Christian Know-It-Allism

Jon Pavlovitz on being a recovering Christian know-it-all.

"When they hear another follower of Jesus share their doubts or deviations, whether about theological concepts or Church doctrine or even regarding the fundamental issues of God and faith, they’re forced to consider their own questions, if even for a moment. They have to confront the things they may passionately argue, yet not be quite certain of—and that can be terrifying."

Read the entire post...

Intolerance

Here is a quote from Mahatma Gandhi. In a simple and profound way, he pinpoints yet another underlying attitude prevalent throughout some forms of Christendom today: 

"Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause." 

Unfortunately, the downward trend is anything goes, but it never should become a point of hatred or ostracism. Of all people, Christians should be the ones who can deal with situations and handle those who do not believe quite like them. So what has happened? Have Christians lost faith in their own cause and leader, having traded it for a bunch of worthless doctrines and traditions? It's repugnant, that's what it is.

Liberal Scholarship

It is rather suspect that some Christians anathematize scholarship they deem as “liberal” when that scholarship undermines some of their traditional and cherished beliefs. These opinions are not generally an idiosyncratic or iconoclastic endeavor on the part of scholarship, but rather due to developments in textual understanding, manuscripts and greater availability of materials in the hands of more than just a few select individuals. Of course, those who maintain vigilance in their traditionalism amidst indisputable and insurmountable evidence suppose themselves to take their “just rendering” from Scripture itself all the while unaware that their understanding of the Scripture is anachronistic, having been influenced and formulated by reading later tradition and dogma into its actual content.

Be Not Drunk With . . . Grape Juice?

I am interrupting the salvation series to have a brief look at another topic of interest to many Christians. Recently someone asked my opinion as to what a Christian perspective toward alcohol might or should be. It’s been a topic I’ve wanted to discuss for a while, so here we go.

Within the Bible, Old and New Testaments, there are people who drink wine. What is to be made of such narratives and the wine they are consuming? I grew up in a fundamentalist environment where not only abstinence was “strongly encouraged,” but biblical interpretation mandated it.

There are numerous positions on this topic which various traditions take regarding the consumption of alcoholic beverage. Most however, I assume, would agree that being controlled and addicted to alcohol is forbidden in Scripture (e.g. Eph 5:18, 1 Tim 3:8). Let me summarize a few of these perspectives:

·        Some drink and have no problem getting a bit tipsy, others are fine with being intoxicated occasionally, but are not addicts (i.e. drunkards).

·        There are those who enjoy the occasional glass of wine or a beer, etc. but do not get intoxicated.

·         There are some who abstain from any form of alcohol due to preference, denominational allegiance, conviction etc., but not because they feel it is mandated by Scripture.

·         Then, there is a minority who believe that everyone biblically is prohibited from consuming any type of alcohol. Often this is linked to an interpretation of what “wine” is in the NT.  

I have personally heard it said, "the early Church didn't drink wine, they drank grape juice." "Ok, it was wine," others have conceded, "but its alcoholic percentage was extremely low, not like the wine today." I suppose this perfectly explains how the Corinthians were getting inebriated when consuming it? Let’s just get this out forth right: 

“All wine mentioned in the Bible is fermented grape juice with an alcohol content. No non-fermented drink was called wine.”[1]

While there are many examples that could be presented, Acts 2:13 is sufficient. When the spirit came upon these followers of Jesus on Pentecost (Shavuot) some strange things were happening. Some mockers proposed, “They are filled with new wine” (Act 2:13 ESV). Peter takes this as an insinuation of being drunk, “These men are not drunk, as you suppose” (Act 2:15 NAU). If this “new” wine contained no alcohol or fermentation and therefore cannot cause intoxication, then why do they imply intoxication and Peter infers it?[2] Perhaps some expositors want the Bible to say what they want it to say.

The popular text for addressing this topic is John 2 and Jesus’ involvement with providing “wine” (Gr. oinos) at a wedding (i.e. Jesus as a bartender). Some, who have taken issue with Jesus’ connection to alcohol, propose this “wine” was watered-down, unfermented or that it was merely grape juice. New wine – wine that was most recently harvested – was capable of intoxication, although it was not as strong as old wine – that from the previous year’s harvest. There is nothing in the culture or the text to lead to the conclusion that this wine failed to possess any amount of alcoholic content.

It may surprise some, but this sign Jesus performed at the outset of John’s narrative is not about wine, prohibition or indulgence. It’s not the point of the story. This story is loaded with nuance for John’s particular audience in Asia Minor and also an 

“implicit contrast between water used for Jewish purificatory rites and the wine given by Jesus; the former is characteristic of the old order, the latter of the new. There can be little doubt that the change of which the miracle is a sign is the coming of the kingdom of God in and through Jesus.”[3]

When serving the wine to guests, it may have been that the wine was watered down for the sake of preventing rapid inebriation, as Keener notes, 

“Sometimes at Greek parties drunkenness was induced through less dilution or the addition of herbal toxins, but Jewish teachers disapproved of such practices; that drunkenness is part of the celebration of Cana is unlikely. Yet one would normally serve the better wine first because, drunk or not, guests’ senses would become more dulled as the seven days of banqueting proceeded.”[4]  

There were those in the Bible that abstained from wine for various reasons. If nothing else, the example of abstinence by some (Nazarites, Rechabites, Daniel and company[5]) should alert us to the fact that they did so for a specific reason. What reason could there be to refrain from drinking merely grape juice, or unfermented wine?

“A careful examination of all the Hebrew words (as well as their Semitic cognates) and the Greek words for wine demonstrates that the ancients knew little, if anything, about unfermented wine.”[6]

Overall, the OT and NT look with favor toward drinking wine when done so in a responsible way.

“The evidence . . . suggests that wine in the OT was not mixed with water and was looked on with favor when taken in moderation.”[7]

Oinos (Gr. Wine) was definitely fermented; not merely grape juice. While they would indeed mix it with differing substances, in multiple ratios, for various times and purposes of drinking, this in and of itself provides no evidence to suggest they did so because of morality or ethical issues against it. Drunkenness was forbidden; excess, not the wine itself.

“Wine was consumed at daily meals (Gen 14:18; Judg 19:19; 1 Sam 16:20; 2 Chron 11:11; Is 55:1; Dan 1:5; Lk 7:33–34). It was customary in Greek, Roman, Jewish and early Christian cultures to mix wine (Jub. 49:6; 2 Macc 15:39; m. Ber. 7:5; 8:2; m. ˓Abod. Zar. 5:5; b. Šabb. 77a; Pesah 108b), usually with water (Is 1:22; cf. Ps 75:8[9]; Prov 9:2, 5; Is 65:11).”[8] 

The OT and NT are not against wine, whether it be old or new. There is no reason to think that Jesus did not drink fermented wine, and the NT makes no such distinction. Actually, according to his own admission he drank wine from which others abstained:

“For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine,[9] and you say, 'He has a demon!' The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'” (Luk 7:33-34 NAU).

The best summary I can offer is that addiction, overindulgence, drunkenness or abuse of wine (or strong drink) is strictly forbidden. It is the conscience of the individual that must be taken into consideration. If you are among those who for various reasons are offended by it, don’t. Basically, love for your brothers and sisters and not wishing to cause them hardship should override your “need” for a drink. But having a conviction to abstain need not mean we twist the text in order to support that conviction.

---

[1] Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall, “Wine,” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992) 870.
[2] For a thorough treatment of wine in general, Christian attitude, first-century context and various other thoughts regarding wine, see Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, vol. 1 (Baker Academic, 2012), 1:853-61.
[3] George R. Beasley-Murray, Word Biblical Commentary: John, vol. 36 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 36. Also see F.F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Eerdmans, 1983), 70-1.
[4] Craig S. Keener, IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, 268-9.
[5] Daniel and his little band of faithful Hebrews most likely refrained due to not wanting to participate in the king’s god-cult.
[6] Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, “Wine,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1988), 2146.
[7] Ibid., 2147.
[8] Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall, “Wine,” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 871.
[9] It is possible that John had a vow similar to that of a Nazarite (Luke 1:15).

You: Singular or Plural?

Paul’s words have caused a lot of confusion for Christians in the past two-thousand years. In 1 (pronounced one) Corinthians 6:19, he made a statement that has been interpreted in various ways:

“Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?”

There have been some creative exegetical ventures exploring exactly what Paul meant when he wrote this to the Corinthians. The results are humorous when neglecting to distinguish between singular and plural.

In the passage, “body” and “temple” are singular, but in the phrase “do you not know,” the verb is plural as is the possessive pronoun in “your own.” The pronouns “you” and “your” throughout the verse are also plural. This should immediately inform the reader that Paul is not talking to an individual or communicating that each of them is their own temple, but rather the cumulative people are a temple, i.e. a dwelling of the most high.

In 3:16 of the same letter, Paul had made this statement:

“Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?”

Here again, the pronouns and the verbal phrase “do you not know” are plural as they are in chapter 6. Also notice “a temple” not the temple. What’s the deal?

Because of the Hellenistic paradigm that pervades western culture and subsequently Christian thinking, the interpretation of this passage has largely - and anachronistically - focused on the individual; me, my and mine rather than the Pauline presentation of a community house, aka. temple.

Part of the reason the Church has lost the sense of community and participatory attitude is because no longer do most look for it, neither do we read the Bible that way. It has instead been replaced by singular faith, personal salvation and eternity, my mansion, my personal Lord and savior; I think you get my point.

Sometimes I feel like I am overusing the word, but context is crucial for a correct understanding of what Paul intended his recipients of this personal correspondence to perceive. Paul’s cultural context is relevant in how and what he thinks about temple, salvation, eschatology and his place as an observant Jew. Paul was addressing the “church” as a collective assembly, not the pastor or (under) shepherd, but the people. If you doubt, start at the beginning of the letter.

Throughout the NT it is observable that certain writers refer to the community of God with temple imagery. The picture conveyed is that within the community, the people of Yahweh, the Sheep of his pasture, is where his presence dwells. He set-up his temple/tabernacle among his people, ultimately desiring them to be a royal priesthood and exhibit to the nations around what he is like. That is – at least in part - what the temple signified. It is not that of individualism where his people are little individual temples walking around, the picture is all together his people comprise a temple, a metaphorical habitation.

In 1 (pronounced one) Peter 2 (pronounced two) the imagery is used:

 “You also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” 1Pe 2:5.

Here, the writer uses the plural pronoun “you” as well to describe a singular house. Don’t get the idea that this was a way of replacing The Temple in Jerusalem. Paul had written before the destruction in 70 A.D. and no thought of such a replacement is found in Paul’s writing.

The point is that Paul is focusing on the role of believers and the intimate dwelling God intends with his people. This is not a new concept. The prophets continually spoke of God being with or among his people in various ways. The writer of John also subtly alludes to this reality (although often distorted beyond recognition from what the author intended). 

The writer of Revelation in chapter twenty-one also describes the phenomenon a slightly different way. In the description of a Jerusalem (v. 10) coming out of heaven, her measurements represent an enormous cube. The only cube existing in the Scriptures is the Holy of Holies, the most intimate place of the Temple/Tabernacle where the presence of God resided. The habitation of the saints vis-à-vis Revelation and the “holy city,” “the Lamb’s wife” is this magnificent Holy of Holies. It gives a whole new meaning to “kingdom of priests.”

This is of course a metaphor, like Paul used with the Corinthians. They are all building blocks, components and representatives of God’s presence. God does not live in our physical and mortal bodies; this is not what Paul was saying. The first (not pronounced one) century Christians with their ancient physiology did not even think this.  It is rather about presence, anointing, authority and relationship.

Lastly, I don’t mean to insinuate that there is no amount of individual responsibility in our personal relationship with God, of course there is. It begins with you and me. God’s presence is with each of his followers, but not at the expense of his community. We (collective) have been bought with a price (6:20, 7:23 guess what, plural again).

"In the Right"

"It is ecclesiology (membership in God’s people) as the advance sign of soteriology (being saved on the last day). It is 'justification' in the present, anticipating the verdict of the future. God will declare on the last day that certain people are 'in the right,' by raising them from the dead; and that verdict has been brought forward into the present, visibly and community-formingly."

N.T. Wright, Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision, 146-7