Liberty! The Christian, wine and cigars?

russell55:
I'm back. I've studied some more, perhaps you can see something new!

"Ah, come on! It is the Kingdom of God that Jesus likens to leaven--not the tares in the kingdom God."

Answer
Leaven, according to all I can find, is mentioned 80 times in the Scripture. Two times it is mentioned with the same teaching in a parable - once by Matthew and once by Luke. Same instance, no question. Up to the time of the parable, as close as I can tell it was mentioned 61 times and they were all referrals to leaven as being a picture of sin. Nineteen times after the parable quoted above, leaven was a picture of sin. It is mighty thin ice to say that leaven is anything but a picture of sin.

Can you please advise us who or what the woman is a picture of?
What do the three measures of meal stand for?
Are you stipulating that the word "whole" stands for the world?
Can you show us any other verses that would verify your position that:
1) the kingdom of heaven is purposly hid?
2) the world is like three measures of meal?

The Book consistently speaks of the kingdom of heaven in this parable and you are calling it the kingdom of God. Are you doing this on purpose or is it a typo? If you are stipulating that the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God is the same, please expound.
"You really must read your own presuppostion (leaven is always bad) into the text,making Jesus' words actually "The tare in the K of G are like leaven" rather than Jesus's actual words, which are "The K of G is like leaven", in order to come up with your interpretation."

Answer
My interpretation as I have already shown carries the weight of all the scriptures before and after.
My interpretation is upheld by the Law of 1st mention in proper Biblical interpretation. My interpretation is sustained by the Law of Contextual Consideration as I have already shown.

"The kingdom of God starts small, but eventually permeates the whole world."

I think this is part of your answer.

"Really! The twisting and turning of the plain text of scripture that is necessary to defend the abstinence for all side of this issue never ceases to amaze me."[/QB][/QUOTE]

Answer
If I twisted and turned the text of scripture, then I had to step over the Laws of Biblical interpretation mentioned above. "Abstinence for all" is not what I am proposing. "Imbibing for any" is what I am proposing. God hates leaven.
Thank you sir, you have helped me a great deal. Go ahead Brothers, drink up. Payday, Someday.

 

Passover wine was alcoholic; it was (and is) wine, not grape juice. Of course, fermentation involves yeast. It also kills the yeast. That's why if you want more than a certain level of alcohol you have to distill it. So no, the wine wasn't leavened.

[ April 10, 2002, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: A.J.Armitage ]

 

I agree (and always have agreed) that leaven usually refers to something bad, but what something USUALLY means is not really all that important. What counts is what it means in the particular context we are talking about here.

This is a parable, not an allegory. No need to try to make it walk on all fours. Only important that we understand the point Jesus is using the parable to teach.

Don't think the point of the parable is necessarily that it is purposefully hidden--just that it starts small and grows to something big. Every single detail of a parable does not have to correspond to something.

No typo. Kingdom of God = kingdom of heaven. Luke recounts the same parable using "kingdom of God".

As I have said above, what a word means in most of scripture carries less weight than what it means in a particular context. And I really have very little respect for "law of first mention." A goofy hermaneutical rule, if you ask me. And as for context, lets look at that:

First of all, the parable of the field is not even recounted in the Luke account of these parables. If it was necessary to interpret the parable of the leaven properly, wouldn't Luke have included it? Did he leave it out by accident?

But since you are looking in Matthew, let's look at the context in Matthew.

"The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field..."

The kingdom is like the man sowing GOOD SEED. Granted, the tares grow alongside; but this parable compares the kingdom to the good seed...

"The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed..."

The kingdom, like a mustard seed, starts really, really small, but grows over time to something gigantic.

And then we come to this--

"The kingdom of heaven is like leaven...."

Now, all of a sudden, even though the preceding parables compare the kingdom to something good, you want to take and compare it to something bad. Even though the parable of the good seed compares the kingdom to the GOOD SEED, you want to take and say that this parable is comparing the kingdom to sin--to the tares in the first parable.

I think it is obvious, from the context, that here, in this particular place, Jesus uses leaven to illustrate a good property of the kingdom--like the mustard seed in the parable before this, the kingdom starts as something seemingly insignificant, but grows (like leaven does) to something great.

 

You go Russell!

 

Scott, here are two URL's to respectable webpages that indicate that alcohol is hard on, if not damaging, to your liver. Naturally, the more one drinks the more this true. But the fact is that the liver has to strain to metabolize any alcohol.

www.health20-20.org/alcohol's_effect_on_the _liver.htm

www.niaa.nih.gov/publications/9942-text.htm

The statement, "...the Nazarite may drink wine" hardly suggests that, "Nazarites thought so highly of grapes and wine that they were to fast from it". If I'm fasting for a day I only drink water. That I don't drink milk or juice or pop during my fast doesn't mean that I think highly of, or crave, milk, juice and pop. It's just the way I fast.

What is your point in saying that the Pharisees called Jesus a "wino"? This by no means establishes that he drank wine. I have had meals many times with unsaved friends who drank, but I have never consumed alcohol myself. That the Pharisees were trying to slander Jesus by calling him a winebibber is all you can reasonably infer from their accusation. And their intense antagonism toward Jesus casts immediate doubt on all they say about him.

That John the Baptist did not drink alcohol seems to support my contention that holiness and alcohol do not mix.

That Jesus made wine for a wedding does not negate what I have said. That his miracle provided better wine than that which was initially available speaks to the quality of a divine miracle. It does not necessarily serve as license to drink wine.

 

Smoking is one thing that I believe is overlooked. I know of no cigarette smokers who are social smokers. They are all addicted to it. Sure if you could smoke one a day or a week it would be hard to call it sin but smoking is more than a bad habit. Smoking is an addiction and would seem to fit in with the lusts of the flesh because of it's addictive nature.

 

May I repeat myself?

Wine is a natural medicine and we are told to take some for the stomach's sake and other infirmities. If the reason for not drinking wine is the alleged liver damage, what about the many prescription drugs which are highly toxic and cause liver damage?

Should Christians not take the medicine prescribed by God but take those prescribed by men?

My step-father had cancer but the chemo-therapy killed him before the cancer did.
He was a tee-totaler.

HankD

 

Hank, do you drink wine strictly in medicinal amounts as Paul prescribes? Or do you use this verse to justify greater amounts of alcohol consumption?

That alcohol is hard on the liver is just one of several reasons why I think drinking is foolish (and a minor one at that). Paul places this issue under the most important question: Does it glorify God? "Whether therefore you eat, or drink, or whatsoever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:31) For more on my perspective see the other most recent threads on this topic.

God bless.

 

And I would say that as long as one drinks carefully and thankfully, it does indeed glorify God, who "causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and vegetation for the sevice of man. that He may bring forth food from the earth, and wine that makes glad the heart of man....."

Wine is a good gift from a good God, and it glorifies Him when it is treated as the good gift that it is.

 

Dear aiki,

You asked...

>>Hank, do you drink wine strictly in medicinal amounts as Paul prescribes? Or do you use this verse to justify greater amounts of alcohol consumption?>>

Currently I take a small glass of wine (1-4 ounces) as a medicine if I have an upset stomach or don't feel well. I also use wine in cooking, but of course the alcohol is cooked out of the spaghetti sauce within a minute or two leaving behind the enhanced flavor. A bottle of wine might last me 6 months to a year.

When I was a young man I abused alcohol before I was a Christian. After I was saved I quit smoking and getting drunk.

HankD

[ April 13, 2002, 07:20 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Interesting stuff, Scott. By the way, my only concern in providing those links was to have voices beside my own stating that alcohol is processed with difficulty by the liver. While their doctrine may be off, the Adventists made no false remarks concerning the effects of alcohol on the liver. Your complaints about their doctrine obscure that fact.

I know that small amounts of alcohol can be successfully processed by the body (large ones too), but it is still difficult for your liver to do so. Apparently, the by-products of metabolized alcohol are even more damaging than the alcohol itself. But, I'm sure you know that since you are a medical professional...

The point Christ was making when he rebuked the Pharisees for calling him a glutton and a winebibber was that the Pharisees were determined to find no behaviour acceptable, whether it was ascetic or accomodating, in those whose words eroded their power. The Pharisees were as Christ described, children who didn't know what game to play. It had very little to do with John the Baptist's Nazarite vow. And Christ's comments in this instance were not really directed toward whether or not he drank wine either. It's interesting that neither Matthew's nor Luke's account of this exchange of words says explicitly that Christ drank wine. Christ says he drank, but not what. Am I "straining at a gnat?"-- probably.

Now, about your preoccupation with the Nazarite vow in Numbers there is nothing you have said in your most recent post that makes what I said about it in my last post erroneous. You are having to make an assumption that Nazarites loved wine; it is certainly not conclusively stated in the phrase "the Nazarite may drink wine". I see how you have arrived at your conclusion but getting there is, IMO, rather a stretch.

Solomon doesn't describe wine in the verses you've given so much as he describes matrimonial love. In three instances he remarks that wine is inferior to this love. This doesn't strike me as particularly strong ground upon which to justify drinking wine...

I'm sure that Isaiah is correct: diluted wine tastes bad. So what?

I don't know conclusively that Jesus didn't drink wine at the Last Supper -- but you don't know conclusively that he did. "Fruit of the vine" could be the wine you think of, or that mildly fermented stuff that would take five times more than your bladder could hold before it made you drunk. It could've been far closer to fruit juice than to modern wines -- and there are those who believe it was. I guess what you believe may depend on what you want to drink.

If I am seeking to live a holy life as the apostle Peter commands (1 Pe. 1:15), I must "make no provision for the flesh", "avoid all appearance of evil", "walk circumspectly...redeeming the time", etc. It seems, from what you are saying regarding holiness, that none of this is necessary. I am not suggesting that we are justified by works, but that we do as we are commanded to do in scripture. You seem to be saying that these commands are ... unnecessary. I think I can best fulfill those scriptural commands I just mentioned by avoiding alcohol. It is a weight that I believe will hinder my spiritual race so I abstain. I did not say that drinking wine in moderation was sin or unholy, I said it hindered walking in a holy way and was foolish. Please read more carefully.

Do you suppose that all who attended that wedding feast and drank Christ's wine remained sober? Was helping to make them drunk a sin? The Bible expressly forbids drunkenness.

Hank, my paternal grandfather who killed himself was a vicious drunk. My third youngest brother is also an alcoholic and walking far from God. How strange it is that I can see the devastating effects of alcohol in the lives of these two loved ones and flee it while you, who once struggled with it, continue to accomodate its dangerous presence.

Leviticus 10:8-10 - "And the Lord spoke unto Aaron saying, 'Do not drink wine or strong drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the tabernacle of the congregation....that you may put difference between holy and unholy, clean and unclean.' " Hmmm....

Thanks for the discussion! God bless.

 

Scott: Round and round we go...

It's somewhat amusing to me to read that you think I fail to exegete properly -- mainly because I was thinking the very same thing about you!

The true value of modern western medicine (specifically the chemical branch) is very much under question in my mind. Tylenol, and the various other "beneficial" drugs always seem to have too many accompanying side-effects. This is why I avoid them as much as possible. There seems to me to be a great difference between having a sip of wine and taking a drug that may save my life. I have lived a full, healthy life without ever taking a drop of wine or other strong drink. Never having sipped wine has made absolutely no difference to my life. I don't think I could or would say that about a drug that is specifically designed to prevent or forestall my imminent demise. This seems an obvious distinction to me...

Given the addictive potential and anaesthetic qualities of alcohol and its capacity to be a stumblingblock to others, I choose not to drink wine or any other alcoholic beverage. You have to ignore all these things, or place your right to drink above them, in order to be a wine drinker. This seems very imprudent to me.

It's peculiar and a little sad that we each think the other to be so fundamentally in error. Thank goodness for the illuminating work of God's Spirit. Without Him you've no hope of ever understanding this issue correctly. (Teasing! Just teasing!)

God bless.

 

Scott:

I think you've read more into what I have said about wine and holiness than is there. In Hebrews 12:1 Paul writes about sins and weights that easily beset us. Some things we do are clearly evil and impede our spiritual progress greatly and others, while not actually sinful, cause a drag on our spiritual life and growth. I think (for reasons I've already mentioned) that drinking alcohol falls into the latter category. I don't know why you can't understand this distinction.