On July 1st, 2005, brother Wayne Jackson wrote an article, titled, “May a Christian Address Christ in Praise or Prayer?” On May 21st of the following year I wrote a response in Spiritual Perspectives. I made it clear that the disagreement was not one of a personal nature; many have benefited over the years from brother Jackson’s Christian Courier. However, since he had taken the time to write on the subject, a refutation was in order. I closed my article by noting that brethren have always had no problems in addressing our prayers to “our Father,” “God,” or “Lord”—and that we would have no problems in our assemblies if we continue that practice. If someone wants to pray to Jesus privately, he is certainly able to do so, even if he is incorrect. But at least he will involve no one else in his practice.
In August of this year, the Christian Courier published a special issue with most of the articles advocating praying to Jesus. Let’s begin with the final comments on page 32. We read that the publishers had decided to address “a brewing controversy” (32). One of the main articles within is titled, “The Praying to Jesus Controversy,” in which it is asked: “What is the origin of this simmering division: emotion or scripture [sic]?” Brother Jackson laments that we do not need another issue over which to divide, and every sane brother would agree. However, the way to avoid strife has already been stated; apparently that approach does not work for those at the Christian Courier.
Division can be avoided if everyone will just agree with brother Jackson. Those who do not probably are not exercising “a moderate measure of common sense” or combining “Bible knowledge and a familial temperament” (16). By making statements such as these, it is easy to observe that those who hold the “praying to Jesus” view exercise common sense and have a familial temperament while those who hold the majority view are shrill, emotional, fanatical, and unable to reason themselves out of a paper bag.
Who Appeals to Emotion?
What is interesting about this implied charge against opponents is that it is brother Jackson who appeals to emotions. He includes an excerpt from something that Wendell Winkler taught at the Polishing the Pulpit program on September 27, 2004. His topic was “Lord Teach Us to Pray.” He acknowledged that we usually pray to the Father through Jesus, but then he says that we need to be careful about telling someone they can not pray to Jesus. Using himself as an example, brother Winkler acknowledged that after the Lord’s supper He thanked the Father for His unspeakable gift, and he also thanked Jesus for being willing to die for him. Then he asked, “Is there anything wrong with that?” (15). Are we now taking a different approach in studying the Bible? For years, we have been saying that we need authority for what we teach and practice (Col. 3:17). Are we going to abandon that in favor of requiring proof that something is wrong?
A question was raised from the audience concerning praying to the Holy Spirit. Brother Winkler confessed that there were times during his illness that he did not know what to say, which is understandable. He asks: “Would I have sinned against God if I had said to the Holy Spirit: ‘Intercede for me, please’? Do you think I’ve sinned if I make that statement?” (15). Well, what person in the audience is going to jump up and say, “Yes.” Most have marveled at brother Winkler’s ability to present outstanding lessons from God’s Word, and he did suffer a great deal from cancer. But these things do not mean that he was right or wrong in his thinking on this subject. How is this different than a denominational person (having endured similar health problems) saying, “I sometimes play the piano and sing hymns at home. Is anyone going to tell me that’s wrong?” What about someone who says, “While I was sick, my daughter came in and led prayer for my family over me every day. Do you think I sinned in letting her do so?”
So why did brother Jackson include this text from brother Winkler? While it is true that he addressed the subject briefly, he made only one appeal to the Scripture, and even in that one he appealed to himself as an expert witness. He said concerning the words of the first martyr at his death, “Brethren have tried to explain that every way in the world, saying that wasn’t a prayer. If that wasn’t a prayer, I don’t understand prayer” (15). If brother Jackson did not include this page for its emotional value it possesses, what was the purpose? It is not brimming with Bible knowledge, which brother Winkler usually possessed.
Stephen’s “Prayer”
The text in question is Acts 7:59: “And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’”
Is it not interesting that a short sentence of five words (six in the Greek) should elicit such controversy? However, if these five words constitute a prayer, then what about Stephen’s final words, which were, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin.” If verse 59 contains a prayer, why does not verse 60? However, brother Jackson discusses, verse 59 and calls it “Stephen’s Final Prayer.” Hmmm.
Jackson provides 5 reasons why Stephen’s words constitute a prayer. The first of these contains no point of disagreement regarding the Greek verb meaning to make a request (30). Berry’s Interlinear uses “invoking.” No one disputes that Stephen is making a request. Jackson quotes Mounce as saying it is a prayer, but this begs the question. Mounce is giving an interpretation—that the request is a prayer. The text does not use the word prayer.
Second, Jackson claims: “The present tense suggests the petition was repeated” (31). While such might be a possibility, surely no one would want to argue that every present tense implies repetition.
Third, it is claimed that the middle voice indicates Stephen’s intense personal need at this time (31); everyone can surely understand this point, but it does not advance the case for Stephen’s words being a prayer.
Fourth, Jackson claims: “The term frequently is employed of an ‘appeal to God in prayer’ as here,” and he appeals to Kittel & Friedrich (31). Of course, the reader sees the use of the term frequently implies that at other times the word is not used in connection with prayer. In fact, of the 32 times the word is used in the New Testament, at most one could claim 10 such instances, but most of these involved calling on the name of the Lord as it pertains to salvation (Acts 2:21; 22:16; Rom. 10:12, 13, 14). In those instances, calling on the name of the Lord refers to the salvation process and becoming a Christian. The Acts 7:59 text is the only recorded instance of specific words being uttered in connection with calling upon God. Jackson’s case on this point has been somewhat overstated.
The fifth point is as follows:
Several recent translations render the expression, “he was praying” (cf. NIV, Williams, Good-speed, Weymouth, McCord) (31).
This is a strange “evidence” for Jackson’s case, since he already pointed out that the verb literally means “calling upon.” He failed to mention the New Living Translation along with many of the other paraphrases he listed, which actually is recent (2007). Charles Williams’ translation was 1937, although there is a newer Montreal edition (2005). Goodspeed’s version was originally published in 1923. Weymoth’s translation was also known as The New Testament in Modern Speech or The Modern Speech New Testament. Weymouth compiled it and used it in the 1800s; he died in 1902, according to Wikipedia. His version was edited and first published in America in 1903—just two years after the American Standard Version. Brother McCord’s translation is dated from 1987.
Many of these are more paraphrases than translations, including the NIV, whose “dynamic equivalence” theory of translation makes it difficult to determine when it is accurate and when it is a paraphrase. [See “A Review of the NIV,”] Hugo McCord’s translation is well done for the most part, but it is not without flaws, and this is one of them.
Many other more recent translations than some of the versions cited keep the verse literal. Among them are the New American Standard Bible (1995 edition), and brother Jackson’s favorite, The English Standard Version of 2001. Perhaps this “proof” was only mentioned as informative rather than convincing.
The final effort to sway the audience to Jackson’s point of view is to furnish a few quotations. First cited is M. R. Vincent, who commented on Acts 7:59: “An unquestionable prayer to Christ.” However, this is an opinion—not part of the word study. He had previously dealt with identifying Jesus as the recipient of the request. A. T. Robertson made the same assessment, but as with Vincent, this is an assumption. Neither one made any effort to prove it was a prayer; that conclusion was simply their assessment.
Finally, H. Leo Boles is referenced as referring to what Stephen said as a prayer no less than five times, which is absolutely true. However, did Boles mean to say by what he wrote that Christians should pray to Jesus? Did Boles himself address his public prayers to Jesus? Now that would be information that was relevant. If Boles did hold that view, the important thing would not be his position on the topic, but the reasons that he had for having arrived at that view. In his Gospel Advocate commentary on Matthew, he does not speak about addressing Jesus in prayer; he only comments on how the addressing of God in the Christian era differs from approaching Him under the law.
Wrong and Sinful?
Some today are teaching that praying to Jesus is wrong and sinful, brother Jackson laments. However, a more fundamental question is, “Is praying to Jesus authorized for Christians today?” The question is not, “What happened while Jesus was upon the earth?” The Bible leaves no room for doubt as to the way He was regarded. Jesus was worshipped (Matt. 8:2; 9:18). He made it clear that He was Deity and had the power to even forgive sins (Mark 2:1-12). He even identifies Himself as the I AM who spoke to Moses at the burning bush (John 8:58; Ex. 3:14).
Thus, this “controversy” does not involve who Jesus is or if He is worthy of praise or worship. “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom, and strength and honor and glory and blessings!” (Rev. 5:12). Those who reject praying to Jesus (and if we made a list, it would be quite lengthy) are attempting to show respect for what our Lord taught, when He said to address prayer to the Heavenly Father (Matt. 6:9; cf. John 16:23). Why should it matter to Christians if we pray to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit? They are all Deity, and they have all played a part in our salvation. We have no vested interest in selecting one over the other—except that Jesus said to pray to the Father, and we want to do only what we are authorized to do.
Did Stephen pray to the Lord? Consider two other texts. In Matthew 14 Jesus came walking on the water to the boat, and Peter told Him to bid him to come to Him on the water, which Jesus did (v. 29). After Peter looked at the effects the wind was having on the water, he took his eyes off Jesus and began to sink. He cried out, “Lord, save me!” The Lord rescued Peter. Would we classify this as a prayer? While Jesus was on the cross, the thief said, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom” (Luke 23:42). Are all of these prayers, direct address, or urgent requests?
And what about the blind man near Jericho? He first cried out for mercy (Luke 18:35-39). Jesus asked him what he wanted Him to do for him, and he answered, “Lord, that I may receive my sight” (Luke 18:40-41). Jesus granted his request. Was this a prayer or a conversation? All of these involve direct address, and a request, but none of these constitute prayers as we usually think of them. In fact, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language lists the following two definitions first for the word pray:
1. To utter or address a prayer to a deity or other object of worship. 2. To make a fervent request; plead; beg….
Of course, the important thing is that the same definitions and concepts were around in the first century as well as today (Luke 14:18-19, et al.). In torments the rich man looked up to see a great man of faith and the friend of God. He addressed him: “Father Abraham,” and asked for relief which was denied (Luke 16:23-24).
Was his request a prayer to Abraham? Many are likewise unconvinced that what Stephen said constitutes a prayer, but even if it could be so categorized, it furnishes no pattern for us—unless we also see Jesus and can talk directly to Him.
New Testament Prayers
What would be profitable would be to see what the early church did by way of addressing prayers. A brief prayer is found in Acts 1:24-25, which begins, “You, Lord….” Nothing stated shows conclusively whether the Father or the Son is being addressed. However, in Acts 4 is a recorded prayer, and we do know to whom it is addressed: “Lord, You are God, who made the heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them” (Acts 4:24). If this were all, the point might yet be disputed, but Acts 4:27 removes any doubt: “For truly against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontus Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together….”
If anyone doubts that there is a heavy emphasis on the Father in the New Testament, he should simply look up and see how many passages contain that appellation. Ephesians contains 8; Colossians 6, 1 John 12, and most of the other books contain several. In addition to those instances, the thought of John 15:23 is repeated in Ephesians 5:20 (to be examined later). On two occasions, Paul mentions that by the Holy Spirit we cry out, “Abba, Father!” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Notice that we do not cry out, “Jesus!”
Where is the example of anyone praying to Jesus in the New Testament? Stephen seems to be the only text that can be cited, and the problems in making such a claim have already been dealt with. Brother Jackson closes his comments about Stephen by trying to assert that a supernatural appearance does not make a sinful action all right and then rather peculiarly tires to parallel an incident concerning John and the angel to Stephen and Jesus.
When John fell down and worshipped the angel, he was rebuked for doing do—twice (Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9). The fact is, however, that such a practice had never been allowed, and no time ever existed when it was permissible. People made requests of Jesus constantly while He was on earth; so Stephen, upon seeing Jesus, did not do anything that had not already been done.
This “controversy” does not need to exist. Many of us over the decades have traveled the country over and have never heard anyone leading a prayer addressed to Jesus. Nor is there any reason for anyone to insist on this idea now. In fact, it would disturb most brethren in many congregations. As it was pointed out previously, no compelling reason exists for making such a change. Why is it that brethren are always desirous of introducing something that would wound someone’s conscience (weak or otherwise)? It is certainly not necessary to address public prayers to Jesus; so why insist that it be done? Who is the one causing “controversy”?
After having discussed several subjects with an e-mail correspondent, he finally resorted to an old ploy that those who claim to have been baptized in the Holy Spirit often resort to. He wrote: “If a person is not regenerated or baptized in the Holy Spirit they are not saved (Romans 8:9). This is a key to why you are not able to rightly interpret Scripture.”
This person possessed as poor an understanding of the Scriptures as anyone I have ever met. He could not explain his own position and therefore could only copy what someone else wrote. The way he dealt with any Scriptures presented to him was to say, “It doesn’t say that,” when a 5th-grader would have understood it easily. In the absence of anything to say, he finally decided to make the statement recorded above, which is a copout for those who have no Biblical verses to sustain their erroneous positions.
Although capital punishment was not the topic under consideration, this is the way the conversation would have gone if someone argued in the style that this correspondent did. He would begin by saying, “Show me just one Scripture that authorizes the death penalty.”
“All right. Romans 13:4 says that the civil government ‘is God’s minister, an avenger on him who practices evil.’”
“That can’t be true because the Bible says not to kill, and the Bible cannot contradict itself.”
“The Bible does not contradict itself. Killing an innocent man is wrong, but God authorized capital punishment under the same Law of Moses that forbade killing, and He authorizes it in the New Testament, also. He expects the guilty to be punished.”
“Well, you don’t have the Holy Spirit; so you’re not qualified to interpret Scripture.”
The Old Testament
The first question is, “Where does the Bible teach that someone must have the Holy Spirit in order to understand the Scriptures?” When God gave His people the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai in the Old Testament, did they need the Holy Spirit to understand what He told them? Let’s take the 7th commandment, for example: “You shall not commit adultery.” Anyone with a dictionary knows that this sin involves a married person engaging in sex with someone to whom he or she is not married. Does one need to be baptized in the Holy Spirit to understand Exodus 20:14?
Likewise, God clearly explained that on the Sabbath day no work was to be done. The Israelites understood the meaning of Exodus 20:8-11. Who would argue that they needed the Holy Spirit in order to obey this commandment? If anyone took this position, it would not help his case because God also forbade any stranger who was within their gates to work (Ex. 20:10). Could not the stranger understand those words?
The claim that a person must have the Holy Spirit to understand what the Holy Spirit revealed is nonsense. It overlooks the fact that God created us in His image (Gen. 1:26-28), that He knows what is in us (John 2:24-25), and that He is fully capable of communicating with us in such a way that we understand. Did Adam and Eve comprehend the command that God gave them in the Garden of Eden? Did He first need to baptize them in the Holy Spirit so they could grasp what He said? To argue such a preposterous notion is to say that God cannot communicate with us unless He also “interprets” what He said. And if that were the case, why would we not need an interpretation of the interpretation, and then a further interpretation of that one, ad infinitum?
Psalm 119 contains two verses that explain clearly how communication works:
Through Your precepts I get understanding;
Therefore I hate every false way (Ps. 119:104).
The entrance of Your words gives light;
It gives understanding to the simple (Ps. 119:130).
Reading the Word of God is Divine communication—God to us; since the Holy Spirit inspired the Word (2 Tim. 3:16-17), this is the Holy Spirit explaining truth to us. The Word provides understanding. Even the simple can understand God’s will. Notice that the simple are not the same as the stubborn. No special baptism of the Holy Spirit was required by people in those times to understand what God said.
Imagine the people of Nineveh, who certainly were not filled with the Holy Spirit, reacting to Jonah’s preaching. Jonah’s message was: “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” (Jonah 3:4). The Assyrians did not say, “Oh, what manner of speech is this? How can we understand these words? If only there were a Holy Spirit to interpret these things for us!” Of course, this is absurd. They understood the message thoroughly without any need for special interpretation. They repented from the greatest to the least of them.
Jesus
Jesus taught the multitudes on various occasions. Did He ever tell the people they could not understand Him without the Holy Spirit? The seriousness of His teaching was seen in verses such as Matthew 7:13-14, where He taught that most people were traveling the broad way that led to destruction rather than the narrow road which led to life. People grasped the point. When He said that, unless people repented, they would all perish, they got that, also (Luke 13:3).
To be sure, there were times He spoke in parables so as not to be understood by some (Matt. 13:13), but He did not attribute their inability to understand His teachings to a deficiency of the Holy Spirit but rather to hardness of heart (Matt. 13:14-15). For the most part, however, the people—including His enemies—knew what He was saying. They knew what He meant when He called them hypocrites and a brood of vipers. They certainly did not need the Holy Spirit to know what He meant when He said, “I AM,” to their question: “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” (Mark 14:61-62). They promptly determined to crucify Him, so well did they understand His confession (Mark 14:63-64). Is there anyone who thinks these Jewish leaders needed the Holy Spirit to “interpret” what Jesus said?
Even an atheist could understand the Scriptures if he studied the Word of God without prejudice. Probably, he would understand it better than many religious people—especially better than those who are “baptized in the Holy Spirit”—because he may never have been taught error and might have a more open mind. Of course, possessing knowledge is not necessarily related to obeying the gospel. The Sanhedrin (unbelievers) understood Jesus, but they did not obey Him.
Zacchaeus came to a knowledge of what he needed to do by listening to Jesus and the things He taught. He made the proper response (Luke 19:1-9). The rich young ruler likewise did not need the Holy Spirit to realize what Jesus meant when He told him: “Sell all you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me” (Luke 18:22). He was more interested in his earthly wealth than treasure in heaven. Every adult (not to mention, many 5th graders) who can understand language, period, can understand the Bible.
What Did Jesus Promise?
John made a promise to the people he was baptizing, which was that the one who came after him (Jesus), would “baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matt. 3:11). Those who bother to read the context know that the image of fire is used to indicate judgment. Verse 10 says that the trees that were not bearing good fruit would be cut down and thrown into the fire. Verse 12 teaches that the threshing floor would be thoroughly purged and that the chaff would be burned with unquenchable fire. Anyone who reads the context would surely not beg God to baptize with fire! Some would be baptized with the Holy Spirit; some would be baptized with the fire of judgment.
Nothing in the text, however, indicates what that baptism would accomplish. John 1:33 likewise records the promise of Jesus baptizing with the Holy Spirit, but it too does not state a purpose for that baptism. Jesus, however, declared four benefits to the apostles which they would receive upon receiving the Holy Spirit. John records them in the last conversation that Jesus had with His eleven apostles (Judas was in the act of betraying Him) on the night He was taken to be crucified (chapters 14-16). Jesus said that, when He departed, He would send them the Comforter, the Holy Spirit. For what purpose were they to receive Him?
First, He would teach them all things (John 14:26), which compares to the fact that they would be guided into all truth (John 16:13). Second, He would bring to their remembrance all the things that Jesus had said to them (John 14:26). Third, He would testify of Jesus (John 15:26-27). Fourth, He would show them things to come (John 16:13). Notice that the function of the Holy Spirit was not to interpret what had already been said but to provide them the message they needed. It is not said that the Holy Spirit would inspire the apostles to speak and then interpret those words for them.
Jesus also promised the eleven power after the Holy Spirit came upon them (Acts 1:8). We know that this power included speaking in tongues, working of miracles, and other things. They also spoke by inspiration, as the Lord previously promised. The purpose of being baptized with the Holy Spirit, however, was not “to rightly interpret Scripture.” If those who today claim baptism with the Holy Spirit actually had received it, they would not make so many blunders with respect to what the Bible teaches.
The Gospel
The baptism of the Holy Spirit was a promise that was made and fulfilled. No verse connects being baptized with the Holy Spirit to salvation. Although the apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4), they did not command that the Holy Spirit descend on anyone else, nor did they tell anyone else to seek it. The baptism that was required was in water and for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:28; 8:36-39; 10:47; 22:16).
See www.WhyBaptism.org (100s of articles, audios, PDFs, images, etc. dealing with the one subject of baptism—answers to every possible question on baptism).
Sometimes, when these facts are pointed out, a person will say, “Well, the apostles continued to use water baptism because it was an old tradition.” This assertion overlooks the facts that the apostles actually did receive the Holy Spirit and that they were to speak the truth concerning salvation. To say that Peter or any other apostle taught an outdated tradition instead of the gospel on the Day of Pentecost is ludicrous. He knew full well that people needed to be baptized in water (Acts 10:47). When sinners asked, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” they were taught truth.
Jesus spoke to Saul on the road to Damascus. When Saul was convinced that the One whom he had been persecuting was, in fact, the Lord, he was shocked but ready to do whatever was required of him. Jesus told him to go into the city, and it would be told him what he must do (Acts 9:1-9). When Ananias came to him, he asked Saul, “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).
Saul did not reply, “Come on, Ananias, get serious. Don’t give me an old Jewish tradition to do. I want to know what to do to be saved. I have already been repenting these three days. I have been praying earnestly. Now tell me what I should do.” Ananias would have replied, “I just told you what to do. Be baptized and wash away your sins.” Saul might have replied, “Look, I am in need of salvation, and all you can tell me to do is be baptized? Don’t you realize I’m lost? Don’t give me some useless tradition. Tell me what to do!” Who can believe that washing one’s sins away, which occurs when a person is baptized, is irrelevant? These words are not difficult to comprehend—except for some who think they have the Holy Spirit.
Neither did Saul say, “Wait! I need the Holy Spirit to understand what Ananias just said to me.” Saul simply arose and was baptized (Acts 9:18). Earlier, those on the Day of Pentecost understood Peter perfectly, when he told them to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38). They did not turn to each other and say, “What did he say? We sure wish we had the Holy Spirit so we could know the meaning.” The text tells us: “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized, and that day about three thousand souls were added to them” (Acts 2:41). Sinners did not and do not need the help of the Holy Spirit to understand what to do in order to be saved. The gospel is clear to all who have open minds and hearts.
Christians
Some would argue that, although the Holy Spirit was not needed to understand the Old Testament, nor the plan of salvation, nevertheless it is needed to comprehend the New Testament. Really? At this period of the world’s history, did mankind suddenly lose its language skills? The fact is that people can still perceive what the Word of God means, and for that reason we use lexicons and word studies to derive the meaning of a text.
What about the verse cited—Romans 8:9? This verse says: “But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of Christ dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.” First of all, the verse says nothing about being baptized with the Holy Spirit. Second, it does not teach that one must have the Holy Spirit in order to “interpret” the Word of God. Other than those two deficiencies, it serves as a great prooftext, which only one “baptized” with the Holy Spirit could possibly understand.
Although space prohibits a full examination of this text, it does begin by contrasting those who live according to the Spirit with those who live according to the flesh (Rom. 8:1). A few verses later this thought continues: “For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit” (Rom. 8:5). In Rom. 8:9 Paul asserts that Christians are not in the flesh but in the Spirit. In other words, they are neither walking after the flesh, nor have they set their minds on things of the flesh. Instead, they are walking and living according to the Spirit and have set their minds on the things of the Spirit. Through this means one is “led by the Spirit of God” (Rom. 8:14). Not a word in this entire text says anything about needing the Holy Spirit to understand the things that the Holy Spirit wrote.
That people who claim to be baptized in the Holy Spirit do not have any special insight into interpreting the Scriptures could be demonstrated quite easily. If 100 of them would volunteer to take part in an experiment, each of them should be given three verses of Scripture to explain or to answer questions concerning those verses. For example, concerning Acts 2:38, one could ask, “Are repent and be baptized joined by the conjunction and? Does that mean that both actions are required to receive salvation? By whose authority are sinners to be baptized? Does Peter here refer to baptism in water? What is the purpose that Peter gives for people to be baptized? How many people think that all 100 answers will agree with each other?
Yet if all 100 were truly baptized in the Holy Spirit, all the answers should be identical. If they knew the truth, as the apostles did, they would all be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (1 Cor. 1:10). Those claiming Holy Spirit baptism have no more insight into the Scriptures than those not making that claim. Those who assert “special insight” into the Bible do so because they cannot prove what they are arguing. They have revealed their desperation.
The magazine, Time, for November, 29, 2010, asks the question on its front cover: “Who Needs Marriage?” To find the article’s page number, one looks at the index on page 5; however the title now appears to be: “Why Marriage Endures.” But wait! When the reader turns to page 48, the two-page heading is: “Marriage: What’s It Good For?” Anyone wanting to quote any of the material from this article will have a wonderful time figuring out its title. At least it only has one author—Belinda Luscombe. The data used throughout pages 48-56 are from a Time/Pew research report, and it covers several aspects of marriage and divorce.
Marriage
In 1860, just under 70% of all adults were married. Among the 30% of those who were single, some had never been married, some were divorced or separated, and some had mates who had died. Today, 50 years later, only 52 % of all adults are married (the statistics are actually from 2008). According to the chart on page 54, the amount of those never married has grown from around 14% to 27%. The widowed category has shrunk from 9% to 7%, and those divorced or separated have increased from 5% to 14%.
Why are there fewer who have never been married? As the article suggests: “Neither men nor women need to be married to have sex or companionship or professional success or respect or even children…” (49). Of course, with a wide variety of birth control techniques, as well as the legalization of abortion since 1973, one of the chief fears of unauthorized sexual relations has been minimized. Furthermore, in all those decades, Hollywood and television have glorified sex apart from marriage—as if there were no consequences at all to letting one’s libido run wild. The article does not mention that fewer might be getting married because of the rise in homosexuality (hyped by the same media), but this certainly could be a contributing factor.
The article reflects the thinking of human beings—not the thinking of God, Who designed marriage in the first place as the only proper place for a sexual relationship to occur (Heb. 13:4). He even gave instructions for a husband and a wife not to defraud one another (1 Cor. 7:1-5) lest they face temptation.
Is Marriage Obsolete?
The above question was asked to those who participated in the poll. The average for all the different types of groups was that 39% believe it is, which is higher than the 28% who said so in 1978 (51). Broken down by categories, only 27% of those with a college education voted for obsolescence, while 45% of high school graduates did. Only 31% of married couples thought marriage was passé, but 62% of couples living with a partner drew that conclusion, which is hardly surprising.
The statistic that looks most dangerous here is that more women than men (41% to 36%) think that marriage is headed for extermination. Apparently, the feminists have been successful in convincing women that God and the Bible are wrong, after all. Without marriage, women have much less protection under the law. It would be difficult to estimate how many women that preachers have counseled with who have no alimony, no settlement, and often a child to support. Some of these are from living together, where they entered into an “arrangement” with no safeguards for them. Others agreed to a no-fault divorce and received essentially nothing. Why women would agree to such arrangements is anyone’s guess. Unscrupulous men walk away with no financial responsibilities and are free to move on their next female victim. What reason could a female have to participate in such a devastating arrangement? “Oh, but he looooooves me.” Right! Yet even in the face of these experiences, more women than men say marriage is obsolete. Hello! The Scriptures and common sense are knocking.
Fornication
Dr. Laura calls it “shackin’ up”; the Bible calls it fornication. Tragically, it has become popular. Call it “friends with benefits,” “playing house,” “living together,” or invent some new terminology, but to God it is sin. The majority of adults have not cohabited with someone apart from marriage, but of those surveyed, a disturbing 44% had (51).
Not too long ago statistics were published that showed a dramatic increase in the percentage of couples living together. Just from 1990 to 2000 there was a 70% increase. But this most recent survey found a 13% increase from last year to this year (52). One reason cited as a contributing factor was the bad economy, which, of course, is no excuse for immorality, but the other reason is “these days less than half the country thinks living together is a bad idea” (52).
That would be the half of the country that rejects what the Bible teaches on the subject. Anyone who has read much of the Bible knows that sex outside of marriage is termed fornication. If anyone is unaware of what that word means, a dictionary will furnish a definition, such as: “Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman not married to each other.” The Greek word has an even broader definition that would include homosexuality. That this practice constitutes sin can hardly go unnoticed by anyone reading the Scriptures. Fornication is listed among several other sins in Galatians 5:19-21. Those who commit this sin (fornicators) are listed among those who are unrighteous, who will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-11), and if these are not enough, there is always Hebrews 13:4: “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”
A person would need extraordinary help to misread or misunderstand this verse. So while “living together” may be accepted by most people as “not a bad idea,” God counts it as a sin which, if not repented of, will cause a person to be lost. Of course, if most people prefer not to accept the Biblical doctrine of hell, then why would they be concerned about this or any sin which would allegedly send them there? If the Bible is true (and it is—see www.MiraculousBible.org), then certain actions offend a holy God, which will cause Him to separate them from Him forever. What the majority of people think is not a safe index since Jesus said the majority of people were on the broad way that leads to destruction (Matt. 7:13-14). Also, the majority of people were clearly outside the ark (in the worldwide Flood) and drowned!
Furthermore, fornication (whether casual or as a live-in arrangement) is not without its share of earthly problems. Besides the risk of pregnancy and STDs, “a 2006 report by the journal Demography found that one-half of all cohabiting unions collapse within a year, and 90 percent within five years.” This information is from the Internet article, “5 Myths About Cohabitation,” by Sharon Hodde Miller. The myth being discussed was that cohabitation is a stepping stone to marriage.
The second myth exploded in the article was: “Cohabitation reduces the risk of divorce.” The Time article seems to suggest that living together first makes no difference, but articles that have appeared over a period of years have all found that the divorce rate of those who have lived together first is 25% or higher than those who had not. Sharon cites “a study conducted by psychologist Scott Stanley at the University of Denver,” who “found that couples who cohabitate are twice as likely to get divorced as those who do not.”
It is not difficult to figure out why cohabitation does not work all that well. It is not God’s arrangement, and it denigrates marriage. If neither “men nor women need to be married to have sex” (49), then why should a man or a woman be faithful during the cohabitation arrangement? After all, they are not actually married, and they have already despised God’s plan by demonstrating that they think they know better than the Creator about intimacy. And if the couple does eventually marry, what motive do they have to then be faithful? They did not respect sex within the marriage bond before; why do so now?
Divorce
In light of the above information, it is probably no surprise that the divorce rate is lower today than in 1978 (49). With fewer people getting married, there will naturally be fewer divorces. Since trial marriages involve no commitment or legal requirements, couples just walk away from them at will. The callous attitude that many have against marriage today, expressed in living together arrangements, was first expressed by the obtaining of unauthorized divorces.
The Time article does not spend as much time on the subject of divorce, since the rates have “plateaued” (54). But they do point out that divorces today are more common among the less educated than college graduates. The reader wonders what he is supposed to do with this bit of information: “…a child living together with unmarried parents in Sweden has a lower chance that his family will disrupt than does a child living with married parents in the US” (54). The notion seems to be that Sweden has learned to achieve stability while couples live in fornication. Is that a good thing? The indictment seems to be that marriages in this country are still not very stable.
The reason is that even those claiming to follow Christ do not abide by the Lord’s teachings concerning divorce. Years ago most religious denominations gave up observing the Bible’s teaching on this subject. They began to accept divorce for any cause—especially if the unscripturally married again folks were generous givers. Then certain brethren came along and tried to destroy the teaching of Matthew 19:3-9 by doing what false teachers do best—mutilating definitions that once were obvious to all. The fact still remains that a person who divorces his mate for reasons other than adultery and marries another lacks the authority of Christ to do so and is living in adultery.
The Children
Many of the reasons for the statistics already presented are couched in selfishness, although the Time article does not explore that consideration. Those who commit fornication outside of marriage do so because they are selfish, desiring to have what is forbidden until marriage. Those who divorce also frequently do so for selfish reasons; rather than honor their vows and make their marriages work, they find it easier to give up and try to enter into another relationship. So it should be no surprise that children are often the last consideration when “adults” make their plans.
“Yet very few people say children are the most important reason to get hitched. Indeed, 41% of babies were born to unmarried moms,” which is eight times the amount it was 50 years ago (52). Of course, if a child is conceived out of wedlock by two individuals who do not love each other, then marrying might only compound the problem, but many of these couples are cohabiting at the time. Most of the unwed mothers believed there was a 50% chance or more that marriage would follow, but weddings followed only 16% of the time, and the majority of couples eventually quit living in fornication (52).
Another unsettling statistic is that “21% of American children will see at least two live-in partners of their mothers by the time they’re 15, and an additional 8% will see three or more” (52). What kind of stability do such actions provide for youngsters? What will their attitudes be toward marriage when they mature? A few will no doubt resolve to provide a stable marriage and home environment when they reach adulthood, but how many will follow the pattern that they have observed in their own “home”?
Oddly enough, those surveyed did not think that current trends are good for society. In fact, 43% said that unmarried couples raising children was bad for society; only 10% said that it was good (53). Uh, did the remaining 37% have no opinion? An overwhelming 69% declared that single women having more children was bad for society, and only 4% thought it was good. Interestingly, 43% also thought it was bad for society for homosexual couples to raise children; 12% thought it was good. The same 43% thought it would be bad for society for more couples to live together without marriage (9% saying it would be good).
These statistics are good as far as they go, but with so many not responding, one must assume that they do not care or know one way or the other. Also, these statistics may show that people have better ideals than they have practices. People often have noble intentions but then allow themselves to be persuaded to be part of a situation they really do not wholeheartedly support. Those who reach adulthood should know certain things—that God placed the pleasures of sex within marriage, that fornication is sin, that adultery is sin, that divorce (except for fornication) is sin, that pregnancy outside of marriage is sin.
The Loss of Influence
In the first century, as Jesus entered into the world, divorce was common. So were the practices of fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. Even among God’s people, His laws on marriage were not respected. Some thought that a man could divorce his wife for any cause. In other words, it was about the same as today, give or take a few percentage points. But when Jesus came into the world, He taught the truth on this moral subject and called people back to God’s original plan (Gen. 2:18-24). Societies influenced by Christianity became far better, but for the past 50 years the United States (and many other nations in the world) has been headed in the wrong direction—back to pagan practices.
Our culture’s rebellion against the ideals of marriage is nothing more than a reflection of its rejection of the Bible, which we have failed to honor. Although God and the Bible were well respected by our founding fathers, a concentrated effort, led by the ACLU, PAW, and other influential groups has all but removed any mention of God or the Bible from public view. Some of these groups do not mind us having freedom of religion if we hide it away and do not ever speak of it.
They have sought and succeeded in removing the Bible from the classroom, prayer from public schools, and God’s name invoked at a graduation speech or a football game. Some have objected to religious displays at various seasons of the year. One cannot mention the Bible as an authority in courtrooms. The Ten Commandments have been removed from courthouses. Christians know that Christmas is not a holiday authorized by God and that the Ten Commandments were part of a covenant that has been replaced by the New Testament of Jesus, but that is not the point. Many do not want any semblance of anything that pertains to Judeo-Christian values to be seen publicly. Many protested Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. One might have good reasons to protest Mel Gibson personally—but not for that great production.
Several things might help restore the Bible and Christianity to a place of respect. First, Christians must speak up in favor of the truth. Biblical evidences are essential; as long as people think that the Bible is an outmoded book of myths, it will do little good to cite passages from it. Why should people believe its message? Unfortunately, many religious figures who are thought to represent Christianity do not themselves believe its teachings. These people do great harm and huge disservice to the cause of Christ.
The Bible contains an accurate account of creation; it is not a collection of mythical stories. The prophecies recorded over several hundred years within it were fulfilled in Christ. Jesus is the Son of God, and He did die for our sins. If Christians cannot prove these things to be so, how can we expect anyone to desire to abide by God’s marriage pattern which He established at the beginning? Christians must be vocal in the public forum—and evangelistic.
Almost everyone professing to be a Christian knows that Jesus died in our place, taking the penalty for our sins upon Himself. However, never (so far as I know) has anyone ever claimed that Jesus was baptized vicariously for all. On the very surface of it, this notion seems ridiculous. His vicarious death on the cross is understandable: no fellow human being who had sinned could take our place. Only Jesus, the perfect Lamb of God, could pay our penalty because He was not under condemnation. In other words, He did what we could not do (for ourselves or anyone else).
But why would anyone need to be baptized vicariously for another? We are all capable of being baptized for ourselves. Why would we need a stand-in? Of course, the New Testament does not teach this doctrine, but it was Clark’s 8th point, and we published it in last week’s article. Our correspondence appeared to be done at that point, which is the reason the information was shared. No reply had been given to my original e-mail explanation during the ensuing discussion, which was accurately reported. However, no sooner was the article ready to be published than Clark reestablished contact and began to discuss point #8. He claimed that the Scriptures taught that Jesus was baptized vicariously for all of us, and I asked him what Scripture taught that idea. Below are the pertinent portions of that exchange.
Why did John object to baptizing Jesus? (Matt. 3:13-15). John recognized Jesus’ sinlessness! Whereas others came “confessing their sins,” Jesus had none to confess! Historical sources say that He confessed the sins of all the world. Since He did not need this baptism for Himself, it must have been vicarious, i.e., taken for others. Since He fulfilled “all righteousness” in this Old Testament type, persons attempting to repeat it cannot add any merit to their souls, nor enhance their standing before God. So, we believe that Jesus was there in the Jordan River vicariously baptized for us, quite similarly as He died on the cross for us. We need to see that whatsoever Jesus did vicariously, we should not follow nor attempt to duplicate. To do so would appear, not as devotion, but to indicate a lack of belief in His fulfillment of types and ordinances. That which Jesus did exemplary we must follow, e.g., His loving all people, His being compassionate, His seeking first the kingdom of God, His loving the Father, and telling others the plan of salvation.
It seems that some of the disciples, who had at first been followers of John the Baptist, continued the custom—at least for a time. The apostle Paul baptized a few people but in his testimony, he expresses thanks that he discontinued the custom (1 Cor. 1:17). The fact that there is no advocacy of water baptism in the later writings of the New Testament, as the epistles of Peter, John or James, and likewise in the epistle to the Hebrews, is a significant evidence that water baptism was either discontinued or regarded as unimportant.
Since this kind of writing is generally higher than that of Clark, it may be that he copied it from some book, although he did not cite a source or present any documentation. He later claimed to have sent something by a certain author, and this may be it, but if so, he left it unidentified. Although taken as a whole, it might convince someone not well-versed in the Scriptures, no doubt the reader has already begun to see several errors in it—statements that contradict the Scriptures. Below is my response.
Your first three sentences are right on target. But then you leave the Scriptures for interpretation and “historical sources,” whatever those are. I asked you for a Bible verse, and you provide unnamed historical sources. All of this time you have been accusing me of following (non-existent) creeds and what my “denomination” teaches, but look who is dealing with the Scriptures and who has departed from them.
Now, I don’t have anything against interpretation—provided it is 1) reasonable, and 2) harmonious with what the Bible teaches in other passages. Your explanation is neither.
First, why would Jesus be baptized for all men when all men had already gone out to John to be baptized (Mark 1:5)?
Second, if Jesus was baptized for all men, why would He then baptize others (John 3:26; 4:1-2)? Did He not know He had already been baptized vicariously for them?
Third, why would Peter command people on the Day of Pentecost (after he had been baptized in the Holy Spirit) to be baptized in water, which 3,000 who gladly received his word did (Acts 2:37-41)? He had been with Jesus for three years. Did he not know that Jesus was already baptized vicariously for those people on Pentecost?
Fourth, why did Philip baptize the eunuch in water (Acts 8:36-39)? Was he unaware of what “historical sources” taught?
Fifth, why is Peter still telling (years later) those who have received the Holy Spirit to be baptized in water (Acts 10:47)?
These facts are what the Scriptures teach. What you presented is a theory with no Scriptural support that clearly contradicts all of these other passages. You have previously ignored these verses that have been called to your attention time and again. Why don’t you just admit that you dismiss what the Bible teaches when it disagrees with your interpretations? That is what you have consistently done.
Paul did not discontinue baptism; you’re ignoring the entire context of 1 Corinthians 1, which I called attention to previously. He himself was told to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins (Acts 22:16). Paul also wrote to the Colossians (probably 5 years after 1 Corinthians) that they had been buried with Jesus in baptism (Col. 2:12). Furthermore, right after Paul left Corinth, he baptized in water 12 men (Acts 19:1-7).
So the choice for you is: Are you going to continue to hold to man-made theories and interpretations or the facts presented in the Scriptures?
His reply was short and inadequate.
It is easy to see why Peter continued with John’s baptism in Acts 2. It was for the same reason that Peter wanted men to be circumcised. It wasn’t until later in Acts 11:16 where we see Peter realizing his growth spiritually when he states “And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, “John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” After this time, Peter never once mentions anything about water baptism in his writings….
If you want to continue with Old Testament Jewish ceremonial washings so be it. I’d rather just walk in the Light and allow the Holy Spirit to guide me….
His comments are woefully inadequate, as I pointed out to him. Each number below is keyed to those points above (first, second, etc.).
If you think you are walking in the light, you are greatly and fatally mistaken. You gather things from Scriptures that are not there, twist them, and somehow soothe your mind, which has some sort of irrational aversion to water. Let’s consider your reply.
1. You made no comment.
2. Your reply was that Jesus did not Himself baptize anyone personally, which I have said from the beginning of our correspondence, citing John 4:2. But because He authorized and commanded people to be baptized, the Bible says that John’s disciples said, “Behold, He is baptizing” (John 4:26) and Jesus “made and baptized more disciples than John” (John 4:1). About these verses you were silent. You will never convince anyone that you are paying the least little bit of attention to the Holy Spirit when you cannot understand a simple statement which the Holy Spirit makes twice. It is not a lie to say that Jesus baptized people—the Holy Spirit recorded those words for us. You simply refuse to comprehend them because they don’t match your aquaphobic tendencies.
3. Your response was that Peter was undergoing a growth process. Really? He had just been baptized by the Holy Spirit and was preaching by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but he mistakenly taught water baptism while under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Is that your position? This conjecture would have the Holy Spirit going through a growth process, also. Your doctrine denigrates and insults God, but that is how far you will go.
4. You failed to comment.
5. It is a good thing you don’t claim to be a Bible scholar. Even a mere tyro would realize that Acts 11 is a recounting of what happened in Acts 10, where Peter said: “Can anyone forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” I am not reading anything into the Scriptures; the problem is that you are not reading the Scriptures, period, except to try to justify a doctrine that you will not let go of.
Furthermore, you missed the significance of Colossians 2:11-12 altogether. Try reading a verse for what it actually says, for a change. Baptism in water IS our circumcision. Paul is answering the false teaching that Christians must be circumcised in the flesh. He writes:
“In Him [Christ] you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands [What is this circumcision, Paul?], by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ [How are the sins of the flesh put off and what is the circumcision of Christ, Paul?], buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead” (cf. Rom. 6:3-7).
Baptism is God’s operation; it is Christ’s circumcision—only it is not a piece of flesh that is removed, instead it is all the sins we have committed that are removed. Baptism is not a Jewish ceremony; it takes the place of a Jewish ceremony. Neither is it a rite or a symbol. This is the occasion when God washes our sins away with the blood of Christ (Rev. 1:5).
I will pray that your eyes are opened to the truth.
Would Clark finally answer some of these points? No, he claimed he already had! Then he added that “Jesus was a Jew and as such followed the various Jewish ceremonies of His time, such as going to Temple, being circumcised, water baptized, etc. I am not a Jew and do not have to partake of these Jewish ceremonies.” Of course, this is subterfuge; it not only ignored everything that was said; it lumps baptism in with circumcision, ignoring the very point made which was that baptism replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11-12). After more exchanges, I tried to get him to respond to the discussion instead of running away from it.
Here are the facts. And these have nothing to do with the non-existent “creed” you keep referring to which you have yet to produce.
1. You cannot admit that what John did, in baptizing people, was part of his work to prepare people for Jesus (Mark 1:1-5).
2. You cannot admit that John’s baptism was from heaven (Matt. 21:25).
3. You cannot admit that Jesus taught and baptized people as part of this new, spiritual covenant (John 4:1).
4. You cannot admit that Philip and Peter baptized people in water long after the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurred on Pentecost (Acts 8:36-39; 10:47).
5. You must expunge Mark 16:16 from the Bible, even though you cannot explain how it was quoted 200 years before those “best manuscripts.”
Here, let me save you the trouble of a thoughtful reply. “Uh, eisegesis. Uh, you’re just following a creed. Uh, you just say what your denomination does.” There, you can thank me later for responding for you.
All five of these statements were ignored. After several more exchanges, I gave him a simple choice which represented our two different views. Which of the following is true?
a. John got his baptism from an old Jewish tradition.
b. God authorized John to baptize people in water.
After seven more useless exchanges, he finally answered: “A & B are both correct as the Bible clearly states.” Obviously, Clark is not rational. We had drifted away from the original subject of this correspondence, which is pretty much the style of argumentation he uses. His modus operandi seems to be: “If you get in trouble on one subject, shift to another one.”
Jesus was not baptized vicariously for anyone else. That responsibility belongs to each one of us. Jesus vicariously endured our punishment on the cross. How do we accept the salvation that He offers? We must have our own faith. Jesus trusted the Father, but He did not vicarious believe for all of us. Everyone must individually repent (Luke 13:3). Jesus could not do that for us (since He had no sins). Each person must make the good confession that Jesus is the Son of God, as Timothy (1 Tim. 6:12) and the eunuch did (Acts 8:37). Jesus made the good confession before Pilate, also, but He did not do it for us (1 Tim. 6:13). Then we must be baptized to wash our sins away (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). Jesus was baptized but not in our stead.
Having been baptized on the Day of Pentecost with the Holy Spirit, and being an inspired apostle, Peter would not have required men to be baptized if Jesus had already been baptized for them. This was the beginning of the kingdom; the new message was taking effect. Baptism had not been done away at the cross—or any other time, for that matter. As long as the world stands, the blood of Christ will continue to wash away the sins of the one who believes, repents, and is baptized in water (Acts 22:16; Rev. 1:5).
No matter what strange doctrines man invents, the Bible has an answer for it. Truth will always be under assault, but the Word of God is sufficient to ward off any attacks. All people need to do is know the Word and become skilled in using it to defend itself.
On November 9, 2010, I received an e-mail titled: “Why Christians Should Not Be Baptized in Water.” No introduction was included—just 8 reasons and a signature from someone whom I will call Clark (not his real name). My first thought was, “Well, no, you wouldn’t baptize Christians in water—they are already saved. You would baptize sinners in water so that they could become Christians.” But I went ahead and considered the reasons and replied to them. After thanking Clark for writing, I wrote: “Let me provide you some things to think about that you may have overlooked.” Below are his eight points in brown and in quotation marks, followed by my responses.
1. “Jesus never told anyone to do it.” Jesus said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). The baptism of the Great Commission is baptism in water, as Acts 8:36-39 demonstrates.
2. “Jesus never baptized anyone in water (John 4:2).” Jesus did baptize people in water (John 4:1). Jesus is said to do it because it was done by His authority. Verse 2 simply explains He did not do it personally. Nevertheless He authorized it and is therefore said to do it in verse 1.
3. “The Baptism of Christ is the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11).” John made the promise that Jesus would baptize in the Holy Spirit, which He did (Acts 2:1-4). This promise obviously did not do away with water baptism either before or after the crucifixion (John 4:1-2; Acts 8:36-39).
4. “There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Ephesians 4:5).” Yes, there is. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was one of promise, having nothing to do with salvation. It was fulfilled on Pentecost. Baptism in water is commanded; it remains in effect (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:36-39; Acts 10:44-47).
5. “Water baptism was not to be continued (John 3:30).” John 3:30 does not mention water baptism. If you believe it was to be discontinued, then when? It was still being used by the time of Acts 8:36-39 and in the time of Peter (1 Peter 3:20-21). So when would it cease?
6. “John’s baptism in water was replaced by the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5).” No. The Day of Pentecost fulfilled the promise. Baptism in water was still being used by Peter the apostle more than 30 years later (1 Peter 3:20-21). Nothing in Acts 1:5 says anything about water baptism being replaced.
7. “The nature of the new covenant is spiritual, not ceremonial (Colossians 2:16).” The new covenant is spiritual, but because we are human beings, physical things are still used. We use physical bread and physical fruit of the vine in the Lord’s Supper. Literal water is used in baptism, but it is a spiritual process (God’s working, in fact) whereby one’s sins are removed (Col. 2:12).
8. “It shows a lack of faith in what Jesus vicariously did for us (Matthew 3:13-17).” How can it show a lack of faith to do what Jesus said to do (Luke 6:46)? How can it show a lack of faith to be buried with Jesus in baptism (Rom. 6:3-7)? Being baptized in water in order to have one’s sins forgiven (Acts 2:38) demonstrates faith and trust in Him—that He will do what He said, and we will be cleansed. Jesus was not baptized in our place. If He was, why did He, then, baptize others (John 4:1-2)? What He did was DIE in our place, paying the penalty that we owed. Should we not, then, obey Him in all things (Matt. 7:21-23)?
I pray that you will consider this response carefully.
What did Clark do with this information?
One might think that he would have explained his position further on each point if he continued to disagree—or that he might admit he had drawn a wrong conclusion. Unfortunately, he seldom did either.
Question #1
Jesus clearly said, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved…” (Mark 16:16). Thus, He did teach people to be baptized. Clark’s answer to this verse was to attempt to annihilate it. He wrote: “Mark 16:16 should not be considered valid Scripture as the most reliable manuscripts of Mark end at verse 8. Christ never uttered those words.” I asked him if he got this statement from the NIV, which erroneously states this unexplained fabrication. Clark did not say where he came up with this conclusion, but much more transpired on this point, which may be considered later.
Eventually, I reminded him that—not only did Jesus teach water baptism in Mark 16:16, He was also teaching it in John 4:1: “…Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John.” They would scarcely have been baptized if the Lord had not taught them to do so. He made no other comment regarding this point.
Question #2
Although he reaffirmed his initial statement later, that Jesus never personally baptized anyone (John 4:2), Clark never commented on John 4:1. The fact that the Lord never personally baptized anyone was probably intentional—to keep someone from saying, “Jesus baptized me personally.” But since He authorized people to be baptized in water, verse one says that Jesus baptized them.
Questions #3 and #4
John did promise that Jesus would baptize in the Holy Spirit, but that was a promise—which was later fulfilled. It did not, however, put an end to water baptism at the time of its fulfillment—or afterward. Clark made no comment on the fact that Holy Spirit baptism had nothing to do with salvation.
Question #5
This is the one in which Clark claimed: “Water baptism was not to be continued (John 3:30).” In the first place, the verse has nothing to say about water baptism. It is a record of John saying that Jesus must increase, but he must decrease. John said this in response to what his disciples said in what appears to be a lament about Jesus. They told John that Jesus “is baptizing, and all are coming to Him!” (John 3:26). Well, there is Jesus baptizing again. Is it possible that they were being baptized because Jesus taught them to do so?
I asked Clark when water baptism ceased. He did not reply. He did not comment on Acts 8:36-39, in which the Ethiopian eunuch went down into the water, and Philip baptized him (Acts 8:39). I pressed Clark on this passage and Acts 10:44-47 several times, but he refused to comment, which shows a lack of honesty. When someone cites a passage of Scripture in its context that disproves another’s claim, he must either answer intelligently or give it up. Eventually, Clark chose a third option. He did not comment directly on the passages but instead wrote:
It is a serious mistake to build a doctrine on the practice of the early church. Acts 15:28-29 clearly shows that the practice of water baptism was not required for Gentile believers. The early church was still growing spiritually and doctrinally. Of course, many false teachers had reintroduced a lot of Jewish ceremonies such as water baptism.
Who can believe statements as these—that we cannot follow the practice of the early church and that false teachers had introduced “Jewish ceremonies”? What really makes all of this ironic is that Clark has begun to make several ad hominem attacks on me, such as taking things out of context, practicing eisegesis (reading things into the text), and following what my “denomination” teaches—none of which was true; the reader can judge for himself which of us is guilty of those charges. I wrote back the following.
You are on the right track with Acts 15, but you misapply the results to baptism. The question being discussed was, “What was there from the Law of Moses that Gentiles needed to practice. Read Acts 15:1 and 5. Certain men were commanding Gentile Christians that they had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses in addition to the Law of Christ. Clark, we are in agreement that we are not under the Law of Moses but rather the spiritual covenant of Jesus. The Law had been done away with, nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). So what were the apostles to do about those requiring circumcision and the Law of Moses? They discussed it and clearly decided that only four things of the entire Law were required, which are cited in Acts 15:28-29, as you pointed out.
The correct application of this decision is that God did not reinforce the dietary laws bound upon the Jews. He did not require the Gentiles to practice circumcision. He also did not require them to keep the Sabbath day. Perhaps we can agree on these applications.
Baptism, however, was never a part of the Law of Moses. John the Baptizer introduced it as part of the gospel, which was taught in advance of and in anticipation of the New Testament system. Before any law takes effect (for example, changing the speed limit to 55), it is announced and explained in advance. The baptism of John—was it from heaven or from men? It was from heaven. He was authorized by God to preach this doctrine prior to the Law of Moses being done away, but it was never part of the Law of Moses. Notice what Mark 1:1 says: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” Three verses later (Mark 1:4-5) John is preaching the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. It is not the Law of Moses he is preaching but the gospel.
Baptism in water for the remission of sins remains part of the gospel. I know you don’t think so, but ask yourself why you cannot explain Acts 8:36-39 and Acts 10:47? Then answer these questions: 1) Was Philip the evangelist a false teacher for telling the eunuch to be baptized in water (Acts 8:36-39)? 2) Was Peter the apostle, the same one who spoke in Acts 15, a false teacher when he said that no one could forbid water to Cornelius and his household (Acts 10:47)?
As was typical, Clark let a few e-mails pass by before finally commenting. Finally he decided to offer a brief comment:
The Jews had added their own ceremonies and traditions, one of which was water baptism. All John the Baptist did was to adapt an old Jewish ceremony.
What? No, your eyes do not deceive you. This was his claim. I responded thus:
This statement is not honest, and you know it. I cited Jesus asking the question from Matthew 21:25: Was John’s baptism from heaven or from men? It was, in fact, authorized by God. Your assertion that it is an old Jewish tradition is mere flummery and without any Scriptural merit whatsoever.
But he would not be moved away from such an absurd allegation. He sent the following:
There is no question that the Christian ceremony of water baptism originated with the old baptisms in Judaism. Dr. Merrill Tenney, the editor of the Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible said: “Baptism as a rite of immersion was not begun by Christians but was taken by them from Jewish forms….” Since early Christianity was originally the Messianic Judaism of Jesus’ day, it is without question that baptism in the New Testament was originally Jewish. Further evidence comes from Scholars like William Lasor and David Daube who tell us of the early church’s practice of baptism was after the custom of the Jews.
I immediately replied.
Well, those are nice theories without any evidence, as usual. Where in the Bible do you see baptism as an old Jewish practice? Can you find even one verse? Didn’t think so. What Tenney and others say may reflect their theology–especially since they did not cite a source.
Furthermore, you continue to duck Jesus’ plain implication that John’s baptism was from God (Matt. 21:25), which is a dishonest approach, since I have now mentioned it several times. Let’s cut to the chase here. Will you sign the following propositions for a debate (either oral or written)?
I, Clark, Gospel Evangelist, know that God did not authorize John the Baptizer to baptize in water.
I, Clark, Gospel Evangelist, know that the only authority for water baptism, which John practiced, was from an old Jewish tradition.
Everyone will recognize the copout that Clark came back with.
It is obvious that you have not taken the time to study this issue in any depth. The Bible is very clear on this issue, but you remain steadfast to your denominational view.
This tactic is always what a false teacher does. He cannot defend his views; so he resorts to name calling. The idea that John’s baptism was from an old Jewish tradition is ludicrous. Jesus asked where the baptism of John was from. Why did His enemies not answer: “He got it from an old Jewish tradition”? If John had borrowed it from the Jews, they surely would have known it! God sent John to baptize with water (John 1:33).
Question #6
Clark never specified a time when water baptism was done away.
Question #7
He amplified the spiritual emphasis of Christianity, which no one disagrees with, but he could never prove that water is not involved in baptism or that there are no physical elements in the Lord’s Supper.
Question #8
He never responded at all to the fact that Jesus was not baptized in our place—but that He was put to death in our place.
It is truly amazing to observe the extremes some people will go to in order to uphold man-made doctrines. To say that the church in the first century is not something for us to follow when they were continuing steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, is silly. What else should serve as a safe guide, then? The apostles taught the church the truth and corrected them when they fell short or were considering false teachings. Did the apostles (who actually were baptized in the Holy Spirit) fail? Did the Spirit fail, also? Let us steadfastly abide in the truth.
On The Tonight Show, starring Jay Leno for Wednesday, November 3, 2010, the host made a comment about homosexual marriage. These may not be the precise words he said, but they capture the substance of his thinking: “I’ve been married for thirty years. If two guys want to get married, how does that threaten my marriage?”
This comment is nothing but a “straw man” argument. It assumes that the main objection against homosexual marriage is that it poses a threat to marriage between a male and a female. Possibly this perspective may have been advanced by someone, but whether or not that argument is valid, it is not the rationale that most people would set forth regarding the subject.
The main reason for opposing homosexual marriage is that God created both the male and the female, and He designed marriage to be between a man and a woman. God designed this union between a man and a woman before sin had ever entered into and marred the perfect world God had created. Notice that Genesis 2:24 says that “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”
The way that God created the first pair is significant. He did not begin with two men or two women as a pattern. He did not give Adam four women and institute polygamy. Neither did He give Eve four men. He did not create five men and five women to form a “hippie” commune. Furthermore, he did not create a backup for Eve in case Adam wanted to divorce her.
The pattern is very simple: one woman for one man for life. And that was the way Adam and Eve lived out their lives. This was—and is—God’s Divine plan today although man has frequently departed from it. But they do so without His authority or blessing, which makes all such variations sin.
One challenge to marriage occurred in the days of Malachi—more than 400 years before Jesus was born. The Israelites, whom God had brought back from captivity, decided to act out of selfish motives. They divorced their wives and married foreign women. God called their actions profaning “the Lord’s holy institution” (Mal. 2:11). A few verses later, Malachi records God as saying that “He hates divorce” (Mal. 2:16).
Jesus would be asked about divorce during His ministry. To show that it was wrong, He appealed to Genesis 2:24 as the pattern which God had established, adding: “Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt. 19:6). Since marriage is God’s holy institution, only He can authorize two individuals to be married. Under the covenant of Christianity, which all men today live under, Jesus will judge us according to His words (John 12:48). The Father and Jesus only authorize marriage between a qualified man and a qualified woman.
Polygamy is not authorized, nor is group marriage. Neither can a divorced individual marry another (unless the reason for the divorce was fornication on the part of the mate) (Matt. 19:9). Likewise, homosexuals have no authority to marry, either, since they do not fit the Divine pattern established from the beginning of the world. Homosexuality is a choice, or there would not have been young men in Sodom. Men and women still married there and raised families, but the men also desired other men—even visiting strangers (Gen. 19).
From the creation, God put the pleasures of sex within marriage; fornicators and adulterers He will judge (Heb. 13:4). The reason that homosexuals cannot be “married” is that it is a clear denial and rejection of God, who created mankind and destroyed it once because of its excessive wickedness in the Flood. To allow or promote such an atrocity is to openly rebel against God and to profane His holy institution of marriage.
Having left off (previous article—Drinking Wine) with a brief discussion of gleukos, a word which appears only in Acts 2:13, it would be appropriate to point out that there is a similar passage in the Old Testament—namely Isaiah 49:26:
“I will feed those who oppress you with their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with sweet wine. All flesh shall know that I, the Lord, am your Savior, And your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.”
This verse, which Ricky referenced, is comparable to Acts 2:13 in that both of them describe something that is not possible—getting drunk on new wine. As already pointed out, sweet or new wine is fresh from the grapes. It is not intoxicating, however, as most lexicons will declare (except ones who are trying to explain the passage rather than define the word).
So, once again, how are we to understand these two verses? Most commentaries do not comment on “Sweet wine” from Isaiah 49:26, but Barnes provides the explanation, and it also works in Acts 2:13. Commenting on the phrase, as with new wine, he wrote:
The Hebrew word…means must, or new wine…. The must, or new wine, was the pure juice which ran after the grapes had been laid in a heap preparatory to pressure…. This had the intoxicating property very slightly, if at all…. It is possible, I think, that there may be an allusion to the fact that it required a large quantity of the must or new wine to produce intoxication. And that the idea here is that a large quantity of blood would be shed (Barnes Notes, Isaiah, 2:216).
This writer’s best friend in high school once made a startling statement. His father worked for Bubble Up, a soft drink company which at that time was a competitor of 7Up. He informed us that it was possible to get drunk on it. “Of course, you would probably have to drink 60 gallons.” Each bottle contained a drop or two of alcohol. This is precisely the case with new or sweet wine. The most it would have in it would be a drop or two of alcohol—so slight that no one would actually be able to tell. Therefore, one would need to quaff great amounts of it in order to get drunk.
This is what the mockers on the Day of Pentecost were saying when they insisted that the apostles were drunk on new wine—that they had consumed copious amounts of it (gallons), which would have been necessary to ever achieve any level of intoxication. Peter’s answer, in light of this evidence, makes complete sense. He denied that they could be drunk on new wine since it was only 9:00 A.M. in the morning. Much more time would have been required to literally have imbibed such a great quantity.
Jeremiah 35:1-2
Ricky cited several verses and then attempted to make a logical argument concerning them. One of those was Jeremiah 35:1-2:
The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, saying, “Go to the house of the Rechabites, speak to them, and bring them into the house of the LORD, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink.”
Ricky’s comment on the verse was this: (Is God Himself causing the Rechabites to stumble?) This is one of those instances where he should have read the rest of the text instead of simply trying to gather verses that he thinks support drinking alcoholic beverages. Had Ricky continued reading, he would have seen that Jeremiah brought bowls of wine and set them before them, encouraging them to drink. They answered, “We will drink no wine, for Jonadab the son of Rechab our father, commanded us, saying, “You shall drink no wine, you and your sons, forever” (v. 6).
God was not tempting the Rechabites to sin; He knew that they faithfully had kept this charge throughout the generations. The point that He made to Israel was that the Rechabites had kept the word of a man, but they did not keep the Word of God, their Creator (v. 14). Only someone who is desperate to prove that God sanctions drinking alcohol would so abuse this passage.
Leviticus 10:9
When Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire before the Lord, they were devoured by fire. God then forbade the priests from drinking wine or intoxicating drink when they went into the tabernacle of meeting. Ricky concluded: (Notice, do not drink STRONG DRINK IN THE TEMPLE. If it was always wrong (in God’s eyes) to drink alcohol (especially strong drink) this is a redundant statement.)
The fact that God offers an extra caution does not mean that it is right to do it otherwise. Paul told Timothy to focus on reading, exhortation, and doctrine until he came (1 Tim. 4:13). Did that imply that Timothy could stop those things after Paul’s visit? When Solomon wrote, “Do not be overly wicked” (Ecc. 7:17), did he mean that wickedness in moderation was all right?
Everyone needs to be careful in his use of the Scriptures and only draw such conclusions as are warranted by the evidence. Earlier in the same passage (Lev. 10: 3), God had said that those who came near Him must regard Him as holy. Does that mean that those who did not come near to Him could display an irreverent attitude toward Him? Such a conclusion is false.
Genesis 14:18
When Abram returned from rescuing Lot, Melchizedek met him with bread and wine [3196]. While this word for wine usually refers to a fermented drink, in Numbers 6:4 it does not. Since the Old Testament provides exceptions to the intoxicating version, then why should it be assumed that in this text the wine is definitely fermented? Yet Ricky absolutely insists on it—and in a rather vulgar manner:
Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High. (Imagine that! The future ‘Jesus’ shows up with maybe a six-pack of beer or a quart of booze.)
Because Melchizedek is a priest of God Most High (who also is holy), we would assume that the wine was unfermented. If the priest had fresh bread for this meal, then it is also likely that he had fresh fruit of the vine. In other words, he could not have traveled far without the bread getting stale or the wine becoming fermented (cf. Joshua 9). Ricky would turn Melchizedek into a “whiskey priest,” as described by Graham Greene in his 1940 novel, The Power and the Glory.
Can it be proven that the wine was non-alcoholic? It cannot be done linguistically, but consider the following rationale. Melchizedek is type of Christ; Jesus is part of the Godhead, Who is eternal. Another member of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit, inspired Solomon to write: “Do not look on the wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it swirls around smoothly” (Pr. 23:31). The word translated “wine” in both verses is yayin [3196]. If God does not contradict Himself, then Melchizedek, as a forerunner of Christ, brought the non-intoxicating version of wine to Abram. Now it may be that some are yet not convinced that the wine was non-alcoholic. But then where is the proof that it was? No one can establish that point.
Ecclesiastes 9:7
Ricky calls attention to Ecclesiastes 9:7, which includes the words, “And drink your wine with a merry heart.” He makes no further comments, but a look at the text is instructive. Solomon has classed all individuals as among the living or the dead (Ecc. 9:5). Once a person has departed from this world, they do not have a share in anything that is done under the sun (Ecc. 9:6). Therefore, while under the sun, all should go ahead and eat and drink (Ecc. 9:7), live joyfully with his wife (Ecc. 9:9), and labor with his might (Ecc. 9:10), for none of these things will be done when we depart this world.
Certainly, nothing in the text encourages losing one’s sobriety; if anything, it is just the opposite. Be alive and enjoy life! “Go, eat your bread with joy” is a parallelism with “and drink your wine with a merry heart.” All that is intended is enjoying food and drink—not heading toward inebriation. Further, “Let your garments always be white” may symbolize more than having clean clothes; it could, in a broader sense, refer to being pure, period. But even if not, nothing in the text suggests a drinking party.
Proverbs 21:17
This verse says: “He who loves pleasure will be a poor man; he who loves wine and oil will not be rich.” If this refers to intoxicating wine (and in this case it seems to be doing so), it certainly makes sense. Just because God forbids succumbing to the temptation (23:31) does not mean that all people do. We know, in fact, that people did engage in drink so as to become drunk.
Proverbs 31:6
King Lemuel wrote: “Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to those who are bitter of heart.” So, which one is Ricky—perishing or bitter? Obviously, if he thought he was not entitled to drink alcoholic beverages, he would be bitter indeed. So, maybe…. Seriously, however, this is a text which highlights a contrast. Proverbs 31:4-5 explains why kings and princes are not to drink wine or intoxicating drink. Doing so might cause them to forget the law and pervert justice. They need to be sober to dispense righteous judgment.
If anyone is to be given wine, it should be the one who is perishing—about to die. In this case it might have a medicinal value, such as dulling pain. It was given to those who were about to be crucified for just that reason; Jesus refused it even then (Matt. 27:34). Since this verse is also clearly a parallelism, those who are bitter in heart are probably those in agony over their forthcoming death. Verse 7 adds: “Let him drink and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.” This is simply a continuation of the same idea and still contrasted to the need for kings to be sober.
Considered out of its context, it would be easy for anyone who wants to get drunk to justify himself. “I’m drinking because my life is bitter. My wife left me, I lost my job, and I don’t have any friends. Give me another bottle.” “I’m just a poor man, I can barely afford to pay my rent; I need a little nip or two.” “I’m in misery. My health is bad, and nobody really cares about me. I’m drinking to forget about my lousy life.” If those are the teachings of these verses, few besides the king will ever be sober! So, then, wine is appropriate as a painkiller for those who are near death and suffering. They can forget their suffering, their poverty, their misery, their pain. But others need to be sober and alert.
The passages cited by Ricky do not prove his case even a little bit. The Bible does not teach, “Drink moderately.” Perhaps the reason is that alcohol first goes to the brain and removes the ability to make thoughtful, rational decisions. It does, however, even in the Old Testament, teach not to look on wine at all. Why do people fight so hard to legitimize drinking alcoholic beverages? Is the reason that they are addicted? They will even pervert the Scriptures to legitimize their habit, yet millions live normal and healthy lives without it.
In “The Antidote to Drunkenness” of Spiritual Perspectives (10-17-10, scroll down), an examination of Proverbs 23:31 was given. The subject arose from an e-mailer who vociferously attempted to defend his drinking habit—not drunkenness—just a few beers or a few glasses of wine. He insisted that no verse of Scripture ever forbade God’s person from drinking, which is the reason Proverbs 23:31 was called to his attention. No one becomes drunk if they do not take the first drink. Ricky (not his real name) failed to understand or comment intelligently on this verse, as already reported.
He offered several verses and arguments in favor of drinking, and it was obvious that this subject was a hobby with him. What is sad is that someone would waste so much time and energy defending a practice that is not commanded and is not necessary in the first place. Jesus did not command Christians to drink; the practice causes great harm and supports an industry which could not make a profit were it not for those who consume too much. If major companies had to rely on people who only drank lightly or moderately, they would go out of business. Those who are alcoholics, drunks, or binge drinkers keep them solvent.
Most of the Scriptures which Ricky cited were in the Old Testament. Even if the verses did live up to the claims he made for them, it would still not authorize Christians to drink socially because the Israelites lived under a different covenant. God allowed practices under that covenant that are not authorized in the New Testament. One of those was polygamy, which was never God’s ideal plan, according to Jesus (Matt. 19:3-9). God also commanded the Israelites to use instrumental music under the old covenant (2 Chron. 19:25), but He did not repeat this idea in the New. Neither Jesus nor the apostles sang with instrumental accompaniment. None of the churches did, either. In fact, the apostle Paul wrote that brethren are to sing (Col. 3:16), and that is all that our brethren in the first century did.
Numbers 6:1-4, 20
Since the Law of Moses was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14), it would not matter if someone found 100 passages to justify drinking under a former covenant. The question would be, “Where and how does Jesus authorize it?”
The first passage that Ricky presented was Numbers 6:1-4. which reads as follows:
Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When either a man or woman consecrates an offering to take the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the Lord, he shall separate himself from wine and similar drink; he shall drink neither vinegar made from wine nor vinegar made from similar drink; neither shall he drink any grape juice, nor eat fresh grapes or raisins. All the days of his separation he shall eat nothing that is produced by the grapevine, from seed to skin.’”
The conclusion from this passage that Ricky draws is that God knows how to forbid what He does not want done. He has the ability to specify clearly what He will not allow. Of course, God can communicate with human beings, since He made us. However, the fact that He can clarify a point such as this one does not mean that He always does use straightforward language. Jesus spoke in parables for a reason (Matt. 13:13-15).
While God can be absolutely unambiguous when He so desires, He may also provide a principle instead for us to apply (e.g., the authority principle of Colossians 3:17, which states that we can only do or teach what God authorizes). Another principle is Proverbs 23:31, which forbids even looking upon the wine, yet despite such clarity, Ricky has yet to get it—because he refuses to do so. God allows people to choose sin.
The fact that God was careful to spell out what was forbidden to the Nazirites (not drinking anything from grapes or raisins) does not imply that everyone else could or should drink intoxicating wine; the point is that Nazirites exercise extreme caution to avoid even the possibility. That others did not need to be that careful did not grant them a license to drink what they knew to be intoxicating; it just meant that they did not need to be as vigilant as those under a vow.
Ricky also incorrectly states that Numbers 6:20 nullifies what had previously been taught: “Even the Nazirite could eventually drink fermented wine if he chose to.” What would be the purpose of forbidding the Nazirite in no uncertain terms to avoid the fruit of the vine and then tell him it was all right to have alcoholic wine after all? Although a person could be a Nazirite for decades or even all of his life (like John the Baptizer), most people took the vow for a period of time. Verse 13 of the same chapter says: “When the days of separation are fulfilled….” What follows is what occurs at the termination of the vow. After the time had been fulfilled and the appropriate offerings had been made (including his hair), then the Nazirite could drink wine. He may not have had any during the time period of the vow, but he could afterward. Ricky did not read the text carefully.
The word translated “wine” in Numbers 6:20 [3196] is a word that usually means fermented wine, but in some instances it does refer to the unfermented drink. This same word is translated wine three times in Numbers 6:3-4. The two times it appears in verse 3 it is translated “wine,” but in verse 4 the translation is “vine tree” (KJV) or “grapevine” (NKJ), which is obviously not alcoholic (Num. 6:3-4). Therefore, no one can prove conclusively that, when the Nazirite was allowed to consume again the drink that comes from grapes, it was alcoholic.
Deuteronomy 14:24-26
But if the journey is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, or if the place where the Lord your God chooses to put His name is too far from you, when the Lord your God has blessed you, then you shall exchange it for money, take the money in your hand, and go to the place which the Lord your God chooses. 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.
This is a primary passage for Ricky. Consider some of his comments concerning it. Below is the actual size of print he used, and it was bolded in red.
(A verse like this just rips the heart out of an abstainer.)
Tell me where THIS ONE SIM-PLE-TO-UNDERSTAND BIBLE VERSE SHOWS THE CHRISTIAN WORLD THAT THE LORD BELIEVES THAT THE DRINKING OF ALCOHOL IS SINFUL.
First of all, this passage is discussing the tithe that is to be given to God, and the reader really ought to consider that the phrase, new wine, is mentioned in verse 23, a verse that Ricky suspiciously did not include the several times he repeated the passage.
And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine and your oil, of the firstborn of your herds and your flocks, that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always (Deut. 14:23).
Now the Bible student has a better concept of the context. Although the King James (as well as the ASV and the ESV) renders tirosh [8492] as “wine,” this Hebrew word is comparable to the Greek gleukos and refers to new or sweet wine. Therefore the New King James (along with the NAS and the NIV, not to mention Young’s Literal Translation) selected “new wine.”
Second, if the journey was too long to carry everything with them, they could exchange their goods for money and use that money to buy what they needed for the offering when they arrived. What they bought with the money was to take the place of the tithe that they were unable to take with them when they began the journey. They were allowed to purchase whatever they wanted—whatever their heart desired—to offer up to God at the appointed place. However, buying whatever their heart desired for this offering excluded any “detestable thing” (Deut. 14:3), and these are defined earlier in this same chapter.
Third, this tithe offering was religious in nature. The journey was for a spiritual purpose. How perverted must one be to think that God was approving of the people to get as inebriated as they desired? Does “whatever your heart desires” include gluttony, intoxication, or lascivious behavior? Obviously the Bible student must understand these words in the context of the offering the people were to give God.
Fourth, the Israelites also offered up drink offerings on various occasions (Ex. 29:40-41; Numbers 28:7-10, 14-15, 24, 31). What was sold was for the purpose of the tithe offering to God, which included the new wine. Therefore, whatever they purchased when they arrived at their destination was also for an offering to God, including the wine and similar drink. The text strongly implies this point, and no one can prove otherwise.
Fifth, the feast of tithing was one that the Israelites participated in (v. 23); therefore, when they bought the new items for the offering, they could buy whatever they wanted to eat of themselves (as long as it was not detestable). What the people themselves drank during this feast is not mentioned in either verse 23 or verse 26. The wine was part of the tithe to be offered.
Deuteronomy 14:23-26 does not in any way “rip the heart out of an abstainer” because it is misapplied. A final point to consider here is that God does not contradict Himself! Ricky and all others who seek to defend their drinking habits will go to any lengths to justify themselves—even to pitting one Scripture against another, which is always an act of desperation.
For example, how often, when we have cited Acts 2:38 (which plainly links repentance and baptism and places them as necessary to obtain the forgiveness of sins), has someone immediately said, “What about the thief on the cross?” What is the purpose of such a statement? The individual who takes this approach is trying to invalidate Acts 2:38. Yet we know that the Bible does not contradict itself. Rather than seek for harmonization, however, some just think they can shout down a verse they do not like. Ricky does not like the plain message of Proverbs 23:31; so he takes Deuteronomy 14:23-26 out of its context to try to contradict Solomon, but of course he fails (just as do those who vainly appeal to the thief).
Gleukos
Much of the e-mail correspondence involved the word geukos, which is used only once in the New Testament—Acts 2:13. “Others mocking said, ‘They are full of new wine.’” In his initial e-mail, Ricky stated: “The word for wine here (in Acts 2.13) is gleuchos— highly fermented wine.” He later used gleukos, but his incorrect spelling here either indicates that he is not familiar with the Greek or that he had a mental lapse. But more important was this egregious error about the definition of the Greek word. I wrote him back:
You are mistaken. Gleukos, from which “new wine” is translated, according to Thayer, is “must, the sweet juice pressed from the grape.” This is the only time the word appears in the NT. It is derived from glukus, meaning “sweet.” Whoever told you that the word referred to highly fermented wine misled you.
Ricky does not take kindly to correction—even when clearly wrong. He shot back:
The Bible told me about GLEUKOS. (see Acts 2.13) Gary, you’ve got to be more analytical! Why would the Apostles be accused of being drunk IF the “sweet wine” they were accused of drinking could NOT get them drunk?
Does it ‘pay’ for me to carry on a logical ‘discussion’ with you or not? Gary, I am not your old Sunday School teacher! I’m actually one of those radical ‘nut-cases’ who’s spent most of his adult life studying God’s Word.
Notice how the “logical” Ricky did not offer any evidence for his point even though he was provided Thayer’s definition. I pointed out that he was trying to define gleukos by his (mis) understanding of the text—not by a lexicon. So I gave him a better alternative meaning for the text than the one he had. The men were mocking. It was not a serious charge of drunkenness. Below is part of the e-mail.
What the verse actually means is even a worse insult to the apostles. It was morning. Today, a rough equivalent would be for the critics to say: “These men are drunk. They’re so bad, they got drunk on Kool-Aid.” Mockers and comedians use this technique all the time. “Where did you get your license—from a box of Cracker Jacks?”
Ricky ignored the explanation and continued to try to define gleukos by the text (which he does not understand) instead of by a dictionary.
The VERY PEOPLE who accused the Apostles (in Acts) of being drunk USED THIS WORD! DUH! Don’t you think that IF the Apostles were accused of being drunk through the drinking of SWEET WINE, that this SWEET WINE MUST BE ALCOHOLIC? Come on Gary, this is basic high school reasoning.
This went on for a while, and he finally cited some sources, but they did not prove his case. Strong says gleukos [1098]: “akin to 1099; sweet wine, i.e. (prop.) must (fresh juice), but used of the more saccharine (and therefore highly intoxicating) fermented wine—new wine.” Strong defines it correctly at the beginning but then adds speculation about the word—without evidence. Vine also defines it as “sweet, new wine” and “must” but then cites Acts 2:13 and claims that “the accusation shows that it was intoxicant and must have been undergoing fermentation some time.” Like Ricky, Vine and Strong, after giving the proper definition of the word, then try to re-define it according to their interpretation of Acts 2:13, which is faulty.
Wine that is sweet and new is NOT intoxicating, and that is the reason the apostles’ detractors were said to mock them. If someone says, “You’re as blind as a bat,” they do not mean it literally. Neither did the mockers mean the apostles were literally drunk. According to the Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (a more thorough source than Strong or Vine) by Timothy and Barbara Freiberg and Neva Miller, gleukos means “strictly (unfermented juice of grapes); hence, sweet new wine (Acts 2:13)” (99).
Ricky did not respond to the challenge to find even one source by any Greek writer where gleukos was used clearly of intoxicating wine. Hmm. Is it possible that he is as blind as a bat?
[Editor’s note: The following material was presented by one of our former members, Evan Diaz, during Sunday evening worship—October 10, 2010.]
We’re going to look at two sides of the same ques-tion regarding correction: 1) How well do you give it? and 2) How well do you take it?
The very question implies that there is a need for correction, and when we read our Bibles, we certainly find this to be the case (Jude 22-23; Matt. 18:15; 1 Tim. 5:20). From kings to apostles and to every one of us today, the Bible is clear that everyone at some point will mess up and be in need of correction (Rom. 3:23).
Just think of how many times you’ve read in your Bible words that carry the idea of correction. In 2 Timothy 4:2 alone, we see it three or four times! “Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Con-vince, rebuke, exhort, with all long suffering and teaching.”
It is obvious that giving and receiving correction is a necessary part of the Christian life, but before we examine the question at hand, let’s look at the different kinds of correction: there is a destructive kind and a constructive kind. Let’s look at first the destructive kind and why we should avoid it.
Destructive Criticism (Contentious, Divisive, Nagging)
You may know someone who nags, or is contentious or divisive—someone who will never fail to find fault with everything you’re doing. They’re also not shy about pointing it out in the least tactful way possible. There is a reason that Paul, in his letter to the Romans (16:17-18), urged the brethren to note those who are divisive and to avoid them. Also in Titus 3:10 we’re commanded to reject those who are divisive if they won’t change.
● Destructive criticism ought to be avoided because it is especially detrimental to younger Christians. For one, it can break down their spirit, leaving them to conclude: “I can’t do anything right anyway; so why even try?” This is the attitude they’ll have, and if they don’t just give up outright, then what they’re left with is a bad example to follow.
● Destructive correction can also make a person numb to genuine edification and admonishment. Just like the boy who cried wolf, if all your experience regarding correction is negative, you have learned to just ignore it. When useful advice comes your way, that makes it so much more difficult to accept or even hear.
Finally this kind of “correction” ought to be avoided because it can build resentment among brethren. It is hard to think well of someone who, every time you see them, has something negative and critical to say to you or about you.
Destructive criticism, therefore, should be avoided because it is not beneficial to anyone, and it can even be sinful.
Constructive Criticism
On the other side of the equation is constructive criticism, exhortation, rebuke, and edification. Unlike destructive correction, this is not done selfishly or out of hate or spite or anything like that. This is done out of love and with the expectation and hope that, if the shoe was on the other foot, your brethren would do the same for you.
We’re told to be wise in all our dealings (Matt. 10: 16). I think it is especially so when dealing with sensitive issues such as correction. Though it may be unpleasant while it is happening, it is always portrayed as a good and a necessary thing.
Taking Correction
The fact of the matter is that nobody likes being wrong. No one wakes up in the morning and says to himself, “I wonder how many times I can mess up today.” We normally don’t try to be wrong, or do wrong, but on occasion it happens, and when it does, what do we do? First, we must recognize that there are:
Matters of Opinion or Option
Versus
Matters of Doctrine or Obligation
We’re not really concerned with matters of option or opinion tonight; we know if people have an issue with us. Maybe they don’t like our haircut, or they think our clothes don’t match. It’s polite to hear them out, but of course we don’t necessarily have to do as they wish. However, as a Christian, if it is something that is expedient and is easy enough to do, it might be a good idea to go ahead and do it—all other things being Scripturally equal (i.e., Paul becoming all things to all men that he might win some).
When it is a matter of doctrine, how do you respond? Let’s look at some Biblical examples and see what we can learn.
Acts 18:24-26
As it pertains to Apollos, Aquilla, and Priscilla, let’s notice some key things that happened. This married couple knew enough of the Bible to realize Apollos wasn’t preaching the correct thing. They didn’t put it off. When they heard him preaching incorrectly, the Bible indicates that they spoke with him as soon as they could.
● They assumed the best of him; they didn’t jump to conclusions and think that Apollos was teaching incorrectly on purpose and just disfellowship him before even speaking with him. They came to him with the correct attitude: they “explained to him the way more perfectly”; they didn’t “show him how wrong he was.”
Apollos accepted the correction graciously; he didn’t get defensive. “How dare you try and correct me? Do you know how long I’ve been preaching!” He went on to do much good for the cause of Christ (Acts 18:27-28).
Galatians 2:11-14
The incident involving Peter and Paul was a different situation entirely. Paul didn’t take Peter aside in private and correct him gently: he “withstood him to the face.” William Burkitt wrote of this phrase: “It is in the original a military word, signifying to stand against, either by force of arms, as among soldiers; or by dint of argument, as among disputants: it is a word of defiance, and signifies an opposition hand to hand, face to face, foot to foot, not yielding an hair’s breadth….”
Why was this the correct course of action for Paul to take? Unlike Apollos, who was innocently teaching incorrectly, Peter knew what was right and wrong. He was sinning willfully and publicly. Not only that, he was an elder in the church and he was causing others to sin as well because they were following his example. We know that, when an elder sins, he is to be rebuked in the presence of all (1 Tim. 5:20).
● Also, when we read through the various Gospel accounts, everything indicates to us that Peter was a man that both spoke frankly and was spoken to frankly. Paul likely knew this and took it into account when correcting his brother; he didn’t go to him gently and make subtle suggestions, he “withstood him to the face.”
What Did Not Happen
● Paul did not make excuses for his friend (fellow apostle). He did not rationalize it away or ignore it or put off his obligation to reprove when he realized what had been done. The situation demanded immediate action, and that’s exactly what happened.
●
● Peter did not hold a grudge, get upset, or complain that Paul was not tactful enough. He didn’t complain, “It wasn’t what he said, but how he said it.”
●
● He didn’t get puffed up and say, “I’m an apostle. Who do you think you are correcting me!” No, we have every indication that Peter graciously and humbly accepted Paul’s correction, and he even spoke very fondly of Paul and his writings (2 Peter 3:15).
King David and Nathan (2 Samuel 12:1-6)
This is a lesson of wisdom in practice, if I’ve ever seen one. This wasn’t some simple conversation between brethren. Nathan probably knew that, if he said one wrong thing, David could just say the word, and it would be all over for him. So rather than taking a direct approach with someone whose conscience was likely seared in that regard, he took a roundabout approach. Nathan appealed to David’s strong sense of justice as king and his past of being a shepherd himself. It was not until David’s righteous anger was kindled and he unknowingly condemned himself that Nathan rebuked David sharply. Thus David’s conscience was pricked and he found himself undone and repented on the spot (v. 13). And out of this event came some of the most beautiful writings in the Bible, such as Psalm 51.
Conclusion
So when we are correcting someone, let us keep these things in mind:
1. Don’t shirk your responsibility. The Bible is clear that as Christians we have the obligation to watch out for our brethren, and this is a vital part of that.
2. Make sure you have your facts straight; don’t go on hearsay or gossip.
3. Assume the best of your brother.
4. Have the proper attitude. Are you doing it because you love them and want to help them get to heaven, or are you trying to get back at them or just make them feel bad? Remember what Jesus said about “the golden rule” and treat them how you would want to be treated.
5. Take into account their personality and the unique situation they are in. You can talk to some people very frankly and plainly, and others you have to be very careful and measure your words.
6. Never compromise on the truth. If you know what the truth is on a matter, do not budge from it for any reason.
7. Don’t make excuses for friends or family members. We have this horrible tendency to do this, and we need to be aware of it. You might rationalize and think it’s okay if your children or parents do something, but what would you think if someone you didn’t like as much or know as well did the same thing?
When we find ourselves on the other end and being corrected by someone, we ought to keep in mind these things:
1. It’s not easy for many of our brothers and sisters to muster up the courage to correct another; accept what they are saying graciously and humbly, and then examine yourself to see whether they are right in correcting you before you get defensive.
2. Assume the best of your brother. You ought to assume that your brother is coming to you out of honest and pure motives and love for your soul—not because he is malicious or mean.
3. Don’t get defensive or puffed up. It doesn’t really matter how long you’ve been a Christian or what position you hold. If apostles and kings can be corrected and rebuked sharply yet still take it graciously and humbly, who are we to get defensive when someone treats us the same way?
4. Don’t reject it because the person wasn’t tactful enough or didn’t say it in a way that you like. No matter how it is said, if what you are told is correct, you ought to accept it and make the proper changes in your life.
5. If, in examining yourself, you find that you have shirked your responsibilities as a Christian, leaving undone things that you should have done, or perhaps you have done something you ought not, then repent of that today. If it is a matter known only be-tween you and God, make it right and repent privately. However, if it is a public matter or has brought reproach on the Lord’s church, you can make that right as publicly as the sin was committed.
BORED TO DEATH
Stan Harvey
PARENTS of teenagers frequently hear them complaining because “there is nothing to do.” “I’m bored!” they will say in disgust. Or when told to do something constructive, their reply is often, “That’s soooo boring!” The modern world of America, with all its convenient gadgets and the instant gratification and entertaining aspects of videos and CDs, has contributed to the development of the “bored” personality.
Unfortunately, boredom commonly follows youth into adulthood, and too many times into the church as well. To hear some talk, they are “bored to death” with the activities, or lack thereof, of the church. Although it is true that in many cases certain congregations are floundering in mediocrity because of poor and visionless leadership, uninspired and shallow preaching, and indifferent and apathetic members, it doesn’t have to be that way! Each child of God must look himself squarely in the eye and assume responsibility for his own spiritual growth!
Spiritual boredom suggests that a person is unconcerned not only about his own soul, but also about the souls of a lost world. Was this the attitude of Christ, the apostles, or the early church? No (Matt. 16:24-27; Acts 5:42; 8:4)! Boredom produces unconcern! Spiritual boredom suggests that a person is not interested in the distinctive nature of the church that one reads about in the New Testament. Did Christ have an interest in the church? Absolutely! Yes! Without a doubt (Acts 20:28; Matt. 16:17-18; 28:18-20; 1 Pet. 1:18-19)! Blood was the purchase price!
Spiritual boredom suggests that a person is indifferent to doctrinal issues and lukewarm about such things as whether baptism is necessary to one’s salvation. Is there any way to misunderstand the words of Jesus regarding baptism? No (Mark 16:16)! Is there any way to misunderstand the teaching of Peter regarding this essential doctrine? No (Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:21)!
Boredom, my friends, is a symptom of something far deeper! Spiritual boredom leads a person to careless and nonchalant thinking regarding the acceptance of additions or changes made to the worship assembly, such as instrumental music, not observing the Lord’s Supper each first day of the week, the use of drama and entertainment in the assembly, women serving in the capacity of a preacher or an elder, and in the leading of prayer in the assembled body. This kind of reasoning also leads to unscriptural conclusions regarding marriage, divorce, and remarriage. To be sure, Jesus and the inspired Paul taught that all of the above, plus many other areas, were to follow the Divine pattern as set forth in the Word of God (John 4:24; Matt. 15:8-9; 1 Tim. 3:1-14; Titus 1:1-16; Matt. 5:32; 19:1-9; Rom. 7:1-3).
Spiritual boredom, then, as defined above, implies a sense of listlessness! To be listless spiritually is to insure that one’s name will not be listed in the book of life. The only way to defeat a “bored” mentality is to take action, shake off the rust, develop a deep love for God and His Word, and keep moving forward. Paul pleaded for Christians to learn this teaching: “…I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon” (1 Cor. 3:10). Are you “bored to death” spiritually? I pray not!
Many of the principles already addressed are mentioned again throughout the second half of Psalm 119, but the reader’s attention will now be focused on the positive expressions of the value of the Word of God. The last eight verses of the first half of the psalm expressed the most grievous condition of the one who is persecuted for righteousness’ sake. The Word lifts up the sorrowful one, and he offers up many praises on its behalf.
1. “Forever, O Lord, Your word is settled in heaven” (v. 89). The Word is not subject to change. Although God has given mankind different covenants which contain different practices, He has never made changes within that covenant. The New Testament will stand, without addition or subtraction, as long as the earth stands (Matt. 24:35). We can depend upon everything being true and eternal in our covenant.
2. “God’s faithfulness endures to all generations” (v. 90-91). We can rely upon Him to keep His Word regarding every spiritual promise. Even the natural world continues to operate the way He set it up.
3. One’s delight over the Law of God sustains him during times of affliction. If that love did not exist, a person could easily perish (v. 92).
4. Through God’s precepts comes life (v. 93). While it is true that eternal life comes through knowing and obeying, it may be here that the writer is referring to the sustaining of his physical life. Many translations use the word quicken (“to make alive”), and a few render the idea as “revive.” In either case the Word produces life. Jesus would later teach: “The words I speak to you are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63). Peter acknowledged shortly thereafter that Jesus had “the words of eternal life” (John 6:68). On earth we are truly alive when following God’s Word, and those Words also lead to eternal life.
5. “I have seen the consummation of all perfection, but Your commandment is exceedingly broad” (v. 96). A great many things may be described as perfect. We talk about “the perfect marriage” or “the perfect athlete,” but that perfection always comes to an end. The King of Tyre was at one time “full of beauty and perfect in beauty”; in fact, he was ”the seal of perfection” (Ezek. 28:12). He was perfect from the day he was created until he committed iniquity (v. 15). All physical perfection, whether it pertains to beauty or to athletic skills, eventually comes to an end. God’s commandment, however, is exceedingly broad; it continues to stand.
6. The psalmist loves and meditates on God’s law, which makes him wiser than his enemies (vs. 97-98). Those who oppose the righteous proceed in opposition to God and His principles. They follow either their own inclination or the devil’s ideology, which directly contradicts Truth. Therefore, the one acting consistently with godly principles will be wiser than his enemies.
7. He will also possess more understanding than his teachers (v. 99), since they usually follow man’s wisdom as they teach worldly knowledge. The accumulated wisdom of man is no match for the Scriptures.
8. The servant of God also has more understanding than the aged (older) men (v. 100). Wisdom should characterize the elderly, but knowing and keeping God’s precepts makes one even wiser—at any age. Notice, however, that it is not just knowing the Word but following it as well, thus making it true not only in theory but actuality.
9. The words of the Lord are sweet to the taste; they are even sweeter than honey to the mouth (v. 103). David had previously recorded the same thought (Ps. 19:10, cf. Rev. 10:9-10).
10. The Word of God allows us to discern between truth and error. The Word of God tastes sweet, and it gives us understanding; therefore, we must hate every false way (v. 104). Hate is a strong word, but we must realize that only the Word of God can save; false doctrine will lead people away from God. Only the pure Word can accomplish what God wants it to; hence, the commandments to be certain that we are in the Word and not being led astray to a pathway that does not lead to eternal life.
11. “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (v. 105). How do we know where to walk unless we have a sufficient amount of light to see where we are going? God’s Word is the glorious light that enables us to see what pleases God; we must direct our steps accordingly. The wisdom of men cannot show us the way; our own cleverness fails, also. Only God’s revelation can cause us to walk in paths of righteousness.
12. “I have sworn and have confirmed that I will keep Your righteous judgments” (v. 106). In order for the Word to have the proper influence in our lives, we must be committed to it. It cannot be kept on a casual basis or half-heartedly. Toward that end, the psalmist also writes: “I have inclined my heart to perform your statutes forever, to the very end” (v.112). The psalmist has no regrets and will never consider walking contrary to the law; he has made a lifetime commitment.
13. God’s testimonies always form the basis of our heritage (inheritance). They rejoice our hearts (v. 111) and cause us to utter “the freewill offerings” of our mouths (v. 108). God is worthy of our praises because of all that the Word does for us and is to us. Our hearts overflow with joy.
14. God is our hiding place and shield (v. 114), and He will never let us be ashamed of our hope (v. 116). We do not want, therefore, to be around evildoers, who would drag us in the wrong direction (v. 115). The writer makes a bold statement in light of these facts: “I hate the double-minded” (v. 113). Such have no lasting commitment to the Word. They will now follow portions of it and now rebel against other parts. They possess no consistency. It would be like serving in an army in which one could never tell which side one’s fellow soldiers were going to fight—yours or the enemies. No wonder the psalmist despises these unstable souls.
15. The writer’s attitude toward those who stray from God’s statutes is based on the Almighty’s disposition toward them: He rejects them, “for their deceit is falsehood” (v. 118). All of their principles of life are based upon lies. They have given up living by the sweet and valuable Word of God, thus rejecting the place of safety (v. 117). But they put others at risk, also, who might be taken captive by their anti-God ideology. These men are dangerous.
16. The Word of God is to be praised because it teaches that the Creator of heaven and earth will not allow the guilty and rebellious to go unpunished. “You put away all the wicked of the earth like dross” (v. 119). Dross refers to the impurities that form on metal during the smelting process. It is easily removed, and the wicked prove to be just as easy for God to get rid of. Knowing the power that God possesses, the psalmist writes: “My flesh trembles for fear of You, and I am afraid of Your judgments” (v. 120).
17. The servant of God affirms that he has “done justice and righteousness” (v. 121) and asks the Lord to be surety for him for good (v. 122). Surety is often used to describe one person guaranteeing another’s debt. If the borrower cannot pay what he owes, the person who is surety for him will be required to pay the debt. Should the ungodly intend to collect a debt from the righteous man (whether owed or imagined), God will take care of the matter so that His servant should not be oppressed.
18. The next words would not only apply in the above situation; they also apply in an even broader way: “It is time for You to act, O Lord, For they have regarded Your law as void” (v. 126). Many people think that: 1) God’s Word does not mean what it says; 2) They are exempt from it; or 3) God will not punish them. They are wrong on all three counts. This is one of those times that creating one’s own reality is not going to work out. It would be like someone on board the Titanic convincing himself fifteen minutes before drowning, “This ship’s not going to sink.” The biggest mistake anyone could ever make is not taking God at His Word.
19. The testimonies of God are wonderful; the psalmist pants after them (vs. 129, 131). Previously, the sons of Korah had written: “As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants my soul for you, O God. My soul thirsts for God” (Ps. 42:1-2a). This is the attitude that Christians ought to have today in seeking God, His Word, and His righteousness (Matt. 5:6). The Word is wondrous in so many ways.
20. The entrance (or unfolding of God’s Word) gives light (v. 130). In other words, the more it is explained, the more those who love it shall understand the truth.
21. Those who do not obey God’s commandments fall into different categories. Some are double-minded, as seen earlier, while others regarded it as nothing. Still others know it is good and true, but through weakness, a touch of rebellion, or just plain neglect do not ever keep it. Even those who had obeyed the gospel in Laodicea were guilty of complacency (Rev. 3:14-22). The church at Ephesus had lost their first love (Rev. 2:1-7). The psalmist laments regarding those individuals: “Rivers of waters run down from my eyes because men do not keep Your law” (v. 136). May we feel the same!
22. The next section again praises the Word of God for being upright, very faithful, and everlastingly righteous (vs. 137-138, 142). Furthermore God’s commandments are His delights (v. 143). He also claims that the Word of God is very pure (v. 140). Just as God can dispose of the wicked like dross, He keeps impurities away from His Word. It has been refined by the Lord to make sure that we get only the truth. His principles are good, His promises are kept, His prophecies are accurate. These precepts are pure and perfect, and God’s servant loves it. The fact that his enemies have forgotten His words just inspires that much more zeal within him (v. 139).
23. The theme that dominates the next 18 verses is that of the ungodly oppressing the righteous. Several statements similar to those made previously are included: “I cry out with my whole heart; Hear me, O Lord”; “Save me”; “I rise before the dawning of the morning and cry for help”; “My eyes are awake through the night watches, that I may meditate on Your word”; “O Lord, revive me”; “They draw near who follow after wickedness” (vs. 145-150); “Consider my affliction and deliver me”; “Plead my cause and redeem me”; “Many are my persecutors and enemies”; “Princes persecute me without a cause” (vs. 153-154, 157, 161). Intermingled is the plea for God to revive him according to His justice (v. 149), His Word (v. 154), His judgments (v. 156), and His lovingkindness (v. 159).
24. The ungodly are far from God’s law (v. 150); they do not even seek His statutes, and therefore salvation is far from the wicked (v. 155). The psalmist sees them and is disgusted. Various translations describe them as traitors, treacherous, transgressors. The Hebrew word is stronger than “grieved”; “disgust” or “loathing” is more appropriate. Lying is characteristic of them (v. 163); they take after their father, the devil (John 8:44) and do not treat the Word as one who finds a great treasure (v. 162).
25. “Thy word is true from the beginning” conveys a good thought—that it is true from its beginning to its end—but that is not the idea of the Hebrew phrase. The majority of versions have: “The sum of Your word is truth.” The New King James renders it: “The entirety of Your word is truth” (v. 160). One thought that presents itself is that the Bible is entirely true. There is no part that is not inspired or the work of mere men. But more than that is the tenet that its sum gives it perfection. In other words, one cannot go to one text and say: “See! The Sabbath is to be kept holy” (Ex. 14:8). Nor can one say, “See! David praised God with musical instruments, and so can we.” Verses must be studied in their context, and the fact is that some things that were required under one covenant (dietary laws, times of worship, the manner of worship) are not necessarily authorized under another covenant. Sometimes one passage is explained by another. We all need the sum of God’s Word.
26. Many other wondrous things about God’s law are also made known before the psalm ends. People who love God’s law have great peace, and nothing causes them to stumble (so as to be lost) (v. 165). No wonder the writer’s heart “stands in awe of the Word” (v. 161). “Seven times a day I praise You, because of Your righteous judgments” (v. 164). His lips will utter praise (v. 171), and his tongue will speak of God’s Word (v. 172). This precept emphasizes again the obligation that God’s people have of spreading the Word. Others will not know the value of the Word unless they hear from those who know and realize it.
27. After calling for God’s helping hand for deliverance again, the writer says he longs for God’s salvation. As long as he lives, he will delight in God’s law and praise Him (vs. 174-175). This is not just an empty promise; He will surely follow through. The final verse (v. 176) is not what we would expect after so many affirmations of faithfulness. He claims, “I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek Your servant.” This statement is certainly reminiscent of the Good Shepherd in the New Testament, about whom Jesus spoke, searching for His lost sheep (Luke 15:4-7).
What does he mean? Has he, despite all of his protestations of faithfulness, actually gone astray like a lost sheep? Does the Lord really need to seek him? Or is he saying that, if he does fall away, the Lord should seek him? Or is he using a hyperbole—that is, he feels ungodly and lost as he compares himself to a holy God and, therefore, is always in need of being brought back to the right way? No consensus among scholars apparently exists.
He did mention previously that, before he was afflicted, he went astray (v. 67). If he is avowing this again, then it is an appeal to God to always bring us back—that, despite our conviction, our weaknesses are great. Despite all of the encouragement we have to live by God’s faithful Word, we still allow ourselves to get sidetracked at times. This fact serves to highlight God’s great love, grace, and patience, as well as our continual need of Him to care for us spiritually. At least, when God’s servant has gone astray, he has not forgotten His commandments. He knows what they are and where He is; he calls upon God’s love to seek him and return him.
One last thought is suggested by verse 152: “Concerning Your testimonies, I have known of old that you founded them forever.” The Pulpit Commentary says of this verse: “The study of God’s commandments had long ago convinced the psalmist that they are not passing or temporary enactments, but eternal laws, decreed and laid down forever” (8:3:112).
In other words, the Bible is not some hastily thrown- together work, composed by the invention of men. The writer had long been convinced from a study of the Scriptures that God’s hand was in it. Those who study it with an open mind today will draw the same conclusion.
What are the two things that people often desire the most? In times of oppression, many pray for hope, which keeps them clinging to life. The writer of Psalm 119 praises the Word of God for its ability to sustain us: “Remember the word to Your servant, upon which you have caused me to hope” (v. 49). In the world around us at any given time may be swirling bad economic conditions, dictatorial government, or intense persecution, but the Word of God always provides hope—if we will remember it. We recall that God still has all power and can use it to deliver us from any situation He pleas-es. To paraphrase Shadrach, Meschach, and Abed-Nego: even if the Lord does not rescue us, we will not bow down to these adverse circumstances—that is, let them intimidate us and cause us to give up. The Word offers assurance that, even if all is not well with us now, at least it will be in eternity for God’s faithful. In that same vein, Jesus said not to fear man but God (Matt. 10:28). Verse 50 echoes verse 49: “This is my comfort in affliction, for Your word has given me life” (v. 50).
The psalmist has enemies, as most godly men have had. In this instance they are called “the proud,” who hold him in great derision, but they cannot succeed in turning him aside from God’s law (v. 51) because he took comfort in God’s judgments of old (v. 52). As he thinks about the contrast between the proud and himself, a feeling of indignation comes over him as he realizes that the wicked forsake God’s law (v. 53). What has been distasteful to them has provided him songs (v. 54). Is it not ironic that the same Word affects some adversely while others experience elation as they keep it, remember it, and make it their own (vs. 55-56)?
In fact, as he thinks about God’s ways and turns his feet to walk in those testimonies, he makes haste to do so instead of delaying to keep His commandments (vs. 57-60). The more influence the Word has over us, the better attention we want to pay to it, and the more swift we are to obey it.
According to the Pulpit Commentary (8:2:106), the cords of the wicked have bound me means “the snares of wicked men entangled me” (v. 61). Notice that evil men seldom let the righteous alone. It is not enough for them to live ungodly lives; they do not want to think that anyone could be less corrupt than they are—thus this kind of treatment (1 Peter 4:4). But persecution will not sway the man of God. He not only has not forgotten God’s law, he rises at midnight to give thanks to God for His righteous judgments (vs. 61-62).
The writer has fellowship with all like-minded souls: “I am a companion of all those who fear” God and keep His precepts. He declares that the whole earth is full of God’s mercy (vs. 63-64). What a glorious thought! All men have need of mercy, and God grants it to them—unless they are too foolish to reject it. Evil men have neither the time to extend mercy nor to receive it; they are too busily engaged in trying to ensure that all men are as wicked as they are. What a sad waste of the mercy God offers—not to mention the price it cost Him to offer it (with respect to our sins).
God’s servant insists that He has treated him well (v. 65) and calls upon Him to teach him good judgment and knowledge (v. 66). Not only will good judgment keep him from sinning and, thus, he will be closer to the Lord, but it will prevent his enemies from finding vulnerable areas in which to attack him.
“Before I was afflicted, I went astray, but now I keep your word” (v. 67). Certain difficulties may be part of God’s chastisement (Pr. 3:11-12), but even if we experience suffering, God is nevertheless dealing well with us, His servants. If He did not love us, He would neither punish us nor correct us. His chastisement causes us to want to follow His Word even more closely. God is good, and what He does (on our behalf and in our best interests) is also good (v. 68). In all things (good or bad) we must trust Him.
Recurring Themes
In the remainder of this ninth section and the next two, also, some of the subjects already touched upon are brought up again. Already noted has been the attitude of certain ones against God’s servant: princes (v. 23); reproachers (v. 42); the proud (v. 51); and the wicked (v. 61). Now again we read: “The proud have forged a lie against me” (v. 69). The Pulpit Commentary says of this phrase that it means they “patched up a lie against me” (8:2:107, italics theirs). Perhaps they took portions of things he actually had said out of context and pieced them together, or several of them contributed ideas from which they concocted a tale.
In either case, the psalmist refused to be deterred from his devotion to God; he would continue to follow God’s precepts with a whole heart. By way of contrast, the heart of his enemy was “as fat as grease” (v. 70). The Pulpit Commentary says that this phrase refers to one who is “dull, gross, insensitive to spiritual things” (8:2:107). What else would those who are opposed to a godly servant be but “insensitive to spiritual things”? He adds in verse 78: “Let the proud be ashamed, for they treated me wrongfully with falsehood….” He later adds: “The proud have dug pits for me, which is not according to Your law” (v. 85). Naturally, one should not try to get a faithful brother to stumble; only the ungodly would dare to do such a thing. He adds that they persecute him wrongfully and asks for help (v. 86). One final time, the writer pleads: “Do not let the proud oppress me” (v. 122).
To the positive value of being afflicted when he went astray, (v. 67), the psalmist adds: “It is good for me that I have been afflicted,” because it causes him even more to desire to learn God’s statutes (v. 71). Affliction usually has one of two affects: 1) It either draws one closer to God, or 2) It drives one further away. The godly will be drawn closer to God and to His Word, which he regards as more valuable than “thousands of shekels of gold and silver” (v. 72, cf. v. 14). God’s judgments are always right; in His faithfulness to us that causes Him to bring affliction upon us (v. 75). He knows we will be driven back to Him and His Word.
Reverence
“Your hands have made me and fashioned me,” begins section 10 (v. 73). God is not only the Creator of the whole world, including mankind in the Garden of Eden; He is also the creator of the psalmist individually and personally (Deut. 32:6; Ps. 139:14). This fact implies that God cares about each and every human being (2 Peter 3:9). He has a personal stake in each one of us. We also must relate to Him in a personal way. This verse shows that Deism is false; God is not aloof and unconcerned. The very notion that mere human beings can call upon God, pour out our hearts to Him, and know that He cares (through inspiration) proves that He is greatly concerned about people—particularly what happens to those who belong to Him. God responds to the psalmist’s pleas.
The writer knows that he is not the only one who is faithful to the Lord; he also knows that others will be happy to see him (v. 74). The righteous never seem to be in the majority; therefore, they rejoice to know that others are fighting the same battles, enduring the same persecutions, and overcoming them with the strength of the Lord. God is the One Who comforts (v. 76), but the fellowship of the faithful is also a great encouragement. All of those who fear the Lord (v. 79) have a common bond. Regardless of the lies they may have heard, their confidence is restored as they observe the servant of God abiding in God’s testimonies. All depend on God’s mercies and desire to be blameless, that they may not be ashamed (vs. 76-80).
Depression
The eleventh section completes the first half of the psalm, and the writer is experiencing depression. Even though he has been helped time and again by the Lord, he now experiences persecution beyond what had occurred before. In fact: “They almost made an end of me on earth” (v. 87). He cries out: “My soul faints for Your salvation” (v. 81). He has not lost his hope in the Word, but his “eyes fail from seeking” it, and he asks: “When will you comfort me?” (v. 82). King Hezekiah and the nation of Judah certainly had an experience like this one when the nation was surrounded by the Assyrians. Food was practically non-existent, and capture seemed imminent. Hezekiah cried out to the Lord, and He saved them from these dire circumstances (2 Chron. 32:1-22).
The beleaguered servant continues: “For I have become like a wineskin in smoke” (v. 83). According to the Pulpit Commentary, smoke was used to harden the wineskin (8:2:108). We all need a little toughening in order to deal with the various pressures of life and assaults by persecutors. However, severe moments can be excruciating; nevertheless, we trust that God knows what He is doing. If He will not allow us to be tempted above what we are able to bear (1 Cor. 10:13), then He will not allow us to be utterly devastated, either.
The psalmist makes an argument at this point: “How many are the days of Your servant? When will You execute judgment on those who persecute me?” (84). He reminds God that his days on earth are few; how long can this intense persecution continue? He won’t have many days left! Almost every verse contains some praise for God’s Word—no matter what else is said. For example, verse 83, after the comment on smoke, states: “Yet I do not forget Your statutes.” Verse 86 begins: “All your commandments are faithful.” In verse 87 the writer claims: “But I did not forsake Your precepts.” Verse 88 mentions the importance of keeping the testimonies of God’s mouth. Verse 84 repeats none of those sentiments. The focus there is solely on the intensity of the one suffering. This section ends with a final plea for help: “Revive me according to Your lovingkindness” (v. 88). While other verses occasionally echo these thoughts (vs. 107,110, 153-54, 161), a shift in emphasis shows again the value of the Word.
THE ANTIDOTE TO DRUNKENNESS
Gary W. Summers
A few weeks ago, I became involved in an e-mail discussion on the subject of social drinking. This man wrote to give me several passages that he thought justified the practice. What he wrote was way too long to respond to in one sitting. I advised him that such was the case and suggested we keep the exchanges brief. I dealt with one of the verses he cited (which is a story in itself) and gave him one of my own in return.
What do you understand Solomon to be saying in Proverbs 23:31, when he says, “Do not look on the wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it swirls around smoothly; at the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like a viper”? Did he command you to stop after 10 drinks, 7 drinks, 4 drinks, 2 drinks, or say not to look at it at all?
For some reason he really did not want to answer this question. Below are all the responses he gave over several exchanges.
1. I will tell you what I most assuredly believe Solomon was ‘saying.’ Do NOT get Drunk! Solomon, who until he went carnal, was the wisest (in all areas) man around. So why would ‘wise’ Solomon, one who KNEW what God’s Word said about drinking alcohol (which it never condemns) decide that ‘simply’ ‘looking on wine’ was wrong? He was talking about people who LINGER around alcohol; who are ‘drawn’ to the sinful pleasure of alcohol; who are addicted to alcohol. (One of the qualifications for LEADERSHIP in the early (Paul’s day) church was to NOT be addicted to too MUCH wine. IF you look at the meanings of these words they mean to always be found with, or around alcohol. The ‘problem,’ as Paul said it, was any Christian who could not go any length of time without alcohol lacked SELF-CONTROL.
This response proved inadequate with respect to the verse and the question. The verse does not say, “Don’t get drunk,” nor does it talk about those who LINGER around alcohol; verse 30 does that. He did not answer the question concerning how many drinks did Solomon forbid (for obvious reasons). I pressed him for more information. And he wrote back:
2. “HEAVY DRINKER” = DRUNK!
I responded: “That is not a reply to Proverbs 23:31, which states, ‘Do not look on the wine….’ One is not to look upon it to be enticed—let alone drink it. He said:
3. Don’t you read English? I already tried to teach you that Proverbs 23:31 is talking about DRUNKENNESS.
Since he kept repeating that the passage was about drunkenness, it seemed that a fuller explanation on my part was necessary. I explained:
Proverbs 23:29-35 obviously talks about drunkenness. I did not ask you about the entire passage. I asked about verse 31. The solution to drunkenness is: “Do not look on the wine when it is red….” You have not dealt with that verse because it is the solution to drunkenness. DON’T DRINK! DO NOT EVEN LOOK ON IT!
Have you ever known of someone to get drunk without drinking? As is often quoted: “Abstinence works every time it’s tried.” How many people have said, “I’m only going to have one or two drinks”—and then ended up drunk? The reason is that the first thing that alcohol does is affect your brain’s ability to think, reason, and exercise good judgment—so that it may override the intention to quit….
Proverbs 23:29-35 does deal with drunkenness, and the solution to it is abstinence. Or have you not seen that look is an imperative?
Presumably, this explanation would precipitate a discussion of the text. Theoretically, one must either say that look is not an imperative (good luck on that) or contrive some alternative explanation that is plausible, if not correct. The reply was not what one might expect.
4. For if Proverbs 23 (or for that matter ANY verse in the Bible talks about wine) is telling God’s people NOT to drink, then God HAS TO BE a HYPOCRITE in your eyes.
He ignored the passage and any explanation of it. He ignored the point concerning abstinence as the solution to drunkenness. Instead, he did what most people do— whether it concerns salvation, this topic, or anything else with which they disagree. They try to get one Scripture to contradict another. To combat the force of Proverbs 23:31, he listed other Scriptures which he affirms makes it all right to drink. Thus, his conclusion would be that Proverbs 23:31 cannot possibly mean what it obviously does mean. I responded thus:
No, God would only be a hypocrite to you. I’m not the one who claims He is contradicting Himself. You would make God and Jesus corrupt to justify your sin. How pitiful!
Although he had another response, he did not comment further on the passage. All in all, we had 13 exchanges, and he could not deal with this one verse. He spent a great deal of time and effort trying to defend what we are not required to do in the first place. Abstinence will not harm anyone, but many have experienced misery from imbibing. Which is the safest approach?
