Category Archives: New Testament

Bottoms Up: Reflections on Alcohol and the Word of God

Posted on by
7

Messiah BoldWithin “American Christianity” there is a longstanding tradition of legalism when it comes to the consumption of alcohol; however, this tradition is not as old as you may think. It was not until Dr. Thomas Bramwell Welch, a Methodist minister and the founder of Welch’s, developed a pasteurization process in 1869 that it became possible to produce and store unfermented grape juice for use in communion. Welch was a staunch prohibitionist and proceeded to persuade churches in New Jersey to abandon the use of fermented beverages and use his “unfermented wine” when celebrating the Lord’s Supper. His denomination then helped to spearhead the movement that led to the prohibition and now it is fairly normative that churches in America use Welch’s grape juice, or a generic equivalent, for communion.

When one views this phenomenon over the course of church history the current practice is an odd one indeed. From the church’s inception till the early twentieth century, that is twenty centuries for those of you who are mathematically impaired, the normative practice of the church has been to use fermented wine to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, not to mention its use in the home and for virtually every other celebration. Furthermore, if one views this phenomenon as it occurs within the global church the practice of most American churches stands out as an oddity as well with our little plastic cups and our unfermented wine. In fact if one were to explain this to Christians outside of America one would be surprised to discover how many would question whether or not our practice is biblical, after all Jesus used wine.

All of that is simply to give you a context in which to understand my reflections. How your church practices communion is neither here nor there; my main concern in this post is addressing the sinful and legalistic mindset that believes godliness necessitates abstinence. Such legalism is just as deadly and far more subtle than drunkenness; especially when it becomes a predominant expression of holiness within the church.

  • Scripture is undeniably opposed to the sin of drunkenness (Romans 13:13; I Corinthians 5:11; 6:9-10; Ephesians 5:18).
  • The priests were forbidden from drinking “wine and strong drink” when serving in the Tabernacle; however, when they were not serving they were commanded by God to drink “the best of the wine,” were to drink it as something “most holy,” and they were to drink it in a “most holy place” (Numbers 18:8-32).
  • Drink offerings were pleasing to the Lord (Exodus 29:38-41).
  • Jesus’ first miracle was to turn 120 to 180 gallons of water into wine at a wedding where the guests were already drunk (John 2:1-11). With this miracle Jesus would have been forbidden to minister by many American denominations; I find this very problematic.
  • Jesus compared the gospel to wine (Mark 2:21-22; Luke 5:36-39).
  • Jesus drank wine and spent so much time eating and drinking with sinners that He was accused of being “a glutton and a drunkard” (Matthew 11:18-19).
  • Elders and deacons are not to be drunkards (I Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9).
  • Paul, an apostle, instructed Timothy, an elder, to drink wine for his stomach (I Timothy 5:23).
  • When Paul addresses the Corinthian church concerning the Lord’s Supper he rebukes their drunkenness rather than their use of wine. Furthermore, his rebuke speaks primarily to their self-centered gluttony, i.e. he wrote to make sure that all in the church at Corinth were able to partake of the wine rather than a thirsty minority (I Corinthians 11:17-34).
  • The argument that wine during ancient times had a lower alcohol content than the alcoholic beverages of today is an inadequate justification for mandatory abstinence. Regardless of its alcohol content it is clear from Scripture that individuals were able to, and in many cases did, become drunk from drinking it in excess. It is also evident from Scripture that the OT priests, Jesus, the twelve apostles, and the vast majority of the early church were able to drink wine in moderation and avoid drunkenness. In the same way one can drink modern alcoholic beverages in excess and become drunk and one can drink modern alcoholic beverages in moderation and remain sober minded. The key in both situations is not the relative alcohol content of the beverage in question but its consumption in either moderation or excess.

As we approach this issue let us do so with both a wisdom that avoids the deadly dangers of legalism and liberalism. If you choose to discuss please do so with charity.

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
—I Corinthians 10:31

The Temptations of Christ

Posted on by
Reply

Below is a three part series by Dr. Russell Moore on the temptations of Christ from the chapel services at SBTS. Dr. Moore’s biblical-theological understanding of Scripture always provides keen insights that you will not find anywhere else. These sermons are as insightful as they are convicting I hope that you enjoy them and share your thoughts.

Acts 8:26-40: Philip and the Sexual Deviant

Posted on by
7

I hope the title caught your attention and I hope that this brief post challenges the clean Victorianesque way in which many of us read Scripture and our clean Victorian lives and our clean Victorian churches. Have you ever heard a sermon giving more than a cursory explanation of what an eunuch is? I have not. I have heard the clean version of how eunuchs played a critical role in the government of many nations at that time; how they guarded concubines in the harems and protected the emperors of Rome. At later times they became important figures in the history of music as castrati were renowned for their vocal prowess. What I haven’t heard is a lengthy exposition of how such procedures, which were performed in the early stages of life, had profound physical, physiological, and psychological effects upon an individual due to hormone depravation.

Lest we let our American obsession with power and celebrity affect the way we read this text another reminder is necessary. Yes, the text does indeed note that he was the treasurer for an Ethiopian queen; however, he did not come to this position due to his wisdom or financial savvy. No, rather he has been genetically engineered, in a most primitive way, so that he can perform certain tasks within the government and as such he and those like him were expendable. Yes, he has authority and he has influence but he has been engineered for this role.

With such basic expositions of this text have we truly recognized its significance? Is this merely a cheap incantation to be read before the congregation at baptismal ceremonies? In Isaiah 56 we find that both the salvation of the eunuch and foreigner promised. Later in acts we read the story of Cornelius and see the Spirit is poured out upon this gentile and his household. I mean no disservice to the story of Cornelius but is it not equally profound that God would choose to save this transgender man? Even more amazing is that Irenaeus noted that this Ethiopian eunuch became a missionary among his people, which does much to explain the church history there dating back to the first century.

How do you think this text should challenge our understanding of mission and how are we to go about this mission? How would you respond if God called one of these children to Himself? How would you respond if after having irreversible surgery and hormone therapy God chooses to send one of these individuals out as a missionary? Would your church send the Ethiopian eunuch out as a missionary? Would your church call him as pastor? Aside from the likes of men like Brian McLaren and Rob Bell, whose answers are not answers at all, no one seems to be addressing these issues. I am not asking a question with regards to lifestyle here, Scripture both answers that clearly and demonstrates the power of the gospel to change lives. In the age of designer babies (see here) and transgender children (see here) we must wrestle with the fact that while lifestyle change through the gospel is possible undoing physical, physiological, and psychological change rooted in genetic manipulation is a different process entirely.

Not Many of You Should Become Teachers

Posted on by
1

If there is one text of Scripture that I here poorly exegeted, in the name of preserving sound exegesis, more than any other it is James 3:1; which reads,

“Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.”

I have heard numerous individuals and pastors encourage others and their churches not to become teachers because of the damage and subsequent judgment that an unbridled tongue will incur.  But is that the meaning of this text?  Are these pastors, who claim to use a literal, historical, grammatical, contextual, redemptive hermeneutic, exercising sound hermeneutical principles as they derive this application of the text?  Is their proposed meaning of this text, “not many should become teachers,” really the meaning of this text?  I think not.

I had originally wanted to take the time to walk through the whole of chapter three; however, after typing endlessly I felt it best to offer only a brief synopsis.  If you would like more information I would gladly leave it in a comment.

James 3

Historical Context

While it is located near the end of the New Testament, it is actually the first New Testament book written.  James, the half-brother of Jesus and a leader in the Jerusalem church (Galatians 2:9) wrote the letter to Jews scattered as a result of persecution (Acts 8; 12).  The letter’s failure to mention the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), which addressed various issues concerning Gentile believer, means that it was written before that council.  Subsequently, the book of James is thoroughly Jewish in character.  Because of this much that is said here must be examined on two levels; first, the language and the meaning it bore within a Jewish cultural context and second, the meaning which these terms came to bear within the church.

A Paul works among the Gentiles who do not share a common theological heritage with him; he must establish patterns of right thinking so that patterns of right acting can flow from them, which is why many of Paul’s epistles are viewed primarily as doctrinal treatises.  James, on the other hand, is writing to Jews, partakers of the covenants of promise, who all share a common theological heritage and therefore his concern is right practice.  This is why James 4:17 reads, “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin” because right thinking is assumed and their failure is one of practice.

Synopsis

“1Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive a more intensive judgment” (italics my translation).

The theme throughout this text is teaching; using this text to address gossip or other issues is pure eisegesis and should not be tolerated.  The opening admonition sets the tone for everything that follows.  At the outset of this admonition several things are immediately clear.  By the use of “my brothers” James is clearly speaking to believers, albeit immature ones as will be evident later, furthermore it is clear that even the teaching of the apostles will be judged (I Corinthians 3:10-15).  Interestingly enough the word for judgment that is used here is a neutral word that is often used to describe the process of a legal suit where the outcome may be positive or negative; condemnation or reward.

“2For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body.”

There are two prominent ways in which this verse has been understood.  First, it can be understood as a hypothetical situation in which James describes the perfect or ideal individual who has both subjugated his speech and conduct and is self-controlled in all he does.  Obviously all but Christ would fall miserably short of this ideal and thus James has both grabbed our attention and demonstrated our need for sanctification of both speech and conduct.  Secondly, it has been understood in terms of spiritual maturity.  The word used for perfect is teleios (τέλειος); this is the word from which the English word teleology, the study of ultimate purpose or ends, is derived.  If understood in this sense the text then addresses spiritual completeness/maturity as one who demonstrates his maturity by right speech will likewise demonstrate his maturity by right conduct as well.

Which of these interpretations of this text fits best within the context of this epistle?

Clearly within the book as a whole the emphasis would rest on the latter interpretation as James focuses heavily on spiritual maturity and the practical application of truth.  Within the immediate context a similar emphasis must be noted.  In the immediate verses that follow (v.3-12) James illustrates how if one can control the tongue he can control the rest of his members as well as the tongue’s destructive potential.

13Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom.

Wisdom and understanding were critical within Jewish culture.  Wisdom denotes the correct application of knowledge while understanding carries the connotation of using knowledge effectively, as one would know a trade or skill.  Combined they speak of one who can correctly and effectively make use of knowledge.  The heart of James’ request is that the wise and understanding individual should demonstrate his wisdom and understanding not by his speech but by his works, his correct and effective use of his knowledge.  In the verses that follow (v.14-18) James compares and contrasts false and true wisdom, demonstrating that godly wisdom bears fruit.

Conclusion

From this one can gather that James is writing to spiritually immature Jewish followers of Christ whose are living hypocritically as they boast of their wisdom and yet fail to demonstrate it by their lifestyle; theirs is a dead and workless faith.  Now that we have looked at what the text says it is important to note what the text does not say.  James is not writing to admonish followers of Christ and to persuade them against becoming teachers; such an admonition is directed only at the spiritually immature.

To the spiritually mature; however, Scripture provides a unanimous and contrary exhortation, extolling the spiritually mature, the wise and understanding, to become teachers.  Scripture as a whole argues for a church comprised of teachers.  Regarding the leadership/offices within the local church Scripture argues for a plurality of teaching elders (Acts 14:23, 21:18; Titus 1:5; James 5:14), men marked by self-control, discipline, doctrinal soundness, blamelessness, respect, and hospitality (I Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:6-9).  In Ephesians 4:11-13 we see that the teacher is a specific office given that the saints may be equipped for the work of the ministry.  Beyond these specific offices Scripture paints a picture of the church as an interdependent body comprised of various members who teach one another.  Ephesians 5:19-20 and Colossians 3:16 describe a church where individuals teach and admonish one another using songs of various kinds.  Titus 2 describes the teaching role of various members of the church, even the teaching role of women, a role that is further described in I Timothy 2:15.  Above all Paul even exclaims, “If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task” (I Timothy 3:1).  Rather than seeing an argument in Scripture against the proliferation of teachers within the church we see a consistent exhortation towards such an end, so long as they hold to sound doctrine and bear fruit in keeping with repentance.