What He Didn't Say
Arguments from silence aren't very good arguments. But sometimes it is interesting how some people choose to answer certain questions. The ways people answer can be windows into how they see things enabling us to possibly see their answers to other questions. Here is one such example which I deem appropriate to our pub blog and to our church calendar given the nature of our blog and the time of the Christian year.On Pentecost, when the disciples start speaking in tongues, some people began mocking them saying "They are full of sweet wine. (Acts 2:13)" Notice what Peter says in response....and what he doesn't say: "These men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only third hour of the day...(Acts 2:15)"
He doesn't defend himself from the charge of drunkenness by saying that they would never touch the stuff. What he says is that is it is too early for them to have been drinkin' long enough to have become intoxicated. He argues not about the thing but its use.
I don't know. Maybe I am reading too much into this. I just thought it was kind of interesting. What say you?
posted by Anonymous | 8:43 PM
12 Comments:
Good point, Steve. I noticed the exact same thing this Pentecost. And I don't think you're reading too much into it at all.
In fact, it seems abundantly clear that Peter is saying, "No way they're drunk; it's way too early for that. Perhaps if it were evening you'd be justified in your assessment."
Otherwise, he would have said, "No way they're drunk, because these guys never touch the evil stuff. They're too holy for that!"
That is a great observation.
It might be reading in too much to say that the Apostles were admitting to drunkeness here.
However, I think this passage settles once and for all the ever present modern claim that NT wine was non-alcoholic. Peter and everyone listening understood that too much wine resulted in drunkeness. NT wine was not "Grape Juice".
Vijay,
Who's saying that the apostles were admitting drunkenness? Peter is making the point that they're not drunk.
The interesting point is simply that he doesn't argue that the reason you know for sure that they're not drunk is because it's too early in the day, not because the guys never touch the stuff.
Cheers,
Andrew
Oh, let me clarify. I agree that the disciples' response implies that they have no problem with drinking alcohol. However, it sounded like we were saying the disciples implicitly approved of getting drunk in the evening. I thought this was going a bit too far.
Cool, Vijay. I think we're all on the same page.
When I said that the people would be justified in assuming they were drunk if it were later in the day, I was merely asserting that it would be more normative that a person be drunk in the evening, not that it would be fair to assume that these particular individuals were drunk in the evening.
Hopefully makes sense.
Andrew
Hey, now guys, I think you might be reading into this one. I mean, I like my blasphemies just as much as the next guy, but I think it's rather hard to say whether or not one can infer from this passage that the disciples did or didn't drink.
I don't want to point out the obvious, but the verse isn't saying a lot of things. And you are correct, they didn't say "no way, we don't drink because drinking is bad." But neither did they say, "no way, we don't get drunk, because getting drunk is bad."
So if you're going to stand by one but not the other, you might have a problem posing that as evidence for a pro-alcohol church. And as I have seen in many petty, silly arguing among Christ-followers before, everyone tends to focus on the other guys weakest points, and attacks those, while usually missing or avoiding the main point altogether.
As such, I think we need to find a different verse to defend our nightly blasphemy.
Mark T.
This is a cool arguement from Paul; it looks like Occam's razor reasoning. Give them the simplest and shortest reason, and that usually works best for dismissing a poor arguement quickly and cleanly. Also, this simple arguement seems to be most understandable to the "common guy"...these people, mocking the disciples here, most likely did not care for extensive arguements, so Paul refutes them in due manner. All things to all people, perhaps? :P
Paul who?
doh! I meant Peter.
I noticed the same thing a few years ago. This would have been Peter's perfect opportinity to say, "Christians don't drink!"
Found your blog through Reformed Catholicism.
Welcome, Steve.
Tell us a little more about yourself.
Cheers,
Andrew
Post a Comment
<< Home