Evil in the Midst, Part Three... Scriptural Principle Applied Works

   And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed. I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses. So he called every one of his lord’s debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord? And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty. Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore. And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations. (Luke 16:1-9)
     In this parable we find our Saviour telling the story of a sinful man for the Scripture repeatedly labels him as unjust. Yet we also find that same unjust man acted with some wisdom and was rewarded in this life for those wise actions. So we find then that an unjust or sinful man can apply wisdom and have it work out in his favor.
     The bearing of the above parable on our own question is clear. Many a wicked preacher in all evil in the midst of the congregation has applied sound Scriptural principles in his public ministry and had some good come out of it as a result. Even a bad cook - if she faithfully follows the instructions contained within the recipe and uses proper ingredients - can obtain some good results.
     For example, Scripture teaches that men will respond in love to one that loves them first. We love him, because he first loved us. (I John 4:19) A preacher, even one harboring wickedness in secret, can produce a group of people who love him exceedingly by pouring compassion on them first. Scripture teaches a soft answer turneth away wrath. (Proverbs 15:1) A preacher, even one harboring wickedness in secret, who applies deft care in handling interpersonal relationships will draw a crowd by virtue of the fact he does not drive off very many people. If he then begins to teach others how to handle well the intimate relationships of life even more people will flock to hear him.
     Many an inwardly wicked man has drawn a crowd and thus been deemed a success because he simply applied and taught some Scriptural principles.
     One of the continuing tragedies that befall the cause of Christ when such a man’s secret sin is exposed is that men often question the very principles that he taught from the Scripture. Certainly some do not question Scriptural principles in such a situation out of sincerity. Rather they will use such secret sins exposed as justification for their own rebellion against sound Scriptural teaching.
     When Nathan pointed his finger boldly in King David’s face and told him that his secret sin was the sin in question he also instructed David that such a secret sin had given God’s enemies terrible opportunities. In fact, the death of the child that was God’s divine punishment in this sad situation was a direct result, not just of David’s adultery and murder, but of the excuse that David had furnished to God’s enemies to blaspheme Him. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. (II Samuel 12:14)
     But whether such criticism of Scriptural principles is done in pretence or in truth, the fact remains that it is often done. Men’s wicked hearts will lead them to place the blame where it does not belong, namely, on the very Scriptural teachings that were functioning in spite of the secret sin of the teacher. Thus it is that the cause of Christ is damaged in yet another way. Such attacks often lead to justification of sin in yet another person’s life and the vicious cycle is repeated.

Evil In the Midst, Part Two… The Deception of Success and Excitement

Success, in our generation, has taken on all the allure of Californian gold in the summer of 1849. It has become the be all and end all, the motivation and justification, and the only measuring stick most use in assessing another individual’s life. “How to” books replete with self help theories that inevitably lead to success fly off the shelves. Seminars specializing in and promising people success are packed and jammed. Television shows about how to be successful according to the most recent expert garner high ratings. Our world is fascinated with success.

Or is it?

For what exactly is success, and is it that with which our world is so entranced?

The foundation of all truth is the Scripture, and Scripture only uses the word ‘success’ on one occasion: This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. (Joshua 1:8)

When a person gives their life to reading, meditating, studying, memorizing, and most importantly obeying Scripture the end result is clear – a life in which every decision made and every step taken is prosperous and successful, for every step taken is Scriptural. The root word for success in the original language here is elsewhere translated as understand, understanding, wise, wisely, prudent, skill, etc. the idea being that a person who knows and follows the precepts of Scripture will behave themselves wisely. It is this behaving of oneself wisely, and conducting oneself and ones actions with prudence and Scriptural understanding that IS success. In other words, success is not to be found in what I have accomplished but rather in how closely I have structured my life in accordance with the Scripture.

So we see that the world frantically goes about measuring a man’s level of accomplishment to determine that man’s level of success. If his bank account is big enough, and if his title is long enough, and if he has possession of the corner office he is deemed a success. Nothing could be further from the Scriptural truth.

In the religious realm such thinking often pervades Christians as well. While not as crass or worldly, perhaps, as society in general, many will still seek to measure a preacher’s success based upon what he has apparently accomplished. They will look at the number of bodies sitting in his pews, the size and condition of the buildings his church and ministries occupy, and the amount of money flowing into the collection plates as evidence of his success. Nothing could be further from the Scriptural truth.

If we carefully examine Scripture we will find countless examples of men commended by God for great faith and obedience who, in the eyes of men, accomplished very little. Abel did nothing of any significance beyond simply giving a Scriptural sacrifice and becoming a murder victim. Enoch built no great enterprise but his testimony was “that he pleased God” (Hebrews 11: 5). Noah only produced seven converts in 100 years of preaching. Jeremiah, known as the Weeping Prophet, had little to no accomplishment in his ministry. Jesus Himself died with only 2 people still faithful to Him looking on and one of them was His mother! Yet all of these were undoubtedly successful for all of these undoubtedly structured their lives in complete obedience to revealed will of God.

Please do not misunderstand the teaching here. Little churches are not more spiritual or successful than big ones, but neither are big ones more spiritual or successful than little ones. Scripturally obedient churches and Scripturally obedient men are successful, period. When Christians have labeled with certainty that God is, in fact, using a particular man greatly because of what they can see happening in his ministry those Christians have misunderstood Scriptural success.

Allow me to again interject a personal testimony. I have had the privilege of being part of some huge, exciting ministries. I have been an active member for a period of years in a church numbering in the thousands. I have sat in that great congregation, enjoying immensely the gifted musicians, the high grade pulpiteering, the professional level of services, and the veritable plethora of programs offered by such a church. I am not against such big, exciting ministries; I am for them and all they do for the cause of Christ. But I have been around the block long enough to understand that a fair number of the people wound up in the middle of that big, exciting ministry are not wound up about serving and obeying God; rather they are wound up about the excitement.

It has been well said that nothing succeeds like success. When a church reaches a certain size a higher level of excitement is reached by those in its embrace as well. It is more exciting to hear 500 amens than five. It is more exciting to hear of thousands saved than dozens. It is more exciting to hear a choir of hundreds than it is a choir of nine. It is more exciting to flood into a packed church with the crowd than to trickle into a half empty church with the remnant. This exciting atmosphere breeds on itself until it is assumed, because of the very excitement about “what God is doing here,” that the preacher of that church is clearly marked with the favor of God. Maybe, and maybe not. Maybe that bigness is due to excitement, and that excitement is not about obedience to Christ but about the excitement.

People in the midst of an exciting religious situation often want to stay there. Many a young person has moved to a large church to train for the ministry and ended up staying there for decades, and in a sense who can blame them? The big, exciting church has all sorts of things to offer them that a lonely life of service on the cold and dark Arctic mission field cannot. Sometimes it is also true that people can make poor spiritual decisions because of the very atmosphere of excitement in which they find themselves. That was certainly the case with Peter in the midst of the most exciting spiritual experience of his life, the experience which birthed the explanatory phrase ‘a mountaintop experience,’ when he said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. (Matthew 17:4) He did not want to leave that location of religious excitement and made a poor spiritual decision because of it.

Let it be carefully reiterated that excitement in the service for Christ is not bad. What is bad is the belief that God is working in a great way in a particular church or movement, and using a particular preacher in a great way simply because the atmosphere surrounding him is exciting. That atmosphere can often deceive the most sincere Christian into using the measuring stick of accomplishment, size, national reputation, etc. when the Scriptural measuring stick is obedience to precepts of Scripture. Perhaps that atmosphere of success is merely man’s achievement produced by exciting religious experiences, and not simple success, which is obedience.

Evil in the Midst, Part One

          “I have sinned!” he wailed, looking into the assembled television cameras of the world, with tears streaming down his cheeks. Thus began an exceedingly public and painful revelation of the secret wickedness of one of the world’s most respected religious leaders. In the months and years to come his secret sin would be played across the airwaves and pages of the media in excruciatingly minute detail. Each twist and turn down his increasingly perverted path would be recounted by journalists, eager to be the first to ferret out another evidence of his total hypocrisy. His willing participants would cash in on their fifteen minutes of dubious fame by selling their side of the story. In conjunction with the equally squalid tale of other famous televangelists, his story still reverberates decades later, told with glee by worldlings confronted with a testimony of righteousness in a coworker or relative. And whether it is the head of a national evangelical organization, or a seasoned independent Baptist megachurch pastor, new stories constantly stir up the old.

          “I was almost in all evil in the midst of the congregation and the assembly” (Proverbs 5:14) Solomon said, in a warning to his son that he himself would not heed later in his life. Down through history there have been countless instances of such hypocrisy. Men, God’s men, lifted up as leaders before His people, are routinely discovered to have been “in all evil in the midst of the congregation.”

          Such was the case with Samson, a judge in Israel in ancient times. While being used of the Lord to deliver His people from the overbearing rule of the Philistines he slept with prostitutes and saw the Philistine Delilah in secret.

          Such was the case with David, the second king of Israel, and arguably its greatest king. While enjoying a sterling reputation and the affection of God’s people he committed adultery, and then attempted to cover it up with murder and remarriage.

          Such was the case with the devil before time even started. While serving God in Heaven, on intimate terms with all that is holy and pure, pride crept into his heart. In the home of all righteousness, enjoying the confidence of the other angels, he fomented evil in the midst of that heavenly congregation.

          Scripture plainly teaches that, sooner or later, every man with such secret sin hidden “in the chambers of his imagery” (Ezekiel 8:12) will have that secret sin exposed to the harsh light of a judgmental world. Moses instructed men in the tribes of Gad and Reuben “be sure your sin will find you out” (Numbers 32:23). Christ Himself, while discoursing with the disciples in a public manner warned them “that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops” (Luke 12:3). While men constantly close the door and pull the blinds in an attempt to keep evil in the midst of the congregation hidden, or drive to a distant city where they think they are unknown, and carefully check that no acquaintance will see them, they proverbially fail to look UP! “Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord” (Jeremiah 23:24). God knows, and in the perfection of His timing, the whole world knows as well.

          When this private sin, done in secret by God’s man, is discovered by the portion of God’s people following that man, they are often completely at a loss. They are disgusted, disappointed, and usually discouraged in their own service for Christ. Many a bitter, disillusioned Christian sitting on the sidelines of Christianity found his place there in reaction to the discovery of “evil in the midst of the congregation” on the part of God’s man. The shock and dismay of good people who were following what they sincerely believed was a good man is painful in the extreme. The wound is not confined to the immediate family, or even the immediate church, but spreads like a blot across all whose lives he touched in his service for Christ. The hurt infects the hearts of congregations, friends, and family, and often metastasizes until it swallows up the effective Christianity of whole groups of God’s people, and brings intense reproach upon the name of Christ.

          One of the common and most oft heard imprecations uttered in the wake of such a spiritual disaster is this: “How could it be that God appeared to be using him so marvelously and yet he was so thoroughly evil so long?” Christians with a unique and loyal love for the man they feel God used in a special way in their own life will react with incredulity and befuddlement, wondering about all they have seen God do in their own life, and in their church’s life, with that man.

          I know…because I experienced it myself personally…twice.

          When I was just a boy, one of God’s choice servants, fresh out of Bible college, with all the zeal and enthusiasm of youth on fire for God, moved into our area and accepted the pastorate of a dying church not far from ours. Within the space of a few years he had built that church from 30 to 400, with all the accompanying buildings, ministries, plaudits, and praise that go along with it. As a teenager I got to know him somewhat, and watched carefully, for I was already preparing to pastor myself, and thought I might learn much from such a man. Then the day came that he suddenly resigned the pulpit of a growing, successful work, and slowly but surely the sordid details leaked out. The devastation that man’s life wrought in that youth group I knew so well, in the Christian school his church sponsored that I attended, in that church, in neighboring churches, and even across the country in a somewhat limited national way is incalculable. While I saw some Christians react with grace and maturity, many if not most reacted with the sorrow and befuddlement I have already described. I spent many a hurt and lonely hour puzzling over the how and why myself. Surely it was only by the grace of God that I did not become another bitter and disillusioned casualty, blaming my own Christian immaturity on another man’s sins.

          Later, while in Bible college, a man on staff at the college, greatly respected and followed for his apparent zeal in service for Christ, left his wife and his calling after becoming “evil in the midst of the congregation and assembly.” I had heard him preach often, and actually shared some shifts with him at a steel mill he worked at part time in the summers, and his private sin, publicly revealed, likewise caused pain and puzzlement in my heart.

       How is it possible, that these men, serving God and seeming to achieve great things while doing so, are revealed to have been hiding some terrible sin for so long?

       I have pondered long and hard on that. If you will allow me to say this humbly, I have searched the Scriptures for the answer. The pain and puzzlement I spoke of in my own life is replicated in thousands of others on an all too frequent basis, and perhaps the Lord will grant to them some measure of consolation and understanding in the answers He has given me. To that end, “that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God” (II Corinthians 1:4) over the next eight weeks I am going to offer for your consideration those answers that have most helped me. I am sure I do not have all the answers and, as always, I welcome your comments and questions. But I hope that these next few weeks will help God's people to understand these awful situations better, and thus be emotionally and spiritually prepared when they happen.

On the Death of a Child

          Recently I was asked to conduct the funeral service for a baby girl. Mandy and I – having endured our own loss in this area – have made it a point to reach out to those in similar situations in their grief. The parents, a local pastor and and his wife, had contacted us as their still unborn daughter's situation deteriorated. We did our best to be a blessing and to point them in the direction of God's comfort. They are undergoing the worst of times right now but I am confident that with God's grace they will come through. As I sat down to prepare for the funeral I wanted to make the service personal and as sweet as possible. Taking the story of David and Bathsheba's loss as my text I unfolded it in the course of the message. To me, the great comfort of that passage is the certainty David expressed about joining his child in Heaven. Late at night, with only the ticking of my living room clock accompanying me, I penned these words to close the message.

The peaceful Pennsylvania hillside where my daughter Abigail is buried

"I shall go to him"

With heartbreak David said

He wiped the tears from off his face

And took a bite of bread

For seven days he'd prayed

He'd lain upon the ground

His heart inside was broken

His soul with sorrow crowned

The little boy lay lifeless

His breath stilled once for all

His tiny face unmoving

Where death had cast its pall

A week he'd graced this Earth

Short and none too sweet

His eyes now closed in death

His heart had ceased to beat

The awful news soon spread

Throughout the palace round

David's servants feared to tell him

Afraid to make a sound

His grief had been so sharp

He'd nearly come unhinged

Afraid to bear the message

Against the wall they cringed

Yet deep in David's grief

He noticed their discussion

He heard their conversation

And whispered them a question

"Is the child dead?

Is the boy departed?

Has his life now ended?

For Heaven has he started?"

In sadness servants answered

Their hearts all filled with woe

Yet face the truth they must

They gently dealt the blow

Long moments he lay quiet

The storm it howled and battered

Seeking to gain purchase

Within a heart now shattered

Then up he picked himself

Rising from the floor

Through a mist of tears

He stumbled toward the door

A week's long worth of grime

Swirled right down the drain

And with it all the hope

Replaced by piercing pain

Weeping for a night

Yea, seven in a row

His tears now mingled fresh

With water and with woe

In stillness loud he dressed

His motion heedless slow

His mind was in a fog

Numb misery did grow

He'd begged, O how he'd begged

He'd fasted, wept, and prayed

Screamed in desperation

Alone, unkempt, afraid

Yet God had paid no mind

Careless of David's pang

Heaven's door stayed close

No matter how he rang

Now cleansed and clothed he crawled

To worship he went crying

His body vertical

Inside his spirit dying

He slumped into his seat

Lifelong habit driven

Despair sat down beside him

Inside his heart was riven

Hark now the anthem chorus

Raised by Asaph's singers

Perhaps a psalm of David's

Harps played with skillful fingers

Unseen into his soul

Peace steals on quiet feet

Her twin of comfort too

Arrives and soon they meet

Inside of David's heart

They take up residence

Ushered in by faith

They bide and ne'er go hence

The tears still flow but now

No longer filled with torment

Instead hope rises winging

To heaven thoughts now bent

With pace anew and quickened

He turns to his abode

His servants note the difference

Puzzled how he rode

On sorrow's wings on leaving

On hope's when he returned

What caused this different feeling?

What in the Temple learned?

Summoning their courage

One of their number braced him

"David, why the change?

What caused your pain to dim?

Why have you forsaken

The grief that laid you low?

Why have you washed and eaten?

Why don't your tears still flow?"

In quiet calm he answered

With heart still hurt but hopeful

He looked into their faces

Spoke words serene and helpful

"I shall go to him"

With heartbreak David said

He wiped the tears from off his face

And took a bite of bread

…

Dear hearts who gather here

In mourning and in sorrow

I bid you lift your spirits

The Balm of Gilead borrow

Let peace and comfort enter

Bid faith and hope walk in

Remind yourself of Heaven

No night, no pain, no sin

No crepe upon the doorknob

Death's gone and won't return

Abundant life eternal

God's promise sure and firm

Charissa Lynn is waiting

Cross Jordan's far bright shore

She will not come to us

But we will go to her

Alcohol 12 - A Side Helping of Charity

note: a few years ago someone emailed me a question about what is perhaps the most difficult verse in the Bible in relation to alcohol; for my last blog post about alcohol in this series I offer you my answer to him

Dear _______________,

De 14:26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,

Some time ago you asked me a question about this verse, and I told you I would get back to you about it. I have spent some time studying the subject of the Bible and alcohol, and in fact preached a series of six sermons about it on Wednesday nights a couple of years ago. (If you want them I will be glad to send them to you). In that series I come down on the side of abstention, though at the same time I can be charitable in my mind to those of my brethren who disagree with me. I have zero patience for some of their arguments i.e. Jesus made alcohol, 'wine' in the Bible is always alcohol, etc. but there are at least two verses that I freely (albeit painfully) acknowledge give me a bit of a pause. One is the verse above and the other is I Tim 3.8. I don't believe these two verses allow a restrained use of alcoholic beverages, but I can certainly see why some would believe they do, so I can be charitable in my mind to those who disagree with me.

One of my guiding principles in hermeneutics is this: which side does the weight come down on? This is especially true when dealing with issues that are not particularly clear cut i.e. certain doctrinal aspects of soteriological terms, aspects of calvinism, dress standards, etc. In my six sermon series on alcohol I used literally hundreds of Bible verses to establish the danger and folly of drinking. On the other hand there are, at most, only two that seem to say the opposite, or that I cannot clearly reconcile in my own mind. So when I stack up several hundred verses on one side (don't drink) against the only two I can't explain completely on the other side, I come down on the side of don't drink with a side helping of grace/charity for those who disagree with me.

That is the big picture of my approach. Now let me give you something more specific to Deut 14.26. There are some conservative Christians who assert that 'strong drink' here doesn't mean alcohol. I disagree. I do agree that 'wine' doesn't always mean alcohol, but 'strong drink' is rather clear to me, and as a KJV man who doesn't believe in correcting the Bible I cannot hold that position only until it is convenient for me to correct the Bible. IOW, I do believe Moses is here stating that one is free to purchase alcoholic beverages and consume them during the consumption of the tithe feast at Jerusalem.

Having admitted that potentially damaging statement into evidence, let me add two other thoughts with direct bearing on this verse.

1) This is in the direct context of an OT Jewish feast observance, or at least of a Jewish ceremonial law observance. I strongly believe the NT Christian is still under the moral code of the OT Law (nine of the 10 commandments) but I am convinced that the NT Christian is not under the ceremonial or civil aspects of OT Law. Deuteronomy 14.26 is not a part of the moral code of the OT Law. As such, it is no longer applicable to the Christian in the NT. Do you take your tithe to the Tabernacle/Temple @ Shiloh or Jerusalem once a year and use it to throw your family and employees a party? Of course not, and for good reason. Then an intellectually honest argument cannot use this verse to defend a pro-drinking position for the NT Christian. One cannot rationally say, 'I have the right to apply one part of this verse and the right to reject the rest.' Either apply it all or reject it all.

2) You are familiar, I'm sure, with the doctrinal concept of progressive revelation. God, in the process of giving His Word over 1600 years, became progressively more specific about Who He is and what He expects of us. There are certainly aspects of OT practice that the NT, in essence, frowns on. Polygamy is a great example of this. Divorce is another. It was allowed under Mosaic Law but Jesus revealed to us more of God's mind in that incredibly revealing statement, 'Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives:' To me, though here good men too disagree, the NT is clear. Divorce is not allowed, for God doesn't want it, even if He will allow you to do it b/c you want it so strongly. The expanded/progressive revelation contained in the rest of Scripture reveal God's full mind on the subject, and show that even though divorce is allowed it shouldn't be done. I think that exact same thing applies to Deuteronomy 14.26. God allowed them to buy/consume alcohol b/c they strongly wanted to do so, but as the revelation of Himself progresses throughout the rest of Scripture we can see His mind quite clearly on the subject of alcohol - it is to be completely avoided.

I try to be intellectually honest with myself when studying/preaching/practicing the Scriptures. I'm sure I don't always do it correctly. But for these reasons, amongst others, I feel perfectly content getting up and preaching complete abstention rather than just controlled drinking. I think I'm quite clearly on the right side of the issue as it is explained in Scripture. I don't assert that blindly, either, for I have studied it a bit. On the other hand, there is just enough murkiness in Bible statements on this so as to prevent me from absolutely trashing another person who disagrees with me on this. I'm right, and they're wrong, and I don't hesitate to preach that, but I do think I should do so with humility in my position - just in case I'm wrong. ;)

Hope that helps you to answer this question, and, of course, I would welcome your feedback when you get around to it. Praying for you all, and especially your upcoming trip to Texas.

Alcohol 11 - Water Into Wine

note: this was originally published February 17, 2014 as Life of Christ 25; I repeat it here because any discussion of alcohol simply must involve this passage

            I'm a teetotaler. That is just an old-fashioned term for someone who doesn't drink alcohol. I do not mean by this that I only occasionally imbibe, but rather that I never do. In fact, I'm one of those rare people in existence who never have. I know that beer smells bad, but I have no idea what it tastes like, let alone wine or spirits. I do this out of the conviction that drinking alcoholic beverages is wrong for God's people. This doesn't make me better than those who do - though I would argue it makes me wiser (Proverbs 20.1) - but it does mean I'm going to have this story (John 2.1-11) thrown at me about a million times in my life. It usually goes something like this:

            'What? You don't believe in drinking? C'mon, man! Everybody knows that Jesus Himself turned water into wine. If it's good enough for Him it's good enough for me.'
            I realize that there are many good Christians who disagree with me on this issue. They take the position that the Bible condemns drinking in excess, but not drinking in moderation. They, like I, believe drunkenness is a sin, but they, unlike I, see nothing wrong with enjoying an occasional alcoholic beverage. They point to a long tradition of such behavior being accepted by the Church, and they point especially to passages such as this as evidence that moderate drinking is perfectly appropriate for the Christian.

            For these reasons, amongst others, some years ago I decided I needed to study out the issue in some depth. I compiled a number of different books, and spent a good amount of time looking at both those books and the hundreds of Bible references to wine and strong drink. I am confident I have come to a good understanding of what the Bible teaches on the issue, and while I will not take time to present everything I learned on this blog at this time, I do want to briefly address this story from this perspective for it is something that comes up so often.

           One of the mistakes we make in our generation is to take a twenty first century definition and put it to a first century biblical word or phrase. To us, 'wine' always means an alcoholic drink. In Jesus' day, this was not the case, as the word was used to mean grape juice preserved in both an alcoholic and a non-alcoholic manner. Christians who believe in moderate drinking take the position that it the secret to preserving grape juice over time in a non-alcoholic state was unknown prior to Thomas Bramwell Welch applying pasteurization to it in 1869. Those Christians are most assuredly wrong. There are literally dozens of extant quotes from historical sources that soundly establish a large variety of cultures, even back in Bible times, knew how to preserve grape juice in a non-alcoholic manner for a long period of time, and that people used the term 'wine' interchangeably to refer to both.

            The simple truth is that 'wine' in the Bible sometimes means alcoholic wine, and sometimes simply preserved, non-alcoholic grape juice, and it is my understanding that we generally figure out which is which by examining the context of the usage.

            This wine that Jesus made was not at the beginning of the feast, but later on, after they had already drunk what was there. Those who assert that 'wine' in the Bible is always alcoholic have to understand that the people at the feast in Cana were already well on their way to being soused when the wine ran out. A firkin is about nine gallons, so each stone water pot held between 18-27 gallons, and there were six of these, meaning these water pots held between 108 and 162 gallons. Let us take the middle number of 135 gallons. If what Jesus miraculously manufactured was alcoholic wine then we must understand that He just dumped into the laps of a border-line drunken crowd a staggering 135 more gallons of premium alcoholic wine. If that was the case, in light of all that the Bible has to say about the negative effects of alcohol, what kind of a wedding feast would have resulted? I propose to you it would be the kind of feast that Noah had in Genesis 9 and that Lot had in Genesis 19, a drunken, debauched, and sensual party.

            Is that how Jesus would have wanted the holy institution of the marriage of this couple to begin? Is that how Jesus would have wanted to begin His public ministry? Is that how Jesus would have wanted to enter into the initial training of His few disciples? Is that the kind of wedding feast He would have wanted His mother to attend? No, no, no, and again, no! The Word made flesh would never have so contradicted the written Word of the Old Testament prophets.

            For many years we have had small children in our home, and they drink a fair amount of juice. One of the cheapest places to buy it in our neighborhood is ALDI, and my wife will frequently bring home some apple or grape juice from there. Personally, and do not tell my children please, I refuse to drink it. I find the flavor to be completely unacceptable. The container says 100% juice, and I assume they are telling the truth, but I cannot bring myself to imbibe as the taste is so poor.

Bruiloft van Cana, Maerten de Vos, 1596

            On the other hand, I contrast this in my mind with an afternoon walk I took in an orchard some years back. We had gone together, as is our custom, in the Fall to pick some apples together as a family. This particular day was unseasonably warm for October in our region of the country, and the sun was shining brightly. On the way back to the section of trees to be picked that day we happened to walk by a grape arbor. Seeing the plump purple grapes hanging down in clusters, on impulse, I grabbed a bunch, and as I walked I began to eat them. Much to my delight, I found those perfectly ripened and sun warmed grapes, plucked fresh just moments ago from the vine, to be absolutely divine. As I walked I began to squeeze them, one by one, into my mouth, popping them out of the skin, and savoring the taste until the red juice began to dribble down my chin. I have never forgotten that taste, and although I've also never been able to replicate it, I have enjoyed it many times in my mind.

            Yes, Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding feast in Cana. I accept that, and indeed, even embrace it. It was the sweet beginning to our Saviour's public ministry. But, and if you will forgive the poverty of the illustration, what He did was replace the just run out of ALDI 100% juice reconstituted from concentrate with the just squeezed blood of perfectly ripened sun warmed grapes plucked moments ago from the vine.

            …and the governor's eyes lit up, just as mine did, on that October walk in the apple orchard, a few years ago.

Alcohol 10 - Everybody Knows Jesus Drank

          The battle on the alcohol issue does not lie between those who are drunks and those who are teetotalers. It lies between those who believe a moderate consumption of alcohol is allowable and those who believe in total abstinence.

          We have already examined several of the primary supports used for the moderate position and found them lacking. For instance, moderates say drinking is acceptable as long as the alcohol does not affect you – but this is impossible; Scripture teaches that alcohol does affect you. Moderates say that the only type of wine available in Bible times was alcoholic – this is intellectually ignorant and spiritually lazy. Moderates say that alcohol is spoken of as both good and bad in the Bible – I have shown you that most of the pro-drinking passages reference grape juice and that context reveals whether Scripture is speaking of alcoholic or non-alcoholic wine. In addition, we have seen that the Bible overwhelmingly portrays alcohol in a negative light, and that there are severe consequences to drinking.

          In this post and the next one I want to examine the moderates last great support: drinking alcohol is permissible because Jesus drank and made alcohol.

          He did? Really? I propose He did not and here are my reasons.

          First, there are no scripture passages that say He did. Moderates often reference the Last Supper when Jesus transitioned the Passover into the Lord's Supper. (Life of Christ 166) I am not afraid of the word wine but Scripture does not even use that word in the context of the Last Supper or the Lord's Supper. For instance, Paul said in I Corinthians 11.25, After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. The synoptic Gospels discuss the Last Supper in Matthew 26, Mark 14, and Luke 22. All three of them use this same word cup. If you want to look it up in the original language you will find it has no alcoholic undertones. It simply means a small container.

          Not only that, but each of these passages explicitly use the phrase fruit of the vine. Curious, huh? It is almost like God knew people would use Jesus as an excuse for their own drinking so He was careful to make sure Jesus' actions could not possibly be misunderstood.

          Jesus was offered wine (also referred to as vinegar) on the cross but He turned it down. Jesus made wine (which I will discuss in the next post.) Jesus used wine as an illustration. But not a single one of the 233 references to wine in the Bible discusses Jesus drinking wine. He was, of course, accused of being a winebibber but that holds no weight with me. He was accused of all manner of things He did not do. Let me say it again just so the point does not get missed: there is not a single reference in the Bible that says Jesus drank wine. As I understand Scripture He did - the non-alcoholic variety -  but even that is not explicitly referenced as such. Go ahead. Look. It just is not in there. …which means you might want to stop using it as a support.

          Second, as our High Priest Jesus actually could not drink alcohol. And the Lord spake unto Aaron, saying, Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations: And that ye may put a difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean. (Leviticus 10.8-9) Never mind for the moment that Scripture here calls alcoholic beverages unholy and unclean just notice they were forbidden to the high priest. If the priest were to drink it would send a mixed message to the people to whom he ministered.

          This was not just an idle admonition. A thousand years later in Isaiah's day the priests who violated this proscription were called on it. But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment. (Isaiah 28.7)

          Some will be inclined to mention that this rule was only applicable when the high priest was on duty. I tend to agree. I also think you will agree that Jesus was never off duty. Others will say He was not a high priest after the order of Aaron. Jesus, though a priest after the order of Melchizedek, fulfills in Hebrews the role of the Aaronic high priest to a T. Such is abundantly clear. Jesus – as our High Priest – has His nature described for us in Hebrews 7.26. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens. The High Priest whose name is the Holy One of Israel certainly would not have ingested a beverage Scripture names as unholy and unclean. Jesus could not have imbibed alcohol.

          "Yeah, but everybody knows Jesus drank." Yes. And everybody also "knows" that the only kind of wine available in His day was alcoholic.
          Me? I am just not very impressed by what everybody knows…

Alcohol 9 - Ignorance Is Bliss

          The Scripture alone is authoritative. Such an approach, however, does not prevent us from illustrating, exemplifying, and illuminating the Word of God with historical evidences.

          I am convinced that when the Bible speaks of wine it is sometimes referencing alcoholic wine and at other times it is referencing non-alcoholic wine. To the modern ear such a sentence sounds asinine. After all, wine obviously means alcohol. Furthermore, the long term preservation of fresh grape juice is a relatively new discovery. Thus, it is assumed that there was no capacity in antiquity to preserve juice without fermentation. 

          This assumption is widely used as the basis for a pro-drinking position in modern Christianity. Ergo the Bible speaks both positively and negatively about wine. Since wine is obviously alcoholic it then follows that as long as we control our drinking alcohol is both allowable and enjoyable. In essence, then, Scripture condemns drunkenness but encourages drinking.

          To state it simply such a position is just plain ignorant. Today's post consists of a veritable plethora of quotes from verified historical sources. These quotes reveal that the ancient world knew perfectly well how to preserve juice in an unfermented state, that they did so often, and that they called this product wine. I do not get my biblical position on alcohol from these quotes but these quotes perfectly illustrate the validity of that position.

Herman Boerhave, Elements of Chemistry, 1668

By boiling, the juice of the richest grapes loses all its aptitude for fermentation, and may afterwards be preserved for years without undergoing any further change.

Parkinson, Theatrum Batanicum, 1640

The juice or liquor pressed out of the ripe grapes is called vinum (wine). Of it is made both sapa and defrutum, in English cute, that is to say boiled wine, the latter boiled down to the half, or former to the third part.

William Patton, Bible Wines, 1874

 Archbishop Potter, born AD 1674, in his Greek Antiquities, Edinburgh edition, 1813 says, vol. ii. p. 360, “The Lacedaemonians used to boil their wines upon the fire till the fifth part was consumed; then after four years were expired began to drink them.” He refers to Democritus, a celebrated philosopher, who traveled over the greater part of Europe, Asia, and Africa, and who died in 361 BC, also to Palladus, a Greek physician, as making a similar statement. These ancient authorities called the boiled juice of the grape wine, and the learned archbishop brings forward their testimony without the slightest intimation that the boiled juice was not wine in the judgment of the ancients.

…

W. G. Brown, who travelled extensively in Africa, Egypt, and Syria from A.D. 1792 to 1798, states that "the wines of Syria are most of them prepared by boiling immediately after they are expressed from the grape, till they are considerably reduced in quantity, when they were put into jars or large bottles and preserved for use." He adds, "There is reason to believe that this mode of boiling was a general practice among the ancients."

…

Caspar Neuman, M.D., Professor of Chemistry, Berlin, 1759, says: "It is observable that when sweet juices are boiled down to a thick consistence, they not only do not ferment in that state, but are not easily brought into fermentation when diluted with as much water as they had lost in the evaporation, or even with the very individual water that exhaled from them.”

…

The Rev. Dr. Jacobus, commenting on the wine made by Christ, says: "This wine was not that fermented liquor which passes now under that name. All who know of the wines then used will understand rather the unfermented juice of the grape. The present wines of Jerusalem and Lebanon, as we tasted them, were commonly boiled and sweet, without intoxicating qualities, such as we here get in liquors called wines. The boiling prevents the fermentation. Those were esteemed the best wines which were least strong."

…

Horace, liber i. ode xviii. line 21, thus wrote: "Hic innocentis pocula Lesbii Duces sub umbra.” Professor Christopher Smart, of Pembroke College, Cambridge, England, more than a hundred years since, when there was no controversy about fermented or unfermented wines, thus translated this passage: "Here shall you quaff, under a shade, cups of unintoxicating wine."

…

We cannot imagine that Pliny, Columella, Varro, Cato, and others were either cooks or writers of cookbooks, but were intelligent gentlemen moving in the best circles of society. So when they, with minute care, give the recipes for making sweet wine, which will remain so during the year, and the processes were such as to prevent fermentation, we are persuaded that these were esteemed in their day.

Aristotle, 385-322 BC

Aristotle, 384 BC

The wine of Arcadia was so thick that it was necessary to scrape it from the skin bottles in which it was contained, and to dissolve the scrapings in water.

Michael Donovan, Bible Commentary, 1830

In order to preserve their wines to these ages, the Romans concentrated the must or grape-juice, of which they were made, by evaporation, either spontaneous in the air or over a fire, and so much so as to render them thick and syrupy.

…

Those ancient authors who treat upon domestic manners abound with allusions to this usage. Hot water, tepid water, or cold water was used for the dilution of wine according to the season…Hesiod prescribed, during the summer months, three parts of water to one of wine…Nicochares considers two parts of wine to five of water as the proper proportion…According to Homer, Pramnian and Meronian wines required twenty parts of water to one of wine. Hippocrates considered twenty parts of water to one of the Thracian wine to be the proper beverage...Athenaeus states that the Taeniotic has such a degree of richness or fatness that when mixed with water it seemed gradually to be diluted, much in the same way as Attic honey well mixed.

Benjamin Parsons, Anti-Bacchus, 1840

Horace, born 65 B.C., says "there is no wine sweeter to drink than Lesbian; that it was like nectar, and more resembled ambrosia than wine; that it was perfectly harmless, and would not produce intoxication."

…

Pliny says "some Roman wines were as thick as honey," also that the "Albanian wine was very sweet or luscious, and that it took the third rank among all the wines:" He also tells of a Spanish wine in his day, called "Inerticulum" - that is, would not intoxicate - from "iners," inert, without force or spirit, more properly termed "justicus sobriani," sober wine, which would not inebriate.

…

Columella says the Greeks called this unintoxicating wine "Amethyston," from Alpha, negative, and methusis, intoxicate - that is, a wine which would not intoxicate. He adds that it was a good wine, harmless, and called "iners," because it would not affect the nerves, but at the same time it was not deficient in flavor.

John Kitto, The Olive, Vine, and Palm, 1848

The Mishna states that the Jews were in the habit of using boiled wine.

…

[quoting Pliny] "That wine is produced by care." He then gives the method: "Mergunt earn protinus in aqua cados donec bruma transeat et consuetudo fiat algendi." "They plunge the casks, immediately after they are filled from the vat, into water, until winter has passed away and the wine has acquired the habit of being cold.”

Constantin Volney, Travels in Syria, 1801

The wines are of three sorts, the red, the white, and the yellow. The white, which are the most rare, are so bitter as to be disagreeable; the two others, on the contrary, are too sweet and sugary. This arises from their being boiled, which makes them resemble the baked wines of Provence. The general custom of the country is to reduce the must to two-thirds of its quantity…It is probably that the inhabitants of Lebanon have made no change in their ancient method of making wines.

Alexander Adam, Roman Antiquities, 1791

Virgil, 70-19 BC

[referring to Pliny and Virgil] In order to make wine keep, they used to boil (deconquere) the must down to one-half, when it was called defrutum, to one-third, sapa.

…

…that the Romans fumigated their wines with the fumes of sulphur; that they also mixed with the mustum, newly pressed juice, yolks of eggs, and other articles containing sulphur. When thus defaecabantur (from defaeco, 'to cleanse from the dregs, to strain through a strainer, refine, purify, defecate'), it was poured (diffusum) into smaller vessels or casks covered over with pitch, and bunged or stopped up.

William Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, 1870

A considerable quantity of must from the best and oldest vines was inspissated by boiling, being then distinguished by the Greeks under the general name Epsuma or Gleuxis, while the Latin writers have various terms, according to the extent to which the evaporation was carried; as Carenum, one-third; defrutum, one-half; and saps, two-thirds.

…

The sweet, unfermented juice of the grape was termed gleukos by the Greeks and mustum by the Romans - the latter word being properly an adjective signifying new or fresh…A portion of the must was used at once, being drunk fresh…When it was desired to preserve a quantity in the sweet state, an amphora was taken and coated with pitch within and without, it was filled with mustum lixivium, and corked so as to be perfectly airtight. It was then immersed in a tank of cold fresh water, or buried in wet sand, and allowed to remain for six weeks or two months. The contents, after this process, was found to remain unchanged for a year, and hence the name, aeigleukos - that is, `semper mustum,' always sweet.

Alexander Russell, The Natural History of Aleppo, 1851

The inspissated juice of the grape, saps vina, called here dibbs, is brought to the city in skins and sold in the public markets; it has much the appearance of coarse honey, is of a sweet taste, and in great use among the people of all sorts.

Inspissated defined - to thicken, as by evaporation; make or become dense

Eli Smith, Bibliotheca Sacra, 1846

The only form in which the unfermented juice of the grape is preserved is that of dibbs, which may be called grape-molasses.

Henry Homes, Bibliotheca Sacra, 1848

Simple grape-juice, without the addition of any earth to neutralize the acidity, is boiled from four to five hours, so as to reduce it one-fourth the quantity put in. After the boiling, for preserving it cool, and that it be less liable to ferment, it is put into earthen instead of wooden vessels, closely tied over with skin to exclude the aft. It ordinarily has not a particle of intoxicating quality, being used freely by both Mohammedans and Christians. Some which I have had on hand for two years has undergone no change…The manner of making and preserving this unfermented grape-liquor seems to correspond with the recipes and descriptions of certain drinks included by some of the ancients under the appellation of wine.

Plutarch, AD 45-120

Plutarch, Symposium, 60

Wine is rendered old or feeble in strength when it is frequently filtered. The strength or spirit being thus excluded, the wine neither inflames the brain nor infests the mind and the passions, and is much more pleasant to drink.

…

The most useful wine has all its force or strength broken by the filter.

Samuel Lee, Dr. Lee’s Works, 1783

Captain Treat, in 1845, wrote: "When on the south coast of Italy, last Christmas, I enquired particularly about the wines in common use, and found that those esteemed the best were sweet and unintoxicating. The boiled juice of the grape is in common use in Sicily. The Calabrians keep their intoxicating and unintoxicating wines in separate apartments. The bottles were generally marked. From enquiries, I found that unfermented wines were esteemed the most. It was drunk mixed with water. Great pains were taken in the vintage season to have a good stock of it laid by. The grape-juice was filtered two or three times, and then bottled, and some put in casks and buried in the earth - some kept in water (to prevent fermentation).”

…

Captain Treat says, "The unfermented wine is esteemed the most in the south of Italy, and wine is drunk mixed with water."

Columella, De Re Rustica, circa 50

That your must may always be as sweet as when it is new, thus proceed: Before you apply the press to the fruit, take the newest must from the lake, put into a new amphora, bung it up, and cover it very carefully with pitch, lest any water should enter; then immerse it in a cistern or pond of pure cold water, and allow no part of the amphora to remain above the surface. After forty days, take it out, and it will remain sweet for a year.

Frederic Millet, Gardener’s Dictionary, 1731

The way to preserve new wine, in the state of must; is to put it up in very strong but small casks, firmly closed on all sides, by which means it will be kept from fermenting. But if it should happen to fall into fermentation, the only way to stop it is by the fumes of sulphur.

Alexander Henderson, This History of Ancient and Modern Wines, 1824

[commenting on the boiled wine preferred by Virgil] The use of this inspissated juice became general.

Columella, AD 4-70

          So what do these quotes reveal? Three things… First, that unfermented beverages existed and were commonly drunk millennia before the modern nineteenth century process of pasteurization. Second, they achieved this mainly by boiling the juice and storing it in an airtight environment. Third, these were also called wine.
          …but go ahead. Keep maintaining that no such thing existed in Jesus' day. Force  your twenty first century definition of the word wine on a two thousand year old Bible. And then go quaff your alcoholic beverages with a clear conscience.
          There is a phrase for that: ignorance is bliss.