A few years ago, the late brother Guy N. Woods told of a minister who called for the removal of the Bible from his congregation for a period of six months. Recently, I received an e-mail in which the writer expressed the view that the public reading of Scripture was boring and that he did not get anything out of it. Those who once simply ignored the reading of Scripture evidently feel that they can now challenge whether or not it is read at all; apathy has become disdain. Moreover, it is a mark of apostasy that some in positions of leadership in the church desire to limit another’s reading of the scripture. At the high point of Roman Catholicism, Bibles were chained to pulpits and access was limited to few.
Contrary to this attitude, a blessing is pronounced upon those who read the Scriptures. One such beatitude is found in Revelation 1:3–“Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.” Here, the full spectrum of Scripture reading is detailed: reading, listening, and doing. Those at Berea were considered “. . . more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). Such a singular blessing should encourage every congregation to follow the Berean’s example.
Moreover, the Bible is replete with language that encourages not only reading, but intensive study of the Scriptures. In Deuteronomy 6:7 we read of the intensity with which God encouraged the Israelites to ingrain the Scriptures into the minds of their youth: “And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.” In The Pulpit Commentary , W.L. Alexander writes concerning this statement: “. . . literally, Thou shalt sharpen them to thy children, impress them upon them, send them into them like a sharp weapon.” This is the force of the word diligent in this passage.
In Psalm 1:2, we read of the intensity with which an individual is to study the Scriptures: “But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.” The Hebrew word meditate connotes a sound that is deep, recurring, and constant. This illustrates the uninterrupted pensiveness of one whose “delight is in the law of the Lord.” Too, 2 Timothy 2:15 impresses upon us the importance of handling Scripture correctly: “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” The desired student is a worker–one devoted to a task–who has been tested and approved.
The blessings associated with reading the Scriptures do not come from a casual glance. Like anything, with hard work and dedication, comes an appreciation and understanding of that to which one devotes himself. And regarding those who would stifle the reading or studying of the Scriptures, whether public or private, it is no secret that ignorance breeds contempt.
Several members received letters from Dan Billingsly within the last week. Many of you probably glanced at the fourteen page dissertation and dismissed it as the rantings of an individual who thrives on controversy and wants to debate everybody and his cousin. In fact, he and Farrell Till would make an excellent team: they could debate each other from one end of the country to the other, wherever they could find an audience. Perhaps, eventually they might get their fill of confrontation.
Ostensibly, Billingsly wrote to members here at Pearl Street to warn us of the “great heresies” of Roy and Mac Deaver that they might present at our upcoming lectures. You see, Dan believes that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are Old Testament “gospels” (page 1 of his lengthy diatribe). He further (and falsely) asserts that Jesus did not teach New Testament doctrine and avers that even the Lord agrees with him (14).
Apparently, brother Billingsly is ready to pronounce as a false teacher everyone who disagrees with him, including not only the Deavers, but also Dub McClish, Johnny Ramsey, Dave Miller, and every Bible in the world that includes Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as part of the New Testament (they are all wrong, wrong, wrong, according to him). [What he lacks in common sense, he makes up in ego and pugnacity.]
Such belligerence does not deserves a reply, but we will deal with the issue briefly (even though we know of no major scholar or preacher within or without the church who agrees with Billingsly’s conclusions). Following are points that are designed to summarize the truth of the matter.
1. Jesus lived and died under the Law of Moses, which was nailed to the cross at His death (Col. 2:14).
2. He taught others to obey the law of Moses (Matt. 5:17-19).
3. The church began on the day of Pentecost, in actuality. Jesus promised to build the church (Matt. 16:18); He also promised that some would still be alive to see the kingdom of God come with power (Mark 9:1), which it did in Acts 2.
4. The church, however, had existed in the mind of God from all eternity (Eph. 3:1-12). It had been prophesied of by many (Isaiah 2:2-4, Daniel 2:44 & 7:13-14, Joel 2:28-32, etc.).
5. Jesus lived at the end of this Old Testament period, and while He upheld the law of Moses (since it was still in effect) and kept it Himself, He also taught many principles of New Testament doctrine. In other words, the things our Lord taught were not just part of the law of Moses; they were new and different teachings. If they were only part of the law, then why on the Mount of Transfiguration did God say, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him” (Matt. 17:5)? Why did He not simply say, “Continue to listen to Moses for a little while longer”?
6. “God, who at sundry times and in diverse manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son…” (Heb. 1:1-2). When did Jesus speak these things, if not during His earthly ministry? “How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation, which at the first was spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him?” (Heb. 2:3).
7. “He that rejecteth Me, and receiveth not My words, hath one that judgeth him: the word I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:48). What words were these, by which we shall be judged, and when were they spoken? They were the teachings of Christ which He taught during His earthly ministry.
Billingsly claims that the “all things” that Jesus said should be taught to others (in Matt. 28:20) was not what He had taught during His earthly ministry, but rather what He taught them “during the forty days he was with the disciples after His resurrection (Acts 1:2-3)” (9). Here is a truly amazing assertion. What’s wrong with it?
1. It eliminates the things Jesus taught during His earthly ministry, by which He said men were to be judged (John 12:48).
2. It contradicts the Lord’s prophecy to the disciples. “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14:26). How many categories of “all things” are mentioned? Two: the “all things” that Jesus had taught them, and the “all things” they yet needed to know. There is no third category here of “all things” they would be taught during the forty days.
3. Billlingsly’s hypothesis makes the Holy Spirit look incompetent. Instead of revealing what Jesus taught the disciples during that forty day period, He foolishly waited more than two decades, left out the “all things” of Matt. 28:20, yet recorded the “all things” Jesus taught during His earthly ministry, which (according to Dan) were nothing more than Old Testament teaching. Why would the Holy Spirit record the wrong, useless, out-of-date teachings of Jesus and ignore those things which were relevant? Why, indeed. There is no proof whatsoever that Jesus taught any new information during that forty days. In fact, the question asked in Acts 1:6 (immediately prior to the Lord’s ascension) indicates that the apostles did not yet themselves understand the nature of the kingdom, an odd fact if He had explained it all to them.
A Position of DesperationWhy, one might ask, would someone adopt such an easily refutable doctrine, taking on the whole world (practically) in the process? It all relates to the discussion of mar-riage, divorce, and remarriage. Dan thinks that what Jesus taught in Matthew 19:3-9 is Old Testament doctrine and is therefore not applicable today, even though Jesus said that God had (under Moses’ law) allowed divorce, but “from the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19:8). How can Jesus be affirming the law of Moses when He taught that contrary to what the law allowed, it was not so.
In an effort to get away from Jesus’ teaching on this subject Billingsly is ready to do away with everything that Jesus taught, which is truly an act of desperation. He will, in fact, be judged by the things Jesus taught (John 12:48), as well as the rest of the teaching of the New Testament. And although it does not show great wisdom to hold such an extreme view, it does show that people who feel compelled to do away with God’s teaching on divorce at least understand what it says. Matthew 19 is not unclear or ambiguous. The force of the passage is so plain that some are willing to go to any lengths to get rid of it–even to the point of denying that Jesus ever taught New Testament doctrine.
This year’s book will be well worth having, containing somewhere around 675 pages of excellent material on the Gospel according to Matthew.
But this week we want to highlight 579 pages of the recent Power Lectures: Major Lessons of the Major Prophets . The two previous books produced by these brethren in Southaven, Mississippi,were The Providence of God and The Minor Prophets, for which this year’s subject was designed as a companion. It fulfills its purpose well.
Before beginning the review, let me just insert a few personal remarks. The brethren at Southaven are to be commended for their outstanding hospitality. Each morning coffee, orange juice, and donuts were awaiting all who wanted to avail themselves of such “necessities” (and most did). After the morning session, lunch was also provided for those who could stay. The lines always moved swiftly, having been organized quite efficiently. Housing was also provided. Brethren went out of their way to provide not only a spiritual feast but to make the week as painless as possible on visitors’ wallets.
The lectureship book, as well as various displays, were available, as were tapes of the lectures for the unheard of price of $1. [Videos are also available.] B. J. Clarke, who edited the book and directed the lectureship, did an outstanding job and is to be highly commended, as are the elders and deacons, who labored diligently prior to and during the week of the program. These commendations are not intended to demean any other of a number of fine lectureships throughout the brotherhood; they are merely intended to demonstrate that in resuming the Power Lectures (after a five year hiatus), these brethren were fully prepared in their efforts.
The first portion of the book contains nine chapters–two each on Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; one on Lamentations. The first of these introduces the prophet, as well as the book he wrote; the second presents major lessons that can be gleaned from each prophet. The material in this section is worth the cost of the entire book ($15). The introduction to Daniel, for example, considers and answers fifteen assaults of the critics on this glorious and accurate book of crucial, Biblical prophecies. Yet this and more is covered in only twelve pagesand in a way that does not burden the reader with a bunch of technical, “scholarly” lingo. The lessons from these prophets occasionally overlap (as one might expect), but the analyses are rich and meaningful.
The second section is entitled “A Prophetic Look At Christ In The Major Prophets”; chapter titles include: “The Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ,” “Christ, The Light of the World,” “Christ, The Branch,” “Christ, The King and Cornerstone of His Church,” “Christ, The Revelation of God’s Glory,” “Christ, The Chosen Servant For The Gentiles,” “Christ, The Comforter of All Who Mourn,” “Christ, The Bearer of Iniquities,” and “Christ, The Mediator of a Better Covenant.” Much of this material is from a perspective different from the usual method of presentation. Some interesting charts are also included.
The next portion of the book contains a variety of topics, all stemming from the major prophets. One chapter deals with the former prophets; one centers on the false prophets of the Old Testament period; another sets forth the courage of God’s men. Two complimentary chapters define the angerand the mercy of God; another discusses the righteous remnant. Others include: “Woe Unto Them That Are Wise In Their Own Eyes”; “Women in the Major Prophets”; “O Earth, Earth, Earth, Hear The Word Of The Lord”; and “Woe Unto Him That Striveth With His Maker.” The major prophets provide an abundance of exhortations for both elders and preachers today.
“Woe Unto Them That Follow Strong Drink” should cause anyone to examine closely any kind of fellowship with alcoholic beverages. Some of the material herein was cited in the series of articles on this subject published in Spiritual Perspectives just a few weeks ago (numbers 10, 11, & 12). This article contains valuable definitions, easy-to-understand statistics, the value of grape juice, and a tragic story from a newspaper column which shows the wisdom of God’s teaching on this subject (447-48). There are 38 “endnotes” to point the reader to more information.
Three “special studies” close out this volume: “A Study of the Captivity in the Major Prophets,” “The Major Prophets Versus Premillenialism,” and “The Ten Lost Tribes of Israel: Fact or Fiction?” Even if one possesses commentaries on the major prophets, the treatment of this subject matter(throughout the book) is well worth having as a valuable tool of study. Copies may be ordered from the Southaven Church of Christ, P.O. Box 128, Southaven, MS 38671.
To whomever it may concern:
My name is Justice. I have been very sick for the last nine months. This past week I mistakenly thought I was going to recover, but I suddenly took a turn for the worse and died. Do not imagine that all is hopeless. I have died before (the Dred Scott decision, for example), but I have always been resurrected. Fortunately, I have many lives. In fact, I died as recently as 1973 and have yet to be fully resuscitated from Roe v. Wade.
Since my demise on Tuesday, I have prepared certain statements for different groups of people which may assist in my revival. [I have the privilege of communicating this way–at least until I’m buried once and for all.] Please consider my words carefully.
TO: ALL MANKINDIf you expect to survive as a society, you must divest yourself of the attitude, TRUTH DOESN’T MATTER, and its corollary, FACTS DON’T MATTER. In an effort to escape being held accountable, you have reduced everything to the realm of opinion. Truth, facts, and evidence no longer matter; the operative factor is how you feel about it. Everything has become a matter of interpretation. The idle speculation of philosophers has now filtered down to the average man with respect to both the Bible and justice.
Mark 16:16, for example, says: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” People, who obviously see the intent of the verse, will begin to argue immediately (sometimes before you’ve offered a word of explanation), “It doesn’t mean that to me. I don’t think a person needs to be baptized.” When it is pointed out that Jesus gave two conditions (faith and baptism) which must be met before salvation is received, many people will affirm, “That’s just your opinion.”
It’s not a matter of opinion; it’s a matter of TRUTH. It’s not a matter of interpreting a difficult passage couched in symbolism; it’s a matter of understanding what the verse says–without being prejudiced by one’s religious training.
Now here, jury, is blood in which the DNA found in the defendant’s car, at his home, etc., matches that of the defendant–he was there. “But that’s just the prosecution’s interpretation of things. Maybe a racist cop planted all that.” Yeah, and maybe you’re paranoid, too. Maybe a UFO siphoned the defendant’s blood while he was asleep and scattered it all over the murder scene and in his car. When Truth, facts, and evidence cease to matter, human life has already been devalued.
TO: THE JURY FOREWOMANI saw you on television. You said that domestic violence had nothing to do with this case and should be tried separately. How can you, a woman, attempt to divorce domestic violence from its ultimate result? Are you aware of how many women who are abused and break free are stalked and murdered? Shame on you for ascribing the evidence of domestic violence (as recorded on tape) as irrelevant.
You said that the race card (which one of the defense team said was not only played but dealt from the bottom of the deck) had no effect on you, nor did the racist cop. Have you deceived yourself? Or are you just trying to sucker everyone else? Ask yourself this question. If the former wife and a friend had conspired to kill the defendant, and their blood was found at the murder scene and in her vehicle, would you have found them innocent of killing a Black man, even if a Black racist cop had testified? A White jury would have done so. How can the public believe race did not figure in, when the evidence was overwhelming and compelling? The first vote you took was 10-2, which indicates that the evidence did not matter to the vast majority of you. And you say that race did not play a part in the quick verdict? Pardon our skepticism.
Our jury system is designed to acquit someone if there is a reasonable doubt. What could possibly have annulled such a great preponderance of evidence? Think long and hard about this Scripture, Jury Forewoman: “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord” (Pr. 17:15). You justified the wicked.
TO: MARTIN LUTHER KING”I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but the content of their character.” How inspiring were your words, Dr. King. Your speech is still famous–because you were right. You helped afflict and prick the national conscience. Far too many Whites were prejudiced against Blacks, and some still are. But many in positions of prominence have helped Blacks achieve the opportunities and equality they should have already had.
But, Dr. King, your dream has not yet been realized. Blacks are still being judged by the color of their skin and not their character–only not in the way you envisioned. At least three trials have occurred in this nation in which it was proven that a Black defendant was guilty of murder. In one case there were eyewitnesses who testified of the crime. But in all three cases the Black defendant was acquitted by a predominantly Black jury–because he was Black. Each man was judged by the color of his skin.
No doubt, such actions would grieve you since it violates the basic principles of the things you fought for. You would have been ashamed of the students at Howard University who exploded out of their chairs, leaping and shouting, when the latest Black man was pronounced, “Not Guilty.” White law students became discouraged; after all, what purpose does law serve, if despite the evidence, the verdict will be based on skin color?
Dr. King, many Whites have been fighting against racism for years, and no doubt they will continue to do so. Racism can be taught in two ways: by bigoted parents and friends, or by the actions of the majority of a race. Only one in five Blacks subjected themselves to the voice of the evidence. The other 79% are contributing to racism by being racists.
TO: THE EDITORIAL CARTOONISTSPlease draw a cartoon with a Black lady justice. Have her hold the scales of justice with one hand, and with the other have her lifting up her blindfold to peek at the color of the defendant. The caption should read, “This man cannot be convicted; he’s a bro.” No, I don’t expect any newspaper to run it because they don’t want to be accused of being racists. But perhaps there may be one that will publish the truth no matter who is offended by it. Paul once agreed that “Cretans are always liars,evil beasts, lazy gluttons” (although maybe the actual number was only 79%–Titus 1:12-13).
TO: RUSH LIMBAUGH OR WLSIt’s time that something was done to improve Justice before I am buried. You guys always have such humorous songs which make sharp points that I thought you might want to try your hand at the tune, “California Girls”–only change the title and words just a little bit. Following are a few suggestions for you to think about.
CALIFORNIA JURIES
Now, East coast juries are strict;
They listen to evidence and convict.
Just ask Susan Smith,
Whose trial was so swift,
And whose one complaint was this:
I wish I could have had a California,
Wish I could have had California,
I wish I could have had a California jury.
Now Midwesterner Jeffrey Dahmer
Did things that made him a goner.
But if he’d lived in L. A.,
He’d be a free man today,
And he’d most likely say:
I’m glad that I could have a California,
Glad that I could have California,
I’m glad that I could have a California jury.
Now, if you want to murder people,
Do it where life is cheap.
“Hire the best,” all concur,
Big Fee Bailey or Johnny Cocklebur,
And get the “not guilty” verdict.
You’ll wish that you could have a California,
Wish that you had California,
You’ll wish that you could have a California jury.
Yes, everyone says,
including the brothers Menendez:
I wish they all could be California,
Wish they all could be California,
I wish they all could be California juries.
“Breaking Ground Together,” the latest pro-homosexual propaganda piece to appear in The Dallas Morning News (September 20, 1995), confirmed once again the elitist philosophy toward Christianity and the practice of unnatural sexual relations: columnists such as Colleen O’Connor are not biased; editors and publishers of newspapers are not biased; the entertainment media are not biased; and homosexuals are definitely not biased–only Christians are biased.
Yes, the article lauds the wonderful relationship of two lesbian women, Deb Price and Joyce Murdoch, and their incredibly marvelous journey toward sainthood, impeded only by those nasty batches of hate mail from people who are still narrow-minded and bigoted enough to disagree with their “lifestyle.” The tone of the column is so syrupy it’s a wonder that the pages of the newspaper didn’t stick together.
Deb Price writes America’s first “gay” column, which is already syndicated in 40 newspapers (1C). Furthermore, she has just published a book (and gone on tour) about her relationship with her “friend” and her publishing adventures. Needless to say, she feels no compulsion to defend homosexuality, and no one (least of all, those publishing The Dallas Morning News) could accuse her of being tainted with prejudice. After all, lesbians couldn’t be biased, could they? Consider her accusing words.
“I was not unlike any other gay person in this country, who could feel this wrath, this hostility, of people using the Bible to try to justify their anti-gay bigotry” (1C).
Ms. Price may be unaware that the Bible teaches the same thing it does now that it did hundreds of years before she was born. Passages discussing homosexuality were not inserted during the past twenty years just to make her feel uncomfortable. Furthermore, theologians, commentators, and anyone who could just plain read have understood what the Bible teaches on this subject. It is a matter of TRUTH, not bigotry. Normality seldom needs a defense; aberrations do.
The sugary columnist reports on Price’s challenge to the Scriptures: “She read 19 books before she wrote the column called ‘Biblical Verses Are Used As Crutches to Prop Up Biases'” (1C). Say, is that impressive?! So, what were they: Heather Has Two Mommies and Gloria Goes to Gay Pride? Okay, that’s cruel, but in the absence of a list, one does wonder. Was one of them the Bible? Or were they all pro-homosexual tripe such as The Lord Is My Shepherd, and He Knows I’m Gay? Whatever she read was not by any legitimate Bible scholar, because none of them would try to justify the sin of homosexuality–even if they were guilty of it themselves.
WHO NEEDS THE CRUTCHES?Now who really needs to prop up a prejudice: Bible believers or homosexuals? Let’s see how ambiguous the Scriptures are. “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them” (Lev. 20:13). Is it unclear that this description refers to two men having sex with one another? Is the word abomination too tough to grasp? Perhaps the sentence, “They shall surely be put to death” is a bit murky. Even someone with a Masters’ degree in English literature from Stanford (1C) should be able to understand that–Donne and Shakespeare are generally more difficult.
Well, but that was in the Old Testament. True. God hasn’t destroyed a Sodom-type city lately (Genesis 19), and He does not require the death penalty for homosexuals under the New Testament. But it remains a sin. Paul calls the unlawful sexual act (for both men and women) “a vile passion,” “against nature,” (Rom. 1:26), “shameful” (Rom. 1:27), and the product of “a debased mind” (Rom. 1:28). Does Ms. Price think these are synonyms for “lovely,” “natural,” and “sensitive”?
The only way to look at the Bible and conclude that it supports homosexuality is to be willing to pervert the Scriptures as much as the sexual act which God designed for a man and a woman. To twist verses and passages of Scripture in a vain attempt to justify one’s behavior is to fall under the condemnation of Isaiah 5:20–“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil; who put darkness for light and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”
Unfortunately, the newspaper column does not say how Ms. Price attempts to rationalize her unnatural love–except for one paragraph. “She analyzed American history to see how Bible verses were once used to justify slavery and anti-suffragist actions, just as they are now used by some to condemn homosexuality” (6C). Without having read her column, we know that the examples are not parallel.
Some, in order to hold on to slaves, made desperate interpretations of the Bible to try to find support for their sinful actions. They had such an emotional commitment to their way of life, their economy, and their prejudice that they tried to find solace in The Book. But it was not there, just as it is not for homosexuals. Women have also been vilified with mishandled verses. But no serious student of the Word ever gave credence to such outlandish ideas based on cultural prejudice.
No one is “misinterpreting” what the Bible says to plague homosexuals. Christians want them to come to a knowledge of the truth and give up the ungodly practice as those in Corinth did (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Resistance to homosexuality is not based on bias, but TRUTH. Read what the Bible teaches on this subject–then decide who needs the crutches.
In the previous two weeks we have examined four arguments against drinking. They have involved: 1) the bitter fruits of alcohol, 2) abstaining from fellowshipping that which causes abundant miseries, 3) the effects of alcohol, and 4) guarding one’s influence. Interspersed with these categories have been the Scriptures and the oft-repeated question, “WHY DO IT?”
The reason more Scriptures have not been cited is that proponents of drinking within the church frequently point out that they agree with the Bible–they too condemn drunkenness; they only defend light or moderate drinking. It is for exactly that reason that the above question has been asked. What authority is there to drink, period? What purpose does it serve? What good does it accomplish? Since the answer is, “Nothing,” a Christian ought to remove himself as far away from alcoholic beverages as possible.
“JESUS WAS A DRINKING MAN”The above statement was made in a sermon by a social drinker in a congregation in southeast Kansas about twenty years ago. When the local preacher objected, the elders upheld the man who made the statement (a generous giver) and fired the preacher!!
Such a statement blasphemes our Lord and shows to what desperate lengths some will go to justify their sins. The passage of Scripture usually cited to support this erroneous notion is John 2:1-11, in which Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding feast. Many conclude (along with Ann Landers) that “wine is wine” (meaning that since wine is fermented today, it was also fermented back then). In fact, some of our commentators have come to the same conclusion. Such an assertion can only be made in ignorance (believe me, that was the kindest way I could think of to say it; the other choices sounded much worse).
The fact is that a number of words are translated wine in the Bible. Some refer specifically to the fruit of the vine, some obviously refer to the fermented state, and some are just generic words (such as oinos), in which the context must decide the intoxicating power of the beverage. Would Jesus turn water into a dangerously potent brew after the guests had already sated themselves? “Man, I got bombed last week in Cana of Galilee, and I owe it all to a man called Jesus.” Would Jesus violate every principle He taught about self-control to help these people get drunk? How absurd! “But it was described as the best wine.” Such could hardly refer to the highest potency (which some affirm) since that would not be immediately known; rather, the flavor is being complemented.
ALL WINE IN THOSE DAYS WAS FERMENTED WINEEvery Christian should be in possession of two facts: 1) Ancient civilizations knew at least four ways to keep wine from fermenting. Books that deal with this subject are The Bible, The Saint, and The Liquor Industry by Jim McGuiggan, The Bible and “Social” Drinking by W. D. Jeffcoat, and Bible Wines by William Patton; and 2) The alcoholic content in today’s wines is much higher than occurs by natural fermentation. Any wine with an alcohol level higher than 12% has been fortified to make it stronger.
“FOR MEDICINAL PURPOSES”Paul told Timothy to “take a little wine for his stomach’s sake.” But why did Paul have to command him to do so? For some reason, Timothy had made it a habit not to drink wine. Didn’t he like its taste? Was he trying to avoid the charge of being a drunkard? After all, Jesus had drunk wine and was accused of such (though untrue). Was it just safer to avoid intoxication by drinking something else? No matter what the answer, Paul’s admonition to drink wine revolved around relief for his stomach; it in no wise authorizes social drinking for recreational purposes today.
“But my doctor told me it would help my heart.” Some do, but they ought not. Rod Rutherford, in Major Lessons from the Major Prophets (the third POWER Lectureship book) writes: “However, a panel of doctors including Dr. William P. Castelli of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, state that the risk of drinking alcohol is too great to ever justify recommending it to anyone” (440). Brother Rutherford goes on to say that the ingredient beneficial to the heart (resveratrol) is more abundant in grape juice than in fermented wine. Grape juice is also somewhat less addictive.
“THE BIBLE DOESN’T SAY NOT TO DRINK AT ALL”Consider Vine on Eph. 5:18 and the verb methusko : It “signifies to make drunk, or to grow drunk (an inceptive verb, marking the process of the state expressed in No. 1), to become intoxicated” (Vine 341, Rutherford in Major Lessons of the Major Prophets 441). Becoming drunk is a process: if it is never begun; it can never be completed.
If, after all that has been presented, a person insists upon drinking; then it is obvious that his mind was made up from the beginning–and why. After Samuel gave numerous reasons for the nation of Israel not to have a king, they said, “Nay, but we will have a king over us; that we also may be like all the nations…” (1 Samuel 8:10-20). Today, people consider what the Bible teaches and reject it, saying, “No but we will have musical instruments; we will be homosexuals; we will remain married; we will drink.” “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Pr. 14:12).
The leading cause of death for those between the ages of sixteen and twenty is the traffic crash (the word accident is purposely not used). This age group comprises only 6.7% of the total driving population (for 1993), but they were 13.5% of the drivers involved in fatal crashes. These young people (twice as many males as females) did not need to die; 1,081 of them were legally drunk. [These statistics appeared in the Ann Landers column of August 25, 1995.]
The above information is only one of the fruits of alcohol that were discussed in last week’s article. Of course, it’s illegal for those under twenty-one to have alcoholic beverages just as it is illegal to drink and drive, but nearly anyone at any age can find access to this dangerous drug. So far, we have cited two arguments for a Christian to have absolutely no fellowship with this unfruitful work of darkness, but there’s more.
EFFECTSHow does alcohol affect the body? Alcohol is absorbed from the stomach into the blood stream; from there various organs absorb it: the brain, liver, kidney, etc. It depresses one’s ability to think, thus swiftly impairing good judgment and self-restraint. Obviously, the more a person drinks, the less control he has–both of his mind and his body. Dulled senses mean a longer reaction time when driving a vehicle. Nobody sets out to be a drunk driver with a fervent wish to kill someone. Undoubtedly, most people feel that they are rational and in control when the blood alcohol level is only .1 or slightly higher. The statistics involving fatalities (cited above) prove otherwise. [This information may be found in Willard Alls’ book What the Christian Should Know About Alcohol and Alcoholism, pages 26-27.]
The second pernicious effect of alcohol is that it destroys brain cells. A number of studies have now confirmed that even in small amounts, ethyl alcohol destroys cells in the human brain, which can never be replaced. Anyone who has imbibed over the years should not panic. It’s not as though a person only has ten brain cells, and each binge destroys one of the ten. God did marvelous work in creating the human body. But what kind of attitude is it to say, “Well, I have millions of brain cells; I’ll risk a few thousand now and then”? Not only is the brain affected; so are other organs. Shall we take the body that God has created for us and systematically destroy it?
More than anyone else, the Christian needs to think, reason, and evaluate properly (Isaiah 1:18, 1 Kings 13, 1 Thess, 5:21-22). Shall we be prepared or impaired?
INFLUENCE”But we only drink a little wine with our meals once a week. How could such a harmless custom hurt anyone?” Granted that such an individual will not be out on the high-ways killing or maiming someone, and only a minimal amount of brain cells will be sacrificed. But there are three questions that the one who uses this argument needs to be able to answer.
1. Why do it even then? Why open the door even a crack?
2. Can you guarantee that no one within this intimate circle of family and friends will ever degenerate into an alcoholic?
3. Can you guarantee that no other brother or sister who knows of such habits will ever be emboldened to begin drinking by your example–with possible harmful results?
Brethren, we do not live in a vacuum. We contact many people in the course of a week, and most of them will form a quick opinion of us just as we do them. How does the weekly sip of wine reach the dinner table? Does it come from one’s own private vineyard? It doesn’t just pop into existence. Doesn’t someone have to go to a grocery store or a liquor store to obtain it? If a friend provides it, he knows what its purpose is. If a store delivers it, somebody knows.
And what will those who know think? Even if they are told, “We just have an occasional sip with dinner,” their reaction will likely be, “Right!” What they know as factual information is that: 1) This person is a Christian; and 2) This person drinks alcoholic beverages. They will inescapably conclude without respect to quantities consumed that it is all right for Christians to drink. Is it worth the weekly sip to prompt a sinner to think of a Christian as a hypocrite or cause a brother to stumble?
A businessman tried to convince a preacher that social drinking enhanced his influence rather than destroyed it. The man of God challenged him to initiate a religious discussion with a drinking buddy at the next opportunity. Eager to prove his point, he said to an associate, “Bill, in all the time we have known each other, we have never talked about important spiritual concerns.” His theory was quickly deflated when his friend laughed and said, “Why you’re just as big a sinner as I am.” Sobering thoughts?
What if an ex-alcoholic were converted (but through the influence of a Christian who regarded small amounts of consumption to be innocuous) went “off the wagon”? Would one’s perceived liberty be worth a brother’s soul (1 Cor. 8)? Since drinking alcoholic beverages is a matter of choice, and since there is no compelling reason to do so, and since all kinds of harm can result from it, WHY DO IT?!!
One subject that perennially perplexes some members of the church is the drinking of alcoholic beverages. Not infrequently the question is asked, “Is it wrong just to take a drink now and then?” The answer is an unequivocal, “YES!” This series of articles will explore the reasons why most preachers discourage the use of beverage alcohol to any degree; objections to this position will also be considered.
THE FRUITS OF ALCOHOLWhen Jesus said, “Therefore by their fruits you will know them,” He was referring to false prophets who had the appearance of piety (“they come to you in sheep’s clothing”) which covered their true character (“inwardly they are ravening wolves”). In other words, in order to act responsibly one must do more than listen to their words; he must see what kind of fruit they bear (Matt. 7:15-20).
Figuratively speaking, alcohol promises much: it bespeaks good times, gusto, and serene moments in which life “doesn’t get any better than this.” But is the picture of good friends relaxing, sighing, and mellowing out a fair one? Are its fruits as good as the advertisements claim? Even in the days of Solomon 3,000 years ago, the alcoholic beverage was unable to make good on its promises.
“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. Your eyes will see strange things, and your heart will utter perverse things” (Pr. 23:31-33). The drinker also has woe, sorrow, contentions, complaints, and wounds without cause (Pr. 23:28). In other words, the product cannot make good on its advertisement. It can not deliver what it promises.
What it does deliver is tragedy and misery. For decades alcohol has been involved in 50% of all automobile accidents. Young people have been so affected by its use that each state has raised the minimum drinking age to 21. Alcohol is so harmful and addictive that groups like MADD, SADD,AA, and others are known by nearly everyone.
Other fruits of the drug include its role in domestic violence (battered wives and children will attest to this fact), its link to mental illness, and its relationship to suicide. [Anyone who doubts the truthfulness of any of these statements owes it to him- self to spend an afternoon in the library looking up the statistics.] Millions of dollars are lost in the workplace due to absenteeism caused by alcohol; much more could be said.
In light of all these facts, why would anyone even ask if it is all right to have just one drink? Do we think that the nation’s ten million alcoholics all started out with that goal in mind? Imagine someone saying, “Yes, I’m just going to have one glass of wine with my meal tonight, but by next week I plan to be chugalugging sixpacks of beer”!! Who (in his right mind) would set as a goal spending his paycheck buying rounds for the guys, beating his wife and kids, losing his job, and wrecking his health? The problem is that alcohol takes one out of his right mind. The first thing it does is impair one’s judgment. The last thing it does is kill, which is well attested by the sad demise of the late Mickey Mantle. Don’t misunderstand; Mantle was a great hero, but perhaps never more so than when he tearfully acknowledged that God had blessed him with a marvelously healthy body, and he allowed alcohol to ruin it.
THE REAL PRODUCT: MISERYIf the makers of alcoholic beverages had to depend on the average American having one drink a week, they would all probably declare bankruptcy within a few weeks. Their livelihood depends on those who drink considerably more quantities. In other words, if it were not for alcoholics and heavy drinkers, they would not stay in business. Hypocritically, they sometimes spend money on commercials to encourage people to drink “responsibly”; but they know that the lighter the indulgence, the lesser their profits. Why else would they spend millions of advertising dollars each year? They need more customers (to replace the alcoholics who have died, committed suicide, or been killed in alcohol-related accidents); they need customers who will escalate their drinking habits. Why would anyone, especially a Christian, want to support such an “industry” which feeds off of innocent victims’ (of drinkers) degradation, humiliation, and misery?
Can anyone really convince himself that these companies do not know the results of their products? They employ analysts and statisticians. They will someday reap the results of their actions. Buying their products only encourages them and adds to their guilt. Thinking about the lives that have been ruined should bring about sober reflection on our part. Let us have no fellowship in this unfruitful work of darkness (Eph. 5:11). Listed as works of the flesh are “drunkenness” and “revelries” (Gal. 5:19-21). Prior to becoming Christians, many “walked in licentiousness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties…” (1 Peter 4:3), but now we have given such sins up.
All young people want to know, “What’s so bad about drinking?” Hopefully, the above considerations will prove helpful. Beverage alcohol is productive of all the evils herein described–and more. Looking at it from another perspective, how much good does it do? List all of the good, positive benefits that have come about because of it. No, its medical use does not count because the subject is beverage alcohol–that which is used merely for recreation. It’s an evil companion that will corrupt good morals (1 Cor. 15:33) and an evil tree bearing treacherous fruit. Are you deceived by it (Pr. 20:1)?
This final article on the first two nights of the recent debate in San Antonio will deal with the two opposing views of the sufficiency of the Word of God. The man representing the Catholic Church, Michael Luther, charged that the Bible is neither complete nor sufficient for mankind today. His contention was that although the Bible is the Word of God, it is not complete. God left various portions to be revealed over the centuries (presumably on a need-to-know basis). What this view amounts to is that we need the Bible plus the infallible interpretation of the pope.
There are actually several “Bible plus” views. The Mormons must also believe the Bible is incomplete–because they have extra books that (in their eyes) stand equivalent to the inspired Scriptures: The Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price, etc. Catholics teach that the church was built on Peter (Matt. 16:18); the Mormons claim that the rock in this verse is continuous revelation. They are both wrong; the rock is the deity of Jesus, which Peter had just confessed. “For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11).
Christian Scientists give allegiance to the writings of Mary Baker Patterson Glover Eddy; Seventh Day Adventists listen closely to Ellen G. White. Jehovah’s Witnesses are more loyal to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society than the Bible, although they may say they regard the latter more highly than the former. And then there are the Pentecostals (or charismatics) who claim to continue to receive revelations from God. In fact, some of them are so arrogant that they have been known to turn up their noses at those not claiming miraculous gifts, saying, How can you know what the Scriptures mean? You don’t even have the Holy Spirit. Well, why don’t you who are tapped in to The Source write down the new Scriptures so that we can all examine them? The problem for such people is that whatever they say will either agree with what God has already revealed (in which case it is not new), or it will disagree with the Bible (in which case it is wrong).
The problem with all of these religious groups who seem to need more than what the Bible reveals is that they have neglected what the New Testament teaches about revelation and completeness. Relevant passages will be discussed below.
What The New Testament Says About ItselfBrother Conley set forth marvelously well what the Bible has to say about itself. In addition to other Scriptures, the following were cited. Luke says that he wrote of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach (Acts 1:1). Mr. Luther could not quite comprehend the meaning of such verses. His contention is that the apostles had all things revealed to them, but that they did not record all of it (Mark 4:34). He averred that the parable of the mustard seed (Mark 4:30-31) was never explained in the Scriptures. “What does he not understand about it?” one wonders. Do we really need an infallible interpreter to understand this parable?
His point was that God omitted explanations for certain things and purposefully did not reveal all there was to know–so that we would learn the valuable lesson about not going by Scripture alone. Yes, according to his system of theology God wants us to depend upon continuous revelation (not to mention the one revealing it) and official interpretation. But can he believe his own doctrine? In a preliminary letter arranging this debate this disputant expressed confidence that Luke 21:15 would apply to him during the course of the debate: “For I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to contradict or resist.” Then why did he write out and read his opening speech each evening, and why was he stuttering so much when trying to speak extemporaneously during the second speech of the second night? [Calling this to attention is not an attempt at sarcasm or cruelty, but it must be noted because it contradicts his position.]
The fact is, however, that Luke said he revealed the substance of all that Jesus taught (Acts 1:1). Certainly, we do not have every word of every sermon that Jesus taught, but we have every principle that God wants us to know. Consider the following verses.
“Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret since the world began but has now been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures has been made known to all nations. . .” (Rom16:25-26).
“How that by revelation he made known to me the mystery (as I wrote before in a few words, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by His Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets” (Eph. 3:3-5). The mystery that was not understood has now been explained.
“As His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness. . .”(2 Peter 1:3). All things? All. What a strange thing for a pope (alleged by Mr. Luther) to say. The us who received these things in verse three is the same us who were called in verse three and who received exceeding great and precious promises in verse four. Peter is not saying that just he and the apostles received all things that pertain to life and godliness: we all have.
“Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). “The faith” embodies the complete Christian system, the entire body of New Testament doctrine. It was once for all delivered. In the Old Testament God gave a prophecy (as part of the Law) that there would be another lawgiver, to whom all Israel was bound to hearken (Deut. 18:15-19). The prophets even spoke of the new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34).
But the New Testament foretells no new law, covenant, or revelation. Once it was completed, inspiration ceased (1 Cor. 13). Not only is no new revelation expected, but all that we need to please God has been revealed once for all. If additional revelations had been needed through the centuries, then Jude 3 and 2 Peter 1:3 would be both incomplete and false. False, however, are those who hold such a view. The Scriptures are true and complete; they are all we need for salvation and correct worship
The above title may not be the official one for the discussion held August 14th-15th in San Antonio. Since brother Conley went on to debate Robert M. Narvaez on August 16th-17th, who knows what the entire procedure will be called? Both opponents are part of a group called Catholic Response, which aggressively defends the Roman Catholic Church. This article will deal only with the first two nights of the debate (since that’s all I was present for).
The focal point in the discussion centered around authority. This issue of authority, how it is properly derived, and how it should be applied is absolutely crucial to correct worship, doctrine, and holy living. There are two main ways to view the subject. Following is a brief description of how it entered the discussion.
The proposition which brother Conley affirmed the first evening was: “The church of which I am a member is the one true church of Christ in which alone is to be found salvation (and which recognizes the Bible as the only authority in faith and practice).” The first overhead chart he used was a quotation from “;Catholic Facts,” Our Sunday Visitor, published in 1927, which read: “If it is not identical in belief, government, and etc. with the primitive church, then it is not the church of Christ.”
Next, he proceeded to show briefly that we are identical with respect to belief (in obeying the gospel) and in government (elders and deacons, autonomy). In his second speech he used a chart showing that the Roman Catholic church is not synonymous with the first century church because they have added a multitude of things, among which were: acolytes, cardinals, popes, nuncios,beads, images, relics, incense, sprinkling, sacraments, the rosary, shrines, crusades, penance, candles, praying to Mary, Lent, ashes, Mass, celibacy, and more. This point is clear to most of us. The Bible does not mention these matters; therefore they are unauthorized (Col. 3:17).
What would Mr. Luther say in defense of having added all those things which were not part of the worship and doctrine of the New Testament? Like his namesake, he said: “THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY that there could not be a pope. The Bible does NOT say that you can not pray to Mary or to dead saints. Who says that infants can not be baptized? THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY IT! Who says the church can not sprinkle as baptism? Who says the church could not be centered in Rome? The Bible does NOT say any of these things. If the Bible does not prohibit it, then we are free to do it.” Are you listening, brethren? This is not a minor point; it is the crux of the matter. Does it remind you of, “The Bible doesn’t say you can’t use mechanical instruments of music”?
In reality, there are only two alternatives: either we need New Testament authorization for what we teach and practice (whether explicit or implicit); or we may feel free to do whatever the New Testament does not specifically forbid. The problem of using mechanical instruments of music has never been the issue ; correctly understanding Biblical authority is the issue. If the demand is made for a specific repudiation of every wild, fanciful idea someone may invent in religion, then everything will be permitted.
“Moses Spoke Nothing”In the first speech of the second evening brother Conley made the point: “What is not taught explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures is implicitly forbidden.” He then illustrated the point with Heb. 7:14–“For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.” The verse applies to the above statement in the following way. God appointed Levites as priests. Implicitly, His appointing members of one tribe excluded men from the other tribes from being priests. Jesus was from the tribe of Judah. He could not be a priest. Why not? Jesus could not be a priest because God had spoken nothing concerning men from Judah being priests. HE DID NOT AUTHORIZE ANYONE FROM ANY OTHER TRIBE TO BE A PRIEST!
But Jesus is a priest, you say. Yes, but for Him to become one, God had to change the law (Heb. 7:12). Jesus could not be a priest under the Law of Moses; it would have violated God’s principles of authority for Him to have made an exception–even for His own beloved Son! Therefore, He changed the law, and Jesus is now a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 7:17). This principle of authority is not something that man dreamed up so that he could amuse himself with entertaining philosophical games, nor was it invented by the restorers of the early nineteenth century: it is God’s own system.
Luther missed the point entirely, saying that David prophesied that Jesus would be after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4); therefore, it was foretold. The reason for citing Heb. 7:14 had nothing to do with whether or not Jesus’ priesthood was foretold (which it was); it was to show how God authorizes. If a doctrine is not taught explicitly (command, direct statement) or implicitly (example, implication), then the practice is implicitly (indirectly, not directly by a “Thou shalt not”) forbidden. In other words, we are responsible for reasoning correctly (drawing the proper conclusions) with the Scriptures.
The question is not, “Where does the Bible say, don’t do it?”; rather, it is, “Where does God authorize it?” The New Testament does not authorize either explicitly or implicitly the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship or any other addition the Catholic Church has incorporated over the centuries. All of the innovations stand or fall together. No one can rightly adopt one out of the group without being stuck with the entire family. The principle taught by Heb. 7:14 is both Divine and (therefore) valid.
