Rosangela, I'll try and answer this before I get back to Mike's questions.

Do you think it was a sin to divorce? I know God says He gave them the law of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts, but does that make it a "sin"? If so, is that not the same thing as what I was saying about polygamy? Indeed, I think you are proving my point more than disproving.

Divorce may be another of those "gray areas" in the Bible. It was allowed under some circumstances, chiefly in cases of adultery. The "uncleanness" which the new groom might find in his bride that would cause him to put her away, just as in the case of Joseph in the New Testament who was minded to do this for Mary when she had become pregnant out of wedlock, very probably refers to adultery. In such cases, divorce was allowed "because of the hardness of your hearts." Without adultery, if the husband put away his wife, he caused her to commit adultery--and this was sin. That's where the line was drawn. If the wife had committed adultery, it was not a sin to divorce her.

The same was true of the "polygamy" situation which God had commanded. It was the death of a spouse which made it necessary. (If she married her brother-in-law before her husband died, it would be adultery.) Quite frankly, polygamy in such cases could hardly have been desirable. How many men do you know that would be eager to marry their sisters-in-law? Ugh! There's usually enough animosity among the in-laws without such additional provocation!

Now, since you haven't proven that divorce, under the law, was a sin, I think you cannot use it to show that polygamy would be a sin under the law.

If we were to change your example, let's say to adultery, like this:

If it were a sin to commit adultery (per seventh commandment), why would God say, "When a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, and it happens that she bears him no children..." !!! If it were a sin, God should have said instead, "he must not commit adultery..." or something to that effect. (EXACTLY what God did do in this case.) God would never have been "permissive" of sin, to give a law like that allowing sin.

As adultery was defined as sin, this proves that God would not give such a law allowing it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Regarding your last questions here, Mike, I don't know that I have all of the answers myself. This is an area of interest and of study, but I cannot claimed to have "arrived" at full understanding. What I do see here are some general "rules" which God lays out that distinguish between separate groups of people. Let me give some examples to help you see what I'm looking at here.

1) Levites could not marry a widow, a divorcee, nor an harlot--only a virgin. Members of other tribes were still free to marry someone of any of these categories.

2) Levites were prohibited from drinking strong drink. Other tribes were not given this prohibition.

3) God's people were not to eat animals which died of themselves, etc. God allowed for the Israelites to give away or sell such meats to those of surrounding nations.


4) Kings and princes were not to drink strong drink, but no prohibition is given generally to the lower classes (Prov. 31:6-7).

5) God's people should have been happy with manna, but God gave them quails at their request...and the following is recorded of this:



The "general" picture I have of all of this, is that God strives to teach us a better way, but He is patient with us in our understanding and acceptance of it. There are certain things in which God has laid out a very clear law, and there are other areas, of more minor significance perhaps, where He seems more permissive of us in making our own choices. He gives us the truth, hoping we'll be happy to soak it all in, but He knows we are slow, and thick-headed, and would not be able to learn it all at once. Even Jesus did not speak all that He must have wished He could, for He knew they were not ready to accept it.

I see the Bible as allowing alcohol for those who simply aren't ready to accept a better way, while at the same time accurately portraying the harm it can cause.

This might be similar to having one of our schools serve potato chips and twinkies in the cafeteria while at the same time teaching about the ill effects of such in the students' health class.

Having said that, it is questionable whether or not the use of alcohol would be sinful, and I think it would much depend upon one's level of spiritual understanding. For a well-educated individual like myself, I believe it would be sin to use strong drink. For someone else, even a Christian, it may not be. Thankfully our merciful God is the Judge, and not any of us.

As I see alcohol as a "gray area" by design, I do not see any contradiction in the Bible about it. God clearly portrays its evils, while still permitting its use to certain classes of people. Others are prohibited from using it. God does not expect people to obey without understanding, and He holds each accountable for what they understand.

I do not see any of the Bible's "gray areas" to be such on account of neglect or carelessness. God has allowed some things to be "gray" by design, for His own wise purposes.

As I have here poured out my deepest thoughts on this matter, I hope to find some understanding for it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, again, as always, thank you for sharing. As you know, I value your thoughts. In cases of so-called "grey areas" I think we have an advantage in the Spirit of Prophecy. God has not left us in darkness to wonder what He meant by what He said in the Bible about alcohol and drunkenness. We can ignore or dismiss what He plainly told us about it through the SOP and continue to treat it as a "grey area" or we can accept what He said about it through the SOP and rejoice in the truth. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying this as a personal rebuke against you. But God really did settle the question about alcohol and drunkenness many years ago through the SOP. I'm surprised people are still unclear about it. God could not have stated the matter more clearly than He did through the SOP.

Mike, The Bible IS the Spirit of Prophecy. Light grows. The inspired words we have today cover more ground and give more clarity to what was ever given in the past. Thus, our accountability for the light we have been given is also increased. We are held to a higher standard. The new messages do not change the old ones, however. They may clarify them in some cases, but just as often they raise the standard from what has been given prior. Such is the case, as I see it, with alcohol.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Once again you twist your opponents words. I did not say Jesus experienced drunkenness, only that he (possibly, when compared with J the B) drank.

Nor have I ever said that God recommends drunkenness. To allow or permit is not the same as recommending.



Sorry to keep bringing this up, but there are no passages in the Bible which "explicitly prohibit" alcohol.

But is that how Ellen stated it? Didn't she say God never condoned it, tolerated it, or recommended it?

Mike,

As I have noticed in other studies involving Mrs. White's writings, she had a tendency to write in absolute terms, a bit like many people do today who are not meticulous wordsmiths, and who speak with some feeling. Statements like "You never take out the garbage!" (When in actual fact, perhaps the person does take out the garbage, just not very often.)

I guess, I would have to ask you straightforwardly, have you ever followed the counsel of Prov. 31:6-7? If not, why not? And more to the point, do you believe those words were inspired and should be part of the Bible? Do you have, instead, some other way of interpreting them that would reverse what appears to be their clear intent in such a way as to make those words agree with what Mrs. White says?

Please share.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Do you suspect Jesus got drunk or mildly tipsy celebrating with other Jews as you suggested for Deut 14:26? You wrote, “Jesus clearly says he ‘came eating and drinking’ and they called him’... a glutton and a drunkard.’"


Didn't you suggest Deut 14:26 and Prov 31:6,7 recommends drunkenness? You wrote, “Occasional innebriation as a result of a celebration of some sort such as a wedding or a victory was acceptable.”


What about the ones that do? For example:

I guess I am more inclined to believe such emphatic statements against alcohol and drunkenness make clear the point rather than dilute it or make them suspects of hyperbole.

Regarding Prov 31:6,7 it's difficult to ignore verses 4 and 5 which explicitly prohibit alcohol and drunkenness. Also, it is difficult to imagine the ideal, virtuous woman passages that follow in the context of alcohol and drunkenness. Given the overwhelming weight of evidence against alcohol and drunkenness I suspect verses 6 and 7 should be taken metaphorically or euphemistically. I see no reason to take them literally. The worst advice you can a guy down on his luck is to tell him, Get drunk and forget about it. The truth is getting drunk only compounds the problems. It doesn't make them go away or cause a guy to forget them. Such advice is stupid at best and insensitive at worst.

So, it sounds like you would be willing to take the Bible as being "euphemistic," but would be unwilling to view Mrs. White's writings in that same manner, is that what I'm understanding?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.