, do so; this is good hygienic practice, which is testified by science. Should we not assume that biblical cultures understood and desired the same health benefits? Verily, this assumption is confirmed by Stein’s work in ancient cultures.

From my vantage point, it appears that moderationists seem to equate NT culture with 21st Century American Culture. Drawing a comparison between wine-drinking then and wine-drinking now. Thus, there seems to be an assumption that the ancients would drink their tap water for sustenance during the day, and then in the evening sit down with their wife for a relaxing glass of wine in their air-conditioned dining room. In reality, NT culture was much closer to many of our third world cultures, only you could not purchase purified water then, you had to purify it with wine or other strong drink.

Hermeneutics demands that we interpret a word with its common or normal use unless the context demands otherwise.

I concede there are times when the context demands “oinos” be interpreted as intoxicating drink (I Cor. 11), but the abuse of the Lord’s Supper does not imply that oinos must ALWAYS be interpreted as intoxicating drink. Since Justin Martyr makes clear that the oinos served at the Lord’s Supper in the early church was a water/wine mixture we can logically deduce that the Corinthians were getting into the wine before it was mixed. This would explain both the drunkenness as well as the fact they ran out of “oinos.”

I further concede it is possible that the wine at the Wedding at Cana COULD have been intoxicating because of the head-waiters comments. But I believe that this interpretation creates more problems than it solves. Not the least of which is the implication that some were already drunk and Jesus was contributing to their sin. This implication alone renders it unlikely that “oinos” should be understood as something different (intoxicating drink) from its normal use (wine/water mixture).

I am willing to open my mind and consider intoxicating drink a possibility…I am asking moderationists to do the same concerning water/wine mixture, otherwise legitimate discussion cannot take place.

If you think it is POSSIBLE, (not probable, just possible) for oinos to mean a wine/water mixture then read Robert Stein’s work “Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times?” If you are unable to access it, then google “John MacArthur Be not Drunk with Wine.” This is a three part series where he quotes Stein heavily.

Finally, if we both concede it is possible for the opposing side to be correct then we can further consider the consequences if our position is wrong.
If I am wrong, I doubt I will be rebuked for not drinking wine or rebuked for encouraging others to abstain. No reputable scholar has ever alleged the Bible’s condemnation of abstinence. But, my friend, if you are wrong, and the Bible does prohibit intoxicating drink for recreational purposes, then there will be an accounting, especially, if you teach others your error (James 3).

We certainly can praise Jesus that all of our sins are covered, but such a sacrifice is not to be taken lightly. Wisdom demands that if it is possible (as scholars attest) for something to be sin then avoid it. The question seems not to be whether it IS sin, but whether it is possible that it is.

Besides the biblical debate…no industry, with the possible exception of pornography, has broken more homes, brought about more abuse, caused more death, and led to more sin then the alcoholic industry. How in the world we can even contemplate supporting it with God’s resources is beyond me.

Daniel’s example of not defiling himself with the king’s wine is a solid example for all to follow.
BR