#1 - WINE
An Article By Don Tarbet
A brother and noted scholar among us, has surprised us with a shocking statement to the effect that “the first drink” of alcoholic beverages is not sinful. Dr. Earl Edwards stated in a message to the audience at the most recent Freed-Hardeman University lectures to the effect that one drink is not sinful, though dangerous. Here’s the quote.
“Wishing to be perfectly candid, I would not tell a Christian who decides to go against my advice and drink small amounts of alcohol, maybe in his own home, that he has sinned with the first drink, though I would tell him he runs a greater risk of sinning.”
Brother Edwards suggests a contrast between his “advice” and what is “sinful”, that “the first drink” of alcohol, in one’s home (or dorm?) is not sinful, but risky of causing sin later on, but not at the point of alcohol consumption. I wonder how many young men at FHU will not attempt to justify “small amounts” of alcohol in their own room? When I was a student at FHU in the 1950’s, one preacher student was expelled for having a few “small drinks.” How many of such young people might well become alcoholics because of brother Edwards’ statement? No one knows! Here is my reply to bro. Edwards thoughtless remarks.
How many “small drinks” does it take to become intoxicated? One or two or four? If it takes two or more, how close together do they have to be before “intoxication?” If two consecutive drinks are intoxication, then one drink would be “half” intoxication, or a vital first part of intoxication. What if one takes several “small amounts” within an hour, or short period of time and gets heavily intoxicated? Is that not sinful? Even one (maybe the “first”) drink is intoxicating. Is not intoxication (drunkenness) sinful? Webster says an intoxicant is “something that intoxicates, specifically (a) a drug that intoxicates. (b) alcoholic liquor.” A “toxicant” is a poison. “Drunk” and “intoxicated’ are synonymous. Webster’s Thesaurus lists “drunken, high, inebriated, intoxicated, tight, tipsy” as being all the same. One’s “first drink”, and any “first drinks” after that, are always stimulating or exhilarating, especially until there have been so many “first drinks” through the years that it takes more than another “first drink” to become tipsy. When one drinks “small amounts of alcohol”, he has an intoxicant in him, or is “intoxicated.” A “toxicant” (poison) is “in” him. Every swallow of alcohol is a swallow of poison. It may not kill the body instantly, but it poisons the brain and the soul. What is the point in drinking, unless there is some stimulation (intoxication)? And, when that occurs, the guilt of “drunkenness” has taken place. Isn’t that sinful?
Habakkuk 2:15 pronounces a “woe” upon drinking. God said through the prophet, “Woe to him that gives drink to his neighbor...to make him drunk”, and then in verse 16 He extends the “woe” (or curse) upon the one who gives the drink in that he “also—drinks.” The “woe” is upon the drinker and the one he makes drunk—both now drinkers, or drunk.
Bro. Edwards’ implication is that he would “advise” people not to drink small amounts of alcohol, but if they do they “risk sinning” (which they haven’t done in drinking small amounts). The argument is that if something is sinful, we should avoid the things that might lead us to sinful actions. True, there are some sins we can commit, but there are some “sinful” things that might lead us to them, that should also be avoided. For instance, young people should avoid “heavy petting”, because it might well lead to fornication. Well, “heavy petting” is lasciviousness, which is already condemned, as well as fornication. So, some sins should be avoided because they may lead to sins of worse consequences in life, but all sin should be avoided.
How many bites of the forbidden fruit did Eve have to take before she sinned? Would Dr. Edwards have justified her in taking the first bite as not being sinful, but that it might lead her to sin at a later time? Perhaps bro. Edwards has not had to deal with the problem of alcoholism in his family, or he would not be so soft on the use of poison.
Were Paul, Peter and John just giving advice when they taught believers to “abstain” from fleshly lusts (Gal. 5:19-21; 1 Pet. 2:11; 1 John 2:15-17)? Paul also wrote that we are to make “no provision” for the flesh, “to fulfill the lusts thereof” (Rom. 13:14)? If taking a few drinks in the home or dorm does not “provide” occasion for even further drinking and heavy intoxication, what would provide for such? What about an “alcoholic”, who knows that even “one drink” of alcohol will set him back on the road to ruin, would bro. Edwards still say a few small drinks is not sinful?
Finally, I would like to present some analogies. First, speaking of fornication or “illicit sexual relations,” can sexual action be started without fornication being committed? What difference is there in the first minute of sexual activity and the completion a few minutes later? Second, the starting of an automobile. How can one start the engine of his car without it running? Would one conclude that he can “start” the car without causing the engine to run? The only way to keep the engine from running is to not start the car, for when the car is started, the engine is running. It is impossible to start the engine without the engine running.
So it is with intoxication. When the first drink is taken, intoxication has begun. Brother Edwards used the expression, “He has sinned with the first drink”, but those words were preceded with words that he would “not tell” that to a Christian as long as he drinks in small amounts in his own home. Preposterous!! Sometimes when a drunk is seen, the remark is made, “He had one drink too many.” TRUE, but which ONE? The last or the first? Had he never taken one drink, he would never have become a heavy drinker, or an alcoholic, to bring hurt and ruin on his family and loved ones.
This article was Published on this site in 2018 - Self Publishing Innovations - https://www.selfpublishinginnovations.com/don-tarbet1.html
_______________________________________________________________
* We are pleased to share this article. This article (and others on this page) may be freely distributed as long as 1) there is no cost to others, 2) no changes are made to any part of the content, 3) it is distributed in full, 4) the author's name remains attached to the article, and 5) this web location from which the article was taken is noted.
#2 - WINE
Did Jesus Drink Alcoholic Beverages?
By Don Tarbet
By Don Tarbet
I’m still in a state of shock to learn that a once conservative Bible scholar would speak publicly in defense of drinking alcohol privately as long as he does not “abuse” such by getting intoxicated. I have a copy of his entire speech, and all of our correspondence on the subject. I wrote an article on “He sinned when he has taken the first drink” that was lifted from his writing, in which he preceded this statement that he would not. (http://www.selfpublishinginnovations.com/don-tarbet1.html)
We agreed that the full correspondence would not be made public, though I besought him to do so, once it was completed, as I would love to see what I wrote set forth for examination, in contrast with what the Professor wrote to me. Near the end of our going back and forth on the issue, I presented ten (10) major points that I absolutely insisted he answer. He agreed that he would if I would first answer his argument about Jesus Himself being a user of wine. I responded, and he did not like my answer, so declared that the correspondence was over, and he would write me no more.
Before getting into many of the arguments he presented, and my response to him, I shall deal in this article only the matter of Jesus’ own use of alcoholic beverages. I will not give full quotations from The Professor, but generally what he said, but will show the statements to anyone who doubts the accuracy of any point made. In this writing, we shall consider only the accusation of Jesus being a “winebibber.”
First, The Professor contends that Jesus indeed was a user of wine during His personal ministry. Luke 7:34 states, “The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!” The Professor says the inference is that Jesus acknowledged that He drank wine, or was a winebibber. My response is that does not follow. If Jesus did drink wine, it could have been the “unfermented” kind. Note that the Lord spoke of how these enemies would “say” John came eating and drinking, and then they would “say” he had a devil because He came eating and drinking. Was Jesus acknowledging that John was a “devil” because some would say such about him? Certainly not! One time some said to Jesus, “Thou hast a devil” (John 7:20) Were they right in saying such??
The word “winebibber” is found only 2 times in the Old Testament, and it is joined to the word “glutton” in some form. First, Deut. 21:20, which reads, “And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.” Second, Prov. 23:20, which reads, “Do not be with a heavy drinker of wine, or with the gluttonous eaters of meat. For the heavy drinkers and the gluttonous will come to poverty.” Then, the New Testament uses them together Matt. 11:19 and Luke 7:34, which is the equivalent of the Old Testament term. So, IF Jesus was really a “winebibber” (heavy drinker of wine), then He was also a “glutton”. The word glutton does not refer to one who happens to eat a few bites too much once in awhile (as we so often use the word), but to one engaged in drunken feasts, indulging and drinking. Note the following statement about the word “winebibber.”
“From ‘oinnopotyes, of habitual wine-drinkers. The accusation was falsely brought against
Jesus of being a ‘gluttonous man and a winebibber,’ because unlike John, He ate and drank
with others.” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, p. 3088)
In essence, Jesus was rebuking the Jews on two counts. First, they were WRONG about John the Baptist in concluding he had a “devil” because he would NOT eat and drink. Second, they were wrong about Jesus, in accusing Him (Jesus) of being a glutton and a winebibber, for He was neither because He DID eat and drink in a normal way. John’s food was locusts and wild honey and he did not get filled up with meat and alcohol like they obviously did. As a Nazarite he avoided anything that pertained to grapes—whether intoxicated or not. Jesus’ life was different. He did eat and drink in a normal way, but did not indulge in the sinful conduct of drunkenness feasts, so they falsely accused Him OF those things. Had He indulged as they likely did, they would have had no quarrel with Him.
Enough said! Jesus was not a drinker of wine. How dare the Professor accuse Him of such. Obviously, the use of oinos in the word shows that it sometimes refers to intoxicated juice of the grape, as it does in this passage, but not always as we can observe. Our next writing will concentrate on the use of “wine” by Jesus when He was upon the cross.” Did Jesus “abuse” or even use alcoholic drink in His life? The scripture does not so teach.
This article was Published on this site on 1-17-2019- Self Publishing Innovations - https://www.selfpublishinginnovations.com/don-tarbet1.html
We agreed that the full correspondence would not be made public, though I besought him to do so, once it was completed, as I would love to see what I wrote set forth for examination, in contrast with what the Professor wrote to me. Near the end of our going back and forth on the issue, I presented ten (10) major points that I absolutely insisted he answer. He agreed that he would if I would first answer his argument about Jesus Himself being a user of wine. I responded, and he did not like my answer, so declared that the correspondence was over, and he would write me no more.
Before getting into many of the arguments he presented, and my response to him, I shall deal in this article only the matter of Jesus’ own use of alcoholic beverages. I will not give full quotations from The Professor, but generally what he said, but will show the statements to anyone who doubts the accuracy of any point made. In this writing, we shall consider only the accusation of Jesus being a “winebibber.”
First, The Professor contends that Jesus indeed was a user of wine during His personal ministry. Luke 7:34 states, “The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!” The Professor says the inference is that Jesus acknowledged that He drank wine, or was a winebibber. My response is that does not follow. If Jesus did drink wine, it could have been the “unfermented” kind. Note that the Lord spoke of how these enemies would “say” John came eating and drinking, and then they would “say” he had a devil because He came eating and drinking. Was Jesus acknowledging that John was a “devil” because some would say such about him? Certainly not! One time some said to Jesus, “Thou hast a devil” (John 7:20) Were they right in saying such??
The word “winebibber” is found only 2 times in the Old Testament, and it is joined to the word “glutton” in some form. First, Deut. 21:20, which reads, “And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.” Second, Prov. 23:20, which reads, “Do not be with a heavy drinker of wine, or with the gluttonous eaters of meat. For the heavy drinkers and the gluttonous will come to poverty.” Then, the New Testament uses them together Matt. 11:19 and Luke 7:34, which is the equivalent of the Old Testament term. So, IF Jesus was really a “winebibber” (heavy drinker of wine), then He was also a “glutton”. The word glutton does not refer to one who happens to eat a few bites too much once in awhile (as we so often use the word), but to one engaged in drunken feasts, indulging and drinking. Note the following statement about the word “winebibber.”
“From ‘oinnopotyes, of habitual wine-drinkers. The accusation was falsely brought against
Jesus of being a ‘gluttonous man and a winebibber,’ because unlike John, He ate and drank
with others.” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, p. 3088)
In essence, Jesus was rebuking the Jews on two counts. First, they were WRONG about John the Baptist in concluding he had a “devil” because he would NOT eat and drink. Second, they were wrong about Jesus, in accusing Him (Jesus) of being a glutton and a winebibber, for He was neither because He DID eat and drink in a normal way. John’s food was locusts and wild honey and he did not get filled up with meat and alcohol like they obviously did. As a Nazarite he avoided anything that pertained to grapes—whether intoxicated or not. Jesus’ life was different. He did eat and drink in a normal way, but did not indulge in the sinful conduct of drunkenness feasts, so they falsely accused Him OF those things. Had He indulged as they likely did, they would have had no quarrel with Him.
Enough said! Jesus was not a drinker of wine. How dare the Professor accuse Him of such. Obviously, the use of oinos in the word shows that it sometimes refers to intoxicated juice of the grape, as it does in this passage, but not always as we can observe. Our next writing will concentrate on the use of “wine” by Jesus when He was upon the cross.” Did Jesus “abuse” or even use alcoholic drink in His life? The scripture does not so teach.
This article was Published on this site on 1-17-2019- Self Publishing Innovations - https://www.selfpublishinginnovations.com/don-tarbet1.html
#3 - WINE
JESUS, WINE, AND THE CROSS
Don Tarbet
The “Professor” with whom I corresponded with so long, made a big play on the language of Jesus and what was said about Him in the accounts where “wine” and “vinegar” were involved by the enemies of the Lord in His hour of agony. After much correspondence, the Professor, having rejected the ten (10) points wherein I pleaded with him to answer, said he would answer if I would deal with the matter of Jesus drinking alcohol on the cross. My reply did not please him. At one point I pointed out that Jesus refused to drink wine that was offered. Later, I replied that it was true that there was a second offer (this time of “vinegar,” Gr. oxos, a different word than oinos that was first offered Him), as in Matt. 27:29-34, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:35-36.
Only John clearly distinguishes between the vinegar offered Jesus at one point, in contrast with the times He was offered wine. First, we shall examine the passages where “wine” was offered Him, of which He refused to drink.
(1) Matt. 27:28-34. Matthew points out that Jesus had been “mocked,” “spit upon,” and “smote.” He was then taken to Golgotha where He was offered “vinegar” (KJV, or oinos.) “They gave him vinegar (KJV) to drink, mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.” I stated that I was with Jesus on this matter, and was chided and asked if I was still with Jesus when he “received” vinegar (oxos), which was a cheap drink of “sour wine” that the common people used.
(2) Mark 15:26. Mark simply says “And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.” Bear in mind that while Matthew says Jesus “refused to drink,’ while Mark says “he received it not.”
(3) Luke 23:35-36. Luke says they “derided” Jesus, and “mocked” Him, while “offering him vinegar.” He does not say that Jesus tasted it, refused to drink, or received it not.
(4) John 19:28-30. This account appears to be separate from what the other writers said, as it is the only time Jesus actually said “I thirst”, and when a different drink (oxos) was offered. John states a few things that are pertinent to our understanding the occasion. He stated that this occurred while Jesus “knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.” The Professor maintains that this was a natural thirst, which was satisfied with the vinegar given Him, and that it contained a small amount of “alcohol,” meant that Jesus DID drink alcohol (at least this time) and this justifies our use of a drink or two of alcoholic beverages today. John states that there was a vessel full of vinegar, and that “they filled a sponge with vinegar and put it on hyssop, and put it to his mouth.” Verse 30 says Jesus “received the vinegar.” To put a sponge to the mouth of Jesus would hardly be classified as “drinking” such for pleasure, to set us an example to imbibe in alcoholic beverages. Remember, in Matthew’s account He tasted the wine, probably a few drops on His mouth and tongue, enough for Him to know what it was, and then rejected it, for He did not drink it. Now, this account in John simply says that Jesus received the vinegar. That is not to indicate that this time He actually consumed it by drinking it, but likely in the same manner the wine had been given him before, Who, upon “tasting” it this time to fulfill the scripture relating to the occasion. All the actions surrounding both accounts are so similar, that I would not want to be guilty of drawing a different conclusion on John’s statement, so as to use Jesus our Lord as an example of drinking alcohol today for pleasure. Shame on the man who would do so.
The Professor argues that Jesus having “received” the vinegar means He drank it because of His thirst. What about Jesus having “tasted” the wine before, but did “not drink” it? Mark records that they “gave him wine to drink, but he received it not” (meaning he did not drink it), while John says “they put it to his mouth” having “received the vinegar.” Let’s get the context of this occasion.
A quote from Ellicott’s Commentary explains it well.
“Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar—This vessel of the ordinary sour wine drunk by the Roman soldiers, was placed near in order to be given to those who were crucified. Thirst was always an accompaniment of death by crucifixion, and that the vessel of wine was prepared for this purpose is made probable by the mention of the sponge and hyssop.”
Before we leave these verses, we need to pay attention to what the “scripture” had said, that Jesus is now saying must be fulfilled. This scripture is in Psalms 69:19-21, which reads as follows, with emphasis given to highlight certain words.
“Thou hast known my reproach, and my shame, and my dishonor: mine adversaries are all before me. Reproach hath broken my heart; and I am full of heaviness: and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none. They gave me also gall for my meat, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.”
Please note that these were His enemies who reproached him, and gave him “gall” for food, and “vinegar” for His thirst—just as recorded in the New Testament. He refused both the gall and the vinegar (or wine). Vinegar from a sponge touching Jesus’ lips could hardly be considered as “drinking” it to satisfy His thirst. No doubt He was thirsty, but He actually said it to “fulfill the scripture” and what they “offered” Him was also part of the fulfillment. Part of the fulfillment about the drink as recorded by Matthew was only a part of the prophecy’s fulfillment. The scripture had said that Jesus would “thirst,” so in order to fulfill everything ABOUT the prophecy, Jesus had to SAY “I thirst.” David used the word “thirst” in his prophecy, and Jesus used the word “thirst” in it’s fulfillment. Then, Jesus obviously “received” the vinegar for it’s intended purpose, and only THEN could He say, “It is finished,” referring to the completion of the prophecies relating to His suffering.
Had Jesus wanted and received (drank) wine, He would have been violating Hab. 2:15 and Prov. 20:1, unless we establish that He did drink something on the cross as a means of deadening the pain. Barnes, in his commentary, wrote: “The meaning is that he was near death; or was ready to die. Who can show that the Redeemer when on the cross was not in his own meditations have gone over these very expressions in the Psalms as applicable to himself.”
Again, “They gave him wine to drink mingled with gall. This a clear reference to the LXX version of Ps. 69:21: ‘They gave me also gall [chole, Heb. Rosh] for my food; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.’ In Mk. 15:23, it says ‘wine mingled with myrrh.’ It is well known that the Romans gave wine with frankincense to criminals before their execution to alleviate their sufferings; here the chole or bitter substance used was myrrh.” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, II, p. 1167). Jesus had already suffered to this point, and now the vinegar was there at the end of His suffering, and Jesus could say, “it is finished.”
A point of interest is found in the writings of Alvah Hovey in Sept. 1886 in “Sheker And Leaven In Mosaic Offerings”, page 16, when he wrote:
“Oxos is formed when vinous fermentation is not well regulated. Wine is converted into vinegar. It was neither exhilerating nor intoxicating.”
This being true, means that what Jesus may have consumed on the cross would in no way compare to intoxicating drinks of today, as their oxos (vinegar) was a drink that was soured and had lost it’s fermentation. Burton Easton, in International Bible Encyclopedia, IV, p. 3051, confirms the above quotation. He states:
“Undeluted vinegar is of course undrinkable, and to offer it to a thirsty man is mockery (Ps. 69;21), but a mixture of water and vinegar makes a beverage that was very popular among the poor (Gr. oxos, oxukraton, Lat. posca--names also applied to diluted sour wine). It is mentioned in Nu. 6:3 (forbidden to the Nazarite) and again in the Gospels in the account of the Crucifixion. The executioners had brought it in a vessel (Jn. 19:29) for their own use and at first ‘offered’ it to Christ, while keeping it out of reach (Lk. 23:36); But at the end the drink was given Him on a sponge (Mk. 15:36; Mt. 27:48; Jn. 19:29-30)."
In summation, we observe that the word for vinegar here is different from the oinos Jesus had refused. This oxos could be only a cheap imitation of oinos, used at this point to relieve the suffering of one being crucified. The fact that John mentions the vessel that was there, illustrates the very purpose of it’s presence, for Jesus to fulfill the prophecies about the occasion, in order to say, “It is finished.” Just how much actually went into His mouth is not stated, but it surely had it’s deadening effect as intended.
Jesus was not a “social drinker” as we observed in our previous article. No one was drinking with Jesus on the cross, for He was the One suffering so as to be given the vinegar by the soldiers, as a part of a prophetic utterance by David of old. If we choose to imbibe in alcohol for pleasure because Jesus “received” “vinegar” on the cross, we are vainly trying to justify a sinful practice by looking to a special occasion where Jesus obviously knew the vinegar was there, as John brings out. If we are ever at that point nearing the end of our lives, to do what Jesus did would not be sinful.
At this point, enough is said. We shall later consider some other “arguments” from the Professor, and compare them with scripture.
Only John clearly distinguishes between the vinegar offered Jesus at one point, in contrast with the times He was offered wine. First, we shall examine the passages where “wine” was offered Him, of which He refused to drink.
(1) Matt. 27:28-34. Matthew points out that Jesus had been “mocked,” “spit upon,” and “smote.” He was then taken to Golgotha where He was offered “vinegar” (KJV, or oinos.) “They gave him vinegar (KJV) to drink, mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.” I stated that I was with Jesus on this matter, and was chided and asked if I was still with Jesus when he “received” vinegar (oxos), which was a cheap drink of “sour wine” that the common people used.
(2) Mark 15:26. Mark simply says “And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.” Bear in mind that while Matthew says Jesus “refused to drink,’ while Mark says “he received it not.”
(3) Luke 23:35-36. Luke says they “derided” Jesus, and “mocked” Him, while “offering him vinegar.” He does not say that Jesus tasted it, refused to drink, or received it not.
(4) John 19:28-30. This account appears to be separate from what the other writers said, as it is the only time Jesus actually said “I thirst”, and when a different drink (oxos) was offered. John states a few things that are pertinent to our understanding the occasion. He stated that this occurred while Jesus “knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.” The Professor maintains that this was a natural thirst, which was satisfied with the vinegar given Him, and that it contained a small amount of “alcohol,” meant that Jesus DID drink alcohol (at least this time) and this justifies our use of a drink or two of alcoholic beverages today. John states that there was a vessel full of vinegar, and that “they filled a sponge with vinegar and put it on hyssop, and put it to his mouth.” Verse 30 says Jesus “received the vinegar.” To put a sponge to the mouth of Jesus would hardly be classified as “drinking” such for pleasure, to set us an example to imbibe in alcoholic beverages. Remember, in Matthew’s account He tasted the wine, probably a few drops on His mouth and tongue, enough for Him to know what it was, and then rejected it, for He did not drink it. Now, this account in John simply says that Jesus received the vinegar. That is not to indicate that this time He actually consumed it by drinking it, but likely in the same manner the wine had been given him before, Who, upon “tasting” it this time to fulfill the scripture relating to the occasion. All the actions surrounding both accounts are so similar, that I would not want to be guilty of drawing a different conclusion on John’s statement, so as to use Jesus our Lord as an example of drinking alcohol today for pleasure. Shame on the man who would do so.
The Professor argues that Jesus having “received” the vinegar means He drank it because of His thirst. What about Jesus having “tasted” the wine before, but did “not drink” it? Mark records that they “gave him wine to drink, but he received it not” (meaning he did not drink it), while John says “they put it to his mouth” having “received the vinegar.” Let’s get the context of this occasion.
A quote from Ellicott’s Commentary explains it well.
“Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar—This vessel of the ordinary sour wine drunk by the Roman soldiers, was placed near in order to be given to those who were crucified. Thirst was always an accompaniment of death by crucifixion, and that the vessel of wine was prepared for this purpose is made probable by the mention of the sponge and hyssop.”
Before we leave these verses, we need to pay attention to what the “scripture” had said, that Jesus is now saying must be fulfilled. This scripture is in Psalms 69:19-21, which reads as follows, with emphasis given to highlight certain words.
“Thou hast known my reproach, and my shame, and my dishonor: mine adversaries are all before me. Reproach hath broken my heart; and I am full of heaviness: and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none. They gave me also gall for my meat, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.”
Please note that these were His enemies who reproached him, and gave him “gall” for food, and “vinegar” for His thirst—just as recorded in the New Testament. He refused both the gall and the vinegar (or wine). Vinegar from a sponge touching Jesus’ lips could hardly be considered as “drinking” it to satisfy His thirst. No doubt He was thirsty, but He actually said it to “fulfill the scripture” and what they “offered” Him was also part of the fulfillment. Part of the fulfillment about the drink as recorded by Matthew was only a part of the prophecy’s fulfillment. The scripture had said that Jesus would “thirst,” so in order to fulfill everything ABOUT the prophecy, Jesus had to SAY “I thirst.” David used the word “thirst” in his prophecy, and Jesus used the word “thirst” in it’s fulfillment. Then, Jesus obviously “received” the vinegar for it’s intended purpose, and only THEN could He say, “It is finished,” referring to the completion of the prophecies relating to His suffering.
Had Jesus wanted and received (drank) wine, He would have been violating Hab. 2:15 and Prov. 20:1, unless we establish that He did drink something on the cross as a means of deadening the pain. Barnes, in his commentary, wrote: “The meaning is that he was near death; or was ready to die. Who can show that the Redeemer when on the cross was not in his own meditations have gone over these very expressions in the Psalms as applicable to himself.”
Again, “They gave him wine to drink mingled with gall. This a clear reference to the LXX version of Ps. 69:21: ‘They gave me also gall [chole, Heb. Rosh] for my food; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.’ In Mk. 15:23, it says ‘wine mingled with myrrh.’ It is well known that the Romans gave wine with frankincense to criminals before their execution to alleviate their sufferings; here the chole or bitter substance used was myrrh.” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, II, p. 1167). Jesus had already suffered to this point, and now the vinegar was there at the end of His suffering, and Jesus could say, “it is finished.”
A point of interest is found in the writings of Alvah Hovey in Sept. 1886 in “Sheker And Leaven In Mosaic Offerings”, page 16, when he wrote:
“Oxos is formed when vinous fermentation is not well regulated. Wine is converted into vinegar. It was neither exhilerating nor intoxicating.”
This being true, means that what Jesus may have consumed on the cross would in no way compare to intoxicating drinks of today, as their oxos (vinegar) was a drink that was soured and had lost it’s fermentation. Burton Easton, in International Bible Encyclopedia, IV, p. 3051, confirms the above quotation. He states:
“Undeluted vinegar is of course undrinkable, and to offer it to a thirsty man is mockery (Ps. 69;21), but a mixture of water and vinegar makes a beverage that was very popular among the poor (Gr. oxos, oxukraton, Lat. posca--names also applied to diluted sour wine). It is mentioned in Nu. 6:3 (forbidden to the Nazarite) and again in the Gospels in the account of the Crucifixion. The executioners had brought it in a vessel (Jn. 19:29) for their own use and at first ‘offered’ it to Christ, while keeping it out of reach (Lk. 23:36); But at the end the drink was given Him on a sponge (Mk. 15:36; Mt. 27:48; Jn. 19:29-30)."
In summation, we observe that the word for vinegar here is different from the oinos Jesus had refused. This oxos could be only a cheap imitation of oinos, used at this point to relieve the suffering of one being crucified. The fact that John mentions the vessel that was there, illustrates the very purpose of it’s presence, for Jesus to fulfill the prophecies about the occasion, in order to say, “It is finished.” Just how much actually went into His mouth is not stated, but it surely had it’s deadening effect as intended.
Jesus was not a “social drinker” as we observed in our previous article. No one was drinking with Jesus on the cross, for He was the One suffering so as to be given the vinegar by the soldiers, as a part of a prophetic utterance by David of old. If we choose to imbibe in alcohol for pleasure because Jesus “received” “vinegar” on the cross, we are vainly trying to justify a sinful practice by looking to a special occasion where Jesus obviously knew the vinegar was there, as John brings out. If we are ever at that point nearing the end of our lives, to do what Jesus did would not be sinful.
At this point, enough is said. We shall later consider some other “arguments” from the Professor, and compare them with scripture.
#4 - WINE
WINE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
Don Tarbet
Don Tarbet
In his speech at Freed-Hardeman in 2018, the Professor set forth his premise that intoxicating wine was not evil within itself, or else God would not have authorized it’s use in the worship of the priests where sacrifices were offered. He also based God’s approval of wine from Deut. 14:26, which reads:
“And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires, you shall eat there before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household.” (NKJV)
The word for “wine” in this passage is the Hebrew word yayin, which can or cannot mean an “intoxicating” drink. Many scholars do believe it is intoxicating, but even the Professor admits that it is not always true, and admitted in his lecture that yayin as used in Isa. 16:10 means “unfermented grape juice.” In many respects, it is like the word oinos (used for wine in the New Testament) has to be understood in each context in which it is found. Yet, the Professor continues to attempt to justify alcoholic wine as being basically approved of God (except in passages where it is specifically condemned, however).
The Professor admits that yayin which Noah drank (Gen. 9:21) and which Solomon condemned as sinful (Prov. 20:1 and 23:29-33) should be heeded. Again, the context shows it’s use to be sinful, for it is “intoxicating.” So it is with the Hebrew word shekhar. Both of these Hebrew words are found in Lev. 10:9-10, which forbade the priests from using either when they came into the tent of meeting. The Professor says that both words here refer to intoxicants, and the priests were forbidden to use either when they came into the tent of meeting, which implied that they COULD drink such when not in the tent of meeting, and that without sin.
A simple illustration here might be helpful. A mother tells her son to stay out of the mud, and says, “You had better not have mud on your feet when you come into the house.” This does not mean that it is okay to have mud on his feet when he is outside, but be sure it is not there when he comes into the house. She means, “Stay out of the mud.”
Both “wine” and “strong drink” are condemned in Isa. 5:11, 22. A woe is pronounced upon the one who “gives” his neighbor drink, and who also “drinks” (Hab. 2:15-16). The Professor argues that shekhar is a drink that is allowable, as long as one does not abuse it by getting intoxicated. Even though the word is generally translated “strong drink,” it is not always the case. “It is distinguished from ‘wine’ and the meaning is not quite certain. The tr. For ‘strong drink’ is unfortunate, for it suggests ‘distilled liquor’ which is unfortunate.” (ISBE, IV, p. 3086).
“Shakar (sometimes written shechar) signifies ‘sweet drink’ expressed from fruits other than the grape, and drunk in an unfermented or fermented state. It occurs in the Old Testament twenty-three times—Bible Commentary, p. 418, Kitto’s Cyclopedia says, ‘Shakar is a general term, including palm-wine and other saccharine beverages, except those prepared from the vine.’’’ (William Patton, THE BIBLE AND WINE, p. 46).
Patton goes on to say, “The Hebrew name is shakar, which is usually translated strong drink in the Old Testament and in the New. The mere reader, of course, invariably gets from this translation a wrong idea of the real meaning of the original Hebrew. He attaches to it the idea which the English phrase now conveys among us, viz., that of a strong intoxicating drink, like our distilled liquors. As to distillation, by which alcoholic liquors are not principally obtained, it was utterly unknown to the Hebrews, and indeed to all the world in ancient times… They may be kept and used in unfermented state; when of course, no quantity that a men could drink of them would intoxicate him in any perceptible degree.” (PATTON, p. 46)
So, obviously, the Bible word for “strong drink” did not always indicate the divine approval of one enjoying such in the Old Testament. The result of the drink of Deut. 14:26 was that of “rejoicing”, or being glad, to shine, etc., and does not describe the state of one who is intoxicated with alcohol.
Now, as to the use of “wine in worship” in the Old Testament justifying the approval of God in the New Testament age, this too is a vain argument. Both the words “wine” and animal “sacrifices” are connected in the Old Testament, but in the sacrifices themselves, neither are spoken of as being humanly consumed. IS IT POSSIBLE that the association of animals and fermented wine are used together to typify or foretell the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus, as His “body” was “destroyed” (killed), and His “blood” was poured out, but HIS was “pure blood”, and would not be memorialized with intoxicating wine today in the time of divine fulfillment??? The “wine” was faulty, just as the old covenant was faulty, and the pure fruit of the vine is better. Something like this HAS to be the answer. In Heb. 10:1, it is said that those “sacrifices” (plural, and not just ONE sacrifice of the atonement) were a “shadow” of things that were to come. So, in this description, we see HOW they pointed to the sacrifice of our Lord. HOW CAN ONE HELP BUT SEE THIS?
There was an obvious use for the wine (alcoholic in nature) in connection with the sacrifices—not to be humanly consumed, but to be poured out with the fire burning the sacrifices. Gasoline is used today for burning, but not for drinking. So with the wine in connection with the sacrifices. What better fuel for burning the sacrifices than the wine being “poured out” ON the sacrifices to be burned?? If the wine was in the tent of meeting, and the priest could not drink it, how does that give any support for our drinking it today?
To argue that because wine was used in worship doesn’t mean it is good for man to drink it today. The priests were not allowed to drink the wine when it was being offered, but it’s use was something different. It was poured out. The priests were to avoid drinking, even with all that alcohol around, that they might properly differentiate between the holy and the profane.
“And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires, you shall eat there before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household.” (NKJV)
The word for “wine” in this passage is the Hebrew word yayin, which can or cannot mean an “intoxicating” drink. Many scholars do believe it is intoxicating, but even the Professor admits that it is not always true, and admitted in his lecture that yayin as used in Isa. 16:10 means “unfermented grape juice.” In many respects, it is like the word oinos (used for wine in the New Testament) has to be understood in each context in which it is found. Yet, the Professor continues to attempt to justify alcoholic wine as being basically approved of God (except in passages where it is specifically condemned, however).
The Professor admits that yayin which Noah drank (Gen. 9:21) and which Solomon condemned as sinful (Prov. 20:1 and 23:29-33) should be heeded. Again, the context shows it’s use to be sinful, for it is “intoxicating.” So it is with the Hebrew word shekhar. Both of these Hebrew words are found in Lev. 10:9-10, which forbade the priests from using either when they came into the tent of meeting. The Professor says that both words here refer to intoxicants, and the priests were forbidden to use either when they came into the tent of meeting, which implied that they COULD drink such when not in the tent of meeting, and that without sin.
A simple illustration here might be helpful. A mother tells her son to stay out of the mud, and says, “You had better not have mud on your feet when you come into the house.” This does not mean that it is okay to have mud on his feet when he is outside, but be sure it is not there when he comes into the house. She means, “Stay out of the mud.”
Both “wine” and “strong drink” are condemned in Isa. 5:11, 22. A woe is pronounced upon the one who “gives” his neighbor drink, and who also “drinks” (Hab. 2:15-16). The Professor argues that shekhar is a drink that is allowable, as long as one does not abuse it by getting intoxicated. Even though the word is generally translated “strong drink,” it is not always the case. “It is distinguished from ‘wine’ and the meaning is not quite certain. The tr. For ‘strong drink’ is unfortunate, for it suggests ‘distilled liquor’ which is unfortunate.” (ISBE, IV, p. 3086).
“Shakar (sometimes written shechar) signifies ‘sweet drink’ expressed from fruits other than the grape, and drunk in an unfermented or fermented state. It occurs in the Old Testament twenty-three times—Bible Commentary, p. 418, Kitto’s Cyclopedia says, ‘Shakar is a general term, including palm-wine and other saccharine beverages, except those prepared from the vine.’’’ (William Patton, THE BIBLE AND WINE, p. 46).
Patton goes on to say, “The Hebrew name is shakar, which is usually translated strong drink in the Old Testament and in the New. The mere reader, of course, invariably gets from this translation a wrong idea of the real meaning of the original Hebrew. He attaches to it the idea which the English phrase now conveys among us, viz., that of a strong intoxicating drink, like our distilled liquors. As to distillation, by which alcoholic liquors are not principally obtained, it was utterly unknown to the Hebrews, and indeed to all the world in ancient times… They may be kept and used in unfermented state; when of course, no quantity that a men could drink of them would intoxicate him in any perceptible degree.” (PATTON, p. 46)
So, obviously, the Bible word for “strong drink” did not always indicate the divine approval of one enjoying such in the Old Testament. The result of the drink of Deut. 14:26 was that of “rejoicing”, or being glad, to shine, etc., and does not describe the state of one who is intoxicated with alcohol.
Now, as to the use of “wine in worship” in the Old Testament justifying the approval of God in the New Testament age, this too is a vain argument. Both the words “wine” and animal “sacrifices” are connected in the Old Testament, but in the sacrifices themselves, neither are spoken of as being humanly consumed. IS IT POSSIBLE that the association of animals and fermented wine are used together to typify or foretell the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus, as His “body” was “destroyed” (killed), and His “blood” was poured out, but HIS was “pure blood”, and would not be memorialized with intoxicating wine today in the time of divine fulfillment??? The “wine” was faulty, just as the old covenant was faulty, and the pure fruit of the vine is better. Something like this HAS to be the answer. In Heb. 10:1, it is said that those “sacrifices” (plural, and not just ONE sacrifice of the atonement) were a “shadow” of things that were to come. So, in this description, we see HOW they pointed to the sacrifice of our Lord. HOW CAN ONE HELP BUT SEE THIS?
There was an obvious use for the wine (alcoholic in nature) in connection with the sacrifices—not to be humanly consumed, but to be poured out with the fire burning the sacrifices. Gasoline is used today for burning, but not for drinking. So with the wine in connection with the sacrifices. What better fuel for burning the sacrifices than the wine being “poured out” ON the sacrifices to be burned?? If the wine was in the tent of meeting, and the priest could not drink it, how does that give any support for our drinking it today?
To argue that because wine was used in worship doesn’t mean it is good for man to drink it today. The priests were not allowed to drink the wine when it was being offered, but it’s use was something different. It was poured out. The priests were to avoid drinking, even with all that alcohol around, that they might properly differentiate between the holy and the profane.
#5- WINE
“‘WINE’ IN THE O.T.
AND CHRISTIANS DRINKING ALCOHOL”
By Don Tarbet
AND CHRISTIANS DRINKING ALCOHOL”
By Don Tarbet
In our communication with the “Professor” at one of our Christian universities, we encountered the idea that the use of alcoholic wine in the the Old Testament justifies our use of wine or any alcoholic beverages today, if we are thirsty, and as long as we don’t “abuse” it by getting intoxicated. We are made to wonder how one can put a toxicant in the body without then being intoxicated!! The Professor even admitted that alcohol is “the intoxicating principle” of various liquids. The Professor spent most of his time laboring to justify our use of alcohol in the Christian age, based on the concept that since God allowed the priests in the O.T. to “use” alcoholic wine in worship, meant that alcohol in itself is not evil, and we can use it if don’t abuse it. We well remember that God created everything that was good in the garden of Eden, which surely included grapes, and the juice that came from grapes. However, it was man who took grape juice (good) and made it intoxicating (evil, when used for human consumption). Noah became drunk or intoxicated with wine, but that does not mean we can do the same thing without engaging in sin. It is the “use” of alcohol in drinking that is evil.
The Professor argued he did not write from the idea that he was trying to “justify” it’s use today because it was used in the O. T., but he stated that he was merely looking at the “background” use of alcohol, to explain that we can use it today as a drink, even though he personally would advise anyone not to use it, because it might “lead” to something dangerous or sinful. At the same time, he sought to “justify” the use of it, which reminds us of something Paul wrote in Gal. 5:4, which reads, “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.”
Just for the sake of argument, let’s assume that God DID approve of the Jews drinking alcoholic beverages in moderation, what does that prove? They were living in the “moonlight age” and there were some things they did practice that are forbidden today. For instance, God tolerated or allowed them to have more than one wife upon various occasions, even though He had originally declared that it was to be one woman for one man. God’s laws have changed, just as the priesthood changed (Heb. 7:12). Instrumental music was authorized in some instances in worship under the O. T., but such is not allowed today in the gospel age. Can we scripturally use “pianos” in worship just because harps were used in the Old Testament? Or, can we too offer animal sacrifices in Christian worship because the Jews were to offer animal sacrifices in the O. T.? Surely not!! To argue and practice such is to “fall from grace” in a vain attempt to justify it because it was allowed in the O. T. Are we allowed to “use” harps in worship as long as we don’t “abuse” them? Strange logic!
The Professor would be more “logical” and “consistent” to argue that we can drink alcoholic wine in “worship” because it indeed was used in the worship under the law, as it was poured out in connection with the animal sacrifices. However, it was not consumed by the priests who poured it out, for they were specifically forbidden to use it while in the tabernacle. So, apparently no one drank it, so just how does that justify it’s use in any form today? If anything, it would come nearer justifying our “pouring it out” in some way, rather than the drinking of it.
It is true that what was “written” (in the O. T.) was written for our learning (Rom. 15:4), but does not mean that we are authorized to do everything they did in those days. In 1 Cor. 10, Paul lists several things that were done in O. T. times, and declares that they were recorded or written for “ensamples” (1 Cor. 10:11) that we should “not” do as they did, which referred to their idolatry, fornication and murmuring. A lot of folks might like to justify fornication on the basis that the Jews did it, but such “justification” is invalid. Jesus once said that some things that men seek to “justify” themselves in doing, is abomination in the sight of God (Luke 16:15).
Clearly, the O. T. spoke against the practice of drinking strong drink. Solomon said that such is a mocker, and one is not wise to use it (Prov. 20:1). He also said that one was not to look upon wine in it’s allurement (Prov. 23:29-23). Habakkuk places a woe upon the one drinking strong drink, and upon the one who gives it to him, and drinks with him (See Hab. 2:15-16). The New Testament clearly teaches that we are to “abstain” (avoid completely) those things that appeal to the lust of the flesh that war against the soul. See 1 Pet. 2:11. What wars against the soul more than the drinking of alcohol?? Is such not a work of darkness? See Eph. 5:11. Did not the inspired apostle Paul say that we are to “make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof?” (Rom.13:14). Just think how alcohol is used many times to break down the moral objection to sex outside of marriage, and then to easily persuade, or even rape the other party. Alcohol is used in virtually all dancing activities between men and women. The world loves it’s alcohol, while John writes that such things are of the “world”, and not from God (1 John 2:15-17). Did not Paul also say that we are not to be “conformed to the world” (Rom. 12:1-2)? If priests and judges were forbidden to drink alcohol in the O. T. because it would keep them from distinguishing between good and evil, what makes some think we can drink any alcohol and still distinguish between right and wrong?
In our next articles, we shall look at the fruits of the use of alcohol, and examine the passages that are used to “justify’ it’s use today.
The Professor argued he did not write from the idea that he was trying to “justify” it’s use today because it was used in the O. T., but he stated that he was merely looking at the “background” use of alcohol, to explain that we can use it today as a drink, even though he personally would advise anyone not to use it, because it might “lead” to something dangerous or sinful. At the same time, he sought to “justify” the use of it, which reminds us of something Paul wrote in Gal. 5:4, which reads, “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.”
Just for the sake of argument, let’s assume that God DID approve of the Jews drinking alcoholic beverages in moderation, what does that prove? They were living in the “moonlight age” and there were some things they did practice that are forbidden today. For instance, God tolerated or allowed them to have more than one wife upon various occasions, even though He had originally declared that it was to be one woman for one man. God’s laws have changed, just as the priesthood changed (Heb. 7:12). Instrumental music was authorized in some instances in worship under the O. T., but such is not allowed today in the gospel age. Can we scripturally use “pianos” in worship just because harps were used in the Old Testament? Or, can we too offer animal sacrifices in Christian worship because the Jews were to offer animal sacrifices in the O. T.? Surely not!! To argue and practice such is to “fall from grace” in a vain attempt to justify it because it was allowed in the O. T. Are we allowed to “use” harps in worship as long as we don’t “abuse” them? Strange logic!
The Professor would be more “logical” and “consistent” to argue that we can drink alcoholic wine in “worship” because it indeed was used in the worship under the law, as it was poured out in connection with the animal sacrifices. However, it was not consumed by the priests who poured it out, for they were specifically forbidden to use it while in the tabernacle. So, apparently no one drank it, so just how does that justify it’s use in any form today? If anything, it would come nearer justifying our “pouring it out” in some way, rather than the drinking of it.
It is true that what was “written” (in the O. T.) was written for our learning (Rom. 15:4), but does not mean that we are authorized to do everything they did in those days. In 1 Cor. 10, Paul lists several things that were done in O. T. times, and declares that they were recorded or written for “ensamples” (1 Cor. 10:11) that we should “not” do as they did, which referred to their idolatry, fornication and murmuring. A lot of folks might like to justify fornication on the basis that the Jews did it, but such “justification” is invalid. Jesus once said that some things that men seek to “justify” themselves in doing, is abomination in the sight of God (Luke 16:15).
Clearly, the O. T. spoke against the practice of drinking strong drink. Solomon said that such is a mocker, and one is not wise to use it (Prov. 20:1). He also said that one was not to look upon wine in it’s allurement (Prov. 23:29-23). Habakkuk places a woe upon the one drinking strong drink, and upon the one who gives it to him, and drinks with him (See Hab. 2:15-16). The New Testament clearly teaches that we are to “abstain” (avoid completely) those things that appeal to the lust of the flesh that war against the soul. See 1 Pet. 2:11. What wars against the soul more than the drinking of alcohol?? Is such not a work of darkness? See Eph. 5:11. Did not the inspired apostle Paul say that we are to “make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof?” (Rom.13:14). Just think how alcohol is used many times to break down the moral objection to sex outside of marriage, and then to easily persuade, or even rape the other party. Alcohol is used in virtually all dancing activities between men and women. The world loves it’s alcohol, while John writes that such things are of the “world”, and not from God (1 John 2:15-17). Did not Paul also say that we are not to be “conformed to the world” (Rom. 12:1-2)? If priests and judges were forbidden to drink alcohol in the O. T. because it would keep them from distinguishing between good and evil, what makes some think we can drink any alcohol and still distinguish between right and wrong?
In our next articles, we shall look at the fruits of the use of alcohol, and examine the passages that are used to “justify’ it’s use today.
WOMEN SPEAKING IN THE ASSEMBLY
Don Tarbet
Don Tarbet
God created His first family as a physical or natural family, with Adam and Eve being formed miraculously. Adam was the first created, as He was made from the earth, and Eve was formed from man. This relationship is explored by Paul in 1 Cor. 11:3 following his statement of authority of God, Christ, man and then woman. Adam and Eve had no birthday, for they came into the world by means of a miraculous creation. Then all their offspring came into existence by a physical birth, through the “seed” of man in the woman. Adam was first created, but Eve, the woman, was the first to fall into transgression by partaking of the forbidden fruit, resulting in their falling out of favor with God the Creator. The future relationship between man and woman was to be with the woman being in subjection to man for the future (Gen. 3:16). Men became heads of the family in future generations, and it was to continue that way.
God's next family was a spiritual family—the church. Some speak of the birthday of the church, but it actually had no birthday, for it, as was with the natural family, came into existence miraculously, as God's new creation. It began with a miracle as God sent His Spirit upon the apostles, and they became the charter members of this spiritual family. Everyone else who has ever come into the family has been BORN into it, by means of the “seed” of the kingdom, which is the word of God (Luke 8:10, 11; John 3:3-5; 1 Cor. 4:15). In the New Testament record, Paul refers to the relationship between man and woman as based on (1) The creation, and (2) The fall of man as recorded in Genesis 3. Here, Paul states, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (1 Tim. 2:11-14).
In the infant stage of the church, the New Testament was being gradually written by inspiration. Until such time of its completion, the same Spirit that inspired its writing, was working through the apostles to guide them into all truth (John 14:26; 16:13; 2 Pet. 3:15), as Christ baptized the apostles “in the Spirit”. They, in turn, had the power to impart spiritual gifts through the laying on of their hands (Acts 8:17, 18; Rom. 1:11). In worship today, we are to follow the edification from the word which has been written (John 20:30, 31; 2 Tim. 3:16f). In the infant stage of the church, there was the imparting of knowledge through such gifts of faith, prophecy, tongues, etc. (1 Cor. 12:1-11). Certain restrictions had to be placed upon the members of the body during this time of oral transmission of the new testament, as recorded in 1 Cor. 14:26-36—making the message clear and understandable. The principle of woman's subjection to man in the exercise of these gifts fell under the law of the Lord as given in Eden. In the instructions, there was the charge that the women were to keep silence in the churches, and not to “speak”, as based on what the law had said from the fall (v. 34).
To understand the limitation placed upon women in the church, we have to first look at the IMMEDIATE CONTEXT of the passage. As stated, this was in the age of the miraculous, as the testament was being given for edification. In 1 Corinthians 12, we have the NAMING of the spiritual gifts, while in 1 Cor. 13, we have the duration of these gifts, and in 1 Cor. 14, we have the regulation of these gifts. It seems that the church in Corinth, as carnal and divisive as it was, has the ONLY book that goes into such detail. Very little is said about these gifts in any other portion of the New Testament. We need to note that there are two kinds of “speaking” under consideration in 1 Cor. 14. 1St, there was the speaking of words that would impart God's will, by the tongue speakers, and the prophets, (v. 27-32). 2nd, there was to be the absence of words from others who heard. When there were no interpreters, the tongue speakers were forbidden to speak (v. 28). When one prophet spoke, the others were to NOT speak (v. 30). Then, in the exercise of these gifts, the women were to remain silent, and if they had any questions, they were to ask outside of the church assembly (v. 34, 35). THIS was the application of the “law” to which Paul referred in verse 34. Women were NOT to express themselves vocally when tongues and prophetic utterances by men were taking place. Their speaking up might well have been disruptive to the overall purpose of the gathering. The churches (assemblies) were when the whole church came together in one place (v. 23). This is what took place, or was not to take place, in this immediate context of scripture.
Now, we come to a TOTAL CONTEXT of scripture, as we consider 1 Cor. in light of other passages that do NOT necessarily involve the miraculous activity as was obvious in the church in Corinth. Certainly, the PRINCIPLE of “subjection” by the women in the church was set forth by Paul, especially in 1 Tim. 2:12 where Paul forbids women to teach or usurp authority over the men. Following that injunction, the reasons FOR this are enumerated—the CREATION, and the FALL. These two reasons will always be true for the church. This means that women are not to usurp authority over the man, or involve themselves in the public preaching of the word of God—as is practiced in many Protestant denominations today. The action of Aquila (a man), with his wife Priscilla (a woman) in privately helping a man who was teaching error (Acts 18:25, 26) was in keeping with this principle of subjection. In Acts 21:9, we are told that Philip had four daughters who prophesied, but their prophetic work would NOT have been over men anywhere—else it would have been a violation of the scriptural relationship between men and women. It is not stated or implied that they prophesied publicly, or over men.
In 1 Cor. 14:34, women were forbidden to “speak” under certain circumstances, but surely they were allowed to “speak” under other conditions. For instance, what if a woman wanted to “confess with her mouth” her faith in the Lord, would she not have been allowed to do so? ALL were to “speak” in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19), and were thus “teaching” one another—even the men (Col. 3:16). However, their singing together was NOT usurping authority or taking a leading role over the men. If women are not to speak “at all” today, when does this prohibition begin? Does it mean she cannot speak INSIDE the church building? Does the prohibition begin the moment the announcements are finished? Can she whisper an “amen” following a prayer? Can she respond verbally when the preacher greets the congregation with a “Good Morning”, or is she not allowed to utter a sound? We know she CAN sing, and confess faith, or confess sins. In the infant church when the will of God was being expressed through the prophets and tongue speakers, the women were not to say anything that might disrupt the speakers, and that principle should follow today.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul is dealing with a matter where the message from God was being presented by the inspiration of the tongue-speakers and prophets, while today the message is by uninspired men, but it is from the inspired revelation of scripture where edification is taking place. The principle of subjection is the same.
The men are to “speak”, exhort and teach with ALL AUTHORITY (Tit. 2:14). Peter wrote, “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). This is not dealing with the sex of the speaker, but ANYONE who ever teaches—whether it be a male or female in their specific roles. Peter did not use the word aner (male) or anthropos (human being), but tis (anyone). Women should respect this regulation, and never allow themselves to be in a situation where their voices are disruptive. Neither can they be “given” authority BY the elders to engage in doing something the Lord has already prohibited. Elders have no right to delegate such authority.
Godly women are not going to aspire to be elders, deacons or preachers, but should support the men in their roles. If there is EVER a question of whether a woman should speak up in the assembly where preaching is taking place, women should follow the admonition, “If in doubt, DON'T”. In special classes, whether in the building, the home, or in private outside the public assembly, women have every right to ask questions if necessary for a better understanding of God's will. Reference is made to this in 1 Cor. 14:35 in their quest for knowledge. May God bless Christian women today who have respect for God's word, and for the roles of both men and women in the church.
It is common in some congregations for women to speak up during the presentation of God’s word, or to mumble or chatter such terms as “That’s right” or “Amen” to the disturbance of some trying to listen to and meditate on the sermon. There are instances where preachers actually encourage this kind of response, by asking questions from the pulpit, inviting women to publicly respond. One preacher’s wife has been known to publicly answer her husband’s rhetorical questions from the pulpit, and when her answer was incorrect, he would correct her in a public way, though in kindness, as he would if a male had answered him.
Men are to lead the prayers when women are present or not. In 1 Tim.2:9, Paul uses the word aner (male) in reference to prayers. Protestant churches today (along with some congregations among us who are now using women preachers, elders, and deacons, need to BEWARE. They are violating the word of God, and the participants of members are also violating the scripture. The Lord warned against doctrines of men that might claim to authorize such actions (Matt. 15:9), and He also stated that if the blind lead the blind, BOTH shall fall into the ditch (v. 14). Those who want to please God should not be involved in any arrangement or practice where sin is taking place.
* For more like this go here: Women In Pulpits And The Camel Nose Effect
God's next family was a spiritual family—the church. Some speak of the birthday of the church, but it actually had no birthday, for it, as was with the natural family, came into existence miraculously, as God's new creation. It began with a miracle as God sent His Spirit upon the apostles, and they became the charter members of this spiritual family. Everyone else who has ever come into the family has been BORN into it, by means of the “seed” of the kingdom, which is the word of God (Luke 8:10, 11; John 3:3-5; 1 Cor. 4:15). In the New Testament record, Paul refers to the relationship between man and woman as based on (1) The creation, and (2) The fall of man as recorded in Genesis 3. Here, Paul states, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (1 Tim. 2:11-14).
In the infant stage of the church, the New Testament was being gradually written by inspiration. Until such time of its completion, the same Spirit that inspired its writing, was working through the apostles to guide them into all truth (John 14:26; 16:13; 2 Pet. 3:15), as Christ baptized the apostles “in the Spirit”. They, in turn, had the power to impart spiritual gifts through the laying on of their hands (Acts 8:17, 18; Rom. 1:11). In worship today, we are to follow the edification from the word which has been written (John 20:30, 31; 2 Tim. 3:16f). In the infant stage of the church, there was the imparting of knowledge through such gifts of faith, prophecy, tongues, etc. (1 Cor. 12:1-11). Certain restrictions had to be placed upon the members of the body during this time of oral transmission of the new testament, as recorded in 1 Cor. 14:26-36—making the message clear and understandable. The principle of woman's subjection to man in the exercise of these gifts fell under the law of the Lord as given in Eden. In the instructions, there was the charge that the women were to keep silence in the churches, and not to “speak”, as based on what the law had said from the fall (v. 34).
To understand the limitation placed upon women in the church, we have to first look at the IMMEDIATE CONTEXT of the passage. As stated, this was in the age of the miraculous, as the testament was being given for edification. In 1 Corinthians 12, we have the NAMING of the spiritual gifts, while in 1 Cor. 13, we have the duration of these gifts, and in 1 Cor. 14, we have the regulation of these gifts. It seems that the church in Corinth, as carnal and divisive as it was, has the ONLY book that goes into such detail. Very little is said about these gifts in any other portion of the New Testament. We need to note that there are two kinds of “speaking” under consideration in 1 Cor. 14. 1St, there was the speaking of words that would impart God's will, by the tongue speakers, and the prophets, (v. 27-32). 2nd, there was to be the absence of words from others who heard. When there were no interpreters, the tongue speakers were forbidden to speak (v. 28). When one prophet spoke, the others were to NOT speak (v. 30). Then, in the exercise of these gifts, the women were to remain silent, and if they had any questions, they were to ask outside of the church assembly (v. 34, 35). THIS was the application of the “law” to which Paul referred in verse 34. Women were NOT to express themselves vocally when tongues and prophetic utterances by men were taking place. Their speaking up might well have been disruptive to the overall purpose of the gathering. The churches (assemblies) were when the whole church came together in one place (v. 23). This is what took place, or was not to take place, in this immediate context of scripture.
Now, we come to a TOTAL CONTEXT of scripture, as we consider 1 Cor. in light of other passages that do NOT necessarily involve the miraculous activity as was obvious in the church in Corinth. Certainly, the PRINCIPLE of “subjection” by the women in the church was set forth by Paul, especially in 1 Tim. 2:12 where Paul forbids women to teach or usurp authority over the men. Following that injunction, the reasons FOR this are enumerated—the CREATION, and the FALL. These two reasons will always be true for the church. This means that women are not to usurp authority over the man, or involve themselves in the public preaching of the word of God—as is practiced in many Protestant denominations today. The action of Aquila (a man), with his wife Priscilla (a woman) in privately helping a man who was teaching error (Acts 18:25, 26) was in keeping with this principle of subjection. In Acts 21:9, we are told that Philip had four daughters who prophesied, but their prophetic work would NOT have been over men anywhere—else it would have been a violation of the scriptural relationship between men and women. It is not stated or implied that they prophesied publicly, or over men.
In 1 Cor. 14:34, women were forbidden to “speak” under certain circumstances, but surely they were allowed to “speak” under other conditions. For instance, what if a woman wanted to “confess with her mouth” her faith in the Lord, would she not have been allowed to do so? ALL were to “speak” in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19), and were thus “teaching” one another—even the men (Col. 3:16). However, their singing together was NOT usurping authority or taking a leading role over the men. If women are not to speak “at all” today, when does this prohibition begin? Does it mean she cannot speak INSIDE the church building? Does the prohibition begin the moment the announcements are finished? Can she whisper an “amen” following a prayer? Can she respond verbally when the preacher greets the congregation with a “Good Morning”, or is she not allowed to utter a sound? We know she CAN sing, and confess faith, or confess sins. In the infant church when the will of God was being expressed through the prophets and tongue speakers, the women were not to say anything that might disrupt the speakers, and that principle should follow today.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul is dealing with a matter where the message from God was being presented by the inspiration of the tongue-speakers and prophets, while today the message is by uninspired men, but it is from the inspired revelation of scripture where edification is taking place. The principle of subjection is the same.
The men are to “speak”, exhort and teach with ALL AUTHORITY (Tit. 2:14). Peter wrote, “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). This is not dealing with the sex of the speaker, but ANYONE who ever teaches—whether it be a male or female in their specific roles. Peter did not use the word aner (male) or anthropos (human being), but tis (anyone). Women should respect this regulation, and never allow themselves to be in a situation where their voices are disruptive. Neither can they be “given” authority BY the elders to engage in doing something the Lord has already prohibited. Elders have no right to delegate such authority.
Godly women are not going to aspire to be elders, deacons or preachers, but should support the men in their roles. If there is EVER a question of whether a woman should speak up in the assembly where preaching is taking place, women should follow the admonition, “If in doubt, DON'T”. In special classes, whether in the building, the home, or in private outside the public assembly, women have every right to ask questions if necessary for a better understanding of God's will. Reference is made to this in 1 Cor. 14:35 in their quest for knowledge. May God bless Christian women today who have respect for God's word, and for the roles of both men and women in the church.
It is common in some congregations for women to speak up during the presentation of God’s word, or to mumble or chatter such terms as “That’s right” or “Amen” to the disturbance of some trying to listen to and meditate on the sermon. There are instances where preachers actually encourage this kind of response, by asking questions from the pulpit, inviting women to publicly respond. One preacher’s wife has been known to publicly answer her husband’s rhetorical questions from the pulpit, and when her answer was incorrect, he would correct her in a public way, though in kindness, as he would if a male had answered him.
Men are to lead the prayers when women are present or not. In 1 Tim.2:9, Paul uses the word aner (male) in reference to prayers. Protestant churches today (along with some congregations among us who are now using women preachers, elders, and deacons, need to BEWARE. They are violating the word of God, and the participants of members are also violating the scripture. The Lord warned against doctrines of men that might claim to authorize such actions (Matt. 15:9), and He also stated that if the blind lead the blind, BOTH shall fall into the ditch (v. 14). Those who want to please God should not be involved in any arrangement or practice where sin is taking place.
* For more like this go here: Women In Pulpits And The Camel Nose Effect
BOOKS BY DON TARBET
DOWNLOAD PDF TO VIEW MORE INFORMATION AND HOW TO ORDER BOOKS
| books_by_don_tarbet.pdf |
The Bible AND Dancing
By Don Tarbet
A matter of great concern in the church is the tendency of young and older folks wanting to participate in the modern dances with those of the opposite sex. No valid arguments in defense of dancing can be made from the scripture, but much can be said against the practice, from the scripture and the “fruits” of dancing.
Let’s see what the Bible has to say. Dancing be defined as “the expression of joy by rhythmical movements of the limbs to musical accompaniment, is scarcely ever mentioned in the Bible as a social amusement” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, II, p. 1169). The nearest exception to this is found in Matt. 14:6, and Mark 6:22 where Salome danced (a solo) before Herod who was highly pleased with her performance and had John the immerser beheaded to please Salome and her mother. With the sexually explicit of modern jumping up and down in “dancing,” and the early practice and instruction of dancing in our public schools, and the general practice of dancing in the world, calls for our giving attention to our writing.
Dancing in the Old Testament can come under two headings. First, public rejoicing. The maidens of Israel danced, led by Jepthah’s daughter (Judges 11:34). The Israelite women honored Saul and David danced, in celebration of the victory over the Philistines (1 Sam. 18:6; 21:11; 29:15). In both instances, women only were doing the dancing, which can hardly be compared to the type of dancing so popular today.
Second, religious dancing, as acts of worship, or in some way related to worship. The women of Israel danced at the Red Sea in celebration (Exo. 15:20) The maidens of Shiloh danced at an annual feast (Judges 21:19ff). The prophets of Baal danced around their altar in their idolatrous celebration (1 Kings 18:26). David danced in front of the ark of the covenant, followed by his uncovering himself before the maids of his servants (2 Sam. 6:14-21). The Israelites danced around the golden calf while Moses was upon the mount to receive the ten commandments (Exo. 32:6, 19-21). They rose up to play, and it was a great sin before God. Paul tells Christians to not do what they did (1 Cor. 10:7). General references to religious dancing are found in Psa. 149:3; 150:4. In these dances, “women seem generally to have danced by themselves” and “of the social dancing of couples in the modern fashion there is no trace” (ISBE, II, p. 1170).
Now to the New Testament and it’s teaching on dancing. True, nowhere in scripture is it specifically stated, “Thou shalt not dance,” just as it is not specifically stated, “Thou shalt not gamble,” “Thou shalt not smoke marijuana,” or “Thou shalt not use heroin,” or “Thou shalt not drink Falstaff.” However, we do find lists of things that were then and are now specifically condemned, followed by the term “and such like” (Gal. 5:19-21). The Modern Literal Translation renders this term “and things like these things.” Dancing between males and females as practiced in today’s world was unheard of in Biblical times, so to find it’s likeness to what is condemned, we can look at the fruits of dancing, and other passages that allude to such activities, as if the Holy Spirit well knew what could be understood in the first and twenty-first centuries on this subject.
First, we need to observe that dancing between males and females was gradually developed to stimulate sexual activity. “To a certain extent all dancing is sexually stimulating” (Ency. Britannica, VII, p. 14). “The dancing of the modern ball room is a refined form of stimulus” (Hasting Ency. Of Religion and Ethics, X, p. 359). Dr. Aleta Hollingsworth, professor at Columbia University, wrote, “Dancing affords a partial satisfaction to the sex impulse which (among the adolescents) cannot as yet achieve full and specific expression.” Men with men or women with women would bring dancing to an end, except between homosexuals.
Solomon wrote, “Can a man take fire into his bosom and his clothes not be burned?” (Prov. 3:14-15). In my life as a preacher, I have had 2 women to confide in me that they committed fornication one time, and both women stated that their sin followed an evening on the dance floor. Of course, this would not happen among pre-teens in a chaperoned dance, but by helping them learn to dance, and encouraging it, they are being prepared for such actions of which we speak. Fornication and adultery follows the sinful lust or desire for one of the opposite sex, which thus begins in the heart and is completed in bed.
The model prayer to the Lord teaches that He will not lead us into temptation (Matt. 6), and yet we run headlong into temptation and sin. Paul said we are to make no provision for the fulfillment of the lusts of the flesh (Rom. 14:13). “Lasciviousness” is condemned in Gal. 5:19. The English word for such is defined as “exciting sexual desires.” Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the N.T. defines lasciviousness as “indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females.”
Note what the Ency. Britannica, Vol. 5, p. 455-456, reads:
“The popular teen-age dances of the mid-20th century have no set steps; the dancers respond spontaneously to the beat of the musicians. The degree of satisfaction attained by young people 'twisting' or ‘shaking’ to the blare of amplified music in dance halls, further enlivened by psychedelic lighting, is different from the pleasure derived by their elders waltzing to the ‘Blue Danube’ -- but it is only a difference of age and time. Fundamentally, both age groups are enjoying the pleasure of dancing in their own way... The end product is doubtless the same—physical pleasure in the activity of dancing and sexual awareness of a partner, whether embraced or half-consciously observed.”
Alex Comfort wrote in 1972 in “The Joy of Sex” that “All ballroom in pairs looks toward intercourse.” The very idea of dancing among young people being all right because it is being “chaperoned” is foolish. If there is no danger or no sin, WHY have to chaperon it in the first place? Plus the fact that when they get into high school and out in the world, who is going to chaperon them then? You may chaperon their bodies while young, but you can’t chaperon their hearts. True, many young people may go astray and even commit fornication, but why rush them headlong into a path that leads them into conduct that they will eventually regret, if they are really concerned about their souls’ destiny?
Much much more could be written on this subject, but these brief thoughts should be well considered. Do you really love your children? Guard them, guide them, and teach them the way of the Lord.
_______________________________________________________________
* We are pleased to share this article. This article may be freely distributed as long as 1) there is no cost to others, 2) no changes are made to any part of the content, 3) it is distributed in full, 4) the author's name remains attached to the article, and 5) this web location from which the article was taken is noted.
Let’s see what the Bible has to say. Dancing be defined as “the expression of joy by rhythmical movements of the limbs to musical accompaniment, is scarcely ever mentioned in the Bible as a social amusement” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, II, p. 1169). The nearest exception to this is found in Matt. 14:6, and Mark 6:22 where Salome danced (a solo) before Herod who was highly pleased with her performance and had John the immerser beheaded to please Salome and her mother. With the sexually explicit of modern jumping up and down in “dancing,” and the early practice and instruction of dancing in our public schools, and the general practice of dancing in the world, calls for our giving attention to our writing.
Dancing in the Old Testament can come under two headings. First, public rejoicing. The maidens of Israel danced, led by Jepthah’s daughter (Judges 11:34). The Israelite women honored Saul and David danced, in celebration of the victory over the Philistines (1 Sam. 18:6; 21:11; 29:15). In both instances, women only were doing the dancing, which can hardly be compared to the type of dancing so popular today.
Second, religious dancing, as acts of worship, or in some way related to worship. The women of Israel danced at the Red Sea in celebration (Exo. 15:20) The maidens of Shiloh danced at an annual feast (Judges 21:19ff). The prophets of Baal danced around their altar in their idolatrous celebration (1 Kings 18:26). David danced in front of the ark of the covenant, followed by his uncovering himself before the maids of his servants (2 Sam. 6:14-21). The Israelites danced around the golden calf while Moses was upon the mount to receive the ten commandments (Exo. 32:6, 19-21). They rose up to play, and it was a great sin before God. Paul tells Christians to not do what they did (1 Cor. 10:7). General references to religious dancing are found in Psa. 149:3; 150:4. In these dances, “women seem generally to have danced by themselves” and “of the social dancing of couples in the modern fashion there is no trace” (ISBE, II, p. 1170).
Now to the New Testament and it’s teaching on dancing. True, nowhere in scripture is it specifically stated, “Thou shalt not dance,” just as it is not specifically stated, “Thou shalt not gamble,” “Thou shalt not smoke marijuana,” or “Thou shalt not use heroin,” or “Thou shalt not drink Falstaff.” However, we do find lists of things that were then and are now specifically condemned, followed by the term “and such like” (Gal. 5:19-21). The Modern Literal Translation renders this term “and things like these things.” Dancing between males and females as practiced in today’s world was unheard of in Biblical times, so to find it’s likeness to what is condemned, we can look at the fruits of dancing, and other passages that allude to such activities, as if the Holy Spirit well knew what could be understood in the first and twenty-first centuries on this subject.
First, we need to observe that dancing between males and females was gradually developed to stimulate sexual activity. “To a certain extent all dancing is sexually stimulating” (Ency. Britannica, VII, p. 14). “The dancing of the modern ball room is a refined form of stimulus” (Hasting Ency. Of Religion and Ethics, X, p. 359). Dr. Aleta Hollingsworth, professor at Columbia University, wrote, “Dancing affords a partial satisfaction to the sex impulse which (among the adolescents) cannot as yet achieve full and specific expression.” Men with men or women with women would bring dancing to an end, except between homosexuals.
Solomon wrote, “Can a man take fire into his bosom and his clothes not be burned?” (Prov. 3:14-15). In my life as a preacher, I have had 2 women to confide in me that they committed fornication one time, and both women stated that their sin followed an evening on the dance floor. Of course, this would not happen among pre-teens in a chaperoned dance, but by helping them learn to dance, and encouraging it, they are being prepared for such actions of which we speak. Fornication and adultery follows the sinful lust or desire for one of the opposite sex, which thus begins in the heart and is completed in bed.
The model prayer to the Lord teaches that He will not lead us into temptation (Matt. 6), and yet we run headlong into temptation and sin. Paul said we are to make no provision for the fulfillment of the lusts of the flesh (Rom. 14:13). “Lasciviousness” is condemned in Gal. 5:19. The English word for such is defined as “exciting sexual desires.” Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the N.T. defines lasciviousness as “indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females.”
Note what the Ency. Britannica, Vol. 5, p. 455-456, reads:
“The popular teen-age dances of the mid-20th century have no set steps; the dancers respond spontaneously to the beat of the musicians. The degree of satisfaction attained by young people 'twisting' or ‘shaking’ to the blare of amplified music in dance halls, further enlivened by psychedelic lighting, is different from the pleasure derived by their elders waltzing to the ‘Blue Danube’ -- but it is only a difference of age and time. Fundamentally, both age groups are enjoying the pleasure of dancing in their own way... The end product is doubtless the same—physical pleasure in the activity of dancing and sexual awareness of a partner, whether embraced or half-consciously observed.”
Alex Comfort wrote in 1972 in “The Joy of Sex” that “All ballroom in pairs looks toward intercourse.” The very idea of dancing among young people being all right because it is being “chaperoned” is foolish. If there is no danger or no sin, WHY have to chaperon it in the first place? Plus the fact that when they get into high school and out in the world, who is going to chaperon them then? You may chaperon their bodies while young, but you can’t chaperon their hearts. True, many young people may go astray and even commit fornication, but why rush them headlong into a path that leads them into conduct that they will eventually regret, if they are really concerned about their souls’ destiny?
Much much more could be written on this subject, but these brief thoughts should be well considered. Do you really love your children? Guard them, guide them, and teach them the way of the Lord.
_______________________________________________________________
* We are pleased to share this article. This article may be freely distributed as long as 1) there is no cost to others, 2) no changes are made to any part of the content, 3) it is distributed in full, 4) the author's name remains attached to the article, and 5) this web location from which the article was taken is noted.
SERMON OUTLINES FROM DON TARBET
"I Am What I Am"
| _i_am_what_i_am_.pdf |
"To Them That Love God"
| _to_them_that_love_god_.pdf |
"Walk Before The Lord"
| walk_before_the_lord_1-23-2019.pdf |
Parable Of The Sower
| parable_of_the_sower_.pdf |
Villains and Friends
| villains_and_friends.pdf |
THE 5 C'S OF THE NEW YEAR
| the_5_cs_of_the_new_year.pdf |
A CRUISE ON THE SHIP OF ZION
| a_cruise_on_the_ship_of_zion.pdf |
“THE SAYINGS OF JESUS” -- 2 Sermons (appear to be the same, but from different perspectives)
| _these_sayings_of_mine._.pdf |
| _these_sayings_of_mine_.pdf |
“NONE OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN”
| _none_other_name_under_heaven_.pdf |
“THANKS BE TO GOD”
| _thanks_be_to_god_.pdf |
PARTAKERS OF CHRIST'S SUFFERINGS
| _partakers_of_christs_sufferings_1.pdf |
| _partakers_of_christs_suffering__no._2.pdf |
“ONE FLOCK AND ONE SHEPHERD”
| one_flock_and_one_shepherd.pdf |
“THE WORKS OF THE DEVIL”
| the_works_of_the_devil.pdf |
THE KING ON HIS THRONE
| the_king_on_his_throne.pdf |
“IN THE LAND OF THE LIVING”
| in_the_land_of_the_living.pdf |
ENOCH "WALKED WITH GOD”
| enoch_walked_with_god.pdf |
THE VOICES OF HEAVEN
| the_voices_of_heaven.pdf |
BE STRONG AND DO IT
| be_strong_and_do_it.pdf |
A WAY THAT SEEMS RIGHT
| _a_way_that_seems__right_.pdf |
