Truth Magazine

By Donald P Ames

Many times a Bible gains a great deal of publicity because of certain features. Some of this is good-and some bad. Sometimes a Bible may be a “big seller” and those buying it be totally unaware of some dangers which are inherent in it (i.e., many do not realize that the Scofield Bible, though a King James Version, is actually set up in the footnotes and cross-references to teach the false doctrine of Premillennialism by following them). This same problem is to be found in some modern translations. Whenever such be purchased, they need to be considered carefully. Some are good! Of these, I would highly commend the New International Bible (N.T.) and also the New American Standard Bible. On the other hand, despite the publicity, I cannot recommend others because of dangers associated with them. In this latter class I place the Today’s English Version (more popularly known as Good News For Modern Man) and The Living Bible-Paraphrased.

Because it is laid out exactly like a copy of the Bible, many do not realize that The Living Bible-Paraphrased is NOT a translation, nor are they aware where the author has inserted his own ideas in preference to those used in an actual translation. “To paraphrase is to say something in different words than the author used. It is a restatement of an author’s thoughts, using different words than he did” (Preface). Thus, Mr. Taylor, who authored The Living Bible-Paraphrased, acknowledges that “There are dangers in paraphrases, as well as values. For whenever the author’s exact words are not translated from the original languages, there is a possibility that the translator, however honest, may be giving the English reader something that the original writer did not mean to say…. For when the Greek or Hebrew is not clear, then the theology of the translator is his guide” (Preface). This is one reason a translation made by a group of scholars with a mixed background is much safer than one by a single person. It is my contention that The Living Bible-Paraphrased contains many such translation errors-even when the original IS clear. This, we intend to reveal.

It might also be noted that Time Magazine, July 24, 1972, made the following comment: “Mysteriously, half way through the paraphrase, Taylor lost his voice, and still speaks only in a hoarse whisper. A Psychiatrist who examined him suggested that the voice failure was Taylor’s psychological self-punishment for tampering with what he believed to be the word of God.” That such “tampering” existed is evident. We urge you to get your own Bibles and compare them with the following taught in The Living Bible-Paraphrased.

Inherited Sin

“But I was born a sinner, yes, from the moment my mother conceived me” (Ps. 51:5).

“These men are born sinners, lying from their earliest words” (Ps. 58:3).

Contrast this with the plain statements found in Ezek. 18:20 and 2 Cor. 5:10, which notes each individual answers only for his own actions, and not for something he “inherited.”

Total Depravity

“We started out bad, being born with evil natures, and were under God’s anger just like everyone else” (Eph. 2:3).

“Your old sin-loving nature was buried with him by baptism when he died. . . .” (Rom. 6:4).

“Then you won’t always be doing the wrong things your evil nature wants you to” (Gal. 5:16).

Again, compare these comments to what is revealed in Eccl. 12:7, Heb. 12:9 and Matt. 18:3. Are we ready to blame God as being the “Father” of sin?

Faith Only

“For Abraham found favor with God by faith alone, before he was circumcised” (Rom. 4:12). That statement is also supported by that found in v. 9, that we need “only trust in Christ.”

“In baptism we show that we have been saved from death and doom” (1 Pet. 3:21-emphasis mine, DPA).

The footnote in John 3:5 on the word “water says: “Or, `Physical birth is not enough. You must also be born spiritually. . . . ” This alternative paraphrase interprets “born of water” as meaning the normal process observed during every human birth. . . .” Thus he seeks to eliminate water baptism as being involved, despite the plain parallels found in Eph. 5:26 and Titus 3:5.

“For now we are all children of God through faith in Jesus Christ, and we who have been baptized into union with Christ are enveloped by him” (Gal. 3:26-27-again, emphasis mine, DPA). Here Mr. Taylor uses the word “and” for the Greek word gar, which clearly means “because” and shows we have been made sons of God by baptism.

“For God loves the world so much that he gave his only Son so that anyone who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16-emphasis mine, DPA). The original in this passage is “should not”, and thus implies he will go ahead and complete obedience.

“But to all who receive him, he gave the right to become children of God. All they needed to do was to trust him to save them” (John 1:12). The KJV and NASB read completely different in actual translation, noting nothing whatsoever about “all they needed to do was to trust him to save them.” Again, Mr. Taylor has allowed his theology to cloud his scholarship on this passage.

“For it is by believing in his heart that a man becomes right with God; and with his mouth he tells others of his faith, confirming his salvation” (Rom. 10:10-emphasis mine, DPA). The fact “confession is made unto salvation” shows it has not yet been achieved, hence cannot be “confirmed” yet.

No one denies the fact that we are saved “by faith” (Rom. 5:1), but no where does the Bible affirm it is by faith only, as Mr. Taylor believes and has altered the text to imply. James 2:24 is the only place this term appears and affirms just the opposite. Note also such passages as Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 22:16, Heb. 5:9, etc.

Holy Spirit

“For his Holy Spirit speaks to us deep in our hearts, and tells us that we really are God’s children” (Rom. 8:16). Here it is good to note that the correct meaning is not “to,” but “with” and thus is not affirming the direct operation of the Holy Spirit.

“I advise you to obey only the Holy Spirit’s instructions. He will tell you where to go and what to do” (Gal. 5:16).

Although he assigns the correct purpose to baptism in Acts 2:38 “for the forgiveness of your sins”-which contradicts his paraphrases under the previous headings), he then goes on to say, “Then you also shall receive this gift, the Holy Spirit.” Whether the Holy Spirit itself was the gift, or the gift of salvation made known by the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, has long been debated by the Bible scholars (I personally believe the latter is correct), and must be determined contextually, which has been eliminated from consideration here by Mr. Taylor.

Premillennialism

“These are the ones coming out of the Great Tribulation” (Rev. 7:14). That the saints were, in this passage, undergoing a great tribulation is true; but Mr. Taylor’s use of caps clearly reveals his theological ideas.

“Who will some day judge the living and the dead when he appears to set up his kingdom” (2 Tim. 4:1-emphasis mine, DPA). Even the prophecy he quotes in Isa. 2:2-4 carries a materialistic ring to it. Yet, Dan. 2:44 claims the kingdom would be set up in the days of the Roman Empire (not another one like the original). Mark 9:1 says it was to be set up during the life time of the apostles, as we see fulfilled in Acts 1:8 and 2:1-4. Paul says we have it already (Col. 1:13, Heb. 12:28). When Christ returns, it will not be to “set up” his kingdom, but to “deliver up” (1 Cor. 15:24-25).

In Rev. 1:9, John is not “in” the kingdom, as correct translations affirm, but Mr. Taylor claims “we shall share his kingdom” (emphasis mine, DPA)—thus avoiding a conflict with his futuristic view.

In Rom. 11:26, where Paul says, “thus (in similar manner) shall all Israel be saved,” we find Mr. Taylor makes it a future, national salvation—“And then all Israel will be saved.”

Once Saved, Always Saved

In addition to the perversion of John 3:16, which we have already noted under the heading of “Faith Only,” which is changed to justify salvation by faith only as well as to fit the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer, note also the following from John 5:24-“I say emphatically that anyone who listens to my message and believes in God who sent me has eternal life, and will never be damned for his sins, but has already passed out of death into life.”

“Christ is useless to you if you are counting on clearing your debt to God by keeping those laws; you are lost from God’s grace” (Gal. 5:4). Mr. Taylor here follows the usual dodge of implying it is talking about one’s initial salvation-and not that they had already had God’s grace, from which they were “severed” and from which they had “fallen.” One cannot be “severed” from that which he has never had (cf. John 15:6).

Mr. Taylor’s efforts are further bolstered by his paraphrase of Gal. 5:2, “Listen to me, for this is serious: if you are counting on circumcision and keeping the Jewish laws to make you right with God, then Christ cannot save you.”

Other Liberties

In 2 Cor. 3:17, he implies there is no need to do the will of God (see the consequences of this doctrine in Matt. 7:21-23) as he says, “The Lord is the Spirit who gives them life, and where he is there is freedom (from trying to be saved by keeping the laws of God).”

In Matt. 16:18 he inserts “a stone” into the text; which only creates confusion and is not in the original at all-“You are Peter, a stone; and upon this rock I will build my church.” A good chance to clear up some of the misuse of v. 19 (as was correctly done in the New American Standard Bible) was passed over—“whatever doors you lock on earth shall be locked in heaven; and whatever doors you open on earth shall be open in heaven” (compare this with John 12:48 and John 16:13 to see who was actually dictating to whom).

Although the word “Christian” appears only three times in the original, Mr. Taylor had made very free use of it throughout the epistles of Paul, even catching himself in another contradiction of his doctrine of “once saved, always saved” in Gal. 6:1 by saying, “Dear brothers, if a Christian is overcome by some sin, you who are godly should gently and humbly help him back onto the right path . . .” (See also 1 John 2:4-6).

In the Song of Solomon, he arbitrarily decided who is speaking in each case-a point many challenge for correctness.

The poetry of the Psalms has been completely removed in favor of a prose rendition. While this does not affect its validity, it certainly makes it much more awkward to those accustomed to the beauty and poetry of other versions.

In John 1:1, Mr. Taylor decides to completely ignore the original (which clearly reads “the Word”-see Acts 2:36), and paraphrases it, “Before anything else existed, there was Christ, with God.”

In Acts 20:11 we find, “They all went back upstairs and ate the Lord’s Supper together.” However, the original here again differs, saying only that “he” ate, and refers to Paul pausing for a bit of nourishment while things settled back down, and not to the Lord’s Supper at all in this verse.

Although the word “bishop” is also correct when applied to a “pastor” or “elder,” as he did in 1 Tim. 3:1, he adds the following footnote; “presiding elder”-for which there is no justification. In Acts 14:23 and 1 Pet. 5:2 the scriptures plainly teach a plurality of elders over each local congregation, and all sharing equally. There was no such thing as a “presiding elder,” and these qualifications apply to all “elders,” and not to one “presiding elder.”

2 John 1 assigns the name of “Cyria” as the one being addressed-and again with no justification whatsoever, We do not know exactly who it was who was addressed in this passage.

Heb. 5:7 takes the liberty of inserting that the death of Christ was “premature,” implying the Jews got ahead of God’s schedule, in spite of the fact it was in full accord with the will of God (Luke 22:42). Note: ‘Yet while Christ was here on earth he pleaded with God, praying with tears and agony of soul to the only one who would save him from (premature) death.”

In 1 Cot. 13:10, Mr. Taylor does away with the Bible teaching that when the completed divine revelation was revealed (Jas. 1:25), the partial (miraculous gifts) would cease, and becomes, “But when we have been made perfect and complete, then the need for these inadequate special gifts will come to an end, and they will disappear.” There is no justification whatsoever for changing “that which” here to “we”.

Rom. 16:16 changes both “the churches of Christ” and “holy kiss” and reads, “Shake hands warmly with each other. All the churches here send you their greetings.” But, no wonder, since Mr. Taylor does not believe one must wear the name of Christ (Acts 4:12) and identify whose church it is in Biblical terminology.

Consistency

No effort at all has been made for consistency. “Casting lots” Js so translated in Lev. 16:7 and 1 Sam. 14:42, but becomes “draw straws” in Jonah 1:7 and Acts 1:26; and changes to “throw dice” in Esther 3:7; and to “toss a coin” in Prov. 16:33 and 18:18.

All of Paul’s epistles are headed in The Living Bible-Paraphrased by such headings as “Dear friends in Rome,” etc.-though not in the original-and all close with the closing, “Sincerely, Paul.” I should say all except 2 Cot., 2 Tim. and Philemon, where Paul for some reason was not so “sincere,” but rather just signed them, “Paul.” Phil. 4:21-23 has been assigned as a “P.S.” footnote as well.

The term “holy kiss” is retained when it was received by Jesus from Judas and the sinful woman, but becomes “shake hands warmly” in Rom. 16:16 and also a “loving handshake” in 1 Cot. 16:20.

In Poor Taste

Many other expression manifest a very poor sense of taste and a lack of proper forethought.

“It was at this time that beings from the spirit world looked upon the beautiful earth women and took any they desired to be their wives. . . . In those days, and even afterwards, when the evil beings from the spirit world were sexually involved with human women, their children became giants, of whom so many legends are told” (Gen. 6:2,4). This almost sounds like something from the Exorcist, rather than the word of God. Here the term “sons of God” is rendered as “being from the spirit world” and “evil beings from the spirit world.” However elsewhere it is used regularly and consistently of those human beings who were walking according to the laws of God, thus here to the descendants of Seth-and not to “evil spirits” at all! In light of the statement in Mark 12:25 and the context, there can be no justification whatsoever for such liberties.

Many other such expressions exist as evidence of very poor taste and judgment.

“You illegitimate bastard” appears in John 9:34; while the term, “You son of a bitch” is found in 1 Sam. 20:30. Would you parents like to recommend a volume containing the above to your kids and have them begin using such expressions? They will find them in The Living Bible-Paraphrased!

In Acts 4:36, “Joseph, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas (which is, being interpreted, the Son of consolation)” is rendered by Mr. Taylor as “Joseph (the one the apostles nicknamed `Barny the Preacher’. . . )”.

Acts 23:3 finds Paul’s statement of “Thou whited wall” becoming “you whitewashed pigpen.”

2 Cor. 12:16 refers to Paul as a “sneaky fellow” who “didn’t seem to cost us anything” (emphasis mine, DPA).

2 Cor. 8:11 introduces a term unrelated to the Bible in origin-“Having started the ball rolling.” Other terms unrelated to the Bible in origin found in The Living Bible–Paraphrased include: “Wine, women and song have robbed my people of their brains” (Hosea 4:11). “Don’t count your chickens before they hatch” (1 Kings 20:11); “a stubborn lout” (1 Sam. 25:17); “You keep putting your foot in your mouth” (Prov. 10:19); and “When the horse is stolen, it is too late to lock the barn” (Eccl. 10:11-totally different from the original).

Paul is not nearly so concerned with pleasing God as contrasted with pleasing men in Gal. 1:10, but rather, “You can see that I am not trying to please you by sweet talk and flattery.”

The familiar passage in Psa. 8:4 becomes, “I cannot understand how you can bother with mere puny man, to pay any attention to him.”

Conclusion

This paraphrase is dangerous, not only because of the many liberties taken by Mr. Taylor in making it, but because it is laid out like a Bible with nothing to call attention to where he took these liberties. Laid out thusly, many assume that it is a good and correct translation, and so use it, referring to it as a “Bible.” But, it is not a translation, and as we have demonstrated in this review, it is not even a good paraphrase! It has been dubbed by some as “A Handbook on Calvinism,” and certainly that would be a much more appropriate title for it. Because of the many liberties taken-often when the original was very plain-some glaring, and some more subtle; I cannot recommend, endorse or encourage usage of it.

I hope this review, if used properly with your own Bibles, will help you to become aware of the many errors of this paraphrase, and that being forewarned, you will also join in discouraging its deceptive teaching.

Truth Magazine, XX:11, p. 6-9
March 11, 1976

By Cecil Willis

Last week we studied the purpose of the Law of Moses as taught by Paul in Galatians 3. We saw that (1) it was added because of transgressions till the seed should come (3:19), (2) was to shut up all things under sin (3:22), (3) and was to bring us unto Christ (3:24). These purposes of the Law of Moses are suggestive of the nature of the Law. Each purpose for which Paul said the Law was given is a temporary purpose, and therefore one may make a valid conclusion that God did not give the Law to be a permanent fixture. Hence, this week we want to solicit your serious consideration of the subject, “The Duration of the Law.”

As previously we have stated, the book of Galatians has as one of its themes the discussion of the Law in relation to the Gospel of Christ. After having discussed the purpose of the Law, Paul also taught us how long the Law was to last, and this is what we mean by the duration of the Law. We want to learn how long the Law of Moses lasted.

There are some people who inform us that the Law of Moses is yet binding upon us, and that therefore we should keep the Sabbath Day (or, Saturday) instead of meeting for worship upon the First Day of the week as prescribed in the New Covenant. And there still are people who believe and teach that all one has to do to be saved is to keep the Ten Commandments. Paul told us that the Law of Moses was for a certain purpose, as we tried to learn last week. Then he said that the Law of Moses served its purpose, and therefore was done away. We are no longer under it. But let us turn now to the words of the great apostle Paul, and see what he taught about the duration of the Law.

Till the Seed Should Come

The first point we would like to make on the duration of the Law is stated in Gal. 3:19. Notice the context: “Now this I say: A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no more of promise: but God hath granted it to Abraham by promise. What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made: and it was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator.” Notice especially the statement, “It was added because of transgressions till the seed should come.” The first part of the expression we studied last week, but the latter part of Paul’s statement enlightens us as to the duration of the Law. It was to last “till the seed should come.”

The word “till” implies a point of termination. Henry Thayer, one of the great New Testament Greek lexicographers, said that the original Greek word used means “even to, until, to the time that” (Thayer, pg. 91). To use these definitions in the verse, Paul was saying that the Law was added because of transgressions “even unto,” or “until,” or “to the time that” the seed should come. Thayer also commented that the Greek word which Paul used which is translated “till” is “a particle indicating the terminus ad quem,” or he was saying the word “till” implies the place at which a certain thing will terminate.

We frequently use the word “till” in exactly the same sense in which Paul is using it. In fact, it is difficult to conceive of it’s being used in any other sense. Some of us remember back during World War II when we all had rationing books. We had to present so many stamps for a pound of sugar, or a pound of meat. But the rationing period lasted only “till” the duration of the war. When the war was over, the rationing period expired. Or we may speak of our automobile license plates as being valid until or “till” March of next year. That means that they expire or will become invalid at that time.

So how long was the Law to last? Paul said it was to last “till” the seed should come. Well, how long was that? If we simply read the verse preceding the one we have just read, this will be clear: “Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ” (Gal. 3:16). Paul said that the seed spoken of is Christ. The Law was to last “till” Christ should come. When the seed, or Christ, came the Law was to be done away. This coincides perfectly with’ what Paul had previously said about man’s being made dead to the Law through the body of Christ (Rom. 7:4). The duration of the Law, therefore, was until the death of Christ. At that time Moses’ Law was nailed to the cross. The nature of the Law was temporary.

Till We are Brought To The Instructor

In Gal. 3:24, 25, Paul made another statement that gives us light into how long the Law of Moses was intended to last. We also studied this passage last week, but at that time we read it in connection with the purpose of the Law. Verse 24, says, “So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” We saw that one purpose of the Law was to bring us to Christ. The Greek word translated “tutor” ‘ in this passage (ASV) is translated “schoolmaster” in the King James Version. However, one can best get the meaning of the term that Paul used by consulting a Greek lexicon. When one uses the term “tutor” today, he means a private instructor. But such was not the meaning of the term in New Testament times. Henry Thayer specifically says, when speaking of the word translated “tutor”, “They are distinguished from hoi didaskaloi” (472). Didaskaloi means teacher, said Thayer, but he said this is not the idea conveyed in this particular passage. A tutor is different from a teacher. The Greeks had a different term to be used when the idea of instructor was intended. Yet it is understandable how the word took on its present connotation when one understands the Greek usage of the term. A “tutor,” as used in this passage, according to Thayer is “a guide and guardian of boys. Among the Greeks and Romans the name was applied to trustworthy slaves who were charged with the duty of supervising the life and morals of boys belonging to the better class. The boys were not allowed so much as to step out of the house without them before arriving at the age of manhood” (pg. 472).

In many instances a private teacher would be selected for the son of the nobleman, and the “tutor” was the. one entrusted with seeing that the son safely arrived at the teacher, and was returned safely home. So the Law was our “tutor” or “schoolmaster” to bring us to Christ. It was a purpose of the Law to see that mankind was safely delivered unto Christ, the instructor.

Now, in order that the truth stated by Paul may be all the more clear, look at the passage again: “So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor” (Gal. 3:24,25). If there is any one passage in the New Testament that makes it unequivocally plain that the Law of Moses was temporary, this is it. In language which no man can misunderstand Paul stated the duration of the Law of Moses. This might be language which some do not believe, but it is not language which is not understood. He first said that the Law is our tutor to bring us to Christ (v. 24). Then, he declared that now that faith is come we are no longer under a tutor (v. 25). If the Law is a tutor, and Paul said we are no longer under the tutor, how can men yet declare and argue that we are bound by the Law of Moses? Paul’s argument is that we are released from the Law of Moses, and that we have perfect freedom in Christ. So here is a second statement of Paul as to the duration of the Law. First he said the Law was added because of transgressions till the seed should come (3:19), and then he said the Law is a tutor, but we are no longer under a tutor.

We will consult but one other passage in the Galatian epistle on the duration of the Law. In chapters 3, and 4, Paul demonstrated the relationship between the Law of Moses, and the Gospel of Christ. So now turn to Gal. 4:21-31: “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the freewoman. Howbeit the son by the handmaid is born after the flesh; but the son by the freewoman is born through promise. Which things contain an allegory: for these women are two covenants; one from mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar. Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not: Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the spirit, so also it is now. Howbeit what saith the scripture? Cast out the handmaid and her son: for the son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman. Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the freewoman.”

In this passage Paul said that those who yet want to be under the Law do not even pay attention to what the Law says, for in the Old Testament we read of Abraham’s two wives, and his two sons. These historical realities, Paul declared, contain a vital and important lesson. The two women represent two covenants. Hagar is representative of the covenant given from Mt. Sinai in Arabia, which can be no other than the Law of Moses. This covenant answereth to the Jerusalem that now is. Jerusalem was literally the center of worship under the Old Testament Law. As Hagar’s children are of the flesh and are in bondage. Sarah, Abraham’s real wife, is representative of the Jerusalem that is above, or the heavenly Jerusalem: “but ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels, and to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven.” Sarah’s children are not after the flesh, but are of promise, and are not in bondage, but are free. Then Paul said, but brethren we are children of promise.

Remembering that Paul said the children of Hagar, the handmaid, represented the Law of Moses, let us see the conclusion of Paul’s teaching: “Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the freewoman” (Gal. 3:31). Hagar represented the Law, so Paul said that brethren in the Lord, members of the church, are not under the Law. This would be plain enough for any who are willing to accept the Bible as the final standard of authority.

Conclusion

How long did the Law last? It lasted until Christnailed it to the cross. Paul said, “God having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manner, hath in these last days spoken unto us in his Son” (Heb. 1:1). We are not to go by the Law of Moses, but by the Law of christ. Christ died to take the Old Testament out of the way.

Truth Magazine, XX:11, p. 3-5
March 11, 1976

By Donald Willis

Drunkenness is condemned in the scriptures. In listing a catalog of the works of the flesh, Paul includes “drunkenness,” and concludes, “. . . they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:21). Thus, the case for drunkenness is forever closed. Yet, a, problem to the Twentieth Century Christian is the casual drink, the social drink. Does the Bible speak about social drinking?

The Jews were restricted from taking the strong drink (Proverbs 23:30-31), which, by the process of natural fermentation could not have been as strong as our weaker “proof liquors.”

Social Drink

Peter observes, “For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot. . .” (1 Peter 4:3-4).

Observe the contrast: excess of wine and banqueting. Excess of wine is the problem of drunkenness. The Christian has already settled this problem. I conclude that the problem of social drinking is comparable to the banqueting that Peter denotes as the walk of the Gentiles!

Definitions

Webster defines banqueting: “1. an elaborate meal; feast. 2. a formal dinner, usually with toasts and speeches. v.t. to honor with or entertain at a banquet. v.i. to eat sumptuously” (New World Dictionary, pg. 116). By this definition, a banquet could be either right or wrong, depending on the activities engaged in.

From the Greek, banqueting (potos) means “drinking, esp. a drinking party, carousal” (Arndt and Gingrich, pg. 702); “a drinking; a drinking together, drinking-bout, computation” (Bagster, pg. 325); “wine ‘feasts, drinking matches” (Adam Clarke, Vol. 6, pg. 863). The New English Bible uses the term, “tippling.”

Note the terms in addition to a drinking-bout or party: carousal, computation, tippling! Carousal means an hilarious drinking party. A compotator is one who drinks with another; fellow tippler. Tipple comes from the idea of overturning, specifically with relation to alcoholic beverages. All of the above definitions are from Webster’s New World Dictionary.

Webster’s definition number 2 of banquet (a formal dinner, usually with toasts and speeches) certainly suggests the activity that is included in the common practices of social drinking; i.e., it is a party with the serving of alcoholic beverages in which social drinking bouts (parties) are engaged.

Conclusion

“The thing forbidden by it is an assembling together for the purpose of drinking. There is nothing in this word referring to eating, or to banqueting, as the term is now commonly employed. The idea in the passage is, that it is improper for Christians to meet together for the purpose of drinking-as wine, toasts, etc. The prohibition would apply to all those assemblages where this is understood to be the main object. It would forbid, therefore, an attendance on all those celebrations in which drinking toasts is understood to be an essential part of the festivities, and all those where hilarity and joyfulness are sought to be produced by the intoxicating bowl. Such are not proper places for Christians” (Albert Barnes, James-Jude, pg. 188-189).

Jesus said the great commandment was, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Matthew 22:37). NOTE: All the heart, soul and mind! When the brain is anaesthetized with alcohol, it is impossible to love God with all the heart, soul and mind. Thus, one falls short of ability to properly show respect to God. For these reasons, the child of God should not drink the “drink of death”!

Truth Magazine, XX:11, p. 2
March 11, 1976

By Jeffery Kingry

“When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honorable man than thou be bidden of him; and he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. But when thou are bidden, go and sit in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: Then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted” (Luke 14:7-11).

When I was about 15 I bought a guitar and learned a few chords. Back in the early sixties, when folk-music was “in,” I cut quite a figure among my fellow “teenieboppers.” They even voted me “most-talented” in their innocence. It went straight to my head, and I took my $15 Stella to New York in hopes of becoming a “star!” There was a try-out at the Bitter End, a coffeehouse that “discovered” Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, and Peter, Paul, & Mary. With firm confidence I strode upstairs where “other” artists were tuning, chording, and harmonizing, waiting for their chance before the spot lights. I walked around the room in wonder listening and watching. Beautiful people with beautiful voices, on finely tuned Gibsons and Martins, made beautiful music on their silver-wound guitar strings. Some could even puff on a harmonica hung before their lips by a wire contraption while singing and playing at the same time. I silently went home after enjoying the show, without having opened my $5.98 cardboard guitar case and have never regretted it. The kids back home loved my “stuff” and never knew any different.

Jesus gave us instruction on how to live, and live well, with satisfaction, happiness, and confidence. Some may think Jesus’ instructions in Luke 14 mundane and trivial. Why would the Master Teacher concern himself with the common details of our daily life? Luke 14 tells us that Jesus was interested in such things: to what homes we go, whom we have to dinner, what place in the house we take, how we act at the table (1 Cor. 10:31), what the tone of our conversation is (Matt. 12:31), what we wear (1 Pet. 3:3), whether we encourage or discourage (Matt. 10:42; 18:6).

In Luke 14 Jesus pointedly demonstrated the blessedness (happiness) of humility. The self-assertive personality is constantly ill at ease. No accomplishment of man in comparison to the whole is of much consequence. In comparison to the example of our Lord, man’s position, power, or ability becomes nothing.

True humility stems not from thinking poorly of oneself, but in having oneself in proper perspective. It is not thinking of oneself at all. A brother in Christ who held debates, wrote a great deal, and held many meetings a year was finally asked to speak on the Florida College Lectureship. After his over-long speech, several of his family and friends came to the stage to congratulate him. Amid shaking hands and smiles a young man made his way through the crowd and stretched out his hand with a small piece of paper in it. “I have been waiting for this honor for years,” he said brightly, “Can I have your autograph?” The preaching brother smilingly reached into his coat pocket for a pen as the young man walked by him to the song leader. “I have enjoyed your singing ability for years . . .” and the preacher blushed in humiliation as the two stepped away from the stage in earnest conversation. How presumptions and prideful are those who compare themselves by themselves and among others like them. When comparing our meager abilities against the real thing we come off short every time. Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith. “But be ye not called Rabbi, for one is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren” (Matt. 23:8).

There is no place in our Lord’s family for those who think more highly of themselves than they ought. In the politics of the world it is the vigorous, self-assertive who often pass by the humble and snatch the wilted laurel wreath of “success.” Even so, it is the godly, the becoming, the blessed thing to remain lowly minded. Leave the carnal laurels to the self-willed. A humble mind is worth striving for and possessing for its own sake. “Blessed are the poor in spirit; For theirs is the kingdom of God.”

It is a privilege to be asked to teach God’s people (Luke 4:15-20). It is presumptuous to insert oneself in a position of honor without having been asked. Preachers who ask for meetings, seek glory for their labor from men, and “seek the high places” in public have received their reward. Spiritual pride is utterly offensive to God, and draws his most serious condemnation. Everyone is pleased when the arrogant person is humiliated. But, modesty is recognized and honored by man and God. We are not much brethren, no matter how much we may think to the contrary. Lowliness of mind is a far better way of life than to possess all the honors and glory the presumptive and arrogant may commend.

Truth Magazine, XX:10, p. 13
March 4, 1976