Hi Dan

That brings it down to this question: what is drunkenness? Essentially, I am probably trying to say that drunkenness can even be the desire for drink and its effects (mental drunkenness) whereas you might be saying that drunkenness occurs at something more than one glass of wine (physical drunkenness). That is where my argument may fail, but I am not convinced of being wrong on this point, at least not as yet, anyway.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

The other thing is in regard to desiring the effects of alcohol. Again, desiring effects of drunkenness is wrong because drunkenness is wrong. But desiring the effects of wine in that a glass makes you feel relaxed is sort of like desiring a cup of coffee because it picks you up. Being “picked up” to the extent that coffee does it is not, I think, any kind of abuse. Desiring the relaxing effect of a glass of wine (again, I think) is no more abusive or, therefore, sinful. The abusiveness of drunkenness, especially as explained in Ephesians, is the loss of mind control–those things that image us in God like relational love, moral consciousness, conceptual intelligence, creative imagination, and effective volition. That is not abused by the relaxing effect of a glass of wine. (– I think)

Dan, thank you for your comment. You betray your genes in your thinking processes! (I mean that as a compliment.)

I will have to think about what you are saying. This aspect of my argument (the Galatians 5 argument) is not hard and fast in my thinking, I am mainly thinking out loud here and welcome challenges to my thought processes and conclusions. For the record, I believe there are other strong arguments for abstinence on the basis of wisdom and on the facts that today’s alcoholic beverages and culture are vastly different from ancient times. This argument (Gal 5) is one that occurred to me as I was preaching through the chapter recently. So I concede that it may not be perfect.

I am saying in this argument that the works of the flesh are motivated by passions and desires which the Spirit filled Christian has crucified (5.24). The fruit of the Spirit is produced by the Spirit when we walk in the direction of the Spirit, crucifying the flesh as we go. I am saying that the desire to drink alcohol for the sake of the effect is a lust of the flesh, from which we are commanded to turn (1 Jn 2.15ff.). Consequently, drinking for the “effect” produced by the glass or two of wine with a meal is as fleshly as the look of lust Jesus proscribed in Mt 5. As such, I am not sure that the Sabbath laws or principle is an exact parallel, although I agree that some aspects you bring up (watching football, going to the park, etc.) could be seen as at least somewhat parallel. I will have to think that point over.

I do think you are too limiting in egkrateia by defining it as self-denial only towards sin since Paul uses it in 1 Cor 9.25 in a context where he is talking about his own self-denial, including of legitimate rights he has as an apostle to pay and to have a wife.

But thanks for the challenge, I’ll think that over.

~~~

CB, thank you for your comment as well.

Civility is a fruit of the Spirit, I think, but I am quite capable of walking in the flesh as anyone and have done so on-line all too often.

I did not address Paul’s points because in the main I felt he wasn’t dealing with the passage at hand. I will make some comment here, though. The issue of food and gluttony are often brought up in this discussion. With respect to the passage I am mainly dealing with, Gal 5, it is not listed as one of the works of the flesh, though surely it is covered under the “and such like” at the end of the list. With respect to gluttony specifically, there is a legitimate use of food that is not sin, just as there is a legitimate use of sex that is not sin. Secondly, I don’t believe that gluttony is simply over-eating, though that is surely at least a character flaw, and may well be a sin in itself. However, I believe that gluttony has a more specific meaning in the ancient world and refers to a much more egregious practice than simply overeating. I haven’t studied the term in depth, so I could be entirely wrong here, but that is my impression. I’ll have to add it to the list of work to do, since I am making some claims about it!

In any case, eating food is a necessity and eating it is enjoyable. I don’t think we should all resort to simply eating dog food so that we can be holy. But at the same time, there does seem to me to be quite a qualitative difference between eating necessary food and desiring unnecessary alcohol.

But as I said to Dan, I am thinking this through. Thanks for the challenge.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Okay, with that out of the way, let’s look at Gal 5:23. I find it difficult to see how understanding egkrateia as denial to the point of totally abstaining is relevant to that which is not defined as sin. I would agree that the word is better understood as self-denial than as self-moderation. But this is a self-denial against passions and desires of sin. Applying self-denial to that which is not defined as sin seems going beyond Paul’s argument.

I agree that using sex as an example misses the point since sex in its right context of marriage has nothing to do with sex in its always-wrong context outside marriage. But other examples do come to mind that may be more appropriate as analogy. One example is applying oneself to the rest/reflection on God that was a motivation for the weekly Sabbath. Although the OT mandates the day, the NT does not seem to do so. However, the principle involved remains. Therefore, we of this age, I think, should set aside time to rest/reflect on our Lord. We do this traditionally on Sunday, involving ourselves in corporate worship and intimate reflection on God.

The question arises in this scenario whether I should watch football, go to the park, or do other things on my day of setting aside reflection time for God. Of course, the NT does not prohibit football or anything else that we use for our own entertainment/relaxation purposes. But if I schedule/coordinate my own entertainment time on the day in which I fulfill the principle for reflection on God in such a manner as to limit, inhibit, or totally do away with my reflection on God, I believe I may sin because of my excess.

But because the danger of selfish pursuit and desire toward personal entertainment exists, I do not believe that Gal 5:23 tells me to self-deny to the point of abstinence any activity of self-entertainment. Self-entertainment (again, not defined as sinful pleasure, but mere body/mind rest/relaxation) is not a sin in itself, but can become sin when abused.

This, I think, is comparable to the alcohol issue in which the Bible argues against drunkenness–which is the excess of an act not denied to us by Scripture except in its abuse. Therefore, being mildly drunk is denied by egkrateia. All sinful passions and desires are denied in totality by the correct egkrateia understanding. But the denial is not mandated against that which is not in itself defined as sin. We are to totally abstain from all sin (as in the fornication example).

Moderation v. abstinence is not the argument for egkrateia. Egkrateia is total self-denial, but it is a total self-denial toward sin, not toward activities not defined as sin.

I have just stumbled across your blog and appreciate the civility you bring to the discussion. For full disclosure, I am a recovering fundamentalist and subscribe to the moderation position.

I think Paul in his initial post brought up an interesting point which you did not address. I have copied it below …

“Do you eat food simply for the nourishment it provides, or do you not also eat it partly for the pleasure you derive from its consumption (since gluttony is a sin, but eating isn’t)?”

CB

I think you make a good point with the word study. I enjoyed reading it. Thanks for the work. I am two wine, but that didn’t keep me from enjoying this.

As a secondary matter, I thought it was interesting how little your commentators had to say about your actual post.

Hi Chris

We all come to the argument with our bias. It is very hard to divorce our thinking from our previous bias, especially for an issue that is very strongly held, which I believe this one is, on all sides. Witness those arguing for the ‘two wines’ theory on SI and elsewhere. I believe they are wrong historically and unproven biblically, but on the right side in the final analysis. Yet they see my view (and Jaeggli’s) as a terrible compromise because they can’t see past their two wines theory.

When I came to be teaching this to our people, I determined to understand alcohol production and history and borrowed secular books from the library. They wouldn’t have an axe to grind in this fight and tend to be more objective on the facts. But even there is bias, and ultimately, our position is only derived from what the Bible says.

So far, in these two articles, I have not had anyone deal directly with my arguments, although one commenter said my reasoning was faulty in the first. He didn’t show me how it was faulty though. I would welcome interaction along those lines because I want my arguments to be biblical. They have no authority otherwise.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

You would probably be hard-pressed to find a man willing to make the incorrect argument you point out, unless he has already made up his mind about the acceptability of moderate alcohol use. Just a thought.

Chris

Paul, this is the last post I will approve of yours unless you start talking about the subject I raised in this article. It seems to me that my point stands as long as you keep bringing up extraneous points.

With respect to Dt 14.26, the verse is talking about going to Jerusalem and buying items to offer for sacrifice at the temple, including meat for peace offerings which would have been eaten in fellowship with the Lord at the temple. Next time you head to Jerusalem to do that, you will have perfect freedom to do so… unless of course you consider the sacrifices to be essential to salvation, in which case you will run afoul of Galatians.

In any case, this argument has nothing to do with this post, which is a discussion of the meaning of egkrateia and related words, translated ‘temperance’ or ‘self-control’ in our versions. I contend that it means self-denial, not moderation, and it is this self-denial that is in fact the fruit of the Spirit. Please address that proposition if you care to comment here further.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3