Theology in the Raw - 681: #681 - Does Jesus prohibit masturbation? Are there degrees of punishment in hell? How to deal with doubt and a pornography addition? Why do Christians drink if John the Baptist wasn’t allowed to?

Episode Date: July 23, 2018

Questions covered on the show include: 1) Does Jesus prohibit masturbation? 2) Are there degrees of punishment in hell? 3) How to deal with doubt and a pornographic addition? 4) Why do Christians drink if John the Baptist wasn’t allowed to?

Does Jesus prohibit masturbation? Are there degrees of punishment in hell? How to deal with doubt and a pornography addiction? And why do Christians drink if John the Baptist wasn't allowed to? I'm Preston Springfield, you're listening to Theology in the Raw. Hello, friends. Welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Raw. I got a good list of questions here.

Most of them have been sent in by my Patreon supporters. So thank you so much, dear Patreon supporters, not only for your support, but also for your really good questions. We're going to get into those in just one second. But first, if you desire to support the show, got over 130 Patreon supporters and very thankful for every one of y'all who are supporting the show. If you are benefiting from the show, if you enjoy the show, or even if you hate the show, but you still want to support it, which would be really odd, but hey, I'll take your five bucks. Go to patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw.

You can support the show for as little as five bucks a month. And in return, you will get a Patreon only podcast for those that support the show at five bucks a month. If you support at 10 or 25 or $50 a month, there's extra goodies added on top of that. So that's patreon.com forward slash theology in a raw if you desire to support the show. Okay, let's jump into our first question. This one has to do with conditional immortality or the annihilation view of hell. And this questioner says, I'm not sure if you have addressed this directly, but what do you do in the annihilation view of hell

with the passages like Luke 12, 47 to 48, where Jesus seems to indicate that there are varying degrees of punishment in hell based on, in this passage, the knowledge that somebody has or doesn't have of Jesus Christ. Okay. So this is a really tough question for annihilationists. And I will be the first one to admit that. I don't think that the case for or against annihilation stands or falls on this question, but there are several passages in the New Testament that seems to indicate that there are different degrees of punishment in hell. Now I do say seems to seem to indicate because it's not crystal clear whether Jesus is being literal or whether he is speaking in hyperbole, which he, you know, it's not uncommon for Jesus

to speak in hyperbole. That's, that's kind of one of his main rhetorical techniques. So, um, so yeah, so I guess the first question would be, uh, we would need to first answer the question of whether he is actually speaking in a literal sense that there will be literal, you know, different degrees of punishment and hell. And I think this is kind of a problem for both traditionalists and annihilationists, because what would that even look like? And how do you determine, you know, who gets a worse punishment over somebody else? Like if you really think down in the nitty gritty aspects of different degrees of punishment and hell, I think it's, it gets a little bit dicey, I think even for traditionalists. But yeah, so for annihilationists, there are two different views

of annihilation. I mean, there's various shades of annihilation, but there is one view, and I think this was promoted actually by Edward Fudge, who is kind of like the, one of the main proponents of annihilation, the late Edward Fudge, who passed away a few years ago. Um, uh, but Edward Fudge, you know, wrote several books, um, on the topic and he argued that, that, that there will be different degrees of punishment or there will be a period of punishing in hell before the person dies or is killed. So that there is a time period of punishment that allows for different degrees of punishment. I'm not sure. So his main book, The Fire It Consumes, has been through several editions. I've only read one of those editions.

So I'm not sure if he stated that early on and then changed his view, or if he, you know, uh, changed it later on, or I'm not a hundred percent sure he, he believed that to the very end, but I do remember reading in one of his additions that he, um, I'm not sure he argued for it, but he, he at least allowed for it, that there could be a time before the actual cessation of life before the death of the unbeliever, there will be a time of punishment. I don't hold that view. I'm not 100% against it. I would consider it, but I won't lean that direction.

I think that the punishment is death so that when somebody is raised from the dead, they face judgment, they receive a negative verdict on the last day that they are immediately cast into hell, whatever that looks like, and they receive the punishment of death. So yeah, so I don't, in terms of the different degrees of punishment, you could say, I could say that, you know, the means of the death sentence is not exactly the same so that there are some modes of death even today that are worse than others. And so that somebody could receive a worse punishment than somebody else, even though they

both receive, you know, the death penalty for lack of better terms. Also, we have to understand when we talk about different degrees of punishment in our modern Western context, we only think in terms of pain, but in the ancient context, they're going to think way more in terms of, of shame. Um, so if, if you do, as we think through different degrees of punishment, I don't think we should just be thinking of, you know, how long is a torture? How painful is it? You know, is it, you know, one guy gets waterboarded while another guy gets, you know, some Chinese water drip on his throat or something. Um, I don't know. I don't even know if that's a thing, but please

Google that and correct me. Um, so, uh, you know, um, I think we need to have a more holistic first century understanding of what we mean by punishment as we talk through different degrees, uh, potential different degrees of, of punishment. Next question. I have heard you and others, including John Tyson state that the Bible addresses nothing specifically on the subject of masturbation. But what do you think about Matthew 5, 27 to 30? While speaking about lust, Jesus, hyperbolically, I believe, commands us to tear out our right eye and cut off our right hand if either causes us to stumble. What could Jesus be addressing here in terms of the hand and our lust? You see where he's going? I am aware that the term right hand was sometimes a euphemism

for a penis or so I've heard, but that almost makes the connection that much greater, right? So he's, this question is wondering if, if Matthew 5, uh, 27 to 30 could be addressing masturbation. I have not heard, um, and, and maybe I'm just totally ignorant on it, but I've not heard the view that the phrase right hand, um, is a euphemism for a penis. That would mean Jesus is hyperbolically saying, you know, cut it off and throw it from you, which is a really graphic picture. And I don't want to think about that much more. Um, but yeah, I, I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of that. Right hand is always a symbol of strength. Um, but yeah, I, I, I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of that. Right hand is always a symbol of strength. Um, uh, you know, uh, Jesus sits at the right hand of the father and that's a symbol of, you know, strength and authority. Um, but I've not heard right hand as a euphemism for penis.

So I would need to be, I would need to show, be shown some evidence for that. Um, either way, could Jesus be addressing masturbation here? Well, he is explicitly addressing lust and conversations about masturbation often and should include conversations about lust. And the question is, can somebody masturbate without lusting? I think the answer is yes. I think it's possible. Is it likely common? Probably not. So clearly the Bible condemns lust. Again, I'm still, I want to stick to the text and I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that during biblical times, lots of people were masturbating. I'm

also going to go out on a limb and say that the biblical writers, including the Holy Spirit, inspiring the writers were aware that people were probably masturbating. And yet we still do not have an explicit command against it. I think that that is quite telling. Like that is, if it's something that is just as common back then as it is today, even if it was less common, but still existed, which I'm just going to assume that it existed. Then it is, I think, striking that the Bible does not directly say it's wrong if it was such a common thing. So that's really the gist of my argument for saying I want to, I think there could be good philosophical or even natural law arguments against masturbation. I think we can argue

maybe even on theological grounds about the purpose of sex. You can even, you know, dig into recent neurological, psychological studies on the pros and cons, I guess, of masturbation and argue that it could be an unwise thing. But I still want to come short of saying the Bible says it wrong. It's wrong because the Bible doesn't say it's wrong. Okay. Even though the ingredients are there for it to condemn it. So, yeah, that's where I'm at. Would love to hear more from you on that. So yes, lust is wrong. Um, I would say porn watching is always wrong. Um, and yeah, I don't want to say that masturbation is always wrong, even though there are probably many good arguments for why it could be unwise. Okay. Next question. At what point

should someone who is a Christian give in to their doubts about Christianity? Okay. This is a really touching question and I do want to read the whole thing here. It's a, it's a little bit long, but I think it's important. And I think a number of you might even resonate with this very vulnerable and authentic question here. Okay. So background and context to the question. A doubt for me stems from a number of things such as not seeing things happen. For example, healings, radical love as seen in the book of Acts, radical giving or generosity or the local church living like we are commanded to. It also stems from my own sin. An example here would be my

struggle with porn and consistently fighting, praying against the sin, but seeing little progress over nine plus years. I can think of maybe two or three points recently where the culmination of these things brought me to the thought that all of what I believe was a sham. When I had those thoughts, I haven't gone much further with them as that is a rather frightening place to be. I was riding in my car recently and had wondered if there was a point where I wasn't being true to myself. Denying my faith would leave me in an extremely awkward place.

All of my close friends are believers. Much of my community is, and I am largely involved with the youth ministry at our church. I am never sure how much of my mind really believes Christianity to be true or how much of it chooses to believe it is true because it is the easiest route for me. Thank you so much for taking the time to listen to me ramble. I hope I haven't typed too much and appreciate whatever thoughts you can give to me on this. So, um, I'm not gonna read your name, obviously. Um, I, I just want to say, first of all, I think that your struggle here, your battle, um, is probably a lot more common than you realize. I would even guess maybe even some of your Christian friends that you're,

you know, kind of embarrassed to maybe talk fully for freely about all these things with, I bet some of them are probably struggling with very similar things. Your struggle with doubt and addiction, specifically porn addiction is so common. Unfortunately, I'm not excusing it at all. But it is so common that you're, you're in good company in a sense. So don't think you're alone or, you know, on some, on the fringes of, of, of the church here. Um, you know, I, your struggle is so common that it, you can go back for as long as Christianity has existed and you can read about people that had similar struggles. I mean, read, read Augustine's confessions. Like Augustine, the, one of the most heroic theologians of the faith,

um, had a major ongoing battle with lust. I mean, the way he talks about his lust is like a, what do you, what's the, uh, the phrase where he talks about living in Rome, which was a hissing cauldron of lust, I believe is a phrase he used, a hissing cauldron of lust. And he talks about his own struggle in really frank terms. And it's like, man, if internet porn was around, I'm pretty, pretty confident Augustine would have had a lifelong battle with it. Jerome, the guy who translated the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into Latin, I mean, whose response, or at least the old Testament from Latin

or Hebrew and Latin is responsible for translating the Bible that was used by the church for the next thousand years. I mean, a great saint, great theologian. He had a major, major battle with lust. It was just utterly controlling. And he took great measures to try to get rid of it. And I don't think he didn't just go away. It was a constant battle. I mean, I could think of tons of different people. Brennan Manning, a famous Christian writer,

had a lifelong battle with alcohol. I don't think he ever conquered it. Several saints that I've read have had severe depression and struggled with doubt, including King David. Okay. It's going to sound so cliched and I don't know, self-serving, but I don't know if you've read my book, Charis, C-H-A-R-I-S, but that book was kind of written to you, people like you, people with a struggle or struggling with similar things that you're struggling with. So I'd recommend that to you. I think it might

be encouraging. It was a joy for me to write it. And I've gotten a lot of feedback from people in similar situations as you're in, and they said it was helpful for their faith. Here's what I do. Here's kind of a, let me give you three, three points of advice or personal, yeah, tidbits and take them for what it's worth. This is just kind of how I interact with these kinds of struggles. When I deal with doubt and I do deal with doubt for me, I, I, I go through an intellectual exercise of tracing my faith down to the roots. In other words, I, I look at what are the other options? Okay. The two major options are there's a God, there's not a God.

As I think about the intellectual compellingness of there not being a God, um, I, that just doesn't, that sounds far less compelling than there is a God. I mean, I, and I'm not a great apologist or I haven't done all the work through all the scientific issues with faith and science or whatever. I mean, so I'm not, I'm not an expert in this kind of area, but I do know enough to know that when I look at the world, it reflects a designer, um, much more than it reflects no designer. And I don't think that the scientific claims about origins of the universe or evolution and stuff, I don't think those are incompatible with the Christian faith, maybe a certain brand of the Christian faith, but I don't think looking at, you know,

evolution, um, or the age of the earth and all these things are none of that really troubles my faith. Okay. So, so when I look at the options, God or no God, uh, I, I, I, there I'm like, okay, I just in terms of credibility, faith, whatever, I'm going to go with God. Like that just makes way more sense with what I see in the world. Um, then the question is which God, and then I kind of briefly in my mind, look at, or think through different religious options. And I've, you know, I've, I've done some study of the major world religions and different philosophies and Christianity just makes the most sense to me. I don't think it's without its problems. I think there's still, you know, the problem of evil and,

you know, the veracity of scripture and faith in science, there's still issues there. I'm not saying it's like, oh, it's just like, there's no problems when you look at Christianity. No, that yes, every system has its own kind of things that you need to work through and problems that you need to address. But of all the options, Christianity makes the absolute most sense. Um, when I read the Bible of all religious literature, it offers the most compelling vision for what the world is and how it operates and how, um, the world can be redeemed. It offers, I think the best picture of the human nature. When I look at the Bible and what it says about humanity, it says we have dark hearts and we do bad things. And when I

look at the world, there's people with dark hearts who do bad things. And we are in need of redemption that must come from outside of us. I love that picture of the, of the storyline of scripture, that redemption must come from outside a divine agent, if you will. So, so I do, I mean, I am an intellectual person. So I do go through kind of an intellectual exercise to come to a place where I can intellectually affirm Christianity. And I think you can too, your struggle here doesn't seem to be intellectual as much as it is more emotional or experientially, experiential. So then next, after I've gone through that kind of intellectual exercises to get to the point to where I do believe Christianity is the

most compelling option of the other options. Um, then I, one thing that's really helped me is to understand that people experience God differently. Okay. And this is, this is where I don't think it's helpful for certain, and I'll just keep it vague, certain church subcultures to give the impression that everybody must experience God in one particular way. That flies in the face of the beautiful diversity of what it means to be human, of what it means to exhibit the, or exude or reflect the image of God, which is multi-layered, multifaceted and filled with beautiful diversity. I think God loves diversity. And I think people will experience God and relate to God in very different ways. So some people will have a very ecstatic, emotional, almost tangible, like, yeah, tangible relationship with God. That is great for that person that, or types of people or group of people. That doesn't mean that everybody's going to experience God in that way. It doesn't mean that when people experience God differently, that they're not truly experiencing God. You can experience God in a very non-tangible, non-emotional,

maybe more intellectual way. You can have physical sensations that chemically run through your body when you're praying or experiencing God or talking with God, or you can have nothing. And those are two different valid experiences of God. Not every experience of God must be on the same sort of emotional plane. I mean, some people are just by nature of the beautiful diversity of humanity, more emotional than others. Some are more intellectual than others. So to cram some less emotional, more intellectual person into some, you know, prefabricated mold of what that person must do and experience and feel when they relate to God,

I think is very unhelpful and it could lead to disrupting people's faith. This is where people who I think unintentionally for the most part, when they have this very narrow picture of what this is, what it means to relate to God, to experience God. And when people don't fit into that mold, it ruffles their faith, it interrupts their faith because they're like, well, if that's what it means to relate to God, I'm not experiencing that, then maybe I'm not a Christian. So word of warning to those of you who may intentionally or unintentionally have a very narrow view of what it means to experience God, make sure, just be careful not to project that intentionally or unintentionally onto other people. It can, it can have faith wrecking consequences. Okay. So understand that people experience God differently.

And then thirdly, for me, I don't, and again, this is going to be debated and people may push back, going to be debated and people may push back, but I don't need miracles or audibles from God. If you look at, um, like for me, I I've never heard God audibly speak as in, if I had my iPhone out and I hit record, like I would capture an actual voice. I know, you know, people use the phrase, God spoke to me, God did this to God did that. Um, I I've yet to, I personally, I've yet to hear somebody catch that on an iPhone and actually, um, give me the audible, like to where I recorded the actual voice of God. And here's what it said. Um, that doesn't mean I'm, I'm very okay with people talking about God, speaking to them or whatever, as long as what they mean, or as long as they define that correctly. Because again, when my kid kids, when they hear people say that, then it actually kind of

messes with their faith. Cause they're like, I've never had an audible from God. I'm like, well, then I have to explain, well, they don't actually mean audible. They mean like an impression, a real strong impression, or maybe an internal voice or something like that. And they're like, well, why do they say God spoke to them? Because speaking means in common language, it means like an audible. Like, um, so I, I do encourage people to clarify exactly what they mean when they say God spoke to me and maybe God, I'm not saying God doesn't give audibles. Okay. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I have not received an audible and I don't think I need to receive an audible. God doesn't need to speak in audibles to people.

He doesn't need to do radical miracles for him to reveal himself or for him to show that he's present. God can be present in a myriad of different ways. We know this from biblical history. There's actually few times in biblical history when God revealed himself through kind of earth shattering miracles or even audibles. The whole post-exilic time period from, well, after the exile, right? Post-exilic, um, God worked largely behind the scenes through human rulers and, and more quietly without ruffling red seas and, and talking through donkeys and snakes and so on, not snakes, but yeah, he doesn't talk through donkeys or do these crazy miracles in a post-exilic period. And, and so I'm very okay. I don't need, I think miracles would be great. It'd be

cool to see, you know, Red Sea's part, uh, be cool to hear an audible voice from God, preferably speaking in English. Cause that's what I speak. Um, but I, uh, I don't need that to happen to know that God exists. So I think if you agree, I'm talking straight to the questioner here, if you agree with that, or if you don't agree with that, I mean, I would, I would challenge you to think through that. Cause it, um, cause you did say at the beginning that you're, um, that you really struggle with this. Like you don't see kind of clear evidence of God, like, like God breaking into history

through miracles and healings and so on. Um, again, let me just, just be clear one more time. I think God can and does do miracles. I think God can, and I'm going to assume does do audibles sometimes to certain people. Um, I just don't think you need, we need that for our faith to, um, flourish. There's that story in Luke 16 where, uh, the rich man and Lazarus or the rich man says, you know, send Lazarus and tell my brothers, because if somebody comes back from the dead, then they will for sure believe in, in, in, in that this place is real. They'll believe in God and so on. And remember what

Abraham says, he says, look, they have the scriptures. If they don't believe the scriptures, then they're not going to believe even if somebody comes back from the dead. In other words, the test, the testimony of scripture is actually more powerful than the testimony of a miracle. And if they don't believe the text, if they don't believe scripture, then they're not going to believe the miracle. We have the written revelation of God. I'm going to get all old school fundy here, okay? We have the written revelation of God and that is always there. That is always true. Whether a miracle happens or not, that is something that is uniform to all believers.

We have God's written revelation to us. Porn addiction, my gosh, this is, I mean, have you, have you sought help? Have you, there are certain programs, I believe, that have been effective at helping people with porn addiction. But it, I mean, this really is an epidemic. I thank God that I was a teenager before the internet. Like, I just, I can't imagine. internet like i just i can't imagine um so i mean i have enough track record in my life where the you know pornography was really hard to get like you'd have to like you know like you know pay go into a store and buy a magazine or something which was totally shameful or somehow get a hold of a vhs

thing and hope that you know it doesn't get stuck in the VCR before your parents come home or something. I mean, it was, it was actually really hard to get, but now we're, we're putting, um, we're putting free pornography in the pockets of 13 year old kids at the latest, like that with smartphones and so on. Like it's just, this is, this is insane. It's insane. So I'm going to assume, well, maybe I shouldn't assume. I mean, my first piece of advice was there are practical, radical measures you can take. I know people that don't have a smartphone. They have a flip phone. They don't have internet.

They don't have Safari. They have all kinds of blockers. They take away the opportunity as much as they can to view porn. Now, the porn addicts I've talked to say, look, I will find a way. You can put all the blockers in place. I will find some way to view it. But I don't know. I still do think these practical measures can help. They can't hurt, I think they can help to take away the ease through which people can view porn. But yeah, I would just seek help, man.

I don't know. Seek help. There's programs out there that can help. There's people that I know that can try to hold you accountable. It can be conquered. It can be conquered. So don't lose hope and don't give up and do take radical measures to try to conquer what is become one of the most addicting things that people can do. Next question. This is not a question. This is more of a testimony. I just wanted to read this

really quick. He says, the last few years I've been struggling with doubting God's goodness and understanding who he is. And your podcast has been instrumental in helping me trust God for who he says he is. So I really appreciate that. I'm glad the podcast is not just helping people with information and intellectual stuff, but is helping people with their faith. So thank you for letting me know that. You also go on to say, not sure if you keep a tally of military officers that have had a change of heart about violence,

but I just got out of the army in January and I'm well on that path. Always makes me, always makes it awkward when people at church find me and say, thank you for your service. Just to let you know, I get quite a few of these actually. Yes, I haven't kept, I should keep a tally, but I get periodic emails uh, emails from people saying, you know, I'm in the military, I'm high up in the military. I, a lot of them say, you know, I read your book fight and I have changed my view and I'm leaving the military or I'm rethinking everything I thought about violence. So, um, yes, you are not alone. Um, the military is not a monolithic group of people, uh, in terms of their allegiance to military might and violence and fighting the bad guys and so on.

Um, it is a very complex situation. And yes, I have talked to a lot of people, surprising number of people who, um, are in the military and rethinking all that they thought they knew before going into the military. Next question. How important is the annihilation eternal conscious torment conversation for Christians? When I've tried to bring it up in conversation with believing friends, I get more pushback that it isn't as important as other beliefs and ideas. My general response has been that it is important for us to test and question what we believe

against what the Bible says, rather than relying on tradition. I don't think it is a primary issue, but there is tremendous value in asking where the text leads. If we are saying this text was inspired by God, have you ran into similar problems when talking about this with your friends? And what was the main driver in your exploration of this critique or did this, uh, of this topic? So, um, I don't think it's a primary issue. However, some advocates of ECT, eternal conscious torment, do think it's a primary issue. I mean, I frequently, you know, get critiqued as being a heretic and it's usually because of my view of hell. So obviously it's a primary issue for somebody to say that I'm a heretic for it's usually because of my view of hell. So obviously it's a primary issue for somebody to say that I'm a heretic for believing in the biblical view of annihilation.

See what I did there. Um, so I, yeah, I think it really depends. Some people think it's a primary issue. Some people don't. Usually people think it's a primary issue when, when people start questioning, uh, eternal conscious torment, then all of a sudden it becomes kind of a primary issue. Also in terms of the practicality or, you know, how much should we make of this? You know, for us, a good number of Christians, um, eternal conscious torment has been a major cause of doubt in their faith. I know a lot of people, Christians and non-Christians, that this is a major hangup for them. Um, for Christians, you know, they still like, man, I, I believe in God, I believe in Jesus, but man, this ECT thing, I just, this is really, if God

does this, this is a really hard thing for me to believe in. Um, and I know a lot of non-Christians who could never believe in a God who would torture people forever and ever and ever. So their main, one of their main hangups with Christianity is the doctrine of eternal conscious torment. So however you rank different doctrines, primary, secondary, whatever, for a good number of people, this is a really big deal. This is a really big deal. And so I don't want to say it's just some off in the distant secondary issue. For quite a number of people, it's a it's a major, um, either hang up

in their faith or, or a relief when they find out that, you know, the annihilation view has strong biblical support. Um, and what you said here is interesting that the, the, the debate between annihilation and eternal conscious torment is actually, I love what you say here. It is a good sort of exercise in biblical hermeneutics, or it's a good test to see, are you willing to go where the text leads? And that sounds really arrogant as if annihilation is the only way, you know, the only place where the text leads, but how do I say it? I mean, it is fascinating how much biblical support there is for annihilation. And when I mentioned that biblical support, how often it's met just with simple disagreement without refutation.

It's fascinating. And it is kind of reveal how willing are we to at least entertain biblical arguments? Or are we just, you know, do we just have sort of a psychological screen over our face to where we can only entertain things that we presuppose are valid biblical interpretations without even wrestling with the biblical evidence for or against that view? So this issue has been almost, for me, more interesting in terms of what it exposes about our presuppositions and exposes about how willing we are to at least pursue or entertain, you know, different biblical arguments for certain views.

Last question. Why would God allow Christians to drink, but not allow John the Baptist to drink? Question, why would God allow Christians to drink, but not allow John the Baptist to drink? This comes from a mother with four teenage kids and they are of a Nazarene background. And Nazarene, if you know, is a very big, you know, what's it like a teetotaler tradition from what I know, Nazarene churches and pastors and leaders simply do not drink. Like it's a kind of a big part of their tradition. And this person is saying, is of that tradition. And I love that your spirit here, you say, look, you say, Hey, look, I'm of the Nazarene tradition. So we don't drink,

we don't have in the house and anything. But you seem very open to kind of, you know, think through this. And the fact that you're even asking me, um, what I think shows that you're open to different perspectives. So, um, yes, there's certain people like, uh, Samson and John the Baptist who took what's called a Nazarite vow, which is outlined. Oh gosh. Is it numbers chapter six, I believe with the Nazarite vow is outlined. And one of the requirements for a Nazarite vow is you don't cut your hair.

You don't drink, um, uh, alcohol and, uh, you don't, what is it? What's the other one? You don't touch or go near a dead body. Um, and there are certain people in scripture who had, uh, who took on a Nazarite vow against Samson and John the Baptist. John, John the Baptist was in, I think it's implicit, um, where Samson's was a little more explicit, but it does. I think it's pretty clear that John the Baptist, um, was before he was born, was told to, uh, take on this vow. Um, so yeah, I don't think my short answer is that these vow, the Nazarite vow is not normative for everybody else. I mean, by definition, you're taking his vow because you're kind of separating yourself from everybody else. And it doesn't mean you're

more holy. It just means you're, you are taking a vow for a distinct vocation that God is calling you to. Now, I don't think, um, long hair is more holy than short hair. And again, the Nazarite is supposed to not cut their hair. And also I don't think that not drinking is more holy than drinking just because the Nazarite was called not to drink. So, uh, I have written a lot on the subject of Christians and alcohol. If you just Google my name and Christians, alcohol, drinking, press and sprinkle, whatever, hopefully that will take you down a large rabbit hole of blogs that are written on the topic.

rabbit hole of blogs that are written on the topic. The fact is, and it is a fact, Christians drank and Jewish people drank in the Old Testament. And God not only doesn't forbid it, but he seems to assume that people drink and he uses alcoholic beverages as symbols of blessing, especially when we look forward to the eschological future. You see this in Isaiah 24 to 27. You see this in, well, in Deuteronomy 14, believers are commanded on certain occasions to drink wine or strong drink, which is like a high alcoholic beer. You see, gosh, in the wedding at Cana, Jesus created wine and it was the good wine, which had alcohol in it was not grape juice because there's a word used in John chapter two, verse 10, that specifically talks about people getting drunk.

That's not saying God, Jesus was encouraging their drunkenness, but it very clearly refers to the type of wine that was capable of getting people drunk, the type of wine that Jesus created. And there's, you know, uh, just wine in the first century was wine. It wasn't grape juice. Okay. So, um, it did have a lighter alcoholic content. I do think that the alcoholic beverages today are generally much higher in, in alcohol content than what was, what people had in the first century. But again, when Paul says, do not get drunk with wine, that assumes that wine had enough alcohol in it to get drunk. So yes, drunkenness is condemned in scripture. Okay. That's very clear, but drinking is simply not condemned and it's assumed that people are drinking and in some places it's even

encouraged. So, um, yeah, much more to say about that, but it's in, I mean, there's, I don't want to take too much more time here. Um, I, yeah, I think there could be wisdom in not drinking under certain circumstances. I'm not saying all Christians should drink. Um, but also, uh, you know, I guess one other quick point, Christianity has been reduced in the minds of a lot of unbelievers to don't drink, don't smoke, don't swear, don't dance, don't have any fun, whatever. And that's just a truncated view of the gospel. So some people talk about what about our witness? What about our witness? If we drink, we're going to damage the witness of the gospel. I would say the opposite.

I think by refraining from drinking, we give the wrong impression that the gospel, the good news is if you come to Jesus, then the good news is you give up all your alcohol. Like it's just a really warped view of the gospel. And yet that is kind of what a lot of people think of when they think of Christianity, because we have kind of trumpeted in the past and broadcasted these don't drink, don't smoke, don't chew or date girls that do kind of, you know, narratives. And I think by sharing a drink with an unbeliever talking about Jesus, they're like, oh, wait a minute. So Christianity isn't all about don't drink. Well, no, I mean, you can drink, you can not drink, just don't get drunk. I think that that opens

up opportunity for people to learn about the truth of Christianity rather than some warped cultural misunderstanding of what Christianity is. So hope that helps. Thanks so much for listening, folks. And again, if you want to support the show, you can go to patreon.com forward slash theologyintheraw. Support for as little as five bucks a month. Until then, we'll see you next time on The Aldrin Arash.