1/10/15

From Ed Healy... Seven Things to Consider!




Seven Things to Consider!
 
In my studies I have noticed that there are many different approaches to the scriptures, religion, faith, etc. People have different principles they understand to be true and thus have different foundations upon which their faith system is built.

Sometimes people claim or seem to have great knowledge about the Scriptures. They may be able to discuss all the historical data about the Christian Faith. They may have skills in the original languages, be able to divide all the words and phrases into proper formation according to proper rules.

However, I have observed also that this wonderful ability can become an obstacle to understanding the message intended by the author. There are some simple facts that are true. I believe that anyone can understand the message of the Bible and, with that understanding, have hope in facing all of life's ups and downs.
  1. There is a creator who is God in heaven.
     
  2. This God has three persons manifested to the creation as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
     
  3. God revealed Himself through divine revelation.
     
  4. This revelation came by the Holy Spirit to mankind through the prophets who were to proclaim the word of God.
     
  5. The purpose of this revelation was to inform mankind about the wisdom of God.
     
  6. The goal of this wisdom is to generate faith, and this faith is what gives hope of eternal life.
     
  7. The message is clear, simple, understandable and yet profound. To those who will believe, it gives birth to eternal life. But, to those who will not believe….

Some questions each person must consider:

Where is the source of real truth?

What will we put our faith in?

When will we begin?

From Jim McGuiggan... Why Does Faith Save?


Why Does Faith Save?

Faith doesn't save in the same way God saves. God alone is the saviour and faith is the instrumental means by which his salvation comes to us. Faith is the work of God (Philippians 1:29 and elsewhere) but it is personal to the individual. That is, the sinner's faith is the sinner's faith and not God's. It is the sinner who does the trusting and submitting that result in salvation. However many instruments God uses in bringing the sinner to saving faith it is the sinner who does the believing and the trusting and the obeying. The sinner will not take the credit for any of this as if he had virtue enough to respond to God without God giving him aid. Just the same, when God has completed his holy loving work the sinner has freely given himself to God. In short, God doesn't coerce the sinner and the sinner by God's grace is personally involved in the process of his salvation. The sinner places his faith in God who saves him.

Faith saves the sinner because it is a confession that he cannot deal with his sin problem and must wholly rely on God to bring reconciliation and life. Faith points away from the sinner and points to God the saviour. Ask the believer, "Who saved you?" and because he has faith he points away from himself to someone else!

Faith saves the sinner because it rests on the work of reconciliation that God accomplished in the Christ who went to the cross to bear our sins. Faith says that the sin problem was not dealt with by his own goodness, much or little, but by God who reconciled the world to himself in Jesus Christ. So faith not only confesses a total reliance on God to forgive and save, it confesses a total reliance on the God who bore the sins of the world on the cross. In resting on that God and that work the sinner doesn't have to (and does't want to) rest on his own virtue or obedience or his own faith. This is what faith confesses and that is why it saves.

Faith saves the sinner because faith gives God the homage that is due to him. Sinners need to understand that God doesn't call people "righteous" when they are impenitent in their evil. They also need to understand that God cannot fellowship those who insist on living in darkness and being darkness (Ephesians 5:8-9). If a person is in fellowship with God he must be righteous. But how does he stand righteous before God? In and only in Jesus Christ. Yes but how does the sinner gain that righteousness that is found only in Jesus Christ? He gains it by faith. Without faith he doesn't gain that righteousness which is found in Christ alone. But why is it that faith gains that righteousness that enables the sinner to live in fellowship with God? Because faith embraces all that Jesus is and stands for and offers that (him) to God.

Faith approves of Christ who has come on God's behalf to reveal his holiness and the nature of the sinner's offence. Faith approves of Christ who came on God's behalf to reveal that in him is no darkness at all. Faith willingly and gladly embraces Christ who stands as humanity's representative and offers to God the homage due him. In doing this faith offers God his own heart in regard to righteousness and holiness. Christ becomes the wisdom and righteousness and power of God to the one who has faith (1 Corinthians 1:24, 30). This only faith can do and faith can do this only because it claims Christ as all truth and all righteousness. Faith, in doing this and being this, transforms the sinner's heart from one that belongs to an impenitent rebel to one that belongs to a grateful and reconciled child of a Holy Father. The prodigal has come home not because the pig-pen was miserable, not because his latent righteousness came to the surface but because the nature and person of his father created in him the holy longing for his fellowship.

Faith says "Amen" to God's judgement against sin as it is revealed in Jesus Christ on the cross. A heart of faith has Christ at its centre and a heart that has Christ at its centre has God at its centre. A heart like that is reconciled to God (in and by Jesus Christ through faith). By faith in Jesus Christ the sinner is no longer a rebellious enemy who delights in holding God in contempt. Since he has a heart like God's heart in and through Jesus Christ by faith he is truly righteous. That's how and why faith saves--it reconciles us to God by realigning our hearts with God in and through Jesus Christ.

I think the above is accurate but I feel the need to make an additional remark. It's right to say that faith reconciles us to God--and we should. But the truth about faith is even richer than that. Faith not only reconciles us to God, it is reconciliation with God. It isn't only the way to reconciliation with God it is the mark and proof of reconciliation with God. Faith = a transformed heart.

Ezekiel’s Vision: An Alien UFO? by Kyle Butt, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1061

Ezekiel’s Vision: An Alien UFO?

by  Kyle Butt, M.A.

“I saw it with my own two eyes,” the farmer excitedly explained to the reporter. “As I was feeding the chickens, a huge, saucer-shaped object hovered over my house. A bright light beamed down through my barn, and before I knew what was happening, I saw Bessie, my best milk cow being pulled through the air toward the ship. In seconds, the ship whirred away with Bessie. Don’t know why those aliens would want my best cow!”
Does this scenario sound vaguely familiar? Hundreds of UFO sightings, alien abduction stories, and supposed communication with extraterrestrial life forms have been reported across the globe. From the various outlandish claims, not a single shred of legitimate evidence for life in outer space has ever surfaced. Yet, humanity’s fascination with aliens, UFOs, and extraterrestrial life seems only to grow year by year, in spite of this lack of evidence.
As proof of this growing fascination, it has been suggested that the biblical prophet Ezekiel, in the Old Testament book bearing his name, had an early encounter with an alien spaceship. In a Web article titled “UFOs: Even Before There Were Weather Balloons…,” the author misquoted Ezekiel 1:1-4: “As I looked, behold, a stormy wind came out of the north, and a great cloud, with brightness round about it, and fire flashing forth continually, and in the midst of the fire, as if it were gleaming bronze” (a very loose paraphrase of Ezekiel 1:1-4). The article then listed several other ancient “UFO” sightings, and concluded by stating: “These are just a few of the examples of UFO sightings from history” (2004).
Is it the case that Ezekiel saw an alien-operated flying machine from outer space? No, Ezekiel did not see an alien spaceship. How, then, are his visions to be explained? When one looks into Ezekiel’s prophetic book, it becomes clear that Ezekiel did see some strange things. From a quick reading of chapter one, it becomes apparent that Ezekiel saw a “great cloud with raging fire engulfing itself ” (vs. 4), four living creatures from within the cloud (vs. 5), a wheel beside each living creature (vs. 15), and the rims of the wheels full of eyes (vs. 18), among many other things. Indeed, the things seen by Ezekiel were amazing and unusual to say the least.
But with a little research into the biblical message, it becomes clear that Ezekiel’s writing and visions were apocalyptic in nature—very similar to the writings found in both Daniel and Revelation. The visions Ezekiel described are of heavenly, spiritual beings, not “alien life forms.” By comparing the description of the living creatures in Ezekiel to that of the living creatures that surround the throne of God in Revelation 4, one quickly realizes that the scenes witnessed by Ezekiel, John, Daniel, and other inspired writers were visions of God and His spiritual host of heaven.
As further evidence of this fact, at the end of Ezekiel 1, after describing “a likeness with the appearance of a man” on a throne, Ezekiel wrote: “This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord” (1:28). Then, a few verses later in chapter 2, this same person said to Ezekiel, “Son of man, I am sending you to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against Me” (2:3). Ezekiel fully understood this to be the Lord talking to Him, that the vision was of spiritual beings, and that he had not had an encounter with an alien from outer space. It is ironic that Ezekiel recognized his vision to be a calling and message from God, yet over 2,500 years after this vision, modern-day UFO hunters want to “reinterpret” Ezekiel’s original understanding of what he saw. A simple question should be asked: who would be in a better position to know what he saw—Ezekiel, or a modern-day “alien hunter” who believes in UFOs in spite of the overwhelming paucity of evidence? To ask is to answer, is it not?
Ezekiel did not see a UFO! He was allowed the special privilege of being called by God through an amazing vision of the heavenly host. His description of the vision ties in perfectly with other apocalyptic writings such as Daniel and Revelation. Those who are looking for the long-absent evidence proving the existence of aliens and UFOs, will have to look some place other than Ezekiel for it.

REFERENCES

“UFOs: Even Before There Were Weather Balloons…” (2004), [On-line], URL: http://ufos.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa052097.htm.

From Mark Copeland... Our Duty To God And Country (Mark 12:13-17)

                          "THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

                 Our Duty To God And Country (12:13-17)

INTRODUCTION

1. Teaching in the temple on Tuesday of the Last Week, we’ve seen...
   a. The authority of Jesus questioned by religious leaders - Mk 11:20-33
   b. The parable of the wicked vinedressers, directed toward the
      religious leaders - Mk 12:1-12

2. Jesus is then approached by Pharisees and Herodians...
   a. Intending to get Him in trouble with the authorities - Mk 12:13; Lk 20:20
   b. Who question Him whether one should pay taxes to Caesar - Mk 12:14-15

3. Ever the Master Teacher, Jesus easily dealt with their question...
   a. Seeing through their hypocrisy, He called for a coin - Mk 12:15
   b. He asked whose inscription was on it, and they answered "Caesar’s"
      - Mk 12:16
   c. His reply cause them to marvel - Mk 12:17

4. The reply of Jesus reveals that we have responsibilities to both God
   and country...
   a. There are things that we must render to Caesar (country)
   b. There are things that we must render to God

[What is our duty to God and country?  In this study we shall review
what the Scriptures tell us about our responsibilities as citizens and
as disciples.  We start with...]

I. OUR DUTY TO COUNTRY

   A. PAY TAXES...
      1. This was the point of Jesus in our text - Mk 12:14-17
      2. Paul also taught us to pay taxes - Ro 13:6-7

   B. OBEY LAWS...
      1. We are to submit to the ordinances (laws) of the land - Ro 13:1-5; Tit 3:1
      2. This we do for the Lord’s sake, that we might silence foolish
         men - 1Pe 2:13-16

   C. FEAR AND HONOR...
      1. We are to respect and honor those in positions of authority
         - Ro 13:7
         a. To fear (respect) the king - cf. Pro 24:21
         b. Not to speak evil of our rulers - cf. Exo 22:28; Ac 23:5;
            Tit 3:2; 2Pe 2:10; Jude 8-9
      2. Even as we are to honor all and love the brethren - 1Pe 2:17
      -- Have you noticed that Paul or Peter never had unkind words
         about Nero?

   D. DO GOOD...
      1. We are to be ready for every good work - Tit 3:1
      2. We are to have conduct that is honorable before all - 1Pe 2:11-12,15-16

   E. PRAY...
      1. To make supplications, offer prayers, intercessions, and giving
         of thanks - 1Ti 2:1
      2. To pray for kings and all who are in authority - 1Ti 2:1-3

[Christians are but sojourners and pilgrims in this world (1Pe 2:11).
While our true citizenship is in heaven (Ph 3:20), we are to be a
blessing to those earthly countries in which we sojourn.  Fulfill our
God-given obligations, and we will be an asset to any country in which
we live!  Now let’s review...]

II. OUR DUTY TO GOD

   A. LOVE GOD WITH ALL OUR BEING...
      1. Jesus considered this the greatest commandment of the Law - Mt 22:34-38
      2. Being the greatest command, I would suggest this is our
         greatest duty!

   B. OBEY GOD FROM THE HEART...
      1. If we love God, we will keep His commandments - 1Jn 5:3
      2. Jesus taught that keeping His commandments is evidence of true
         love - Jn 14:15,21,23

   C. MAKE GOD OUR PRIORITY...
      1. His will, His rule, His righteousness, should be our first
         priority - Mt 6:33
      2. Not only over our personal concerns, but even over our duty to
         country
         a. When there is a conflict between duty to God and country,
            God must come first
         b. As stated by Peter:  "We ought to obey God rather than men"
            - Ac 5:27-29
      3. This helps to answer questions that often arise regarding the
         Christian’s duty to government
         a. Can a Christian vote?
         b. Can one serve in political office?
         c. Can one serve in the military or other civic duty?
      4. If such duties come at too high a price (i.e., placing country
         before God), a Christian must obey God rather than men
         a. In some countries, the price may be too high, and Christians
            could not serve in political office or exercise certain
            rights as citizens
         b. Other countries may allow for God to take precedence in
            one’s conduct, permitting Christians to participate in such
            things

CONCLUSION

1. Christians ought to be a blessing for any country in which they
   reside...
   a. A source of revenue, with respect for laws, and reverence for
      those in authority
   b. Contributing to the general welfare, through good deeds and
      fervent prayers

2. Christians can be a blessing to their country......
   a. When Christians render first to God what is His due, and then what
      is due the country
   b. When the country respects the priority that must be given God by
      its citizens

While those in authority might not always understand their proper place,
and expect more of their citizens than what is right, may we who are
disciples of Christ never fail to:

   "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,
   and to God the things that are God’s."

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

From Gary... Where do I fit in?


Men, women, young, old, rich, poor- no matter who you are, no matter where you are from, or who your ancestors were, you are a human being and God loves you. He has provided grace for all. Those who will accept it and obediently live as HE dictates will be blessed beyond belief. In Paul's letter to Titus, he says...

Titus, Chapter 2
 11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,  12 instructing us to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we would live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world;  13 looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ;  14 who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify for himself a people for his own possession, zealous for good works.

Hope you enjoy the chart and I just want to thank you for taking the time to reflect on these things- God will bless you for doing it.

1/9/15

From Jim McGuiggan... Why do we have children?

Why do we have children?

Why do we have children? Make up your own list. I suppose the list would include things like, "Because we had sex and she got pregnant (but we can fix that with an abortion)." "Because we loved each other and this was the natural outcome of our love for each other." "Because we just love kids." "Because we were going through a tough time in our marriage and thought a baby would stabilize things." "Because we got married and isn’t the purpose of sex to produce children!?" "Um...never really thought about it." "I didn’t plan on it, they just came." And on and on and on.

And when some thoughtful child, maybe a bit insecure or wondering what life is all about, comes asking, "Why did you have me?" the answer is...? Asking a Christian this question is not the same as asking it of a non-Christian. The answers might come out the same though it’s clear that they shouldn’t. To ask a Christian, "Why do you have children?" and "Why do we (Christians) have children?" is not the same question because the second one implies that there is a distinctively Christian reason for having children.

That there is a distinctively Christian motivation for having children doesn’t alter the fact that there may be numerous motivations for having children nor does it mean that Christians and non-Christians don’t share some of them. But if there is a distinctively Christian reason for having children that would be the one they would want to focus on (though not to the exclusion of others).

Taking it that there is a distinctively Christian reason for having children does that mean every Christian knows it and has acted on it? The answer’s clearly no. But this wouldn’t mean that Christian ignorance renders God unable to do his work in the world through Christians. For pity’s sake, isn’t he always carrying on his work of blessing and redemption even in the face of our disobedience so why would our ignorance keep him from doing his marvellous work?

I think Genesis 18:17-19 is a critical text for Christians. ( I should already have said that ancient Israelites had a distinctively Israelite reason for having children.) Here’s the text: "Then the Lord said, ‘Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? Abraham shall surely become a great and powerful nation, and all the nations on earth will be blessed through him. For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him." [I've bold faced two purpose clauses.]

The central actor in the text is the Lord himself. He is the revealer, he is the chooser, he is the moral exemplar, he is the one that promises and the one that fulfils the promise. That's what the text insists. But this Lord doesn’t operate in a vacuum nor does he show himself outside of history—he works within history and through specific events and people. In this case it’s Abraham and (secondarily) his children. There are two critically important "so thats" that support the "for" in verse 19 that speaks of God's over-arching purpose. The first "so that" concerns God’s reason for choosing him. He chooses him "so that" he will direct his children after him to walk in the way of the Lord. The second links the purpose of the Lord with Abraham’s obedient response. No, it’s a bit stronger than that. They aren’t only linked; Abraham’s obedient response to direct his children is the method by which God fulfils his promise to Abraham. Read the text again.

This is where the children come in. God is the first actor, Abraham the second and the children are part of the whole unfolding drama. The text says, "he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him." Let me say it again: the means by which God blesses Abraham and brings about the blessing of the world (see Galatians 3:8 and other texts) is the obedient response of Abraham and his children.

You understand that their obedience never (and especially in this text) becomes anything other than the means by which God accomplishes his redeeming purposes. It isn’t a quid pro quo arrangement where God does them a favour and they do God a favour. The initiative is always of and remains with God. It is God at work through Abraham and his children to fulfil his promises. But in this text as elsewhere it is always God through Abraham and his children!

So why did Abraham have children? (Why did God give Abraham children?) The text is clear. It isn’t so that he can count their heads and see that he has become the father of a grand nation—they’re not merely an end in the blessing of Abraham. They are with him a means to the blessing of humanity. Of course God means to bless them so they’re not to be seen merely as means to an end but they do have a mission and a destiny.

And why do Christians have children? For the very same reason. The blessing of Abraham in Jesus Christ goes on and on (see Galatians 3:26-29) and the children of Christians are to bear witness to each generation of the redeeming and blessing work of God that will be brought to an abiding and glorious completion.
Christians have children not only so they can love them, not only because they hunger for them as potential mothers and fathers, not only that they can enjoy life with them (all true!) but also that they can provide witnesses for God in every generation.

"Ah, there they go again, these Christians. They take the spontaneous joy out of life and turn it into a religious duty." So a critic might respond, but the response would be from "outside the Christian box". There is no destruction here of joy, affection or any other lovely possibility but there is a deepening and an enrichment of the lives of both parents and children.

Let thoughtful children be told in a rich, wise and certainly gospel-centred way that they have a destiny and see if it hinders or narrows them in any sinister way. Tell them that the world is in need of rescue and blessing and that God has come in Jesus Christ to do that and they are alive to bear witness to that. Tell them, "You have a destiny and a mission. You are in the world as God’s blessed child to help him redeem the world." Tell them that along with all the other fine things you’ll tell them and not only will you be telling them the truth you will be giving them something that won’t fade and something for which many in future ages will be eternally grateful for. And when they have their children they will tell them the same thing and so we have the never-ending story. And can those of us who didn’t know anything about this sort of thing still tell our children, "We had you so that God would have witnesses for him when we are gone"? Of course, for while we may not have known we aren’t unhappy that God always knew.

And when some poor well-meaning soul is telling his/her children that they were destined to be a movie star, a famous athlete, a pop star or some such thing—end of story!—you won’t regret having been part of Genesis 18. Christians speak to their children of pleasure and joy, of hope and assurance, of heaven and hell, of forgiveness and uprightness but we say nothing (or nearly so) of destiny. There is so little talk about our place in the divine drama—why we are alive and who we are.

Whatever else is true, having children is to be expressed as part of our living our lives out under God and in Jesus Christ.

Finally, in point of fact many of us choose not to marry or to have children, and given healthy reasons that’s all right with God too. See

©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, theabidingword.com.

Elders, Deacons, Timothy, and Wine by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1208

Elders, Deacons, Timothy, and Wine

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Paul’s instructions pertaining to the qualifications of elders and deacons have created misunderstanding regarding the use of alcoholic beverages. Elders are not to be “given to wine” (1 Timothy 3:3), while deacons are not to be “given to much wine” (1 Timothy 3:8). Translations further obscure the matter by their variety of terminology. The ASV has “no brawler” (vs. 3) and “not given to much wine” (vs. 8). The NIV has “not given to much wine” (vs. 3) and “not indulging in much wine” (vs. 8). The NASB has “not addicted to wine” (vs. 3) and “not addicted to much wine” (vs. 8). So the question is: does 1 Timothy 3:8 sanction moderate alcohol use?
The phrase in verse three consists of two Greek words (me paroinos) and, literally translated, means “not beside, by, or at wine” (Vine, 1966, p. 146; Robertson, 1934, p. 613). The phrase is enjoining abstinence, and perhaps even the act of situating oneself in the presence of people and places where the consumption of alcoholic beverages is occurring. The ASV translated the expression “brawler” to emphasize the violent behavior that proceeds from the use of alcohol. Calling for elders to be abstinent is consistent with other terms used in the same listing: nephalion (1 Timothy 3:2)—“free from intoxicants” and “abstinent in respect to wine” (Perschbacher, 1990, p. 284), and sophrona (Titus 1:8)—“of a sound mind, temperate” (Perschbacher, p. 400), “soberminded” (Moulton and Milligan, 1930, p. 622), “self-controlled” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 810). Elders must refrain from the use of intoxicants, and they must not associate with places and people who do use them.
In verse eight, the four words used to qualify deacons on this point (me oino pollo prosechontas) are literally translated “not wine much occupied with” (cf. Perschbacher, p. 352; Spain, 1970, p. 64). Does the use of the word “much” mean that deacons may imbibe a moderate amount of wine? At least three alternative interpretations are possible.
First, when Solomon said, “Do not be overly wicked” (Ecclesiastes 7:17—NKJV [“overwicked”—NIV; “overmuch wicked”—ASV]), did he mean to imply that a person can, with God’s approval, be moderately wicked? When Peter noted that pagans do not understand why Christians do not engage in the “same excess of riot” (1 Peter 4:4), did he mean moderate rioting was appropriate? In other words, language can forthrightly condemn an excessive indulgence or great amount of an action without implying that the action is permissible in a lesser amount or to a lesser degree. One cannot assume that what is unlawful in excess is lawful in smaller amounts. We can refer to a person’s frequent involvement in a certain activity (e.g., adultery) without intending to leave the impression that a more moderate participation in the action would be proper. Albert Barnes addressed this point succinctly:
It is not affirmed that it would be proper for the deacon, any more than the bishop, to indulge in the use of wine in small quantities, but it is affirmed that a man who is much given to the use of wine ought not, on any consideration, to be a deacon (1977, p. 148).
The word in verse eight translated “given to” (KJV, NKJV, ASV), or “indulging in” (NIV), or “addicted to” (RSV), is prosecho. It is used elsewhere in 1 Timothy (1:4) and in Titus (1:14) to refer to those who “give heed to” (KJV), or “occupy themselves with” (RSV), or “pay attention to” (NASB) Jewish myths. Who would draw the conclusion that Paul intended to encourage Christians to give some attention to Jewish myths, just not too much attention?
Consequently, Paul was spotlighting an individual who is known for drinking freely of alcoholic beverages. He was saying that no such person should be put into the eldership. A parallel would be to make an observation about a person who carouses and parties every night—“do not put such a man into the eldership!” But the speaker hardly would mean that one who parties less frequently, say on weekends only, would be acceptable. Paul no more intended to suggest that leaders in the church who use small amounts of alcohol are suited to their role than Mosaic law would have permitted priests to do so (Leviticus 10:9). Barnes commented: “The way in which the apostle mentions the subject here would lead us fairly to suppose that he did not mean to commend its use in any sense” (1977, p. 144).
A second possibility is that the terminology that Paul used was a loose form of speech (Bacchiocchi, 1989, p. 250). Both Greek and Hebrew manifest such tendencies. For example, “three days and three nights” was a loose form of speech used in antiquity to refer to two days and a portion of a third (Bullinger, 1898, pp. 845-847; Robertson, 1922, pp. 289-291). Later in the same letter, Paul instructed Timothy to “use a little wine” for his stomach and infirmities (5:23). It is not a foregone conclusion that the “wine” Paul commended to Timothy was inebriating, since evidence from antiquity exists to suggest that he was referring to the addition of grape juice to Timothy’s drinking water for medicinal purposes (see Lees, 1870, p. 374). Even if, however, Paul meant for Timothy to add fermented (i.e., intoxicating) juice to his diet, he nevertheless implied: (1) that Timothy had been abstinent up to that point; (2) that the quantity he was now to add to his diet was to be “a little”; (3) that the juice was to be diluted with water; (4) that its use was strictly medicinal in nature—not social, casual, or recreational; and (5) that it took the directive of an apostle for Timothy to introduce its use into his life and body. [Incidentally, one must not automatically assume that it was the wine that possessed medicinal properties. The wine may have simply been the antiseptic means to purify the polluted water that Timothy had been drinking by killing germs and bacterial organisms, thereby reducing their ill effect on Timothy’s fragile stomach—in which case, Paul was not commending wine; he was commending a method for cleansing contaminated water]. If Paul sanctioned the use of alcohol only on the qualifications that it was in small quantities, and that it was for medicinal purposes, why would he then turn right around and sanction deacons drinking alcohol in larger amounts—avoiding only excess?
The inconsistency of this viewpoint becomes exceedingly apparent when one compares Paul’s instructions to different Christians:
Elders (1 Timothy 3:2-3)—abstain (nephalios); don’t even be near it (me paroinon)
Deacons (1 Timothy 3:8)—drink moderately (me oino pollo)
Wives (1 Timothy 3:11)—abstain (nephalious)
Aged men (Titus 2:2)—abstain (nephalious)
Aged women (Titus 2:3)—drink moderately (me oino pollo)
In view of these inconsistencies, “much wine” must be a loose form of speech intended to express complete restraint in the use of wine.
A third possible interpretation of this verse concerns the meaning of the term “wine.” Unlike the English word (which always connotes an alcoholic beverage), the Greek word oinos is a generic term that includes all forms of the grape (cf. Lees, 1870, pp. 431ff.). The term oinos was used by the Greeks to refer to unfermented grape juice every bit as much as fermented juice. Consequently, the interpreter must examine the biblical context in order to determine whether fermented or unfermented liquid is intended. In light of this realization, some have suggested that Paul instructed the elders to refrain completely from alcoholic beverages, while deacons, on the other hand, were being instructed to engage in a moderate use of nonalcoholic grape juice. At least three lines of argumentation are evident for this interpretation.
First, in the Old Testament, the generic Hebrew term that is equivalent to oinos is yayin. Some passages praise the ingestion of yayin (Song of Solomon 5:1; Psalm 104:15; Ecclesiastes 9:7), while others condemn it (Proverbs 20:1; 31:4). The only plausible explanation is that the former is a reference to grape juice, while the latter is a reference to grape juice that has been transformed into an alcoholic beverage.
Second, only in Timothy and Titus is the word “much” used—as if the secret to pleasing God lies in the quantity of liquid ingested. If fermented juice were intended, the same distinction surely would have been made in the Old Testament. No such distinction is made. But if nonalcoholic grape juice is intended in Timothy and Titus, the intent of the qualification shifts from the level of intoxication to the matter of liquid gluttony. In that case, Paul intended to require moderation in the intake of nonalcoholic liquids.
Third, biblical warnings against the excessive intake of food and liquid are legion (e.g., Deuteronomy 21:20; Proverbs 23:20; 1 Corinthians 11:21-22; Titus 1:12). Solomon even applied the principle to honey (Proverbs 25:27). To understand Paul to be enjoining moderate use of a good gift from God (i.e., grape juice) is consistent with the context that is riddled with references to self-control, temperance, and moderation (e.g., 1 Timothy 3:2,11). It also fits the social conditions extant in Greco-Roman culture in which intemperance was rampant.
In addition to the above considerations, one must keep in mind that even if it could be proved that God sanctioned moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages in the Bible, it does not follow that God sanctions drinking modern “wine,” since the wine referred to in the Bible was unlike the wine of our day. Wine in antiquity was far less potent. One would have had to ingest large quantities in order to receive even minimal alcoholic content. The ancients typically had to add drugs to their drinks to increase their intoxicating potency. In light of all these considerations, the view that maintains that deacons may drink moderate amounts of alcoholic beverages is precarious, dangerous, and biblically unsubstantiated.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Bacchiocchi, Samuele (1989), Wine in the Bible (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives).
Barnes, Albert (1977 reprint), Notes on the New Testament: Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus and Philemon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).
Lees, Frederic R. (1870), The Temperance Bible-Commentary (New York: Weed, Parsons, and Co.).
Moulton, James and George Milligan (1930), Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982 reprint).
Perschbacher, Wesley J., ed. (1990), The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Robertson, A.T. (1922), A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Row).
Robertson, A.T. (1934), A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville, TN: Broadman).
Spain, Carl (1970), The Letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus (Austin, TX: Sweet).
Vine, W.E. (1966 reprint), An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell).