Hey Bro US Sorry for the delay on my end. I see what your saying. When Paul addresses the contentions, he mentions earlier on one in particular.
1 cor 2:4...my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 1 Cor 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
and goes on to say
1 Cor 3:9 For we are labourers together with God
1 Cor 3:21 Therefore let no man glory in men.
1 Cor 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven
Purging the wisdom that taught dead works(Heb 9:14)...
1 Cor 5:8 with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
Simple enough right?
But Paul heard (1 Cor 6:1-6)believers were going to unbelievers(Pharisees) for answers and They didn't reason from Scriptures like Paul(Acts 17:2), they reasoned from traditions.
So when Paul cites Deut. 25:4, he is answering those who were examining him(1 Cor. 9:3) and says that is the same thing he is saying in verse 7 and in verse 10.
9:10 that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
So I think The pharisees were muzzling the gospel Paul preached and were not (believers)partakers of the same hope Paul preached.
Thanks for your input. I would simply say that after the Day of Pentecost, the church at Jerusalem would have had a tough time using one cup,...it would be a little too big, same with the one loaf, for that matter.
From the one pitcher I pour the wine into a few of the communion cups in the presence of the congregation, as well as breaking the bread in their presence to signify it coming from the one cup and the one loaf.
We can read into such things too much, just like when people spiritualize the parables or Revelation too much.
Once more, in I Corinthians 11, the church could not be drunk on grape juice. If that was the evil element to use, surely the Holy Spirit would have directed Paul to address it.
Neil wrote: In other words, technically Deut. 25:4 establishes a principle which, a fortiori [lesser to greater], implies that if a mere ox deserves to be fed (paid) for its labor, how much more should a working person (cf. 8th Commandment)? This way, the Torah didn't need to spell out every possible application.
Thanks Neil, I meant to say it stands to reason that you should not muzzle the ox
still waiting for results from DNA test to make sure I am not a robot
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Yes Paul used it to apply to ministers and their pay. it still stands to reason that you should [not muzzle] the ox that treads out the corn. It makes sense in its spiritual application because of what it means in literal world. Its readers understood what Paul was saying because there was a literal meaning to it in Deuteronomy 25:4
In other words, technically Deut. 25:4 establishes a principle which, a fortiori [lesser to greater], implies that if a mere ox deserves to be fed (paid) for its labor, how much more should a working person (cf. 8th Commandment)? This way, the Torah didn't need to spell out every possible application.
James Thomas wrote: I appreciate the gracious reply. Also, from your prior posts I believe you didn't see it as an alcohol drink but symbolism for the Faith that is in Christ. Your quote here... Scriptures interpret Scriptures but they don't change the meaning from the obvious to the obscure. . Does that make sense?
Yes Paul used it to apply to ministers and their pay. it still stands to reason that you should mussel the ox that treads out the corn. It makes sense in its spiritual application because of what it means in literal world. Its readers understood what Paul was saying because there was a literal meaning to it in Deuteronomy 25:4
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Thanks, brother. If I may give an example to answer your question...
I appreciate the gracious reply. Also, from your prior posts I believe you didn't see it as an alcohol drink but symbolism for the Faith that is in Christ.
Your quote here...
Scriptures interpret Scriptures but they don't change the meaning from the obvious to the obscure.
I asked "obvious to who?", not as a dig, but as a matter of who's point of view?
the literal hermeneutic itself is...well, not biblical nor is it ever given as an example to follow, its subjective and the picture can be missed and/or distorted. I believe I can provide a biblical example from Paul though.
Paul in 1 cor 9 demonstrates his hermeneutics with Deut 25:4 as the verse he cited and then reveals the symbolism of the figures he mentions. 1 Timothy 5:18 the same is mentioned again and the full meaning is captured.
When Paul speaks on comparing Scripture with Scripture .....that is what I believe is doing in the above and also throughout his letters.
So obvious to obscure is not really an accurate description of what I see Paul doing. I do see it as a pattern that we can follow though. Does that make sense?
Thanks, brother. If I may give an example to answer your question from I Corinthians 15:3,4.
‚Ä¶how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures
The obvious meaning of the text is plain to all and note that interpretation is not a subjective (the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets)matter (unless you are truth denying liberal). It obviously means our Lord died, was buried, and came back to life.
There are many spiritual and even physical truths derived from the truth of these verses already found both in the Old and New Testaments. Plus more that surely can be deduced by meditation and further comparison of Scripture with Scripture.
We don‚Äôt, however, take away the obvious and plain meaning of the text due to other gems derived from Scriptural study of it.
ps In case it isn't clear, I am not contesting your insights on the subject of wine in Isaiah 55,thanks.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Scriptures interpret Scriptures but they don't change the meaning from the obvious to the obscure.
Obvious to who?
Hey Bro US, I do understand where your coming from. But I think its more of simply ignoring the Scriptures that may invalidate a perceived definition.
Why would the wine spoken of in Isaiah 55 be any different in other mentions in the bible?
Joel 2:19 Behold, I will send you corn, and wine, and oil, and ye shall be satisfied therewith
But that wine is not to be confused with a different wine that is also presented.
Deut. 32:33 Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.
Is it possible that Deut 32 speaks of the wine that is the mocker?
Is it a bottle of booze or perhaps works of the law that kills(2 Cor. 3:6-7)?
Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
James Thomas wrote: IMO, The literal assertions blinds the picture God paints.
Not sure you would find anyone taking the passage in Isaiah 55 as literal. But to address your concern. I believe the reason you think thus is because you believe that literalist have a myopic view of Scripture and only look at the surface. You believe that they don't look deeper into the truths found there and find other spiritual applications that lay beyond the obvious meaning, which btw should not be ignored. Scriptures interpret Scriptures but they don't change the meaning from the obvious to the obscure Many truths can be derived from looking further into God's Word. Your Biblical isights are a testimony to that. Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge (see below)is an invaluable tool as well as the Blue Letter Bible site you referenced.
Would have to agree with Dr Tim , Pastor Andy, if you‚Äôre going to,as you say, keep the ordinance as originally delivered, you would have to all share one cup, bake unleavened bread which you break apart at communion and recline on the floor instead of sitting In pews
Guys, you miss the point, obviously, no one uses alchohol for medicinal purposes in a country like ours, unless they use Robitussin or others that may have it in them. The point is they did use such alcohol in the Scriptures. It was their morphine for pain-killing purposes as far as medicine goes and Timothy for his stomach's sake. All drugs are not bad or evil. Depraved sinners like ourselves who abuse are evil. Just like guns don't kill anyone, people kill people.
As far as the Lord's Supper is concerned, my family has a history of alcoholism, I was a party animal getting drunk before God saved me, but, by trusting in God's power to keep me from abusing alcohol and really just using it in the Lord's Supper, I've never had a problem. May we not limit the Holy One of Israel and His Power to enable us to keep the ordinances as they were delivered originally, in essence and in substance.
Unprofitable, I know no one who needs alcohol for medicinal purposes and I certainly don't know of any who drinks alcohol to that end. Drugs and alcohol both impair ones judgment and sobriety. Food and exercise do not. ...no where in the Bible does it say that the wine at Passover was alcohol. It could just as easily have been, and more likely than not, juice. Pastor Andy... who alcohol was for:
Proverbs 31: 6-8
6 Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.
7 Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.
8 Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction.
Not a good group...those appointed to destruction or dying...of course,I believe there are anesthetics for the sick group today. Curious how people can stand the taste of the wine at your communion. It would make me want to gag...and then they have alcohol on their breath coming from church. ..could be a big draw for many, I suppose. RE: communion ‚ÄúI am the bread of life‚ÄĚ and ‚ÄúIt is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life‚ÄĚ the physical wafer and cup are very secondary we feed on Him..His Word because of His new c
There is a difference in drinking wine for medicinal and ecclesiastical purposes and drinking to get drunk.
They used wine in the Lord's Supper is indisputable. During Prohibition churches started being politically correct and changed the wine to grape juice which is taking unlawful and unscriptural liberties.
How would you interpret Proverbs 31:6 "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts." These drugs were lawful in their appropriate purposes much like morphine, drugs for depression, etc...
I don't drink and none of the membership does, but, we believe in keeping with the New Testament pattern and use wine in small communion cups.
sc wrote: There is a big difference between food,exercise and controlling substances like drugs and alcohol. Drugs and alcohol are in the same category. When did that change?
See this is why there is a distinction between addiction, being controlled by and moderate use of. You inaccurately make them equal. People on heart medication are using drugs, many take drugs to control their blood sugar. Drug usage is not always bad. In some cases consumption of a can of beer or a glass of wine is prescribed by doctors for their patients.
the Bible speaks directly against drunkenness and you do well to point that out. Thanks for your thoughts though, greatly appreciated.