From: DBWILLIS@aol.com
Date: Tue Aug 08 1995 - 15:16:01 EDT
David Willis here,
On another list, we are discussing whether a non-medicinal moderate drinking
of alcoholic wine was prohibited in the NT. I would like to post a part of
that discussion for consideration and comment. Since my reference sources
are limited, I would appreciate input from those more knowledgable in the
language. My question would be, are there any "objective" and
"authoritative" sources that would support the idea that ~potos~ is ever used
to indicate non-excessive wine consumption...does it indicate alcohol
drinking in _any_ amount or only in excess? Here is the partial discussion
("Harry" is the other participant):
-------------------------
<< I've pretty much stayed out of the wine
matter in the past, but I feel the need to address this "banquetings is not
excess and is yet prohibited" argument. It is very frequently used by many
brethren, but is not correct. (Please note that all I might say here to
argue that moderate alcohol consumption is not a sin in no way should be
construed to indicate that I am not strongly opposed to its being consumed in
excess, which is sin.)
You (Harry) wrote:
<<The Greek word potos (translated "banquetings" in KJV, "carousings" in ASV,
and "drinking parties" in NKJV) simply means "a drinking." R.C. Trench in
_Synonyms of the New Testament_ says that the word potos denotes drinking
"not of necessity excessive" (p. 211). Since the obvious trend in 1 Pet 4:3
is of decreasing levels of alcoholic consumption, what amount of alcohol
would have been suggested by the word potos?>>
I have never heard this point about "decreasing levels" before. "Oinoflugia"
indeed seems more excessive and is listed first among the sins of drinking.
But the list is of many of the excesses of the Gentiles, not just drinking
sins, and one could not argue that the entire list was progressive from worst
to less bad, indeed some of these are wrong in any amount. "Lasciviousness"
and "lusts" start the list, and it ends with "abominable idolatries." Now
we know that there is no small amount of idolatry or lasciviousness that
would not be an "excess." So their being a sin and included in the list of
excesses was not because some level of involvement in a proper practice had
been surpassed. They were excesses because the Gentiles did them a lot, not
because necessarily because you had to do a lot of them to be a sin. That
really throws off the order of this progression when you look at the whole
list. That being said however, even if you were to look only at the drinking
sins, you could not establish that "potos" was a sin of drinking wine
"non-excessively" (in the sense of not going beyond a certain acceptible
level.)
You quote Trench (Richard C. Trench, _Synonyms of the NT_, p. 225-7) with
regard to "potos" which is very commonly done.
Interestingly, I have never found another lexicographer that would suggest
that potos is not drinking in excess, however I don't think Trench is saying
that either. It requires a very selective and prejudiced reading of Trench
to conclude that the use in I Pet. 4 is not referring to excess. This is the
only use of the word in the NT...and it is clearly used in connection with 2
other "drinking words" that DO mean excess. I have never heard of any
classical or extrabiblical uses of this word which would not imply excess
(except as possibly indicated by Trench in the LXX, with approval, see
below).
Trench opens his section on these synonyms (including potos) with the
following: "The notion of riot and excess in wine is common to all these;
but this with differences and offering for contemplation differing points of
view."
He says ~ALL~ IMPLY EXCESS IN WINE, including potos. (Harry, why did you not
include this in your quote...would this be what Skip would call "special
pleading?") Now Trench knew what he would be writing about potos about 10
lines later, so unless he was trying to confuse everyone why would he have
said "all imply excess in wine" and then later "not necessarily in excess"
if yours is a proper understanding of what he meant? Trench then equates in
meaning ~methe~ and ~potos~, saying they "are distinguishable as an abstract
and a concrete." What distinguishes these two words is not their meaning but
their way of expressing the same meaning of drunkeness. I wonder why he
didn't say that they were distinguishable as a matter of degree of
intoxication, or more precisely, as one being a matter of intoxication, the
other not. ~Methe~ very clearly means intoxicated, so what he meant was that
one word abstractly describes the state, while the other (potos) identifies
what concrete activity brings it about. We might similarly say someone who
was drunk had "been partying". A party need not include excessive drinking,
and not all parties are sins. But used in the way it is in I Pet. 4:3, the
context would make clear that a drunken state was implied.
When Trench says, "not of necessity excessive" he cites Gen. 19:3; 2 Sam.
3:20; and Esth. 4:14 (presumedly from the LXX) as instances. Note, he does
NOT cite I Pet. 4:3 for this meaning, and these cases from LXX are all of
APPROVED behavior. He then also cites I Sam. 25:36 and a classical source
where the word implies drunkeness.
Trench uses some similar language as he attempts to explain the connection of
~komos~ to the idea of being drunken. He writes, "At the same time komos is
often used of the company of revellers themselves; always a festal company,
but not of necessity riotous and drunken;(cites Euripides) ...Still the word
GENERALLY IMPLIES AS MUCH being applied in a special sense to the troop of
drunken revellers." I suppose one could take a part of this quote and misuse
it as Harry has taken a portion of Trench's definition of potos and conclude
that any "festal company" which is "neither riotous or drunken" is a sinful
activity. (Of course that would mess up the "progression" theory since komos
is supposed to be lesser form of intoxication). But Trench clearly said it
implies drunkeness. He also said as much of potos when he describes it as "a
drinking bout." A bout is a contest and is in no way an appropriate term to
apply to one's drinking, for instance, a small amount of alcoholic wine with
a meal.
It seems that the nearest to Harry's view one could "almost" reach from
Trench is that the word can mean either excessive or not excessive, and that
the context must determine it. If this is correct, it would place Trench at
odds with every other source I've found. How could one establish from the
context of I Pet. 4:3 that the context requires that it be understood as not
in excess? This is the only NT passage I've heard referenced to support the
idea that any non-medicinal alcoholic consumption is sin, so why does the
context here indicate that, especially when it's listed as one of the
"excesses" of Gentiles and used with other words meaning drunkeness?>>
-------------------------------
Regardles of which "side" your view may fall on, I would appreciate your help
with this. Thanks.
David Willis
DBWILLIS@aol.com
6728 Silver Tree Dr.
Indianapolis, IN 46236
(317) 823-4858
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:25 EDT