The First Miracle of Jesus – Turning Water into Wine by Ben fronczek

http://granvillenychurchofchrist.org/?p=1144

The First Miracle of Jesus – Turning Water into Wine

The First Miracle of Jesus – Turning Water into Wine                      

John 2:1-11  “On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, 2 and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”

4 “Woman,why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”

5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

6 Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.

7 Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim.

8 Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.”

They did so, 9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10 and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”

11 What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.”

There are all kind of unexpected things that have happened at weddings. Some good, some funny, and sometimes things that are not either good or funny. For examples: Many years ago I was the best man at in a friend’s wedding. As most of you know, one responsibility of the Best man is to provide the wedding rings at the appropriate time when the minister asks for them. Prior to the service I place the rings in the right hand pocket of my tux. When the minister asked for the rings reached down into the pocket and found that they were no longer there. The rings were gone. In front of the crowded church I dug and searched in total shock and embarrassment. After what seemed like a long, awkward, and humiliating search my friend’s sister reached from behind and gave us her ring to use in the ceremony. Little did I know that there was a small tear in the pocket and the rings slipped down into the lining of my jacket and I found them shortly after the service.

Here are some others things I found that happened at other’s weddings:

●I read where the bride and groom’s head table collapsed and knocked over all of the drinks and food during the reception.

●At one wedding the groom pass out.
●At another the best man started crying and couldn’t stop.

●At another wedding the Mom’s stands by a candelabra at the alter and catches her hair on fire.
●At one wedding, when lighting the unity candle, the brides veil caught fire.
●At still another, the little flower girl screamed the whole way up the aisle.
●At another the bride tripped on her dress and falls flat.
●At another wedding the mother of the bride shouted out orders…from her walk down the aisle and her seat.
●At another wedding the officiate was drunk…

In our text today we read that Jesus had been invited to a wedding in Cana. During this time their weddings lasted up to 7 days. I am sure if the mishaps  were all recorded they also had their share of bloopers. In today’s story we read of how one such mishap was prevented with Jesus’ help.

Of the 4 Gospel writers John was the only one who recognized the significance of recording this wonderful story. He makes mention that this was the 1st miraculous sign that Jesus performed. I believe that there is more to learn from this story than Jesus simply revealing His power and glory.

 And so today I would like to mention a few lessons I see here in this text.

Read: 2:1-3   So Jesus, after having been invited to this wedding, is there with his mother and some of His disciples. In verse 3, we read that they ran out of wine. So I ask, ‘what’s the big deal?’                                                                           

In a small village such as Cana, a wedding would have been a community celebration.  It is said, “To fail to provide adequately for the guests would involve social disgrace. In the closely knit communities of Jesus’ day, such an error would never be forgotten and would haunt the newly married couple all their lives.” (Tenney)

The loss would not only have brought shame and social disgrace,  but also financial loss since grooms had a legal responsibility in that culture to provide a suitable feast for their guests.”

It also would have just destroyed their reputation and that was no way to start their new lives off as husband and wife.

And so we see Mary going Jesus and she lets Him know that they were out of wine. After reading this I asked myself, “Why did Mary do this? Why did she go to Jesus with this problem?” And I believe this leads us to our first lesson:

#1. Mary knew what kind of heart her Son had; that He was a caring and compassionate man. Over the years living with Him she saw how big a heart He had. As a boy she saw how generous and helpful He was.  Maybe He was the one going around and helping the other kids when they needed help. Maybe she saw how He helped the old people around their neighborhood.

She knew in her heart Jesus would try to help this couple. Later we see how much compassion Jesus had for each and every one of us when He went to the cross. We sing, “Why did the Savior come to earth and to the humble go? Why on that cross be lifted up – because HE loved me so.”

Let there be no mistake about it; no one loves you as much as Jesus, and He showed us that by stretching out His hands and feet on that cross where he allowed Himself to be nailed to it so that He could save us from ours sin.

But just like Jesus loved us and was willing to die for us, He also wants us to love one another, and make sacrifices for one another, out of our love. He is not asking any more of you and me than what He himself gave.

#2. She knew her son. He was not only generous and compassionated, He was also the most dependable person she ever met and knew He could get things done when a need came up. She probably depended upon Him for many years to do so many things and He probably never failed her ever.

Mary knew how dependable Jesus was and knew that somehow He could fix the problem. As far as being dependable goes; I wish all were as dependable as Jesus. When it comes right down to it, I have found that there are not too many people that we can truly depend on, especially when it comes to getting things done. Companies struggle to get employees that are dependable, who they can trust to get things done. We ask our spouse or family members to do something for us over and over, and eventually we give up or do it our self. And how many times have we been hurt or disappointed by friends or even church members because they talked about something that was said in confidence, or we wanted to depend on them for help, but were let down.

Mary probably had no idea what Jesus was going to do, but she trusted Him and had confidence in His ability. She even instructed the servant to do whatever He said. And after doing so she probably left Him in a peaceful state knowing that just like so many other times before, when you turn your problem over to Jesus He will help you through the situation.

I hope that you make it a goal to be trust worthy and dependable. And when you are in a difficult situation and don’t know what to do, like Mary learn to give it to Jesus, who is not only compassionate, He is able to help us.

 #3. As for the third lesson I see in this text: Jesus can take something which is very common and turn it into something extraordinary. We read that Jesus told the servants to fill the 6 stone jars there with water. They fill the jars to their brim and then Jesus instructs one of them to draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet. After doing so the master of the banquet was delighted and complements the bridegroom for the very, very high quality of wine that was now made available for the guests.

A couple of things are seen here: This shows that Jesus had the same power to create that God demonstrated in creation. In John chapter 1:3 he wrote that “Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made.”  And just like when He made everything in the beginning and said that it was good, here, by the same power, Jesus produced the best as He always did when He creates. That must have been REAL good wine!

But what I find especially interesting, is the fact that He transforms something which is very common (water – very possibly with some impurities or bacteria) into some extraordinary (the best wine ever).

Jesus is so good at transforming things from one condition into another. Look at what do does when He touches our lives:  Fisherman and tax collectors, and even someone who persecuted Christians, became Godly men and apostles; great servants of the faith. Prostitutes, adulterers, slaves, prisoners, jailors, freemen and scoundrels of all kinds have been transformed by the touch of Jesus. (like turning polluted water into fine wine)

When the water of our life submits to Jesus, then even the worst circumstances in life can become rich and meaningful, and have value. It doesn’t matter how bad you lived, Jesus can re-create you!

#4. And lesson 4, the jars held between 20 and 30 gallon which represented about 120-180 gallon of wine; probably about 2400 servings. This wine was most likely fermented grape juice, possible diluted with a little water. This kind of wine was something that normally took much time to produce and ferment. To the Jew and others in this part of the world during, wine was symbolic of joy. “Many students of this passage have identified the wine as symbolic of the joy that Messiah brings. (Blum)

Some even go as far as seeing this as an example of Jesus going above and beyond so that we may be filled with joy because of His love for us. What He did brought joy to those people. And what did, and continues to do is meant to bring joy to us.

This miracle portrays not only the joy Christ brings into a person’s life but also the abundance of joy. . . .for the Christian there is a new life in Christ. The old is passed away and there is a whole new life and perspective in and because of Christ Jesus.  In 2 Corinthians 5:17 Paul wrote, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!”

So in Conclusion:  Jesus is trustworthy, and dependable. Trust Him, depend on Him in times of trouble and doubt. When Mary turned the problem over to Jesus, I would image it put her heart at ease. He can do the same for you.

Remember how much Jesus cares for you. And remember how he can take that which is ordinary (you & me) and make us into something extraordinary.

And last of all, remember that Jesus wants you to be happy, and full of joy. He said, “I came that you may have life, and life to the full.”  Seize that joyful life! Everyday get up and thank Jesus for what He has done for you and what He has blessed you with…and choose to enjoy what you have and be happy.

Blessed Are the Faithful by Alfred Shannon Jr.

https://biblicalproof.wordpress.com/2011/05/page/7/

Blessed Are the Faithful

Only a few will talk about the doctrine of Christ: Some for money, some for glory, and a few to save a soul. Some will write for it, fight for it, and even die for it. God is also looking for those who are willing to abide by it. Blessed are the faithful which endure till the end.

2 Cor 2:17; Prov 11:30; Mt 4:19; Philip 1:15-18; Jude 3; Jam 3:1; Philip 1:21; Rom 2:21,22; Rev 22:14; Rev 14:13; Rev 3:11; 1 Jn 2:17

Abiding in Him by Richard Mansel

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Mansel/Richard/Dale/1964/abiding.html

Abiding in Him

How will we be found when the Lord returns? The time of the Lord's return is a mystery. "Of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only" (Matthew 24:36). So, how should we be conducting ourselves?
John writes, "And now, little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming. If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him" (1 John 2:28-29).
Since Christ came and died for us and gave of Himself so freely (Galatians 2:20) we ought to spend ourselves for His kingdom. We should prepare ourselves and conduct our lives so we will not be ashamed when we stand before Him.
To be ashamed, as John writes, means to "grow pale, to change color from shame." We certainly do not want to be the ones ashamed on the Day of Judgment. Instead, sinners and 'Christians' who have scoffed at Christianity, justified drinking, fornication, false teachings, blasphemy and the like, will lose color and will strangle their laughs when they realize Christ is real and has come with a sword of vengeance (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9; Romans 1:28-32).
John writes that we must know God is righteous. He has all truth and has supplied us with sacred truths in Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
John also writes that we must be born of Him. Only in Him will we find salvation (John 3:3-5). Otherwise, we will be found with the sinners and will be lost forever (Matthew 25).
Finally, John writes that we should practice righteousness. We live for Him every day of our lives. Then because we are faithful to His cause we become filled with boldness. Proverbs 28:1 says, "The wicked flee when no one pursues, but the righteous are bold as a lion."
Boldness here involves speaking freely. People speak out concerning matters they are passionate about whether it be politics, hobbies or gossip. Since we have boldness and confidence, we can be busy in the practice of righteousness. A 'practicing attorney' is someone who is active in this profession. What are we doing to practice righteousness? Is it obvious to those among whom we circulate daily? If not, how can we be "lights to the world?" (Matthew 5:16).
Richard Mansel


Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

Deception by Gary Rose

The world we live in is constantly changing. To me, this is most evident when it comes to information. I remember, that as a young adult, I trusted the media. Generally, I believed what was on the three network channels and PBS as being the truth. Then, as time when on, something changed; it became more and more obvious that the “news” was becoming increasingly more slanted. Within the past decade or so, the “news” seems to have been replaced by propaganda. More than that, propaganda has been transformed into outright political attacks filled with hate.

The deception of all the media is apparent and both disheartening and alarming. Yet, deceit is not a new concept, only the medium is different.

Consider this passage from the book of Joshua...

Joshua 9 (World English Bible)

 ¹ When all the kings who were beyond the Jordan, in the hill country, and in the lowland, and on all the shore of the great sea in front of Lebanon, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite, heard of it  ² they gathered themselves together to fight with Joshua and with Israel, with one accord. ³ But when the inhabitants of Gibeon heard what Joshua had done to Jericho and to Ai,  ⁴ they also resorted to a ruse, and went and made as if they had been ambassadors, and took old sacks on their donkeys, and wine skins, old and torn and bound up,  ⁵ and old and patched shoes on their feet, and wore old garments. All the bread of their provision was dry and moldy.  ⁶ They went to Joshua to the camp at Gilgal, and said to him, and to the men of Israel, “We have come from a far country. Now therefore make a covenant with us.” 

  ⁷  The men of Israel said to the Hivites, “What if you live among us. How could we make a covenant with you?” 

  ⁸  They said to Joshua, “We are your servants.” 

Joshua said to them, “Who are you? Where do you come from?” 
  ⁹  They said to him, “Your servants have come from a very far country because of the name of Yahweh your God; for we have heard of his fame, all that he did in Egypt,  ¹⁰ and all that he did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon king of Heshbon and to Og king of Bashan, who was at Ashtaroth. ¹¹ Our elders and all the inhabitants of our country spoke to us, saying, ‘Take provision in your hand for the journey, and go to meet them, and tell them, “We are your servants. Now make a covenant with us.”’  ¹² This our bread we took hot for our provision out of our houses on the day we went out to go to you; but now, behold, it is dry, and has become moldy.  ¹³ These wine skins, which we filled, were new; and behold, they are torn. These our garments and our shoes have become old because of the very long journey.” 

  ¹⁴  The men sampled their provisions, and didn’t ask counsel from the mouth of Yahweh.  ¹⁵ Joshua made peace with them, and made a covenant with them, to let them live. The princes of the congregation swore to them.  ¹⁶ At the end of three days after they had made a covenant with them, they heard that they were their neighbors, and that they lived among them.  ¹⁷ The children of Israel traveled and came to their cities on the third day. Now their cities were Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kiriath Jearim.  ¹⁸ The children of Israel didn’t strike them, because the princes of the congregation had sworn to them by Yahweh, the God of Israel. All the congregation murmured against the princes.  ¹⁹ But all the princes said to all the congregation, “We have sworn to them by Yahweh, the God of Israel: now therefore we may not touch them.  ²⁰ This we will do to them, and let them live; lest wrath be on us, because of the oath which we swore to them.”  ²¹ The princes said to them, “Let them live, so they became wood cutters and drawers of water for all the congregation, as the princes had spoken to them.” 

  ²²  Joshua called for them, and he spoke to them, saying, “Why have you deceived us, saying, ‘We are very far from you,’ when you live among us?  ²³ Now therefore you are cursed, and some of you will never fail to be slaves, both wood cutters and drawers of water for the house of my God.” (emphasis added)

The Israelites were deceived and the influence of the deceivers harmed the chosen nation of Israel in many ways. If only they had consulted God, they could have avoided introducing a destructive ungodly influence into their society.

My advice is: pay close attention to what you are exposed to. Let your life be guided in a spiritual direction by God’s word and therefore- chose your sources wisely. Listen to what is being communicated “between the words” and especially the attitude of the author or commentator. Think: some things just do not stand up to scrutiny!

Some things are obvious, like Abraham Lincoln giving advise about the Internet (he died over 100 years before that medium of information was introduced) but others are less obvious.

Jesus gave his disciples some very good advice that still applies to us today:

Matthew 10 (WEB)

 ¹⁶  “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

Now, these are words worth listening to!!!

"THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY" The Work Of An Evangelist (4:5) by Mark Copeland

"THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY"

The Work Of An Evangelist (4:5)

INTRODUCTION

1. In our text (2Ti 4:5), we find Paul commanding Timothy...
   a. "do the work of an evangelist"
   b. "fulfill your ministry"
   -- Thus Timothy was to continue his service for the Lord as an
      evangelist

2. The word "evangelist" often conveys different ideas to people...
   a. Some envision an Elmer Gantry figure, an itinerant preacher who
      travels from place to place
   b. Others equate the word with pastor, expecting one to provide
      similar service

3. The function of an "evangelist" is a gift from Christ to His
   church...
   a. Given along with the functions of apostle, prophet, pastor,
      teacher - Ep 4:8,11
   b. Contributing to the equipping of the saints and edification of the
      body - Ep 4:12

[Such a 'gift' should be properly understood and appreciated.  Toward
that end, let's consider...]

I. THE DEFINITION OF AN EVANGELIST

   A. THE WORD DEFINED...
      1. The Greek word is euanggelistes
         a. Lit., a bringer of good tidings - ISBE
         b. A form of the word euanggelion, normally translated "gospel"
            (good news)
      2. As explained by Barnes in his commentary:
         a. "This word properly means one who announces good news."
         b. "In the NT it is a applied to a preacher of the gospel, or
            one who declares the glad tidings of salvation."
      3. It occurs in only three places in the NT
         a. In our text - 2Ti 4:5
         b. In the passage we noted earlier - Ep 4:11
         c. In the place where we are told that Philip was an evangelist
            - Ac 21:8
            1) He who preached Christ to the Samaritans - Ac 8:4-5,12
            2) He who preached Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch - Ac 8:35
      4. It is commonly equated with the term 'missionary', for
         evangelists often traveled
         a. Yet evangelists sometimes stayed in one place for extended
            periods
            1) Philip appears to have stayed in Caesarea about 20 years
               - cf. Ac 8:40; 21:8
            2) Timothy remained for some time at Ephesus - 1Ti 1:3
         b. Thus the word does not demand one be an itinerant preacher

   B. OTHER TERMS DESCRIBING THE EVANGELIST...
      1. Preacher (Grk., kerux) - cf. Ro 10:14-15
         a. "to be a herald; to publish, proclaim openly; used of the
            proclamation of the gospel and matters pertaining to it"
            - Thayer
         b. Used in the Scriptures to describe the work of:
            1) John the Baptist - Mt 3:1
            2) Jesus - Mt 4:17,23
            3) The apostles - Mt 10:7
            4) Philip the evangelist - Ac 8:5
            5) The apostle Paul - Ac 28:31; 2Ti 1:11
            6) Even Noah, a preacher of righteousness - cf. 2Pe 2:5
      2. Minister (Grk., diakonos) - cf. 1Th 3:2
         a. Translated variously as deacon, minister, servant
            1) It is not limited to preachers or evangelists
            2) It is used of other servants, such as deacons - cf. 1 Ti 3:8,12
         b. Yet is often used to describe those who preach and teach
            1) Paul - Ac 26:16; Ro 15:16; Col 1:23
            2) Epaphras - Col 1:7
            3) Timothy - 1Th 3:2; 1Ti 4:6
         c. The preacher is not the only minister of a church, for all
            Christians are truly ministers - cf. 1Pe 4:10

   C. TERMS NOT USED TO DESCRIBE THE EVANGELIST...
      1. Pastor
         a. Used of overseers (bishops) or elders (presbyters) 

              - Ep 4:11; cf. 1Pe 5:2; Ac 20:28
         b. In some cases an evangelist might also serve as a pastor,
            provided...
            1) He meets the qualifications required - 1Ti 3:1-7; Tit 1:
               5-9
            2) He serves with other pastors, for there was always a
               plurality of elders - Ac 20:17
            3) In which he is not the pastor, but only one of the
               pastors
      2. Reverend, Father
         a. Such terms were never used as titles in the Lord's church
         b. The use of such titles were condemned by Jesus - Mt 23:8-12

[The very definition of the word evangelist, along with other words
often used (preacher, minister), provides insight into the work of an
evangelist.  Yet let's take a closer at what is and what is not...]

II. THE WORK OF AN EVANGELIST

   A. WHAT IT IS...
      1. To preach the word of God - 2Ti 4:1-2
         a. Especially the gospel of Jesus Christ - cf. Ro 10:14-15
         b. As did Philip, the evangelist - Ac 8:5,35
      2. To instruct the brethren of their responsibilities - 1Ti 4:6
         a. In such matters as prayer, modesty, the role of women and
            men - cf. 1Ti 2:1-12
         b. In such matters as personal and family obligations, business
            duties - cf. Tit 2:1-10
         c. To reprove those that sin, even elders if need be - cf. 1 Ti  5:19-21
      3. To set in order things needed
         a. Encouraging the appointment of elders - Tit 1:5
         b. Training teachers, equipping the saints for ministry 

             - 2 Ti 2:2; cf. Ep 4:11-12
         c. Teaching against false teachers and false doctrine - 1Ti 1:
            3-4; Tit 1:10-11,13
      4. To set an example for the brethren
         a. In word, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity - 1 Ti 4:12
         b. A pattern of good works, in doctrine showing integrity,
            reverence - Tit 2:7
      5. To be devoted to the Word of God
         a. Giving attention to reading, exhortation and teaching - 1 Ti 4:13
         b. Being careful to handle the Word of God properly - 2Ti 2:15
      6. In contrast to the work of elders (i.e., pastors, bishops)...
         a. Elders are to take heed to themselves and to the flock of
            God - Ac 20:28
         b. Evangelists are to take heed to themselves and to the
            doctrine (teaching) - 1Ti 4:16
      -- This list adapted from The Early Church, Ferrell Jenkins,
         p.45-46

   B. WHAT IT IS NOT...
      1. To do the work of elders, deacons, or other members
         a. The evangelist is to do 'his' work
         b. He is not 'hired' to do the work of other members
      2. To be the 'official'...
         a. Visitor for the congregation
         b. Leader of prayer at public functions
         c. An evangelist is honored to do such, but the honor should
            not be reserved for him alone
      3. To be expected to take care of:
         a. All the benevolence; all the personal evangelism
         b. All problems that arise in the church; all physical chores
         c. Members have different functions; each should do their part
            - cf. Ro 12:4-8; Ep 4:16
      4. The evangelist is to teach and preach the Word, not to "run the
         church"
         a. He is not the leader, the elders are to be the spiritual
            overseers and leaders
         b. He encourages and guides through teaching the Word, but he
            is not the pastor
      -- This list also adapted from The Early Church, Ferrell Jenkins,
         p.46

CONCLUSION

1. The Lord has blessed His church with the role of evangelists...
   a. To proclaim the good news of salvation to the lost
   b. To preach the Word to Christians that they might grow in grace

2. Remember the principle established in Ac 6:1-4...
   a. Those devoted to the Word and prayer should not be distracted from
      their work
   b. Thus evangelists should encouraged and supported to do what is
      their responsibility
   c. They should not be hindered by responsibilities that properly
      belong to others

While all Christians are 'evangelists' in some measure (as they share
the good news of Christ with others), some are blessed by providence and
preparation to serve a special role as 'evangelists' in the Lord's
church.  May they be encouraged and supported to be faithful to their
gift, to do "The Work Of An Evangelist"...

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

 

Should the Pope Be Celibate? by Moisés Pinedo

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2602

Should the Pope Be Celibate?

by	Moisés Pinedo

One of the Catholic doctrines that is considered demonstrative of papal dedication to holiness is that of celibacy. For most professed Catholics, the idea of a married pope is blasphemous. In fact, from a Catholic perspective, the idea of a “papa pope” with a wife is unthinkable. But it is important to analyze the doctrine of papal celibacy to determine if it is biblical.

When we speak of “celibacy” in a religious sense, we are referring to the unmarried state of a person for ecclesiastical purposes. Addressing the subject of celibacy, a Catholic apologist states:

[T]he “sacerdotal celibacy” is not a “law” of obligatory character for all of the Church, but is better understood as an “ecclesiastical discipline” that emerged to fulfill the advice of the Apostle Paul and, above all, our Lord Jesus Christ (see Zavala, 2000, emp. added).

Through this declaration, we understand that celibacy is not considered a mandatory law but a “submission” to the advice of the apostle Paul and Jesus. But to what advice is this statement referring? The same apologist clarifies that it is referring to the apostle’s statement in 1 Corinthians 7:7 (“For I wish that all men were even as I myself”), and Jesus’ statement made in Matthew 19:11-12 (“There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it”).

Do these declarations provide any biblical authority for papal celibacy? Even celibacy supporters, when confronted with the biblical evidence, are forced to admit that celibacy is not a “law of obligatory character.” The truth is that Paul, stating optional advice due to the “present distress” (vs. 26), mentioned that it was better to remain single in order to give more attention to the “things of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:32-34). However, Paul mentioned that not everybody has the same gift from God. In fact, some had a gift “in this manner” (i.e., remaining unmarried; cf. 1 Corinthians 7:7), and others had a gift “in that manner” (i.e., to be married; cf. 1 Corinthians 7:7). Therefore, Paul, having declared, “But even if you do marry, you have not sinned” (1 Corinthians 7:28), concluded that whoever marries “does well,” and he that does not, during a time of distress, “does better” (1 Corinthians 7:38).

Jesus’ statement in Matthew 19:12 (“He who is able to accept it, let him accept it”) did not imply that the “incapacity” to accept celibacy was a sin. Paul agreed (1 Corinthians 7:28). Rather, Jesus implied that many lacked the “gift of abstinence,” so it would be better for them to marry and avoid fornication (1 Corinthians 7:9). The Bible does not obligate anyone to marry nor to remain single.

But if the choice is between “what is good” and “what is better” (in a time of distress; 1 Corinthians 7:38), Catholics may argue: “Why question the practice of celibacy in our religion?” The truth is that the problem is rooted, not in the personal choice of staying unmarried, but in God’s requirements for those who fill specific ecclesiastical roles. The Bible tells us that God constituted different ministries in the church (Ephesians 4:11). Every one of those ministries had (and has) its specific qualification requirements. For example, in the case of apostleship, the requirements included learning directly from Jesus and seeing Him after His resurrection (Acts 1:21-22). Even Paul saw the resurrected Lord while on his way to Damascus (Acts 9:3-5; 22:6-8). He learned the Gospel directly from the Lord (Galatians 1:11-12).

There are also biblical requirements concerning bishops. Since the pope is considered the “Universal Bishop,” it is expected that he “universally” fulfills the requisites for bishops. Let us, then, go to the Bible and see whether or not celibacy is a requirement for bishops.

The title “bishop” is equivalent to the title “elder” or “pastor.” These three terms refer to the same person in the same office (e.g., Acts 20:17,28; Titus 1:5,7; 1 Peter 5:1-2). In 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, we find the biblical requirements for bishops. Paul began his statement about the requirements for bishops with the following expression: “A bishop then must be...” (1 Timothy 3:2, emp. added). With these words, the apostle Paul implied that a bishop did not have the option to fulfill the following requirements, but rather that every one was mandatory.

Generally, the requirements focus on the morality of the prospective bishop. Among these is the following: “the husband of one wife...one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence” (1 Timothy 3:2,4, emp. added). If we connect these requirements with Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 3:2, we learn that for the bishop it was (and is) necessary to be a husband, and to have his home and children in subjection to the Lord. Does this conclusion contradict the idea that the Bible obligates no one to marry? No. The Bible obligates no one to marry, just as it obligates no one to be a bishop of a congregation. Paul himself indicated, “If a man desires [desire is optional] the position of a bishop, he desires a good work” (1 Timothy 3:1, emp. added).

Although the Bible obligates no one to marry or to be a bishop, it requires that he who “desires” the office of a bishop must be a person who is already married and already has children who are under God’s subjection. This simply means that the unmarried (good and faithful as they may be) cannot be bishops, since they fail to meet the divine qualifications for this office. It is important to notice here that being unmarried impedes no one from serving God, since there are many other ministries in which to serve Him. The bishop’s office, though, is reserved for faithful, married men who have children.

Why is this the case? Paul said that it is better to remain unmarried (1 Corinthians 7:38). Does that imply that the unmarried one could “serve better” in the office of a bishop? Remaining unmarried is a good decision that allows more freedom (from obligations inherent in marriage) to serve God and spread the Gospel (particularly in a time of oppression and persecutions; see Lyons, 2004). The Bible does not require preachers, evangelists, and teachers to be married. But, bishops keep watch over the internal affairs of the congregational family and should be married. Paul stated in 1 Timothy 3:5: “[F]or if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?” It is necessary for the bishop to demonstrate that he can govern his own physical family (wife and children). In doing so, he shows his ability to be a bishop over a spiritual family (a local congregation of the church). The wisdom in this requirement becomes evident when we consider that the church is formed by many families, and, therefore, needs leaders who have shown faithfulness and wisdom in leading their own families. A man who has never been married has no family subjected to him. Because of this, he does not fit all qualifications of a bishop.

Still, some may argue, “Paul was a great apostle who was unmarried. Did he not do a great work for the church?” Absolutely! Paul was a great apostle and evangelist, but he was not a bishop. He knew the requisites for a bishop and, therefore, did not dare to take this title. When teaching the young man Titus, he told him who could be a bishop: “A man [who] is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination” (Titus 1:6, emp. added).

Considering once more the papal order, we should ask if the “Universal Bishop” of the Catholic Church—the pope—fulfills God’s episcopal requirements of being married and having children. What many Catholics consider to be blasphemous (a married bishop with children) is, in fact, a biblical requirement for bishops. And, what many Catholics consider a symbol of purity and selfless sacrifice (papal celibacy) is disobedience to the Word of God.

Today, although the Catholic Church allows marriage for its members, it does prohibit marriage among those who participate in the role of bishop (as well as many priests, monks, and nuns). The apostle Paul (to whom many Catholic defenders appeal for argumentation in favor of celibacy) wrote: “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth” (1 Timothy 4:1-3, emp. added). The Catholic Church prohibits marriage when it forbids a bishop to marry. It falls away from the faith when it rejects the divine requirements for bishops and instead requires the opposite. Prohibition of marriage is a false doctrine about which the Holy Spirit warned us.

 

REFERENCES

Lyons, Eric (2004), “Is Marriage a ‘Good’ Thing?,” [On-line], URL:http://apologeticspress.org/articles/576.

Zavala, Martín (2000), “Celibacy, Why Do Priests Not Marry?” [“El Celibato, ¿Por qué No se Casan los Sacerdotes?”], [On-line], URL:http://www.defiendetufe.org/por_que_no_se_casan_los_sacerdotes.htm.

Shaving Faith with Ockham’s Razor by Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1342

Shaving Faith with Ockham’s Razor

by	Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

The cosmological argument for the existence of God concludes that there is an uncaused First Cause Who exists beyond nature (see last month’s feature article). The alternatives are entirely naturalistic: either the Universe is eternal and uncaused, or it is finite and had a natural cause. To invoke a supernatural cause, the critics charge, is to add something quite extraordinary to the explanation; it is to ask us to believe that something wholly outside our normal experience is responsible for the Universe. A natural first cause is an improvement, they may admit, but still it requires too many exceptions and special arguments. The simplest argument, and therefore the most preferred explanation, is that some “stuff ” (whatever that may be) always has existed.

The presumed justification for this conclusion is the principle of parsimony made famous by William of Ockham (c. 1285-1349). Ockham’s razor, as it is known, attempts to “shave” away all unnecessary parts of an argument. “Plurality is not to be assumed without necessity,” he said, and “What can be done with fewer [assumptions] is done in vain with more” (Moody, 1967, 8:307). This became an important guiding principle in modern science because, statistically speaking, more mistakes are possible as a theory grows in complexity and assumptions.

Ockham’s razor became a popular excuse for removing God from any description of reality. Often this is illustrated by the legendary encounter between Laplace and Napoleon. The French scientist presented his new book on celestial mechanics to the emperor who, having scanned through the work, inquired as to why it contained no reference to God. Laplace replied, “Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis.”

However, while Ockham’s razor may be a fine guiding principle, some explanations are more complicated than they may seem at first. Many science students find this out when they have to unlearn the simplistic ideas of the previous year before they can go on to learn the more complicated and realistic version of the story. And the new study of “chaos” is an example of a science designed to work with highly complex phenomena that confound conventional thinking. As Rem Edwards observes:

No scientific or metaphysical hypothesis is preferable to a competitive hypothesis merely because it is simpler. It is not the simplest hypothesis per se, but rather the hypothesis that is the simplest and at the same time does full justice to its subject matter, that men of reason must prefer (1972, p. 150).

Ockham’s razor does not work in every instance, and there seem to be no firm criteria that determine when an assumption is an unnecessary complication. Hence, the theistic position is not wrong merely because it includes God in the sum of reality.

Moreover, eliminating God is as much a claim beyond experience as adding God. Neither claim is self-evident; that is, each is not immediately, obviously true. Naturalism assumes that the material Universe of space and time is all that exists, that it depends on nothing else for its existence, and that some part of it has always existed. Supernaturalism holds the equivalent but opposite views: that something does exist beyond the material world, that the Universe is dependent for its existence on this entity, and that the material world is finite. These assumptions represent competing world views that are subject, not to an arbitrary swipe of Ockham’s razor, but to philosophical debate.

Finally, we have to wonder whether naturalists have abandoned the standard of simplicity when it comes to their own descriptions of origins. The Big Bang, for example, seems impervious to disproof. Exceptions and special arguments are plastered over theoretical and observational holes. Some scientists are desperate enough to invoke the cosmological constant—a “fudge factor” pulled out of thin air to rescue the equations from the evidence (Flamsteed, 1995, 16[3]:77). Such flagrant violations of Ockham’s razor are possible, it seems, as long as the added assumptions are naturalistic. That God cannot be the best explanation for the Universe is yet another incredible assumption.

REFERENCES

Edwards, Rem B. (1972), Reason and Religion (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich).

Flamsteed, Sam (1995), “Crisis in the Cosmos,” Discover, 16[3]:66-77, March.

Moody, Earnest A. (1967), “William of Ockham,” The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: Macmillan), 8:306-317.