Welcome to Summit Theological Seminary
"Teaching God's Word to God's World"
2766 Airport Road, Peru, Indiana 46970, (765) 472-4111
Mull This Over
George
L. Faull
The paper said that a clergyman who performed a
wedding was asked by a couple to propose the toast after they cut their cake at
their wedding reception. He did so and
then mingled with the people as he freely drank the wedding punch.
I have a question for you. Was the toast or punch alcoholic? Can we be sure?
Let’s play Sherlock Holmes and find out if it was
alcoholic or not.
Watson: Ordinarily a toast is alcoholic and wedding
punch is alcoholic.
Sherlock: This cannot be assumed as both the words “toast”
and “punch” are generic words and do not infer alcoholic content except by
context. If it said people got drunk we
would know but such a context is absent.
Watson: Would it not help to know the drinking
habits of the groom?
Sherlock: It surely would but we cannot find him to ask
as he has left to go on his honeymoon.
Watson: Then let’s ask the Bride.
Sherlock: Usually the bride goes with the groom on
their honeymoon so we cannot ask her.
Watson: ‘Tis true.
Then let’s ask the groom or bridegroom’s parents. Perhaps if we knew their thoughts about
alcohol we could tell.
Sherlock: Good thought, Watson, but his parents were
not there and her parents are deceased.
There is no help from them.
Watson: Then let’s find some of the guests that
were there and simply ask them.
Sherlock: That is all well and good but we do not know
any of the guests to ask.
Watson: What kind of a clergyman was it? That should help us.
Sherlock: I do not know that would help us much, do you
think?
Watson: Well, it would give us a hint. If the clergyman were Roman Catholic, Greek
Orthodox, Episcopal, or Lutheran. The
toast would probably be alcoholic. If
it was a liberal denominational church, many clergymen drink liquor. If it was a clergyman from a conservative Evangelical
church it probably would not have been alcoholic.
Sherlock: No, Watson.
There are men from all churches who drink liquor and even if they do not
personally drink they may not have the intestinal fortitude to say “no” to the
request to propose the toast.
Watson: You’re right, Holmes. Then how can we tell?
Sherlock: What was the minister’s name, Watson?
Watson: I just checked the record, it was a Mr.
George L. Faull, Evangelist at the Church of Christ at Grissom in Peru, IN.
Sherlock: It was non-alcoholic then.
Watson: But how do you know that, Holmes?
Sherlock: Elementary, my dear Watson, elementary. Mr. Faull has announced both from the pulpit
and in writing that he would not perform a wedding where alcohol is
served. Those who know him know he
would not propose an alcoholic toast or drink punch that contained
alcohol. In fact, a sermon I read of
his said he had never tasted an alcoholic drink and never would so there was no
danger of him every dying drunk.
Watson: Well, the mystery is solved then. All that was necessary to know if it was
alcoholic or not was to know the character and thinking of the preacher who
performed the wedding.
Sherlock: Precisely Watson, and this ought to help
people decide about the nature of the wine at the wedding at Cana.
Watson: Whatever do you mean, Holmes?
Sherlock: Jesus changed the water into wine. The word “wine” is a generic word, and does
not tell us if it was alcoholic or not.
The Greek word, “onios” is
used to translate 11 Hebrew words for wine, both fermented and
non-fermented. The word can denote
fresh grape juice or hard wine. It is
like the word “cider”. There is fresh cider
and hard cider. Only the context can
determine which is meant. Nothing in
context suggests alcohol. We do not know
who the bride and groom were at the wedding nor who their parents were. We cannot interview the guests though we
know there were Jews who drank alcoholic beverages and we know there were those
who would not. So the ethnic and
religious culture is no help. The only
thing we know is the character of Jesus who inspired the Proverb writer to say
“31 Look not thou upon the wine when it
is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.”
Since alcoholism or addiction
is nothing new it is hard to believe that He would make wine to be consumed by
some of them that had that problem who were no doubt at the wedding. Surely He would not be stumblingblock to
such. He also inspired words that “it isn’t for Kings to drink wine, nor
for princes to drink strong drink”
(Proverbs 31:4) and He
forbade priests to drink while on duty.
(Leviticus 10:9)
He calls his followers Kings
and Priests it is hard to believe He provided alcoholic drinks for them.
Watson: But Jesus was a Nazarite and He could not
drink liquor so He would not make it such.
Sherlock: No, Jesus was a Nazarene, not a
Nazarite. He was from Nazareth. Nazarite’s could not drink anything that grew on the vine. John the Baptist was a Nazarite.
Watson: But Jesus was called a winebibber so He
must have been a drinker of wine.
Sherlock: He is called a winebibber and a glutton by
His enemies (Matthew 11:19). Was He a glutton? A winebibber is a man intoxicated on wine (wino).
A gluttonous man is a man who
over-indulges in food. Jesus was
neither but His enemies called him that.
They also called Him a Samaritan and said He had a devil (John 8:48). Was He a Samaritan and did He have a devil?
Watson, one cannot assume
things about a man by the charges of a man’s enemies.
Watson: So you feel that the subject of the nature
of the wine of Canaan wedding hinges only on the character and person of
Christ?
Sherlock: Exactly, Watson. Just as we came to a final conclusion the toast and punch was not
alcoholic based on the personhood of Mr. Faull, we must decide the wine of
Canaan on the personhood of Jesus.
Watson: My dear man, do you think the divine Son of
God changed water into an intoxicating beverage?
Sherlock: My man, Watson. Jesus is creator of all (Hebrews
1:2). He is the giver of every good
and perfect gift. In fact, “all things
were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that hath been
made. John 1:3
When He finished creation
week all that He made was very good. As
creator he created the natural, not the unnatural. Alcoholic wine is the natural grape fermented. Non-alcoholic wine is the juice of the
natural grape. If it was alcoholic wine
that He made, it is the first thing he ever created in an unnatural state.
Watson: Interesting, Holmes. I have read their weddings lasted seven days
and they ran out of wine. Would they
not have been drunk after several days of drinking fermented wine?
Sherlock: Well, Watson, first we do not know which day
of the wedding they ran out of their own wine.
Second, there was the governor of the feast who was appointed to taste
the wine and his job was to see to it that the guests did not get too
drunk. However, when he spoke to the
bridegroom, he said the normal custom was for men to start with the best wine
and then provide inferior wine after men were well drunken (intoxicated). In that state they would not taste the
inferiority of the latter wine. It is
obvious he was not so drunk because he could taste the difference.
Watson: Well, how much wine did He make? Do we know?
Sherlock: Oh yes.
It plainly tells us the six waterpots contained two or three firkins
apiece. A firkin is 9 gallons. So there was up to 150 to 160 gallons of
wine Jesus made to be served.
Watson: Hmmm.
Do you think the first wine was fermented, Holmes?
Sherlock: Well my man, the
governor said that the bridegroom did not do what was usually done. That would be to “serve bad liquor to the
drunken by saving the worst wine to last.”
Watson, if they were already intoxicated from drinking, the FIRST wine,
then Jesus provided up to 160 gallons more liquor to men who were already
drunk! Even our laws forbid such a
spectacle. I cannot harmonize that with
the Son of God who says, “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must
needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence
cometh!” Matthew 18:7
Watson: Well said,
Holmes. It seems to me that those who
want to make Jesus the creator of the unnatural wine do so to justify their own
appetite.
Sherlock: I think you’re right,
Ol’ boy. It’s hard for me to think
Jesus blessed the union of this new couple by providing death dealing, soul-damning
liquor to them and their guests. My estimation
of the person of Jesus is much too high to think He created for the first time,
the unnatural instead of the natural juice of the grape.
Watson: Holmes, I concur with your thinking, but then I usually do. You’re thinking is always, so, so, so…..
Sherlock: Elementary, my dear
Watson, elementary!