Truth Magazine

By Rickie Jenkins

Isn’t it interesting that we are asking this question to-day? For just as today, this question was very much on the minds of people in the days of Paul (Acts 18:18; 21:18-28; 1 Cor. 9:20-21). It is important for us to recognize that Paul had a high regard for the law. He tells us that the “law is holy, and the commandments holy and just and good” (Rom. 7:12). He described himself as a strict observer of the law, “a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee.” There was no one who tried harder to be justified by the law than Paul. He understood the purpose of the law (Gal. 3:24-25) and was devout concerning the law before he was a Christian as well as after he became a Christian. Oh yes, certainly he teaches, in Romans and Galatians, no man is justified by perfect law keeping but by the grace of God through an obedient faith. But, isn’t that obedient faith an expression of reverence for the law of God? Paul did not set aside the law, whether of Moses or of Christ, for mere convenience sake. If he de-scribed himself as “a Hebrew among Hebrews” before he became a Christian, then today he would be a “Christian among Christians.” We want to look at our question in three ways: first, did Paul teach the Jews not to circumcise their children?; second, did Paul violate his own teaching when he helped the four men pay their charges?; and third, did Paul violate his own teaching when he kept his vow at Cenchrea?

Paul had a devout respect for his heritage as a Jew. In fact, when customary things related to being a Jew could be performed, he did them. Paul’s problems came because people believed false rumors about him. Paul had been represented as teaching “the Jews among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs” (Acts 21:21). Although Paul had not taught these things, many of the zealous Jews were distressed, thinking that he had. This misrepresentation seems to have grown out of the events of Acts 15 where Paul taught that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised in order to be saved. This teaching infuriated many among the Jews. Yes, Paul taught the Gentiles that it was not necessary for them to circumcise their children as a necessity for salvation. He never taught that Jews could not circumcise their children out of respect for their heritage. In fact, Paul circumcised the half-Jew Timothy because of the Jews in order that he might win some (Acts 16:3; 1 Cor. 9:20-21). He refused to circumcise Titus, not because he was against circumcision as such, but because the Judaizers were trying to bind circumcision upon him and others as necessary for salvation. Therefore, in order to teach the Judaizers that circumcision was not necessary for salvation, Paul did not give in to them for one minute (Gal. 2:3-5).

Furthermore, in order to avoid a tumultuous assemblage and to quiet the rumors being spread about him, Paul was advised by James and the elders to take four men who had taken a vow and pay their vow for them and be purified with them (Acts 21:23-24). These men were evidently under a Nazarite vow (Num. 6). Under such a vow they would let their hair grow, not eat anything from the grape moist or dried; they were not to come near any dead body nor to make themselves unclean for their father, mother, brother, or sister when they died (Num. 6:3-7). They were to present an offering when the days of the vow were completed (Num. 6:13-21). Nowhere is it intimated that Paul took a vow; it is assumed perhaps from Acts 18:18.

According to Vincent, “The person who paid the expenses for the poor devotees who could not afford the necessary charges shared the vow so far as that he was required to stay with the Nazarites until the time the vow had expired. For a week, then, Paul, if he accepted the advice of James and the elders, would have to live with the four paupers in the chamber of the temple which was set apart for this purpose; and then to pay for the sixteen sacrificial animals and the accompanying meat offerings. He must also stand among the Nazarites during the offering of the sacrifices, and look on while their heads were shaved, and while they took their hair to burn it under the cauldron of the peace offerings, and while the priest took four sodden shoulders of rams, and four unleavened cakes out of the four baskets, and four unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and put them on the hands of the Nazarites and wave them for a wave offering before the Lord.” Paying the expenses for terminating the vow of these four certainly did not equate that Paul was also taking the vow. By accepting James and the elders proposal, Paul is simply becoming a Jew to the Jew that he might win some (1 Cor. 9:20-21). For the sake of others he acted. After all, that was what he was encouraged to do, “that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing” (Acts 21: 24).

The letter of Acts 15 still stands. The request being made of Paul does not conflict with the principle nor, in fact, with the teaching concerning the Gentiles. He did not become inconsistent, or compromise his teaching, rather he showed himself a respecter of the old law. Suppose we were to go to a foreign country like Japan. While there, we observe that one of their customs was taking off their shoes before we enter the house. We determine that to be a good practice. So, we begin to take off our shoes before we enter our houses. But, someone comes along and tells us we have to take off our shoes before entering the house or we will be lost. Now what? Taking off our shoes is no longer a matter of custom but a matter of salvation. Can we keep the custom? Yes. Can we make the custom regarding salvation? No.

Now let us briefly look at Acts 18:18 where Paul “cut his hair off in Cenchrea, for he had taken a vow.” A vow was a solemn promise made to God. Vows were used prominently throughout the Scriptures. “Jacob, going into Mesopotamia, vowed a tenth of his estate, and promised to offer it at Bethel to the honor of God (Gen. 28:22). A man might devote himself or his children to the Lord. He might devote any part of his time or property to his service” (Barnes). The most remarkable vow among the Jews was that of the Nazarite. The vow of Paul mentioned in Acts 18 is like a Nazarite vow in that he did shave his head; the vow is different because he did not shave his hair in Jerusalem nor burn it on the alter as Numbers 6:13-18. Vows were also common for Jews to make to God as an expression of gratitude or of devotedness to his service when they had been raised up from sickness or delivered from danger or calamity. No doubt Paul was thankful for all of God’s goodness to him in Corinth and took his vow to show his gratitude. His vow seems to have been a private vow as a result of some mercy received or of some deliverance from danger, not the Nazarite vow, though similar in its obligation.

In spite of Paul’s efforts to become all things to all men in order to win some, there were some who were not satisfied by his attempts. After paying the vow for the four men he was accused of defiling the temple by taking a Gentile into the temple with him (Acts 21:28-29). Isn’t that a stretch? Just because Paul had been seen with Trophimus his de-tractors assumed Paul had taken him in the temple with him. First, the Jews jumped to the conclusion about what he taught because of what they heard about him, and then his detractors judged Paul guilty by association. From the Jews we learn we must be very slow to draw conclusions about what another teaches based on what we have heard. Also, we learn the need to be very careful about judging a person because of his associations. The Jews teach us how not to treat one another. From Paul we also learn how to get along with people and their customs. Paul bent over backward to accommodate the peculiar idiosyncrasies and prejudices of his detractor(s) as well as the rumors about what he taught regarding the law. Let us do likewise. Unfortunately we have all experienced situations like this and, sadly, have been guilty of the same thing as these Jews. We all need to be like Paul (1 Cor. 9:20-21), and we all need to rid ourselves of attitudes like the Jews in Acts 21:18-28.

Guardian of Truth XL: 3 p. 16-17
February1, 1996

By David O. Lanius

Paul had learned of brethren at Corinth who were taking each other before the heathen courts to settle their differences. While it is obvious that differences between brethren will arise, brethren must settle these differences before they reach a proportion that brings reproach upon Christ, his kingdom, and each other. Going to law with a brother further divided the church at Corinth and also hindered the work of God among the non-Christians (1:10-11; 3:3; 10:32).

First of all, let me state that this issue was settled by Jesus in Matthew 18:15-35. The first thing for one to do when there is a dispute with another brother is to go to him alone with the idea of restoring the relationship. If the situation is not resolved, then one must bring two or three brethren along in a continued effort to save this brother. If all fails, then and only then is the matter to be taken before the church. Notice that the Lord does not instruct us to bring conflicts between brethren before the civil courts. Jesus had complete confidence in his people that they could settle issues between themselves.

Paul’s instructions to Corinth do not forbid a Christian the use of the court system under all circumstances. In fact, civil courts are ordained by God (Rom. 13:1; Tit. 3:1). The apostle Paul who by inspiration wrote our text, appealed to the Roman authorities to prevent the Jews from hindering the work of God (Acts 25:1-11). So there must be a right time and a wrong time to “appeal to Caesar.” There are times we can appeal to the court systems when it is not for the purpose of defrauding our brethren. Sometimes we are even taken to court and must show up or be in contempt. These brethren at Corinth were selfish and greedy and thought only of themselves, and Paul was showing them that this was not the way to go before the courts of the ungodly.

The Corinthian brethren of our text chose the wrong time to use the unrighteous judges. Paul shames them by saying, “Dare any of you, having a matter against an-other, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?” The word “dare” implies disapproval and shame when differences between brethren are turned over to the courts of the unbelievers. The unrighteous judges would judge the issues according to worldly standards, where as the child of God lives by a much higher standard, a divine one (Tit. 2:11-12), and the saints would judge accordingly. How can the outsider judge the heart and actions of God’s child? They cannot!

Several reasons are given for not allowing the unrighteous judges to settle disputes between brethren. Two reasons given are: “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?” and “Do you not know that we shall judge angels?” The term “Do you not know” or “know ye not” sets a tone for the answer to our question about going to law. Paul uses this expression “do you not know” ten times as he writes to our brethren at Corinth, and six of these times are found in chapter 6: 2, 3, 9, 15, 16, and 19. I personally believe that Paul is being sarcastic trying to deal with these conceited Corinthians who believe that they “know” everything. The term “judge” sometimes means: “to pronounce judgment; to subject to censure.” The term “world” (the Greek komos), according to Thayer, means: “the ungodly multitudes; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ.” The term “shall judge” carries with it the thought of this judging taking place during the lifetime of the child of God. The daily lives of God’s children judge the world and angels (Matt. 19:28; Rev. 2:26; 3:21; 20:4). We should not try to regulate or control the lives of those of the world. God will judge them (1 Cor. 5:12-13). Since we judge the world and angels by our lives, why should we want to take our differences before those that we judge. At the same time, the text tells us that the Corinthians did not esteem or have a high regard for these unrighteous judges (v. 4).

Paul asked, “Are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?” (v. 2). He notes that these are very trivial matters, or things of little value, that separate these brethren. There must be someone among the brethren at Corinth that is wise enough to take care of these matters (v. 5).

In verse 7 Paul says that these brethren have “failed.” By what they have done, taking a brother before the unjust judges, it is an indication that they are spiritually sick, and that they have failed in living as they should before the world. The failure is also in defrauding (cheating) one’s brother. The spiritual loss which the lawsuit produced was not worth the small gain these brethren might realize. It is better to suffer wrong than to defraud a brother, especially before the world. Paul says, why will you not rather suffer wrong and be defrauded than to bring shame upon yourself be-fore the ungodly. A faithful child of God does not seek “his rights” at the expense of God and his brethren.

Again, our Lord has already settled this issue in Matthew 18, and the Corinthians should have known better. When a child of God has the world settle his disputes with brethren, the name of Christ and his body are drug through the dirt. Who can deny this? The child of God is a light into the world (Matt. 5:16), showing the world how saved ones live and even settle their differences. We love our brethren and esteem them better than ourselves and will suffer wrong instead of defrauding one who is our brother in the Lord (Heb. 13:1; 1 Pet. 1:22; Rom 12:1-2; Phil. 2:3-4). In a society such as Corinth, taking a brother to court only added to the suspicion of the non-believers. They no doubt could say, “If that is the way they treat one another, why would I want to be a part of such a self-seeking group.”

Guardian of Truth XL: 4 p. 5-6
February 15, 1996

By Robert F. Turner

Righteousness through faith in Christ has been presented in the first four chapters of Paul’s letter to the Romans; and man’s individual responsibility for his sin, for his condemnation, and for his response to Christ has been emphasized in clear prosaic language. Now Paul sums up this thesis in a dramatic contrast of Adam (representing sinful mankind) and Christ (the gracious response of heaven). You are urged to restudy the earlier chapters, for this summation states the same truth that has already been argued at length. The complicated wording of some scenes may pose problems, but should al-ways be interpreted in conformance with Paul’s previous material, and in the context of the total Bible teaching on these subjects.

In this dramatic presentation Adam and Christ appear upon the stage of inspiration in five closely related sequences, each showing the overwhelming superiority of God’s grace to sin and its consequence. What Adam introduced, Christ countered  and always victoriously.

Verse twelve is the key to what follows, and must be carefully considered. “Therefore” shows relation to earlier verses; “as through one man (Adam) sin entered into the world . . .” The “as” anticipates a counterpart  the contrast with Christ which will be made in verse fifteen. Through (dia) Adam sin entered, or was introduced into the world. Compare 2 John 7 where the Gnostic deceivers “entered into the world.”

Adam’s sin no more made (immediately) the people of the world sinners, than the Gnostics made (immediately) early Christians to apostatize. Nor is (the) death (viewed abstractly) of this verse the immediate consequence of Adam’s sin. Adam introduced sin into the world, but Adam did not directly produce universal condemnation. That death came through (dia) sin. Look carefully at the Greek text. It is “dia one man, sin” but it is “dia sin, death.” Adam was separated from God (spiritual death) because Adam sinned. “And so . . .” (houtos, in this manner; cf. Rom. 11:26) “death passed unto all men” (a reference to the degenerate condition of mankind, as shown in chapters one through three) “for that all sinned.” Each one’s sin is the causative ground for his spiritual death. This individual responsibility was declared in Paul’s earlier teaching (pantes harmarton, 3:23) and now here. It is to be under-stood in all which follows.

“For” (v. 13) relates what follows to verse twelve, but makes a parenthetic point. Prior to Moses, no general codified law for the identification of sin had been given. Yet, sin related death reigned (v. 14). If this sin was “in Adam” it would have been like his sin  violation of a positive precept. But Paul says their sin was unlike that of Adam’s. He has earlier shown that sin may be a violation of the individual’s moral sense of “ought” (Rom. 2:14-15).

Now, with verse 15, we see completed the contrast be-gun in verse 12. Following Adam’s example “the many” died (“for that all have sinned”), and brought upon them-selves spiritual death. But the antagonistic spirit of the sinner (first seen in Adam), is countered by the exceedingly abounding grace of God. This grace is expressed in Jesus Christ, the means whereby whosoever will (“the many”) may live. The effect is secondary in this scene; emphasis being given to that which brings about spiritual death and life.

In the second contrast (v. 16), seeing the offense of Adam, God gave a judgment (krima, decree) regarding punishment, that resulted in condemnation for all who sin. But being merciful and knowing there would be many offenses, the same God (also decreed) the free gift  Christ on the cross, “an act of righteousness” (cf. ASV f.n.)  who became the sinner’s justification (Cf. v. 18).

In verse 17, third scene, one (Adam’s) offense initiated a reign of (the) death (viewed abstractly) “for that all have sinned.” In contrast, we see saints reigning in life by one, Jesus Christ. Death reigned in the first instance, but in the second, saints “shall reign” as conquerors in Christ (Rom. 8:37). The future tense of “shall reign” contemplates ultimate glory  “the Life” far exceeding “the Death” to which sin subjects its followers.

 

Adam	Christ
Introduced sin in world mercy	Gift of abounding grace,
So, condemnation decreed	So, justification decreed
And The Death” reigned	And saints reign in “The Life”
All sinned, all condemned	All have redemption available
By disobedience primordial “father” of many sinners	By his obedience (on cross) many were made righteous

 

The fourth antithesis (v. 18) is similar to the second (v. 16). The condemnation was initiated by one (Adam), and (the means of) justification is by one, the Christ. But here Paul stresses the universality of results. The decree of punishment (v. 16) passed on all (“for that all have sinned”), and Christ’s (one act of) righteousness was for all. In each case, all people are accountable for their own sins, and are equally invited to come to Christ for mercy (John 3:16; Mark 16:15-16).

The last contrast (v. 19) concerns the subjective and practical results of the two categories. Adam’s way was one of disobedience, while Christ’s way was that of obedience. “The many” who follow the way of Adam are “made (constituted) sinners,” and “the many” who submit to Christ shall, through him, be “made righteous.”

Throughout these comments on Romans 5 we have considered the “death” to be spiritual. This is in keeping with the earlier context of Romans, and the immediate association of our text with justification through Christ. The argument here is entirely different from 1 Corinthians 15 where mortality, the grave, and resurrection establish a physical context for that Adam-Christ contrast. “In the day” Adam ate of the forbidden tree he did  some way  “surely die” (Gen. 2:17). Adam had a physical body prior to his sin. He was to reproduce (Gen. 1:28), ate physical foods (1:29), had natural appetites and desires (2:9; 3:6) prior to his sin. This natural life continued for many years. True, his sin caused his expulsion from Eden and the tree of life (Gen. 3:22). In that sense sin emphasized mortality for him and his descendants. But for us, this is an unconditional inheritance from Adam, unconditionally replaced by the physical resurrection of saint and sinner (John 5:28-29).

Sin related (spiritual) “death” is conditioned upon individual sin, and that sin is conditionally forgiven, upon obedient faith in Jesus Christ (1:5; 3:26; 5:1). The prophet Ezekiel said, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son . . .” (Ezek.18:20). This so accords with the teaching of the Scriptures as a whole that we must read the sometimes difficult language of the above dramatic scenes in the light of the larger concept.

These colorful contrasts were dramatic illustrations in the midst of Paul’s arguments on law versus grace. He now returns to that theme with a summary that reads almost like a doxology. “The law entered” (v. 20) or came between the promise to Abraham (Gen.12:1-3) and its fulfillment in Christ (Gal. 3:16-29). Why? “That the offense might abound,” i.e., be the more apparent (Rom. 3:19-20; 7:13). Man sinned in the absence of a codified law; but specific, positive precepts clearly identified man’s transgressions and emphasized the futility of seeking justification via law. Paul said the Law served “to bring us to Christ” (Gal. 3:24); and law has not lost that function to-day. So, Paul closes this section of his letter with Romans 5:21: “But where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly: that, as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Guardian of Truth XL: 4 p. 1
February 15, 1996

By Leon Goff

There are some, including some among our own brethren, who believe that Jesus’ turning water into wine, according to John 2:1-11, puts God’s stamp of approval upon the drinking of intoxicating beverages for social and recreational purposes. In Paul’s listing of the qualifications of elders and deacons, the expressions “not given to wine, ” and “not given to much wine” are sometimes used to support the position that drinking a little wine for social and recreational purposes is scripturally sanctioned (1 Tim. 3:3, 8).

The same arguments would also justify the social and recreational use of other drugs, since alcohol itself is a drug. How many who profess to be faithful Christians are ready for this consequence and conclusion? I would hope, none!

I wish to emphasize at the very beginning of this article that I do not believe the above passages, or any others, can be used successfully and rightfully to prove that the social and recreational use of alcohol and drugs is approved of God. I believe this basic issue must be kept before us regardless of the difficulty of some passages and contexts, and especially in the face of the mixed signals we may get from “scholars” who have dealt with this general theme.

Jesus Turned Water Into Wine (John 2:1-11)

What was the “wine” that Jesus made from water? Many jump to the conclusion that because the word “wine” is used, Jesus made a fermented, intoxicating drink. I do not believe that can be proven.

Someone may respond, “Yes, but you cannot prove it was not fermented.” I may not be able absolutely to prove that it was not fermented, especially to others’ satisfaction. It is not my obligation to prove that. It is only my intention and obligation to prove that just because the word “wine” is used does not necessitate the conclusion that Jesus made fermented, intoxicating wine.

The word is used five times in John 2:1-11, twice by John the writer of the gospel, once by the mother of Jesus, and twice by the governor or master of the wedding in Cana. In all five usages the Greek word is oinos. In fact, this word is the one used in the New Testament, except for Acts 2:13, where gleukos is used and translated “new wine.” Vine says that “OINOS is the general word for wine” (p. 219). This one word in the New Testament and the Greek includes different Old Testament Hebrew words for wine. Thayer says the Greek word oinos translates, in the Septuagint Version, not only the Hebrew word yayin, but also the Hebrew words tiyrosh and hemer (p. 442). Tiyrosh is the word in Isa. 65:8: “As the new wine is found in the cluster…. ” In the Greek translation this is the same word (oinos) as is used all five times in John 2:1-11.

What does all of this prove? The word oinos used in John 2:1-11 is a general word covering all stages of the juice of the grape (fermented and unfermented), including the juice in the grape still in the cluster on the vine (Isa. 65:8). That proves Jesus, in turning the water into “wine,” could have, and may have, made unfermented grape juice. As I mentioned earlier, that is all I am obligated to prove. Those who take the view that Jesus approved of the social and recreational use of alcohol and drugs must prove that the “wine” Jesus made could only refer to fermented, intoxicating wine. I believe that is impossible!

What if Jesus did make fermented wine? Does that prove that Jesus approves of the social use of alcohol? Remember, the basic point of this context is the recording of the first miracle Jesus performed. If Jesus’ performing this miracle proves Jesus approves of “intoxicating wine making and drinking,” would not his miracle of casting the demons out of the man and into the swine and destroying two thousand head of swine (Luke 8:26-37) prove that Jesus approves of our destroying other people’s property? Would Paul miraculously striking Elymas blind (Acts 13:6-12) prove that Paul (under God’s guidance and power) was giving us approval to punch out someone’s eyes? Are we ready for these kinds of interpretations and conclusions? I think not!

I believe it to be very questionable and dangerous to use the miracles of Jesus and his apostles to establish approval for something we wish to do.

1 Timothy 3:3, 8

The expression me paroinon in verse 3, in the qualification of bishops, is translated “not given to wine,” “not given to drunkenness.” Me in the Greek means “no, not, never, no in no wise,” and is a particle of qualified negation, according to Strong. Paroinon is a combination of the word Para, (“with an accusative . . . at, by, near by the side of, beside, along”  Thayer 477), and oinos which means “wine.” Vine says it means “tarrying at wine…. probably has the secondary sense, of the effects of wine-bibbing, abusive brawling” (p. 146).

“Not given to much wine” translated from me oinos polio prosechontas (v. 8) is a similar expression to that found in verse 3. Prosechontas means “to hold to, signifies to turn to, turn one’s attention to” (Vine, p. 211), and polio means much or many.

The emphasis in both of these qualifications seems to be that elders and deacons cannot be guilty of drunkenness or intoxication. Wine-bibbing, and giving attention to that which will intoxicate one is to be no part of the life of one considered to be elder or deacon material. Is it not dangerous to take these negatives toward that (drunkenness) which every Christian must agree is plainly condemned in the Scriptures and try to turn that into a positive in favor of drinking moderately socially and recreationally? In 1 Timothy 3:3 we have a similar construction in the expression “no striker, not violent.” This could be translated “not given to striking or violence.” Are we to interpret that to mean we can strike a little and engage in a little violence as long as we don’t overdo it?

Admittedly, these are difficult passages, especially when someone is determined to make them say something they really do not say. I emphasize again what I wrote at the beginning. While it can be proven from the Bible that “wine” was used medicinally and sacrificially with God’s approval, I do not believe it can be proven that God approves of the social and recreational use of alcohol and drugs.

I have known members of the church of Christ who drank alcoholic beverages. But I cannot remember even one of such cases where they were used without involving intoxication. I have seen grown men with trembling hands and tears running down their cheeks saying they wished they had never taken the first drink. I have heard Christians who have been enslaved to alcohol, as well as drugs, plead with our young people never to make the mistake of taking the first drink. Do you really believe that Jesus ever approved of something so enslaving and so dangerous?

Solomon said: “Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it swirls around smoothly; At the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like a viper” (Prov. 23:31, 32). There is no question about the kind of wine he speaks of in this verse. Do you believe what he said? Why try to make Jesus and the Bible contradict such plain statements?

Guardian of Truth XL: 3 p. 22-23
February 1, 1996