#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.
#6- WINE
“WINE” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT #1 of 3
Don Tarbet
As far as I can remember in the last 70 years of my preaching, it is not new to hear of brethren who try to justify the use of alcoholic beverages, in a social way, with absolutely no claim of justifying drunkenness. I have never met the person who attempted to justify “moderate” drinking, or “using but not abusing” alcoholic beverages for himself, who had not been intoxicated at least one time in life. In such instances, drunkenness is admitted, at least once. To have an “intoxicating drink” in one’s body is to be “intoxicated,” or to feel the intoxicating effects of alcohol, or to be affected in any way, is contrary to the Christian obligation to soberness. Incidentally, the word “sober” is not in the Old Testament but is used over and over again in the New Testament, suggesting total abstinence of anything that would affect the mind adversely. VINE’S Dictionary of New Testament Words, lists the Adjectives, Verbs, and Adverbs of the words Sober, Soberly and Soberminded. The very first definition under “Verbs” is the Greek word nepho, and Vine states that it “signifies to be free from the influence of intoxicants.” One cannot be “soberminded” while under any influence of intoxicants.
In my discussion with the Professor, we never got around to John 2, where it is said that Jesus turned water into wine, but I can give a calculated guess that he very likely would say that the wine upon that occasion was “intoxicated wine” and not just juice of the grape. So, I am not fighting a straw man in this writing, but at the same time realize that there are many brethren who do believe that the wine there was intoxicating in nature. So, there are a few things we shall notice without moving to other matters.
First, we know that the Greek word for “wine” is oinos, which is a general word for any juice of the grape, whether in fermented or unfermented state. Actually, juice of the grape is the fruit of the vine, and alcoholic “wine” is the fruit of grape juice, because it has changed in substance. Therefore, we can conclude that oinos absolutely could refer to the pure juice of the grape, and not be intoxicated at all. The contextual use of the word must always be considered. Advocates of the concept that the wine of John 2 being alcoholic, seemingly do not wish to allow for the smallest possibility of it not being alcoholic—perhaps because of the concept that we have today regarding modern day wine, which is alcoholic in nature.
Second, since Jesus was the only sinless Jew who ever lived, it is difficult to even imagine that He sinned in violation of the word of God, which even HE was the Author by inspiration. The prophet wrote, “Woe to you who make your neighbors drink, Who mix in your venom even to make them drunk So as to look on their nakedness! You will be filled with disgrace rather than honor. Now you yourself drink and expose your own nakedness. The cup in the Lord’s right hand will come around to you, And utter disgrace will come upon your glory.” Hab. 2:15-16. Note that deity places a “woe” upon one who drinks alcohol as well as upon one who gives drink to others. Jesus did not sin against God. Note also that the words “drunk” and “drink” are used interchangeably in the passage. To drink is to be drunk, or intoxicated, to some degree.
Third, Jesus provided HIS “wine” after the guests had “well drunk” and it was still considered “good wine.” The word here for “drunk” is methuo which simply means “filled” and not necessarily intoxicated. If they had been intoxicated, how would they know that Jesus’ wine was better?? The word “good” (modifying wine) in this passage, is from the Greek word kalos, and means something “sweet, beautiful, new, pure and pleasing.” Shame on anyone who tries to pervert the scripture on this point.
Obviously, Jesus, in His miracle here, merely hastened the process of turning water into the pure juice of the grape, which was the most popular drink in the Roman empire in the first century, even when often mixed with water and spices. John 2 deals with a situation under the Old Covenant, and even then Jesus kept the law perfectly.
We shall conclude this article at this point, and our next article will be more specific about other matters in the New Testament, about which there were and are some major issues between the Professor and myself in our communication.
In my discussion with the Professor, we never got around to John 2, where it is said that Jesus turned water into wine, but I can give a calculated guess that he very likely would say that the wine upon that occasion was “intoxicated wine” and not just juice of the grape. So, I am not fighting a straw man in this writing, but at the same time realize that there are many brethren who do believe that the wine there was intoxicating in nature. So, there are a few things we shall notice without moving to other matters.
First, we know that the Greek word for “wine” is oinos, which is a general word for any juice of the grape, whether in fermented or unfermented state. Actually, juice of the grape is the fruit of the vine, and alcoholic “wine” is the fruit of grape juice, because it has changed in substance. Therefore, we can conclude that oinos absolutely could refer to the pure juice of the grape, and not be intoxicated at all. The contextual use of the word must always be considered. Advocates of the concept that the wine of John 2 being alcoholic, seemingly do not wish to allow for the smallest possibility of it not being alcoholic—perhaps because of the concept that we have today regarding modern day wine, which is alcoholic in nature.
Second, since Jesus was the only sinless Jew who ever lived, it is difficult to even imagine that He sinned in violation of the word of God, which even HE was the Author by inspiration. The prophet wrote, “Woe to you who make your neighbors drink, Who mix in your venom even to make them drunk So as to look on their nakedness! You will be filled with disgrace rather than honor. Now you yourself drink and expose your own nakedness. The cup in the Lord’s right hand will come around to you, And utter disgrace will come upon your glory.” Hab. 2:15-16. Note that deity places a “woe” upon one who drinks alcohol as well as upon one who gives drink to others. Jesus did not sin against God. Note also that the words “drunk” and “drink” are used interchangeably in the passage. To drink is to be drunk, or intoxicated, to some degree.
Third, Jesus provided HIS “wine” after the guests had “well drunk” and it was still considered “good wine.” The word here for “drunk” is methuo which simply means “filled” and not necessarily intoxicated. If they had been intoxicated, how would they know that Jesus’ wine was better?? The word “good” (modifying wine) in this passage, is from the Greek word kalos, and means something “sweet, beautiful, new, pure and pleasing.” Shame on anyone who tries to pervert the scripture on this point.
Obviously, Jesus, in His miracle here, merely hastened the process of turning water into the pure juice of the grape, which was the most popular drink in the Roman empire in the first century, even when often mixed with water and spices. John 2 deals with a situation under the Old Covenant, and even then Jesus kept the law perfectly.
We shall conclude this article at this point, and our next article will be more specific about other matters in the New Testament, about which there were and are some major issues between the Professor and myself in our communication.
#7- WINE
“WINE” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, #2 of 3
Don Tarbet
Don Tarbet
In this article, we shall look at 3 major items. (1) The vain effort to justify the use of alcohol drinking based on it’s use in the Old Testament. (2) The use of wine in the Lord’s Supper. (3) The drinking of a “little wine” from the instructions of Paul to Timothy.
First, the vain effort to justify the use of drinking alcohol in the gospel age. The “Professor” constantly did so in our communication. I pressed him on it, and he finally declared that he was not trying to justify it today by looking into the Old Testament, but that was merely a “background study” to see how God looked at alcohol in times past, so as to see how He looks at it today. When one does such research, he should carefully consider how the pleasurable drinking of alcohol was condemned, rather than just looking at the passages where wine was poured out with burnt offerings. By looking at those passages in connection with burnt offerings, does that imply that we can use wine in our worship today?? What about it? We need to remember that God allowed things in the Old Testament that are not allowed today. Having multiple wives and concubines was once allowed, but it was a departure from God’s original plan of one man for one woman for life. Now, Jesus takes us back to the standard God set even before the Mosaical age. Also, God once allowed the use of mechanical instruments in worship, but no longer authorizes such.
In Gal. 5:4, Paul said when we try to justify something in the Christian age, by going back to the law for that justification, we no longer have Christ with us, and have fallen from grace. True, it directly applied to seeking “justification” (from sin) by going back to the teachings of Moses’ law, but in “principle” refers to the vain effort to justify oneself in any action today, just because it was authorized or practiced under the law of Moses. So, just because “wine” was authorized to be poured out on the offerings under Moses law does not mean that we are authorized to “drink” alcohol moderately (“using but not abusing”) today. The Old Testament said nothing about “sober” living, but it is emphasized repeatedly in the New Testament. Anyone who tries to justify the drinking of alcoholic beverages by going back to law of Moses, has departed from the truth, and does not have the Lord with him.
Second, what about “wine” in the communion, or the Lord’s Supper. In regards to the “cup” of the fruit of the vine? Jesus did not use the Greek word oinos (which may or may not be referring to intoxicating wine). He used the term “fruit of the vine,” which can only refer to the pure juice of the grape. However, some look at 1 Cor. 11 where Paul rebuked some for making a feast of the Lord’s Supper, by eating and drinking along with the observance of the Lord’s Supper. While doing so, some were “hungry” and others were “drunken”. So, they conclude that alcoholic wine must have been used in the communion. Now, it could be that if not in the supper, then in the love feast part of their gathering. We deny that it was used in either. A speaker at a Youth Gathering in north Texas declared that the problem at Corinth was that they ran out of wine and some couldn’t have enough to drink, and that caused division. WOW!!
The “Professor” with whom I corresponded believed they were actually using intoxicating wine. He quoted from the early writings of Guy N. Woods, who in that writing said it could have been intoxicating wine. At a later time, bro. Woods said it was not intoxicating, and would be a sin for them to have used such. The Professor said bro. Woods contradicted himself, so he was wrong when he said it could not be used. I disagree. If Bro. Woods had made both statements in the same speech or in the same day, it would have been a “contradiction”, but several years passed before bro. Woods said it would have been wrong for them to use it. The point is, bro. Woods changed his mind, realizing he had been wrong in his first statement.
The word for “drunken” is methuel, which means to “be filled”, and not necessarily with alcohol. The subject of 1 Cor. 11:21 was the “supper”, at which time some were hungry, and some were filled. It is used in contrast with each other. They were supposed to be taking the “Lord’s Supper,” but some were taking their “own supper”, and that was the “supper” in which some were hungry and some were “drunken” or filled. Whatever the elements of the “Lord’s Supper,” they had nothing to do with their “own supper” where some were hungry and some were drunken (filled). The word “hungry” does not describe the action of taking the elements of the Lord’s Supper, but the hunger of the natural appetite for food and drink. Paul said they had houses to “eat and drink in” (to satisfy their hunger). If “alcohol” was to be left out of the supper, then it should be left off “at home”. Truth is, it should be left out of both suppers—at worship or at home. The Lord’s Supper is contrasted with one’s “own supper” (vs. 20-21). Some were filled with food and drink while others were not, and it became a problem, but alcoholic wine did not enter into it in either situation. Being filled with food and drink is not “intoxication”, nor does it involve the use of alcoholic wine. The use of the word “wine” is not used at all in 1 Cor. 11. We are to be filled with knowledge, or the word of God, or the Spirit, but are never to be “intoxicated” with any of these.
Just for a moment, let’s grant that alcoholic wine WAS used in the Lord’s Supper observance. Whatever it was, they were to do IT “in their houses.” Were they actually being given authority to get “drunk” (intoxicated) AT HOME, rather than in the assembly?? This reminds me of the Professor’s argument about the priests of the Old Testament, that they could drink alcohol at home, but be sure they did not drink it while offering sacrifices in worship. Whatever the Corinthians were doing, in their assembly, Paul said “do it at home.” Time’s up. The “moment” we granted is up. There WAS no alcohol in the assemblies at Corinth. The expression “ye have houses to eat and drink in” demolishes the vain efforts of advocates of moderate drinking.
Third, let’s examine the passage of 1 Tim. 5:23. The KJV reads, “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.” I was rather shocked when the Professor wrote that Paul told Timothy that if he was “thirsty”, he should drink some wine. This the lame excuse that beer drinkers use now, they’re “thirsty.” If Paul had to urge Timothy to put “some kind” of wine with his water (to purify it?), then Timothy must have been a teetotaler to begin with so as to have the personal admonition to use a “little” wine. The word “only” is implied, following the word water, not meaning that he had to give up water completely (for the human body must have water), but not only water, alluding to the custom of purifying their water by use of a little of a low-grade wine that had lost much of it’s intoxicating capabilities.
The language absolutely HAS to mean either (1) Water only, or (2) Absolutely no water at all. Which would the Professor prefer? IF it means “no water at all,” then he would have had more trouble than his “stomach’s sake” and infirmities. But he would have died because the human body has to have water to stay alive. Now, if it was replaced with a little “wine” (Gr. Oinos, meaning it could be fermented or unfermented), then Timothy would soon become become a total “sop” if wine is all he drank (unless it was pure juice of the grape where the water content was still there). Obviously, he has to mean “water only,” making it an elliptical statement, suggesting that the practice of that day sometimes involved adding a little wine with the water for stomach ailments.
Sometimes language implies an “only” for a proper understanding of a term. This is one of such statements. Please note the following translations of 1 Tim. 5:23.
NKJV: “No longer drink water only, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities.” NASB: “No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.” MLV (Modern Literal Version): “No longer be a drinker of water only, but use a small amount of wine because of your stomach and your frequent infirmities.” So, this takes care of the only legitimate use of wine for human consumption—for medical purposes if necessary.
Our next writing will be an examination of three matters from the New Testament where some argue that moderate drinking is justified.
First, the vain effort to justify the use of drinking alcohol in the gospel age. The “Professor” constantly did so in our communication. I pressed him on it, and he finally declared that he was not trying to justify it today by looking into the Old Testament, but that was merely a “background study” to see how God looked at alcohol in times past, so as to see how He looks at it today. When one does such research, he should carefully consider how the pleasurable drinking of alcohol was condemned, rather than just looking at the passages where wine was poured out with burnt offerings. By looking at those passages in connection with burnt offerings, does that imply that we can use wine in our worship today?? What about it? We need to remember that God allowed things in the Old Testament that are not allowed today. Having multiple wives and concubines was once allowed, but it was a departure from God’s original plan of one man for one woman for life. Now, Jesus takes us back to the standard God set even before the Mosaical age. Also, God once allowed the use of mechanical instruments in worship, but no longer authorizes such.
In Gal. 5:4, Paul said when we try to justify something in the Christian age, by going back to the law for that justification, we no longer have Christ with us, and have fallen from grace. True, it directly applied to seeking “justification” (from sin) by going back to the teachings of Moses’ law, but in “principle” refers to the vain effort to justify oneself in any action today, just because it was authorized or practiced under the law of Moses. So, just because “wine” was authorized to be poured out on the offerings under Moses law does not mean that we are authorized to “drink” alcohol moderately (“using but not abusing”) today. The Old Testament said nothing about “sober” living, but it is emphasized repeatedly in the New Testament. Anyone who tries to justify the drinking of alcoholic beverages by going back to law of Moses, has departed from the truth, and does not have the Lord with him.
Second, what about “wine” in the communion, or the Lord’s Supper. In regards to the “cup” of the fruit of the vine? Jesus did not use the Greek word oinos (which may or may not be referring to intoxicating wine). He used the term “fruit of the vine,” which can only refer to the pure juice of the grape. However, some look at 1 Cor. 11 where Paul rebuked some for making a feast of the Lord’s Supper, by eating and drinking along with the observance of the Lord’s Supper. While doing so, some were “hungry” and others were “drunken”. So, they conclude that alcoholic wine must have been used in the communion. Now, it could be that if not in the supper, then in the love feast part of their gathering. We deny that it was used in either. A speaker at a Youth Gathering in north Texas declared that the problem at Corinth was that they ran out of wine and some couldn’t have enough to drink, and that caused division. WOW!!
The “Professor” with whom I corresponded believed they were actually using intoxicating wine. He quoted from the early writings of Guy N. Woods, who in that writing said it could have been intoxicating wine. At a later time, bro. Woods said it was not intoxicating, and would be a sin for them to have used such. The Professor said bro. Woods contradicted himself, so he was wrong when he said it could not be used. I disagree. If Bro. Woods had made both statements in the same speech or in the same day, it would have been a “contradiction”, but several years passed before bro. Woods said it would have been wrong for them to use it. The point is, bro. Woods changed his mind, realizing he had been wrong in his first statement.
The word for “drunken” is methuel, which means to “be filled”, and not necessarily with alcohol. The subject of 1 Cor. 11:21 was the “supper”, at which time some were hungry, and some were filled. It is used in contrast with each other. They were supposed to be taking the “Lord’s Supper,” but some were taking their “own supper”, and that was the “supper” in which some were hungry and some were “drunken” or filled. Whatever the elements of the “Lord’s Supper,” they had nothing to do with their “own supper” where some were hungry and some were drunken (filled). The word “hungry” does not describe the action of taking the elements of the Lord’s Supper, but the hunger of the natural appetite for food and drink. Paul said they had houses to “eat and drink in” (to satisfy their hunger). If “alcohol” was to be left out of the supper, then it should be left off “at home”. Truth is, it should be left out of both suppers—at worship or at home. The Lord’s Supper is contrasted with one’s “own supper” (vs. 20-21). Some were filled with food and drink while others were not, and it became a problem, but alcoholic wine did not enter into it in either situation. Being filled with food and drink is not “intoxication”, nor does it involve the use of alcoholic wine. The use of the word “wine” is not used at all in 1 Cor. 11. We are to be filled with knowledge, or the word of God, or the Spirit, but are never to be “intoxicated” with any of these.
Just for a moment, let’s grant that alcoholic wine WAS used in the Lord’s Supper observance. Whatever it was, they were to do IT “in their houses.” Were they actually being given authority to get “drunk” (intoxicated) AT HOME, rather than in the assembly?? This reminds me of the Professor’s argument about the priests of the Old Testament, that they could drink alcohol at home, but be sure they did not drink it while offering sacrifices in worship. Whatever the Corinthians were doing, in their assembly, Paul said “do it at home.” Time’s up. The “moment” we granted is up. There WAS no alcohol in the assemblies at Corinth. The expression “ye have houses to eat and drink in” demolishes the vain efforts of advocates of moderate drinking.
Third, let’s examine the passage of 1 Tim. 5:23. The KJV reads, “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.” I was rather shocked when the Professor wrote that Paul told Timothy that if he was “thirsty”, he should drink some wine. This the lame excuse that beer drinkers use now, they’re “thirsty.” If Paul had to urge Timothy to put “some kind” of wine with his water (to purify it?), then Timothy must have been a teetotaler to begin with so as to have the personal admonition to use a “little” wine. The word “only” is implied, following the word water, not meaning that he had to give up water completely (for the human body must have water), but not only water, alluding to the custom of purifying their water by use of a little of a low-grade wine that had lost much of it’s intoxicating capabilities.
The language absolutely HAS to mean either (1) Water only, or (2) Absolutely no water at all. Which would the Professor prefer? IF it means “no water at all,” then he would have had more trouble than his “stomach’s sake” and infirmities. But he would have died because the human body has to have water to stay alive. Now, if it was replaced with a little “wine” (Gr. Oinos, meaning it could be fermented or unfermented), then Timothy would soon become become a total “sop” if wine is all he drank (unless it was pure juice of the grape where the water content was still there). Obviously, he has to mean “water only,” making it an elliptical statement, suggesting that the practice of that day sometimes involved adding a little wine with the water for stomach ailments.
Sometimes language implies an “only” for a proper understanding of a term. This is one of such statements. Please note the following translations of 1 Tim. 5:23.
NKJV: “No longer drink water only, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities.” NASB: “No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.” MLV (Modern Literal Version): “No longer be a drinker of water only, but use a small amount of wine because of your stomach and your frequent infirmities.” So, this takes care of the only legitimate use of wine for human consumption—for medical purposes if necessary.
Our next writing will be an examination of three matters from the New Testament where some argue that moderate drinking is justified.
#8- WINE
“WINE” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT” #3
Don Tarbet
Don Tarbet
Before getting into the heart of this article, there are some additional thoughts that need to be added to article number 2, regarding “wine” in the Lord’s Supper in the church at Corinth.
“The Lord’s Supper...his own supper” (1 Cor. 11:20, 21). Keep in mind that two (2) “suppers’ are involved. Be careful to make the distinction. The word “drunken” (meaning filled) is used in connection with the second supper, which was to be done in their houses as they were “to eat and to drink in.”
“To eat and to drink” (1 Cor. 11:22). This expression is normally used in the Bible to refer to a common meal. When the element of drinking is mentioned, it is usually named as “water”. Read Gen. 24:54; Exo. 32:6, 28; Deut. 9:28; Judges 9:27; 19:4; Ruth 2:9; 3:7; 1 Kings 18:41; 18:42; 19:6, 8; 2 Kings 6:22, 23; 1 Chron. 9:22; and Acts 10:41. In Ruth 2:9, Boaz told Ruth “When you are thirsty, go to the water jars and drink from what the servants” were to draw.” Naomi later told Ruth to see a man “eating and drinking” (3:3). She saw where Boaz “had eaten and drunk” (3:7). He had been eating and drinking, and when finished it is said he “had eaten and drunk”, an instance where the idea is that of being filled, not intoxicated, the same as in 1 Cor. 11. Note also that what was to be drank was “water.” Had the Professor been there, he might have said, When you are thirsty, get you some wine to drink.”
Now, in this article, we shall give attention to the word “wine” in the epistles of the New Testament, wherein claims are made by some today to justify social or moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages. The “Professor” of previous articles agreed with me on the matter of “much wine”, that does refer to intoxication. So, this article does not deal so much with the Professor’s claims, but to other brethren who stumble around with these verses. Bear in mind that the Greek word oinos means either “juice of the grape” or intoxicating wine. The context helps us determine which it may be in a given situation.
First, the matter of “much wine.” The term is used twice in the New Testament. In 1 Tim. 3:8 with reference to “deacons,” and in Tit. 2:3 with reference to “aged women”, and my Professor agrees that the “much” here alludes to a state of intoxication. Yet, many argue that the “much” implies that a “little” (moderate drinking) is acceptable. The only time a “little wine” is used in the New Testament is in 1 Tim. 5:23, where obviously it is used medicinally (for Timothy’s “stomach sake.”) So, a “little” wine (medicinally) when contrasted with “much” wine does not give strength to “little wine” or any other kind of alcoholic beverages being used a “little”, as long as one doesn’t get intoxicated. I recall in the 1930’s where a physician prescribed a little (1 teaspoon a day) of whiskey, with one drop of strychnine, (a poison) to help a young boy survive asthma. Anything more than that would have been fatal.
In 1 Tim. 4:14, Paul said Alexander the coppersmith did him “much evil.” Does that mean that Alexander could have been justified in just doing a “little evil?” The meaning is that Alexander did “a lot” of evil, and not just a little bit of evil. The nature of his conduct was “evil”, and it was not just a little, but a lot of it. Bear in mind, that elders are “not given to wine” (1 Tim. 3:2), as men who lead and set an example, why would deacons and aged women be allowed to depart from the good example of elders, if they are allowed to drink moderately? Why even have an example if they are allowed to not follow it? Truly, a “little wine” (the one time the term is used) is found with reference to a medical situation, and nothing more, so when we use the term, we must use it as the scripture does, for medical purposes. Anything more than that (much wine) is forbidden. Peter says we are to “abstain” (avoid entirely) those things that “war against the soul.” (1 Pet. 2:11).
Second, the matter of “excess of wine.” Paul wrote, “Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit.” (Eph. 5:18). Some argue that this means just don’t drink to excess, or too much, or to intoxication. Paul did not say “Do not drink to excess”, or too much, but just drink moderately. Paul said “be not drunk with wine,” so anytime one drinks any amount (2 or 3 drinks), he is affected by it, or is intoxicated to some degree. Obviously, the word “wine” here is indeed use to refer to more than grape juice. Paul said (following the prohibition), “wherein is excess,” not to excess. The word “drunk” in this passage is from the Greek methusko, which means, “to make drunk, or to grow drunk, an inceptive verb, making the process or the state...to become intoxicated.” Alcohol is a poison (not a food product to be digested) and goes immediately into the blood stream, affecting the brain and emotional part of man. Just as Cocaine is a poison, so is alcohol. It is a sin to destroy the human body or mind of man. Christians are to not defile the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19).
The word “excess” is from the Greek word asotia. A form of it is used in Matt. 23:25, where Jesus used it describing the corruption of hypocrites. The passage reads, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.” Both “extortion” and “excess’ are things that filled up their cup. A form of the word asotia is used in Luke 15:13 where the prodigal son wasted his substance in “riotous” living. Does it mean that he engaged in just “too much” riot, or just a little riotous living? It was not a matter of degree, but a matter of the kind of conduct in which he engaged. In 1 Pet. 4:4, Peter spoke of “excess of riot.” Does that mean that they just engaged in “too much” riotous conduct, and should just keep on rioting, but not too much of it? In Tit. 1:6, the elders’ children are not be accused of “riot”. Does that mean there is a degree of riot that is too much, or is it okay if they engaged in a little riot, for instance at night, but not in the day time because that would be “excessive?” Obviously, the word “excess” describes the nature of something evil, and not a degree of something, right within itself, but sinful if done too much.
Woe to those who put “excess” (just too much of something good) in their cup of justification in order to justify the pleasurable use of any kind of alcoholic drink? Our next article will be the condemnation of alcoholic drink on the basis of the kind of “fruit’ that it bears.
#9- WINE
“FRUITS” OF ALCOHOL DRINKING
Don Tarbet
Don Tarbet
In the Lord’s first recorded sermon, He set forth a principle of knowing whether something is “good” or “evil” by the kinds of “fruit” it bears. He stated, “Ye shall know them by their fruits…. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matt. 7:16, 20). True, the application Jesus made had to do with false prophets or false teachers. However, the principle is the same, whether a false teacher is teaching error on how to be saved, or how to live a life of soberness and godliness. Our Professor says it is not a sin to drink alcohol if it is limited to one or two drinks at a time. Writers on the subject of alcohol drinking state: “A drink is one 12 oz. Can or bottle of beer, one 5 oz. Glass of wine, or one 1.5 ounce shot of an 80 proof or less liquor.” The Professor says one can drink twice this amount in any chosen form. If one can do it one day, why not every day, and that without sin?? In 7 days, he will have consumed 14 cans of beer, or 70 ounces of wine, or 21 ounces of whiskey, as long as it is not done on the same day, for such would be an “abuse” of something approved of God, in the eyes of the Professor. It was the statement by Dr. Earl Edwards in the 2017 Freed-Hardeman lectures that triggered our discussion, when he said, “I would not tell a Christian who decides to...drink small amounts of alcohol, maybe in his own home, that he has sinned.” His defense of that position has been reviewed in this series of articles.
This writing will be a study of the “fruits” of any drinking of alcohol, which is indeed an “abuse” of a poisonous product, for any good use of it is hard to find. We shall look at some of the headlines of the fruits of alcohol drinking. In the November 23, 2018 of USA TODAY, shocking information is given. The rest of this paragraph will contain quotations from this issue. “Alcohol kills more people each year than overdoses—through cancer, liver cirrhosis, pancreatitis [sic] and suicide, among other ways... Deaths among women rose 85 percent…. Deaths among men rose 29 percent…. Beyond having their stomachs pumped, older, often lifelong, drinkers, frequently have multiple complications from their drinking …. They might have been hemorrhages or internal bleeding, because booze prevents their blood from clotting properly... About 88,000 people die each year from alcohol…. It is poison, and we’re treating it like it’s something other than that because there’s big corporate money behind it…. A lot of people are getting rich on something that is toxic to us…. One in five individuals who die from opioid overdoses have alcohol in their system at the time of their death…. Drinking can lead to cancers all along the digestive tract, from the mouth to the colon. About 15 percent of U. S. breast cancer cases are caused by alcohol…. People who drink throughout their lifetime develop a tolerance for alcohol, but as they are, they lose muscle and gain fat and become less tolerant. That leads to increased injuries and illnesses…. Once he got a taste for alcohol, it really did him in fast…. I would sit up all night with him, so he wouldn’t choke on this [sic] vomit…. I wasn’t able to see that my drinking was a problem until it was almost too late…. she suffered triple organ failure six years ago and was in a coma for 10 days….”
Here are a few quotations from other sources, that are readily available through research on alcohol drinking through the Internet. “Excessive alcohol consumption according to the CDC, is responsible for 88,000 deaths per year, and costs the U. S. more than $200 billion.” “And what it means is that 1 in 3 adults drinks excessively.” In a writing on MODERATE DRINKING, Allison Aubrey stated that heavy drinkers drink more than 4 drinks a day or 14 per week, while women drink more than 3 drinks daily, or 7 per week or heavy drinkers. Alcohol affects every organ in the body.
Alcohol Related Deaths: An estimated 88,000 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol related causes, making alcohol the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States. Studies show that 86.4% of Americans drink alcohol in some form and to some degree. It is said that 6.7% received treatment in 2018 for alcohol disorders, and that 7.75% of ALL drinkers have to have treatment, but an equal or larger amount need treatment but never get it. This means that if 100 people take their first drink, 8 will become dependent on alcohol. In almost daily newscasts and newspaper headlines, tragic deaths on the highways of our land are reported due to intoxication. In the nation of India alone, some 6,000 deaths are recorded every day due to alcohol intoxication.
There were 2,626,418 reported deaths in the U. S. for 2018, and divide that by 88,000, means that 30% of them died from alcohol. It can be illustrated this way. If 100 young people walk through a room of poisonous snakes, that 90 of them will be bitten, And 30 of those bitten will die from snakebites. How do like those odds? Who would want or permit a son or daughter to walk through such a room? Yet, some people try to teach their children to drink responsibly, and if they choose to drink, just don’t abuse alcohol by drinking “too much.” Some may not want their children to drink, but their own example tells them it is all right to do so. Many writers, while fear being labeled extremists, recommend that all should drink sensibly, or moderately. Such is not a safe course, however. It is a dangerous course, because few people ever begin drinking with the idea of becoming a drunk or an alcoholic. A great number of folks who begin drinking did not plan on becoming alcoholics, and find that it is most difficult to stop, and most of them do not. The only truly safe course regarding the use of alcohol is total abstinence. Do you know of even one person who drinks “moderately” who has never been absolutely and clearly intoxicated at least once?? At least in such an instance, drunkenness has taken place, and sin has occurred. We believe that it has taken place through so-called “moderate” drinking, for the effects of alcohol have already taken place, which is intoxication.
Abstinence is taught in the Bible. Solomon says one who drinks strong drink is a fool (Prov. 20:1). He also said not to “look” at it with any desire (Prov. 23:29-35). Paul wrote, “Be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good and perfect will of God” (Rom. 12:2). “Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof” (Rom. 13:14). “Be not drunk with wine” (Eph. 5:18). John wrote, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.” (1 John 2:15-17). Peter wrote, “Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul” (1 Pet. 2:11). “For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revelings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries, Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you” (1 Pet. 4:3-4). Finally, Paul wrote, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess. 5:21-22). Clearly, all the evidence of the consequence of alcohol clearly show it’s fruit to be sinful. Let us not be deceived by it, and lose our lives here and our souls in the world to come.
Why do people drink? In the first place, probably to just experiment and be part of the crowd, and trying to be “sociable”. In the second place, to get a buzz (same as getting drunk). In the third place, because of addiction, as they have been drinking so long they are addicted to alcohol. There is a law in the state of Texas put out by the Highway Department, which says Buzz Driving Is Drunk Driving. Those who continually or even drink occasionally, enjoy the “buzz.” Every time they are exhilarated or “buzzed” they have become intoxicated to some degree, and have violated the will of God. Those one or two drinks, even consumed in private, are not done by Christians.
* Updated on 4-4-2019 (last paragraph added)
This writing will be a study of the “fruits” of any drinking of alcohol, which is indeed an “abuse” of a poisonous product, for any good use of it is hard to find. We shall look at some of the headlines of the fruits of alcohol drinking. In the November 23, 2018 of USA TODAY, shocking information is given. The rest of this paragraph will contain quotations from this issue. “Alcohol kills more people each year than overdoses—through cancer, liver cirrhosis, pancreatitis [sic] and suicide, among other ways... Deaths among women rose 85 percent…. Deaths among men rose 29 percent…. Beyond having their stomachs pumped, older, often lifelong, drinkers, frequently have multiple complications from their drinking …. They might have been hemorrhages or internal bleeding, because booze prevents their blood from clotting properly... About 88,000 people die each year from alcohol…. It is poison, and we’re treating it like it’s something other than that because there’s big corporate money behind it…. A lot of people are getting rich on something that is toxic to us…. One in five individuals who die from opioid overdoses have alcohol in their system at the time of their death…. Drinking can lead to cancers all along the digestive tract, from the mouth to the colon. About 15 percent of U. S. breast cancer cases are caused by alcohol…. People who drink throughout their lifetime develop a tolerance for alcohol, but as they are, they lose muscle and gain fat and become less tolerant. That leads to increased injuries and illnesses…. Once he got a taste for alcohol, it really did him in fast…. I would sit up all night with him, so he wouldn’t choke on this [sic] vomit…. I wasn’t able to see that my drinking was a problem until it was almost too late…. she suffered triple organ failure six years ago and was in a coma for 10 days….”
Here are a few quotations from other sources, that are readily available through research on alcohol drinking through the Internet. “Excessive alcohol consumption according to the CDC, is responsible for 88,000 deaths per year, and costs the U. S. more than $200 billion.” “And what it means is that 1 in 3 adults drinks excessively.” In a writing on MODERATE DRINKING, Allison Aubrey stated that heavy drinkers drink more than 4 drinks a day or 14 per week, while women drink more than 3 drinks daily, or 7 per week or heavy drinkers. Alcohol affects every organ in the body.
Alcohol Related Deaths: An estimated 88,000 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol related causes, making alcohol the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States. Studies show that 86.4% of Americans drink alcohol in some form and to some degree. It is said that 6.7% received treatment in 2018 for alcohol disorders, and that 7.75% of ALL drinkers have to have treatment, but an equal or larger amount need treatment but never get it. This means that if 100 people take their first drink, 8 will become dependent on alcohol. In almost daily newscasts and newspaper headlines, tragic deaths on the highways of our land are reported due to intoxication. In the nation of India alone, some 6,000 deaths are recorded every day due to alcohol intoxication.
There were 2,626,418 reported deaths in the U. S. for 2018, and divide that by 88,000, means that 30% of them died from alcohol. It can be illustrated this way. If 100 young people walk through a room of poisonous snakes, that 90 of them will be bitten, And 30 of those bitten will die from snakebites. How do like those odds? Who would want or permit a son or daughter to walk through such a room? Yet, some people try to teach their children to drink responsibly, and if they choose to drink, just don’t abuse alcohol by drinking “too much.” Some may not want their children to drink, but their own example tells them it is all right to do so. Many writers, while fear being labeled extremists, recommend that all should drink sensibly, or moderately. Such is not a safe course, however. It is a dangerous course, because few people ever begin drinking with the idea of becoming a drunk or an alcoholic. A great number of folks who begin drinking did not plan on becoming alcoholics, and find that it is most difficult to stop, and most of them do not. The only truly safe course regarding the use of alcohol is total abstinence. Do you know of even one person who drinks “moderately” who has never been absolutely and clearly intoxicated at least once?? At least in such an instance, drunkenness has taken place, and sin has occurred. We believe that it has taken place through so-called “moderate” drinking, for the effects of alcohol have already taken place, which is intoxication.
Abstinence is taught in the Bible. Solomon says one who drinks strong drink is a fool (Prov. 20:1). He also said not to “look” at it with any desire (Prov. 23:29-35). Paul wrote, “Be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good and perfect will of God” (Rom. 12:2). “Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof” (Rom. 13:14). “Be not drunk with wine” (Eph. 5:18). John wrote, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.” (1 John 2:15-17). Peter wrote, “Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul” (1 Pet. 2:11). “For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revelings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries, Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you” (1 Pet. 4:3-4). Finally, Paul wrote, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess. 5:21-22). Clearly, all the evidence of the consequence of alcohol clearly show it’s fruit to be sinful. Let us not be deceived by it, and lose our lives here and our souls in the world to come.
Why do people drink? In the first place, probably to just experiment and be part of the crowd, and trying to be “sociable”. In the second place, to get a buzz (same as getting drunk). In the third place, because of addiction, as they have been drinking so long they are addicted to alcohol. There is a law in the state of Texas put out by the Highway Department, which says Buzz Driving Is Drunk Driving. Those who continually or even drink occasionally, enjoy the “buzz.” Every time they are exhilarated or “buzzed” they have become intoxicated to some degree, and have violated the will of God. Those one or two drinks, even consumed in private, are not done by Christians.
* Updated on 4-4-2019 (last paragraph added)
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
MY SHEEP HEAR MY VOICE
| _my_sheep_hear_my_voice_4-10.pdf |
THE BURNING BUSH AND THE CHURCH
| the_burning_bush_and_the_church_4-10.pdf |
“TIME” AND “ETERNITY
| _time__and__eternity_.pdf |
"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 |
“THAT GREAT AND NOTABLE DAY OF THE LORD”
| _the_great_and_notable_day_of_the_lord_.pdf |
