Is Drinking, Smoking, and Dipping a Sin

[Hope of Glory]

There's your problem... you are reading the right Bible.

Well, we've got that part right!

 

[DHK]

The greek for gall (chole) is used in greek poetry to describe POISON...not vinegar. Yes, do study to show thyself approved

Verse 34. They gave him vinegar, etc. Mark says that "they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh." The two evangelists mean the same thing. Vinegar was made of light wine rendered acid, and was the common drink of the Roman soldiers; and this might be called either vinegar or wine, in common language. Myrrh is a bitter substance, produced in Arabia, but is used often to denote anything bitter. The meaning of the name is bitterness. Cmt. on Mt 2:11. Gall is, properly, a bitter secretion from the liver; but the word is also used to denote anything exceedingly bitter, as wormwood, etc. The drink, therefore, was vinegar or wine, rendered bitter by the infusion of wormwood, or some other very bitter substance. The effect of this, it is said, was to stupify the senses. It was often given to those crucified, to render them insensible to the pains of death. Our Lord knowing this, when he had tasted it, refused to drink, he was unwilling to blunt the pains of dying. The cup which his Father gave him he rather chose to drink, He came to suffer. His sorrows were necessary for the work of the atonement; and he gave himself up to the unmitigated sufferings of the cross. This was presented to him in the early part of his sufferings, or when he was about to be suspended on the cross. Afterward, when he was on the cross, and just before his death, vinegar was offered to him without the myrrh --the vinegar which the soldiers usually drank--and of this he received. See Mt 27:49; Joh 19:28-30. Where Matthew and Mark say that he "would not drink," they refer to a different thing and a different time from John, and there is no contradiction.

from Albert Barnes

 

[Accountable]

SGW,

Get out a Greek dictionary or concordance and do a search for the word 'sober'. You may be surprised that in 4 instances of the word, it does indeed mean 'abstain from wine'. That should tell one that drinking in moderation is forbidden according to the New Testament.

As to smoking or dipping, they cause cancer. They are slow poison. Are we not told in the Word of God that we are to be faithful stewards of what God has given us? We are to glorify God in our bodies according to Paul's writing to the Church of Corinth... does smoking and dipping that which causes cancer bringing glory to God?

I must start by saying that I am in agreement with you but I am compeled to ask you a few questions:

Is it a sin to:
Eat a ham sandwich or a Pork Hot Dog?
Drink Coke or Pepsi?
Enjoy fried chicken in vegetable oil?
Any dessert with processed sugars?
Eat a peach that was sprayed with pesticides?
Use prescription medications such as cortizone?
Drink tap water?
Etc., Etc., Etc.

All the above have been scientifically tested and found that they indeed could cause cancer and other significant health problems too. Would there be any difference?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

My bad. I did not realize that people who know the truth that we are to abstain from alcoholic beverage are not supposed to post in threads dealing with the subject.

People who claim to have some special knowledge of "THE Truth"(TM) are the most scary of all.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

People who claim to have some special knowledge of "THE Truth"(TM) are the most scary of all.

All who are saved have the truth MP, others refuse to hear it.

 

[npetreley]

All who are saved have the truth MP, others refuse to hear it.

Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.

**Insult removed**

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Not without sin, but without alcohol... as God's Word commands His people to be.

 

[EdSutton]

Matthew records that Jesus only tasted the vinegar. and He refused to drink it. Since the Bible does not contradict itself, Jesus did not drink it when He received it, He only tasted it.

I'd say it's kinda hard to "drink" from a sponge, personally.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Is that a part of your program for going sinless 24 hours?

Good one, saturneptune! :laugh:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Some things which are not sinful in themselves are sinful if they cause your brother to stumble.


Rom 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with [thy] meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
Rom 14:16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
Rom 14:18 For he that in these things serveth Christ [is] acceptable to God, and approved of men.
Rom 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
Rom 14:20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed [are] pure; but [it is] evil for that man who eateth with offence.
Rom 14:21 [It is] good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor [any thing] whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

Not getting into this aside for some obvious comments, but let me be one of the first to welcome you to the BB, anyway.

Hope you've got handy your Bible, hardhat, asbestos suit, and - wait a minute- asbestos causes cancer, so skip that last bit!

Ed

 

[Accountable]

HBSMN,

Still seeking a reply.

 

[dan e.]

There is no way to demonstrate that "nepho" means to strictly abstain from alcohol in all contexts. Anyone who simply says that is what it means is running off personal preference and not biblical evidence. There may be plenty of evidence to suggest it is wise to avoid alcohol, but not that the Bible strictly forbids any consumption of it. The N.T. usage of that word in its contexts is not talking about taking a drink, but remaining sober (ie. not drunk), calm, and collected in your spirit. So please, no more blanket statements such as "the Bible clearly forbids alcohol because it says nepho 4 times". It is silly.

 

[webdog]

from Albert Barnes[/font]

I have Albert Barnes' commentary. That doesn't change the fact that in the septuagint translation of the OT, chole is used to translate the Hebrew word for poison (rosh). It's my theory the soldiers were trying to end His life earlier than Christ would have, and Christ would have none of it. He laid His life down...He wasn't going to allow any kind of poison to end His life. I think it was a last ditch effort by satan to defeat Christ by throwing a monkey wrench in God's plan. Scripture doesn't say why He refused it, but if He thirsted, it would have made no sense in refusing it, other than there had to be something in it besides the wine that would make Him refuse it. I have an Aunt that drinks vinegar, and my wife loves it, so that in itself would not make someone refuse it especially if they were as thirsty, and needed the liquid to speak as you stated.

 

[DHK]

I have Albert Barnes' commentary. That doesn't change the fact that in the septuagint translation of the OT, chole is used to translate the Hebrew word for poison (rosh)..

You seem to be very much confused. Indeed the Greek word in chloe. But what has that got to do with the Septuagint? Nothing! The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT Scriptures done ca. 250 B.C. It wasn't even a good translation at that. So you are taking a Greek word translated from a Hebrew word back into Greek again, and used in a Hebrew OT context. It is not the same context for the OT is solely the OT. You are far off base here. This is truly eisigesis on your part. A good part of ascertaining a definition of a word comes from the context that the word is used in, and the OT is not the context. A second rule in defining the word is the historical setting that the word is used in. What was this substance used for, and what did it usually contain at that time in history (not 800 years before that time). Barnes explains what it was and was composed of at that time in history, and how it was used. You can't insert an OT definition into a NT context.

 

[webdog]

You seem to be very much confused. Indeed the Greek word in chloe. But what has that got to do with the Septuagint? Nothing! The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT Scriptures done ca. 250 B.C. It wasn't even a good translation at that. So you are taking a Greek word translated from a Hebrew word back into Greek again, and used in a Hebrew OT context. It is not the same context for the OT is solely the OT. You are far off base here. This is truly eisigesis on your part. A good part of ascertaining a definition of a word comes from the context that the word is used in, and the OT is not the context. A second rule in defining the word is the historical setting that the word is used in. What was this substance used for, and what did it usually contain at that time in history (not 800 years before that time). Barnes explains what it was and was composed of at that time in history, and how it was used. You can't insert an OT definition into a NT context.

I'm sorry, but you seem to be confused. You are trying to tell me that gall is always vinegar. Not so, as I have shown.

What have I eisegeted? I simply gave another meaning of gall to yours. I feel poison or something similar is what was mixed with the wine, you state it's vinegar. We'll have to agree to disagree on it then.

I know what the sepuagint is, btw. You don't have to talk down to me.

 

[DHK]

I'm sorry, but you seem to be confused. You are trying to tell me that gall is always vinegar. Not so, as I have shown.

What have I eisegeted? I simply gave another meaning of gall to yours. I feel poison or something similar is what was mixed with the wine, you state it's vinegar. We'll have to agree to disagree on it then.

I know what the sepuagint is, btw. You don't have to talk down to me.

We can agree that it was sour wine or vinegar that was given him. But it was given him twice. The first time it was given to him, it was mixed with myrrh, a drug used to numb the senses, dull the pain. Study history here. And look at the Bible, and see what it says.

Mark 15:23 And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

We can agree that it was sour wine or vinegar that was given him. But it was given him twice. The first time it was given to him, it was mixed with myrrh, a drug used to numb the senses, dull the pain. Study history here. And look at the Bible, and see what it says.

Mark 15:23 And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.

And that is why there are so many being deceived into believing that it is ok to drink in moderation. They do not thoroughly study the Bible, but take stances on presumptions.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

myrrh was indeed mixed in with the soured wine (vinegar) to deaden the senses. If senses were dulled, the person would not feel the pain of the crucifixion.

DHK is correct.

 

[webdog]

So the Romans...who just got done beating Christ senseless...scouraged him...beat a crown of thorns into his skull...pounded nails through His hands and feet...and made Him unrecognizable as a human being suddenly got a soft side and tried to help Him deaden the pain a little? YEAH RIGHT! They were trying to kill him and make Him suffer to the utmost. Mixing a poison or myrrh, or whatever into the wine was done with the intent to bring even more harm and death.

 

[DHK]

So the Romans...who just got done beating Christ senseless...scouraged him...beat a crown of thorns into his skull...pounded nails through His hands and feet...and made Him unrecognizable as a human being suddenly got a soft side and tried to help Him deaden the pain a little? YEAH RIGHT! They were trying to kill him and make Him suffer to the utmost. Mixing a poison or myrrh, or whatever into the wine was done with the intent to bring even more harm and death.

The Roman soldiers, to a larged degree, were egged on by the Pharisees. It ought to be remembered that it was the Jews that cried out: "Crucify Him! Crucify Him! The other thieves, crucified on either side of Christ did not endure all the public torment and ridicule that Christ did. The Jews brought the added suffering and ridicule to his crucifixion.
And yes there was an element of mercy even in the crucifixion. The custom was to break the legs of "criminal" to expedite the death of the one being crucifiying so that he might not endure suffering for a longer period of time. But when they came to Jesus they saw that he was dead already, thus they didn't have to break his legs. The myrrh was another element of mercy to deaden their senses to pain. Not all the soldiers were without a conscience. The centurion confessed:

Mark 15:39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.