1 Tim 5:23 refers to grape juice. And, Prov 31:6 and Deut 14:26 cannot refer to alcohol because God clearly prohibits it elsewhere. He does not contradict Himself.


Whatever the “strong drink” was, it did not, as you and I both agree, result in drunkenness. If it was alcoholic, then the priests and the people must necessarily have consumed miniscule portions (one or two sips) every other hour or so because otherwise it would have resulted in drunkenness. However, God clearly told priests not to drink alcohol. And, since tithe was for the priests, it seems unreasonable to conclude the passage in Deut 14:26 is referring to alcohol.


If God spoke through Ellen White through the gift and spirit of prophecy, the same as He did through people like John and Paul, then you are treading on dangerous ground in dismissing what God told her about alcohol.

What do you mean by “it is the argument I am making, not the view I hold”? The view Ellen argued is God categorically prohibits drinking alcohol.

Mike,

Honestly, what is an honest Christian supposed to do with contradictions between Ellen White and the Bible? Which one, the Bible or her writings, should we place first? Which should be our primary guide? Can we reconcile the two always?

Several of the Bible's "gray" issues are anything but gray to Mrs. White. What do we do with the change in perspective? Do we say it is "no longer" acceptable, but that in Bible times it was?

Mrs. White, however, argues with the Bible itself. For example, the issue of polygamy (and I use this to illustrate because it does not carry the same potential for the "error in translation" argument, i.e. the meaning of the Greek/Hebrew words).



Now for the Bible's take on it:



The Bible clearly permitted, even commanded in certain cases, polygamy. I think I have seen you speak to this same issue yourself, Mike. It was never ideal. But it was permitted. The same is true of meat eating. If meat eating were not given originally in the Garden of Eden, and was therefore a sin, why would God later permit it, and even command it (passover lamb)? Ellen White argues that because Adam was given just one wife, it was always contrary to the law of God to have more than one. But in Exodus, God gives specific command regarding the treatment of plural wives. Why would God command something sinful? Why would there not be a specification to the command given concerning a widow marrying a brother-in-law...that he must be single, else she could not marry him?

The same discrepancies between Ellen White and the Bible on the issue of polygamy can be seen on the issue of wine.

I'm with Elle here. I would like someone to explain the Bible's meaning, without trying to twist the Bible's actual words to something they do not say. Prov. 31 is relatively clear. So is Deut. 14. Find me an answer which fits the written Word, rather than one which merely fits a conservative opinion.

I've been rather careful to obey my whole life. I would like to see an interpretation that would place the Bible in the best light possible. But I simply cannot accept that one must rewrite the Bible passages, twist them to make them say something they clearly do not, nor wave away as being of small consequence these seeming contradictions to conservative belief. We must be honest and diligent in our handling of the Word of God. We must not try to force it into a mold of our own making, as if we knew better than it does what it should say, or what was meant. We need to use the Bible to interpret itself, while laying aside our own preconceptions. This is the approach I have tried to take, and it does not always lead to comfortable conservativism.

For the record, I believe some things which were permitted in the past are no longer permitted. To say that they never were permissible, however, is simply not faithful to the original text.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC:

This is what EGW says regarding David and polygamy:



Your quote from Scripture:



Where's the contradiction you're seeing here?

This is definitely going to be one of my favorite quotes.

Tom,

In that quote, "And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom," God is telling David He gave him his wives. I have asked a pastor who studied Hebrew if Hebrew has plurals, and indeed it does. (Some languages do not have plural forms, so translators must make some assumptions or take contextual cues.) God said "wives." "Every good gift, and every perfect gift, is from above..." "Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD." David certainly was favored of the Lord.

Ellen White talks as though David was in great error with his polygamy, and she makes it sound as though David himself should have known better. Maybe so. There is one command in the Levitical laws which prohibited kings from multiplying wives to themselves, lest they be drawn astray by them. Solomon exemplified this well. But David stayed faithful to God for the most part. He had his shortcomings, but there seems little indication that it was ever his wives which influenced him. On the contrary, David seemed to have his wives under his direction (e.g. the story of Michal).

But God never once, in the record which we have, rebuked David for his polygamy. He did rebuke David for stealing Bathsheba from Uriah. But God never rebukes David for marrying Abigail (a widow at that time), nor is there a rebuke given for any of the other wives of David. If one is to believe Mrs. White, however, David should have been thoroughly reproved and corrected for this.

Coming down to brass tacks here, there is no text in all of scripture which forbids polygamy outright. There are texts which say elders and deacons should have only one wife. There are stories which portray the strife of homes with more than one wife. But we do not have any "thus saith the Lord, 'Thou shalt have one wife, and one wife only.'" Not even close.

The same is true of alcohol. There are texts which say it is not wise. There are texts which advise against it for various reasons. But there is no text in all of scripture that forbids its use outright, nor declares it a sin. In fact, we have a number of texts which permit the use of strong drink, though not to the priesthood, nor for kings.

Nadab and Abihu were not struck down as a direct consequence of having been drunken. It was not until they brought strange fire into the tabernacle (which we must suppose would not have happened had they been sober), that the Lord struck them dead by fire. Nor did God expressly forbid the alcohol to all of the priests and Levites until after that event.

Here is the story, from Leviticus.


The offense for which they died is clearly the "strange fire" in their censers. In fact, according to this particular record, the only indication we have of their drunkenness is the command which Aaron is given afterwards. This would have been a golden opportunity for God to give the prohibition against alcohol to ALL of the camp. But, seemingly against all reason, God gives this prohibition only to the sons of Aaron. Why? Every good Bible scholar must ask this question. God does nothing without a reason. There must be a lesson in this for us.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I agree. However, we both agree "drunkenness" was never permitted. Therefore, whatever the Bible said about consuming "wine" and "strong drink" it clearly did not permit "drunkenness". Which begs the question - What counts as "drunkenness"? Jesus refused even a sip of alcohol. I believe it was because He knew that even a sip would have caused "drunkenness", that is, it would have impaired His moral judgment and resolve. How much "wine" and "strong drink", therefore, can we get away with drinking without impairing our moral judgment and resolve? I would say - Not more than a sip.

I disagree. Excessive, chronic, drunkenness was never permitted. Occasional innebriation as a result of a celebration of some sort such as a wedding or a victory was acceptable.


Wrong again. Check Matthew 11:18, 19. Jesus clearly says he "came eating and drinking" and they called him"...a glutton and a drunkard." Certainly Jesus refused the "wine vinegar" offered to him on the cross; his reason for refusing is not stated.

Mike,

How drunk does one have to be in order to "remember his misery no more?"



I've never been drunk, so I would not know. But it occurs to me that the first sip might not suffice.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

If we can't, then they don't come from the same source.