PAUL'S SECOND LETTER TO TIMOTHY
We once again refer you to our introduction for a preparation in understanding the circumstances of the writing of this letter. Suffice it to say here that this epistle is far more personal in style and content than Paul's first letter, and that it was written from Rome in the year A.D. 67. It is a letter written under the long shadow of death; probably not more than a few months before Paul's martyrdom. Paul wants once more to see his son in the faith. He urges him to make haste to his sidewe like to believe Timothy reached Paul before he died.
Without analysis, there can be no synthesis. In other words, if you do not understand the structure of this letter, you will have great difficulty with any conclusions from it. It is imperative that you have a useable outline of this letter.
Here are four outlines from men who have thought through the structure of the letter. Read Paul's second letter to Timothy once for each outlinenotice carefully each outline as you read.
1.
Russell Bradley Jones from The Epistles To Timothy A Study Manual Baker Book House, 1959.
INTRODUCTION (2 Timothy 1:1-5)
A.
The Writer (2 Timothy 1:1).
B.
The Addressee (2 Timothy 1:2 a).
C.
The Blessing (2 Timothy 1:2 b).
D.
The Thanksgiving (2 Timothy 1:3-5).
I.
EXHORTATIONS (2 Timothy 1:6, 2 Timothy 2:26)
A.
Stir Up the Gift of God (2 Timothy 1:6-10).
1.
The Exhortation.
2.
The Reason for this Exhortation.
3.
The Basis of the Exhortation.
B.
That Good Thing. Guard (2 Timothy 1:11-14).
1.
The Example of Paul.
2.
The Duty of Timothy.
C.
Suffer Hardship with Me (2 Timothy 1:15, 2 Timothy 2:13).
1.
Paul's Experience with Fellow-workers.
a.
The Failures.
b.
The Faithful.
2.
Paul's Appeal to Timothy.
a.
The Urgent Duty.
b.
The Glorious Example.
c.
The Saving Purpose.
d.
The Faithful Saying.
D.
Be an Unashamed Workman (2 Timothy 2:14-26).
1.
Reminding Others.
2.
Seeking Approval.
3.
Shunning Babblings.
4.
Confident in the Lord,
5.
Forsaking Unrighteousness.
6.
Exercising a Restrained Gentleness.
7.
Correcting Others,
II.
WARNINGS (2 Timothy 3:1, 2 Timothy 4:5)
A.
Perilous Times Shall Come (2 Timothy 3:1-13).
1.
Decadent Men.
a.
Characteristics.
b.
Actions.
c.
End.
2.
Delivered Men.
a.
Paul.
b.
All the Godly.
3.
Deception's Power.
B.
Fulfill Thy Ministry (2 Timothy 3:14, 2 Timothy 4:5).
1.
Abide in the Things Learned.
a.
From the Apostle.
b.
From the Sacred Writings.
2.
Preach the Word.
a.
The Charge.
b.
The Manner.
c.
The Need.
d.
The Duty.
III.
TESTIMONY (2 Timothy 4:6-18)
A.
Paul's Confidence as He Faces Death (2 Timothy 4:6-8).
1.
The End.
2.
The Record.
3.
The Reward.
B.
Paul's Request that Timothy Come to Him (2 Timothy 4:9-15).
1.
Paul and His Fellow-workers.
a.
Timothy
b.
Demas
c.
Crescens
d.
Titus
e.
Luke
f.
Mark
g.
Tychicus
2.
Paul and His Cloak, Books, and Parchments.
3.
Paul and an Enemy.
C.
Paul's Praise of His Faithful Lord (2 Timothy 4:16-18).
1.
The Lord Delivered.
2.
The Lord Will Deliver.
CONCLUSION (2 Timothy 4:19-22)
A.
Added Personal References (2 Timothy 4:19-21).
1.
Salutations.
2.
News.
3.
Renewed Appeal.
4.
Greetings.
B.
Benediction (2 Timothy 4:22).
2.
David Lipscomb and J. W. Shepherd, New Testament CommentariesGospel Advocate, 1942.
PERSONAL APPEAL FOR LOYALTY TO THE GOSPEL (2 Timothy 1:1, 2 Timothy 2:13)
1.
Apostolic Greeting.
2.
Thanksgiving for Timothy'S, Past and Exhortation That He May Be Zealous and Willing, Like Paul, to Suffer for the Gospel.
3.
Deserters and Loyal Friends.
4.
Renewed Appeal to Transmit to Others the Gospel, Even at the Cost of Suffering.
THE MINISTERS OF GOD AND FALSE TEACHERS (2 Timothy 2:14, 2 Timothy 4:8)
1.
He Dissuades from Unprofitable Discussion.
2.
Grievous Times Impending.
3.
Charge to Timothy to Fulfill His Ministry.
4.
Requests and Personal Details.
5.
Salutations and Benedictions.
3.
Leslie G. Thomas, An Introduction To the Epistles of Paul, Gospel Advocate, 1955.
SALUTATION (2 Timothy 1:1-2)
I.
A PERSONAL PLEA FOR LOYALTY TO THE GOSPEL IN THE FACE OF A GRAVE CRISIS (2 Timothy 1:3-18).
A.
Thanksgiving for Timothy's Past (2 Timothy 1:3-5).
B.
An Exhortation to follow Paul's Example in Suffering, Willingly, and Zealously, for the Gospel (2 Timothy 1:6-14).
C.
Deserters and Loyal Friends (2 Timothy 1:15-18).
II.
DETAILED APPEAL FOR A COURAGEOUS EFFORT IN PERPETUATING THE GOSPEL, AND THE TEMPER NEEDED FOR THE TASK (2 Timothy 2:1-26).
A.
The Need for Faithfulness, even at the Cost of Suffering (2 Timothy 2:1-13).
B.
The Spirit of the True Workman for God in the Church (2 Timothy 2:14-26).
III.
THE LAST DAYS WILL BE TESTING ONES,
BUT TIMOTHY IS PREPARED FOR THEM (2 Timothy 3:1-17).
A.
The Principle Features of the Days of Trial (2 Timothy 3:1-9).
B.
Timothy's Divine Resources for Meeting Them (2 Timothy 3:10-17).
IV.
FINAL SUMMARY OF THE CHARGE TO TIMOTHY (2 Timothy 4:1-8)
V.
PERSONAL REQUESTS AND PAUL'S ASSURANCE OF ABIDING FAITH IN THE LORD (2 Timothy 4:9-18).
SALUTATIONS AND BENEDICTIONS (2 Timothy 4:19-22).
4.
W. B. Taylor, Studies in the Epistles and Revelation, Standard Publishing Company, 1910.
I.
INTRODUCTION (2 Timothy 1:1-5)
A.
Apostleship declared.
1.
An apostle to Christ.
2.
By divine approval, through the will of God, according to the promise in Christ Jesus.
B.
Personal greeting.
C.
Thanksgiving: for service, friendship, and faith.
II.
DUTY OF A MINISTER (2 Timothy 1:6, 2 Timothy 2:13)
A.
Gifts to God.
1.
Charges to.
2.
Duty to the saved.
B.
According to grace: the grace of hearing, suffering, endurance, understanding, memory, salvation, and of the new life.
III.
DUTY OF THE CHURCH (2 Timothy 2:14, 2 Timothy 3:13)
A.
In the present crisis.
B.
In the coming apostasy.
IV.
DUTY TO THE SCRIPTURES (2 Timothy 3:14, 2 Timothy 4:8)
A.
The preacher's duty toward.
B.
The preacher's work in connection with the Scriptures. preach the Word.
C.
Enforced by Paul's experience.
1.
His service.
2.
His reward.
D.
A crown for all who love.
V.
CONCLUSION (2 Timothy 4:9-22)
A.
His associates.
B.
His enemies.
C.
Salutation.
D.
Final benediction: The Lord be with thy spirit, grace be with thee.
Read the letter one more time. This time work out your own outline of the letter. This is very importantplease do it.
Here is the outline we shall follow in our study of this epistle:
INTRODUCTION 1:1-5
1.
Salutation 2 Timothy 1:1-2
2.
Paul's gratitude 2 Timothy 1:3-5
PART ONE
Exhortations 1:6-2:26
1.
DO NOT BE ASHAMED 2 Timothy 1:6-18
a.
Timothy 2 Timothy 1:6-11
b.
Paul 2 Timothy 1:12-14
c.
Onesiphorus 2 Timothy 1:15-18
2.
BE STRONG IN THE SERVICE OF CHRIST 2 Timothy 2:1-26
a.
As a child 2 Timothy 2:1-2
b.
As a soldier 2 Timothy 2:3-4
c.
As an athlete 2 Timothy 2:5
d.
As a farmer 2 Timothy 2:6-13
e.
As a workman 2 Timothy 2:14-19
f.
As a utensil 2 Timothy 2:20-23
g.
As a bondservant 2 Timothy 2:24-26
PART TWO
Warnings 3:1-4:5
1.
Recognize the coming apostasy 2 Timothy 3:1-9
2.
Withstand the apostasy 2 Timothy 3:10-17
3.
Preach the Word 2 Timothy 4:1-5
PART THREE
Testimony 4:6-18
1.
Assurance in the face of death 2 Timothy 4:6-8
2.
Request for Timothy to come to Paul 2 Timothy 4:9-15
3.
Praise for his Lord 2 Timothy 4:16-18
CONCLUSION 4:19-22
1.
Personal References 2 Timothy 4:19-21
2.
Benediction 2 Timothy 4:22
Special Studies
by
H. E. Phillips
From his book SCRIPTURAL ELDERS AND DEACONS
Used by permission.
NO ELDER THEORIES
PROOFS OFFERED FOR THE NO ELDER THEORY
AThere Is No Such OFFICE In The Church As ELDERS. It is argued that there is no such thing in the church as an office. That the expression office of a bishop in 1 Timothy 3:1 is from episcopee which means twice visitation and twice oversight, but not at any time as official authority. It is further argued that this is a WORK and not an authority: If any man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good WORK.
It is further contended that the word office in respect to a deacon in 1 Timothy 3:10; 1 Timothy 3:13, is from the Greek diakoneo and is found 36 times in the New Testament, 24 times translated to minister, and 10 times to serve. Only twice is the word translated office and that is in this chapter. The reason given for this translation here is that the translators of the King James Version were mostly from the Episcopal Church, and the idea of office was prominent in their minds.
The word office in 1 Timothy 3:1 is from Episcopee and is defined in Abbott-Smith's Greek-Lexicon as: Office, charge, esp. office of an episcopos. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon gives a similar meaning.
But some contend that we cannot take these lexicographers for they do not always give the true meaning. Webster gives the meaning of baptism as: Sprinkling, pouring or immersion, therefore, if we take one we must take the other.
This is not true because it is the work of a lexicographer to define words in their current usageas they are understood at the time of their use. Thayer defines words, not as what they now mean, but what they meant when spoken. Webster defines words as they are understood generally today, and that is what he did in the case of baptism.
But it is admitted in the above that twice the word in 1 Timothy 3:1 means oversight; and that twice in 1 Timothy 3:10; 1 Timothy 3:13 the word means work. Is it to be understood that anything that is a work is not of authority? Christ was and is in authoritysupreme authority in the churchbut he also had work to do. All men in authority, whatever degree it may be, must work in executing that authority. It is true that the office of a bishop is a good work, But it is also admitted in the above argument that the word means oversight. What is oversight? It means to oversee, to look over, to superintend. Does one appointed to look over the affairs of another have any authority at all? Authority always carries the idea of responsibility, and responsibility carries the idea of authority. If one Christian is in any way responsible for another Christian, to that extent he has authority and must exercise it in order to fulfill his responsibility,
The word office in 1 Timothy 3:10; 1 Timothy 3:13 means to serve. But since this is a special sense of service, and office is the word to designate that service, the office of a deacon is simply the work of a deacon, But the fact that it is a work does not imply that there is no office. All Christians have an office to perform, which means a work. In Romans 12:4-5: For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. All members of the body of Christ have an officeWORK to perform. All these officers are not the samesome have authority over othersbut each has authority to do the work assigned him.
It is contended from 1 Peter 5:2: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind,that the older members are to take the oversight, not in an official capacity but just to do the work,
In the first place, if the older members were to take the oversight or superintendency of the other members, it implies that much authority. You just can-'t get around the idea of authority in the oversight. In the second place, Peter is not talking about the older members, but those who are the eldersPeter himself was such an elderto take the oversight. It is a perversion of the passage to say older members. This would include women as well as men, which would put them in the oversight.
It is also argued that in Hebrews 13:17: Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves,does not imply an office, and then they refer to the marginal note of the Revised Version which says: Obey them that are your guides or leaders, But if one is a guide or leader, is he not performing an assigned work? If so, the work is the office and the one who does the work is an officer. And since he is to rule or guide, he has authority to do that. He is an officer in the office that rules.
B.There Is No Authority Of One Man Over Another In The Church. It is argued that one member of the church does not exercise any authority over another member, else some would be submitting to man rather than to Christ.
This cannot be true for wives are taught to submit to their husbands in everything (Ephesians 5:23-24). If both are Christians, we have one Christian submitting to another by the authority of Christ. Again, in Ephesians 6:1 children are to obey their parents in the Lord. If both child and parents are Christians, we have one Christian submittingobeyingto others. These passages destroy the above argument of no man over another in the church.
If we submit to men called elders, we will have to do away with the authority of Christ, it is said. But to reject the authority of the eldership as Christ has appointed would do away with the authority of Christ. Any man to whom Christ has delegated authority must be recognized as such or we reject the authority of Christ,
But some say, Christ said no one would exercise authority over anotherMatthew 20:25-26. There will be none in the church to exercise authority over any other.
Let us examine this passage and the conclusion drawn in this argument. When James and John with their mother came to Jesus they came worshipping him. They did not regard him as a mere man or as a servant on this occasion, even though Jesus is pictured in some places as a servant. They regarded him as a King; not only that, but as THE KING. To say that a King is not an official is to totally ignore the meaning of the word. Then the request made by this mother for her two sons was that they might sit, one on thy right hand, and one on thy left hand, in thy kingdom. It is clearly evident that she was speaking of their authority IN HIS KINGDOM. The right hand and left hand indicates supreme authority next to Jesus. When Christ sat at the right hand of God, it meant that he was given authority next to God. These recognized the authority of Christ, thus his official capacity as King. The parallel passage is found in Mark 10:35-45, and in Mark 10:40: But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared. The mother is simply asking Jesus to disregard the other apostles and place her sons above them in authority.
Jesus answered: Ye know not what ye ask. They did not understand the nature of his kingdom, Certainly they knew what they were asking for, but they did not understand that the kingdom of Christ was to be a spiritual kingdom without earthly authority. They did not understand that the greatness in his kingdom depended upon service rather than ruling authority. He asked them if they were able to endure his sufferingdrink this cup, and they answered ignorantly that they were. Mark adds, to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with, meaning his suffering,
Now when the other ten heard that James and John had made this request they were angry. Their anger did not stem from the fact that James and John had asked for a favor, but that they had asked for authority over them. It was a known fact that the apostles of Christ were continually arguing about who was to be the greater, which they conceived to be the one in authority over the rest, Jesus then proceeded to show them that his kingdom was not like that of the Gentiles, which denoted all other than the Jews. Greatness in his kingdom did not depend upon official rank, but upon service, and Jesus cites himself as an example of service. He did not imply that he was not a king, an official in the kingdom,
In Matthew 20:17 he was talking to the twelve and not to all men. What he said to them included them only, The passage does not teach that there are no authorities in the kingdom of Christ. That is to completely miss the point of Christ's statement. He did not teach, by referring to the kingdoms of the Gentiles, that there would be no authority of officials in his kingdom; he said: and they that are GREAT exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister (Matthew 20:26-27). And it shall not be so among you refers to greatness rather than authority. The great of the Gentiles were those in authority, while the great in the kingdom of Christ were the ministers.
Since he was talking to and about the twelve apostles, he did not intend that they should exercise authority over each other. He said, It shall not be so AMONG YOU. It is true that the apostles themselves were officials in the kingdom as witnesses, judges, and rulers. But the apostles had no authority, one over the other, but all had equal authority under Christ.
CThere is no need for elders to rule over the church as we have the Bible today. It is contended that all Christians have the Bible today as a perfect guide and do not have need for men called elders to rule over them. If all obey the Bible, they obey Christ. If elders must follow the Bible in their rule, why cannot all follow the Bible? If this is true, they say, we have no need for elders today.
One cannot possibly follow the Bible without obeying the commands of Christ, one ofwhich is to submit to the elders in each congregation. Christ has commanded it. Hebrews 13:17: Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves. And 1 Timothy 5:17: Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor.
But if elders are not needed because we have the Bible today, neither do we need preachers and teachers today. Just let each one follow the Bible. But we know that to follow the Bible we must have preachers and teachers of truth because the Bible requires it. It is absurd to say we do not need a thing because we have the Bible when the Bible itself demands that thing. One is not following the Bible when he denies that the church today needs elders to oversee the local work.
DWe cannot have elders today became we have no inspired men: spiritually gifted men. It seems that because some were inspired or had spiritual gifts to some measure, that elders today must have the same gifts, else we cannot have elders in the church. We do not deny that some elders in New Testament days were spiritually gifted men, but it is equally certain that there were some who were not.
It is argued that Acts 8:14-18 is an example of Peter and John going to Samaria after the church had been established there to give spiritual gifts, including inspiration, to make elders. When this inspiration ceased the elders ceased.
This is not the case, as will be seen by carefully reading this entire chapter. Elders are not one time mentioned as being made in Samaria, especially at this time. How could one imagine that Peter and John made elders by giving them the power of inspiration, when neither elder nor inspiration is mentioned in the chapter? The spiritual abilities given at Samaria were to enable the church to continue in its growth and edification, because the New Testament had not then been completed and they had no guide as we have today. The New Testament now does exactly what those spiritual abilities did then.
It is also argued that we know all elders were inspired because God ordered the early church to hear and obey them and submit to them. The Holy Spirit would not have told those people to obey the elders and then leave them exposed to error. Hence, elders were inspired, and when inspiration ceased, the elders as such ceased.
In the first place, where did God ever say: hear and obey inspired men? He said to hear Christ (Matthew 17:5; Acts 3:22). Christ is the only one to be heard in religious matters, but he speaks to us through his apostles and prophets.
In the second place, inspiration did not do one thing more for the men in the early church than the written word of God will do now. The difference in the spiritual gift of inspiration to preach and teach then and now is in the method of receiving the message rather than in delivering the message. Preachers are the same, the message is the same, but the method of receiving it is different. Then it came by direct inspiration, but now it comes through the written word of God. Elders are the same today as then. The Spiritual gifts gave them the ability to do the work assigned them just as the word of God gives them the knowledge now,
In the third place, some elders received instructions from Paul, Why would Paul teach them their duties and tell them their responsibilities if they were inspired to know those things? In Acts 20:27-28 Paul said, For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Paul had declared to them the counsel of God and then told them their duty. Why this if they were all inspired ?
In the fourth place, inspiration provided that the one who possessed it could not err in teaching, but then some elders did err in teaching, for Paul said, For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves (elders) shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them (Acts 20:29-30). This proves that all elders did not have the spiritual gift of inspiration, But if some were inspired, it does not prove that elders were done away when inspiration ceased any more than it proves that preachers were done away with inspiration, for some preachers had the gift of inspiration.
In the fifth place, Hebrews 13:7 says that some have the rule. From 1 Timothy 5:17 we learn that the elders are to rule. Those who had the rule were not all inspired so far as the record shows. The general date of the Hebrew letter is about 63 A.D. In chapter Hebrews 5:12, we learn that some had been in the church long enough to be teachers. Does that mean that they had been in the church long enough to be inspired? Some were teachers by living in the church long enough to learn the truth so as to teach it. In Titus 1:9, speaking of the elders, Paul says Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught. Does this sound like inspiration?
In the sixth place, Paul did not mention inspiration as a qualification for the eldership in 1 Timothy 3:1-16 or Titus 1:1-16. If it had been essential it would have been mentioned along with the other qualifications.
It is argued that 1 Corinthians 12:1-13 and Ephesians 4:11-13 show that spiritual gifts included elders or pastors and that they were done away with the spiritual gifts when the perfect way was revealed (1 Corinthians 13:8-10). It is further argued that 1 Corinthians 12:28 proves that the elders were done away by the term governments, which passed away with other spiritual gifts. The following syllogism is given to prove it:
1. Elders, by implication, are included with the spiritually gifted men of 1 Corinthians 12:1-31 and Ephesians 4:1-32.
2. The spiritually gifted men ceased with the close of spiritual gifts.
3. Therefore, there are no elders or church officers today.
First, 1 Corinthians 12:1-13 and Ephesians 4:11-13 do not show that spiritual gifts included elders or pastors. Gifts were not the men as such in Ephesians 4:11, for Ephesians 4:8 says, Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. These men as spiritually endowed workers were given to the church. Many things are gifts, but the word itself does not tell what is given. Christ is a gift (John 3:16), but it does not mean a spiritual gift of the Holy Spirit. These men were gifts but they had spiritual gifts, or abilities. Men as men were not given to the church as gifts but men with spiritual gifts (elders included) were given.
Second, the passage tells how long the spiritually gifted men were to be in the church: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ (Ephesians 4:13). Now that we have the unity of the faith and the full knowledge of the Son of God which is revealed in the New Testament, we do not need spiritual gifts in men. But the spiritual gifts have ceased, not the men. The unity of the faith and the full knowledge of the Son of God supply these men now with the same that spiritual gifts supplied then.
Third, if elders are done away with spiritual gifts in these passages, evangelists and teachers are also done away. Even some Christians had spiritual gifts, such as the four daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9), but Christians did not cease when the spiritually gifted Christians ceased. The spiritual gifts just gave away to the complete word of God when it was revealed. But if it be admitted that preachers, teachers and Christians remain today, though not spiritually gifted, it must be admitted by the same rule that elders remain today in the same way.
The syllogism in the argument is not true because the conclusion is not in agreement with the premises. It should be:
1. Elders, by implication, are included with the spiritually gifted men of 1 Corinthians 12:1-31 and Ephesians 4:1-32.
2. The spiritually gifted men ceased with the close of spiritual gifts.
3. Therefore, there are no spiritually gifted elders or church officers today. But it does not follow that there are no elders of any kind today.
EWe cannot have elders today because no one can qualify. It is argued that the qualifications listed for a bishop are too perfect for man to reach, and, therefore, we cannot have elders today.
If this reasoning be true, it follows that no man could have ever been an elder, even in the early church, because no man is perfect. But we know the early church did have elders. We. further know that these elders were not perfect, for those in Ephesus to whom Paul talked in Acts 20:1-38 needed building up (Acts 20:32), and Paul prophesied that some of them would lead disciples away after them (Acts 20:30).
The standard for a Christian is perfect, If we follow the same reasoning as above, we must conclude that no one can be a Christian today because no one can be perfect, Every standard of God is perfect, An elder must measure relatively high in every qualification given in the word of God, but he must continue to grow,
FWe have no elders today because we do not know how to appoint them, It is argued that since the Bible does not specify HOW to appoint the elders, we cannot have them in the church today.
But the Bible does not tell us HOW to serve the Lord's Supper, or how many songs to sing in worship, or the order in which we should worship on the Lord's Day. Are we to conclude that we are not to have the Lord's Supper, sing songs of praise to God or worship on the Lord's Day just because God did not tell us just the procedure of doing these things? These are left to human judgment in full harmony with all Bible principles governing such matters, The same is true of appointing elders.
GWe can have no elders today because we have no one to appoint them. Three reasons are given why we do not have men who can appoint elders today, and, consequently, can have no elders,
1. In the New Testament times inspired men did the appointing and now we do not have inspired men, and therefore, can have no appointing.
2. There are three qualifications of elders that no man can know unless he is guided by the Holy Spirit: (1) Blameless (2) Holy (3) Just. One must be able to read the heart to know this, and only the Holy Spirit could guide men to select elders, Timothy and Titus received this power of inspiration from Paul and could appoint elders; today we cannot.
3. No one can lay hands on men today and give them the spiritual gifts they need to be elders.
Let us now examine each of these in order.
1. There is no indication anywhere in the Bible that inspired men were to do the appointing. Just because Timothy and Titus did the appointing of some of the elders, and Paul and Barnabas also did some appointing, it does not follow that only inspired men must do the appointing. These men preached also, but it does not follow that only inspired men can preach. It can not be proved that either Timothy or Titus was inspired, Paul told Timothy to teach what he had learned from him (2 Timothy 2:2); and from the Holy Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:14-15); and Paul told him to study to be approved (2 Timothy 2:15); and to read (1 Timothy 4:13). They may have had some spiritual gifts, but it had no bearing on the appointment of elders.
2. Blameless, holy and just are qualities that can be known in every man. Jesus said a good tree brings forth good fruit, and by that we may know the tree. By their fruit ye shall know them Matthew 7:20). How does one tell the difference between a child of God and a child of the devil? Paul knew Peter was wrong by his actions (Galatians 2:11).
But these are not the only qualities of man that come in the same class. Any condition of the heart cannot be known by another except by his actions or words. What about faith and repentance? How can a preacher know one has really believed and repented of his sins before he baptizes him? Must the preacher be inspired by the Holy Spirit to know this? No. He determines the condition of the heart by his words and actions. Just so one can tell when a man is blameless, holy and just.
3. It has already been shown that elders do not need spiritual gifts today to do their work. They can use the word of God now. But the Bible teaches that some besides the apostles laid hands on men to appoint them elders, and none but the apostles could transmit the spiritual gifts (Acts 8:18). Timothy and Titus were not apostles and could not give any measure of spiritual gifts by the laying on of their hands.
But besides all this, the laying on of hands did not always signify the giving of spiritual gifts. This act was for a number of things. The expression in the Bible may refer to unpleasant things also. Notice:
(1) Acts 4:3The Sadducees laid hands on the apostles to put them in prison.
(2) Acts 5:18Again the Sadducees laid hands on the apostles and put them in prison.
(3) Acts 6:6Apostles laid hands on those selected by the multitude and appointed them to the work. Stephen was full of the Holy Ghost. The multitude selected and the apostles appointed, verse 3.
(4) Acts 8:17-18The apostles, Peter and John, laid their hands on some in Samaria to give the Holy Ghostspiritual gifts.
(5) Acts 13:3The church at Antioch appointed two whom the Holy Spirit had selected, to do a certain work. No spiritual gifts are indicated.
(6) Acts 28:8Paul laid his hands on the father of Publius to heal him. No spiritual gift given, but a means of miraculous healing.
(7) 1 Timothy 4:14The presbytery laid hands on Timothy with respect to Some gift of prophecy regarding his work.
(8) 2 Timothy 1:6Paul laid hands on Timothy to convey a gift of Godprobably some spiritual gift.
(9) 1 Timothy 5:22Paul told Timothy not to lay hands suddenly on any man. This refers to appointing.
We glean from these few passages that the laying on of hands sometimes meant to arrest or take hold of; sometimes to appoint or designate; sometimes to transmit a spiritual gift of one kind or another; and sometimes as a means of miraculous healing. Spiritual gifts are not essential today to elders in performing their duties, as the word of God is sufficient, hence we have no need for men who give spiritual gifts by laying on of hands.
HWe do not have elders today because there is some work that no elder can do today· It is argued that since there is some work that no man can do today, that was done by the elders of the early church, there can be no elders today, Following is a list of some of thosethings they say no man can do today.
(1) James 5:14-15 teaches us to call for the elders of the church when one is sick, and they will come and anoint with oil in the name of the Lord and pray for the sick and he will be healed. This was miraculous healing and cannot be done by so called elders today.
Let us notice this passage. The healing of James 5:14 was really by the power of God, The oil poured on by the elders does not necessarily mean a miracle, Oil was used for several things in the Bible:
a.
Appointing one to a charge (1 Samuel 16:12-13).
b.
For medicine (Luke 10:34).
c.
For food (Exodus 29:2).
d.
For a cosmetic (Psalms 104:15).
e.
For a light (Exodus 27:20).
Not one time is oil used to perform a miracle. Miracles were used to confirm the word, but when the word was fully confirmed and completely revealed the miracles ceased, but the preaching of that word did not cease. Since this passage says the oil was poured on sick people, it is more reasonable to believe that it was used for medicine. The elders are called to administer whatever aid they can to the sick, while at the same time praying for them. The writer here says the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much, and then uses Elias praying for the rain as an example (James 5:17-18). We read that the reference of Elias was not a miracle but by natural process: a cloud coming from over the ocean (1 Kings 18:44-45). So neither the oil nor the prayer would suggest that they were to perform a miracle. But if those elders did perform a miracle, would it follow that all elders are to perform miracles? Some preachers performed miracles at that time, but preachers are not to pass away because no preacher can perform miracles today.
(2) It is argued that no elder today can lay hands on another to give him spiritual gifts, and that was one work of elders in New Testament times, The presbytery (eldership) gave such a gift to Timothy (1 Timothy 4:14),
It has already been shown that laying on of hands did not always mean the conveying of spiritual gifts. In fact it never referred to that except in the case of an apostle, and then it may mean something else as determined by the context. The laying on of hands in 1 Timothy 4:14 means the same as in Acts 13:3appointing to some work. No elder as such ever laid his hands on any man to transmit to him a spiritual gift.
(3) It is argued that an elder can not feed the flock of God. No man is qualified today to feed anyone that the word of God does not better feed. The church can feed itself by studying the word. What can an elder feed that any other member of the church can not feed?
To feed the flock is to put the word before them and see that they learn it. Things that elders can do that others can not do in this realm is a matter of authority. Many can do certain things but do not have the authority or right to do it. The Bible calls those who are Christians children (1 John 2:1; Ephesians 5:8; Romans 8:17; Ephesians 5:1). Elders are the older, stronger children who have been commissioned by the Saviour to feed the others the word of God. One might make arrests for violation of a law IF he had the authority of the higher powers. Christ, who is head of the church, gave authority for the local church to the eldership. They can exercise that authority when others in the church can not, because of the authority given them by Christ through his word.
(4) It is also argued that one thing an elder can not do today is to rule and take oversight. Only the apostles and inspired men could do that, and as we have no apostles or inspired men alive today we have no one to rule and take oversight.
Again this is a matter of authority. If the Bible teaches that the congregation is to submit to those who are in the oversight, can one be submissive to Christ and not be submissive to the elders? Can a wife obey Christ without obeying his authority to submit to her husband? We have the writings of the apostles and inspired men today as a guide, but someone must see that it is obeyed and followed exactly as it should be. Who is to do this? Even the church in Jerusalem, where the apostles were, had elders, If they needed elders there, do we not need them today with the writings of the apostles?
As to the matter of authority, I can not walk out on the street and arrest a man for a traffic violation, but a policeman can because he has the authority to do it. If I were to become a policeman I would have the authority to do some things in that line that I can not now do. Others may be physically able to do some thingseven all thingsan elder can do, but he does not have the authority from Christ to do them. That is the difference. It is not to be understood that in all points I am making the elders policemen in the church. I am simply comparing the right to do things by authority over others.
IThe Holy Spirit made elders in Ephesus, and since the Holy Spirit does not make elders now, we do not have elders today. The Holy Spirit did make elders then, and He makes them now. The Holy Spirit makes elders just as He makes Christians. He gives the standard of qualifications, and when one complies with them he becomes a Christian, The same is true of the elders. When one complies with all the requirements to become an elder that have been given by the Holy Spirit, he is an elder made by the Holy Spirit. That is the very reason the list of qualifications is recorded in I Timothy and Titus.
JSome Churches did not have elders, so we all need not have them today, This is based upon the assumption that at least the Bible does not teach that all churches had elders. For instance, the church at Corinth, the elders are not mentioned, But after the days of the apostles, Clement of Rome wrote an epistle to the Corinthians and at the close he mentions the elders, Paul appointed elders in every city where he preached (Acts 14:23), and it follows that he practiced the same thing at Corinth,
There is not a single argument made against the appointment of qualified elders in every church that will stand the test of God's word. Beloved, believe not every spirit. (1 John 4:1).
THE RELATIONSHIPAPOSTLES, ELDERS, PREACHERS
I. THE RELATIONSHIP
A relationship exists between the apostles and elders, and between elders and preachers. This relationship must be respected, yet not transgressed. For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another (Romans 12:4-5).
Since all these members are in the one body, the church of our Lord, and all the members have not the same work to do, but all are under the same HeadChrist, there must be a close relationship between all three classes considered here as public workers in the church: the apostles, elders and preachers. This does not necessarily mean that their work overlaps; but there is a connection and relationship in their work that makes for the unity of the Faith.
It must be understood in the study of this relationship that the terms: Apostle, Elder, and Preacher do not mean the same thing and do not refer to the same work. They are very distinct, one from the other. However, the same man may be an apostle, elder and preacher all at the same time. Peter is an example. He was an apostle (Matthew 10:2); an elder (1 Peter 1:1; 1 Peter 5:1-14; 1 Peter 4:1-19; 1 Peter 3:1-22; 1 Peter 2:1-25); and a preacher (Acts 2:1-47the first gospel sermon). This does not mean that because Peter did or said a certain thing that any preacher may do the same thing, for Peter may have been acting or speaking as an apostle or an elder rather than as a preacher. It must be determined in what capacity he was speaking or acting to know whether it applies to certain men today. There is quite a difference in the scope of authority and the nature of the work of these three classes of men in the church.
II. APOSTLES AND ELDERS
When Christ delegated authority to a certain one, that one may exercise that authority, but another cannot assume it without violating God's plan. The apostles were granted an authority in the church that no other can take. (Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18).
A. The difference in authority of apostles and elders.
The authority of the apostles was universal in scope. Their rule and authority extended over all congregations equally. Their writings today are the authority of Christ in all churches of Christ. Paul said that he had the care of all the churches. (2 Corinthians 11:28). When he exercised such authority it was only as an apostle and never as an elder or a preacher.
The authority of the elders is local in scope, never extending beyond the bounds that define a local church. There is never an exception to this rule in the New Testament, The elders have no rule over any person beyond the scope of their local authority in the church where they serve. When Peter acted in authority over different congregations, he did so as an apostle and not as an elder.
B. The difference in the qualifications of apostles and elders.
The work of the apostles was REVEALING AND CREATIVE as well as SUPERVISORY. The very nature of their work in revealing and creating suggested that there could be no successor to the apostles. The church has been established and the full will of God has been revealed, so there is no need for a further work of apostles. While, on the other hand, the elder's work is only SUPERVISORY and by nature requires succession to the office as long as the church exists,
The qualifications for the work of an apostle make it impossible to have apostles in the church today in the sense that we have elders. Notice some of the qualifications for this work:
1. An apostle must have been with Christ from the beginning of his ministry. (John 15:26-27). Paul was the exception to this, but spoke of himself as one born out of due time (1 Corinthians 15:1-58; 1 Corinthians 14:1-40; 1 Corinthians 13:1-13; 1 Corinthians 12:1-31; 1 Corinthians 11:1-34; 1 Corinthians 10:1-33; 1 Corinthians 9:1-27; 1 Corinthians 8:1-13). Today no one lives who has been with Christ from the beginning of his ministry, nor has one witnessed his resurrection as one born out of due time. Hence, no one can qualify to be an apostle today.
2. An apostle must have been a witness of the resurrection of Christ (Matthew 26:32; Matthew 28:7; Acts 1:8; Acts 2:32). No one can be an eye witness to the resurrection of Christ today, therefore, there can be no living qualified apostles today in the church.
3. An apostle must have been chosen personally by Christ for this work (Acts 1:2; Matthew 10:1-5). Christ does not personally select such men today, so there are no living apostles in the church now. This was so even in the case of Matthias (Acts 1:24).
The qualifications for elders are found in 1 Timothy 3:1-16 and Titus 1:1-16. Any good, experienced Christian father and husband can develop these qualifications today. There is not a single one that any good Christian man should not have, with the exception of experience, age and family relations.
C. The specific duties of an apostle are different from the duties of elders.
The work of the apostles was:
1. To be ambassadors of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20). They were his personal representatives here on earth after he ascended to the Father. The elders are not personal representatives of Christ today any more than any other Christian. The work of an ambassador is to speak for and represent a king or ruler in a foreign country. This is exactly the work the apostles did, but neither the elders, nor anyone else, has such duties today. Neither did the elders in New Testament times have such work to do.
2. The apostles were to reveal the will of Christ to all men. This has been done and completed. (Jude 1:3; Jude 1:17; Galatians 1:8-9). They were guided without error by the Holy Spirit to speak the full truth of Christ on all matters. (John 14:26; John 16:13; Luke 24:49; Acts 2:1-4). The will of Christ is now complete and needs no addition. (2 Peter 1:1-21; 2 Peter 2:1-22; 2 Peter 3:1-18; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Therefore, the active work of the apostles is no more. However, their writings are the sole authority in all matters of faith in the church today. The elders are not empowered to reveal the will of Christ in addition to what has been revealed by the apostles. The work of the elders is to see that the revealed will of Christ is kept by the flock which is among them.
3. The apostles are to be judges of God's people. (Matthew 19:28). There is a sense in which the apostles will judge while Christ is on the throne of his glory. This judging is the binding and loosing of Matthew 16:19. Notice when this judging is to be: In the regenerationwhen men are regenerated or born again. That certainly means now. Also it is to be when Christ sits on the throne of his glory. He is now sitting on that throne. (Acts 2:30-31). The Israel refers to the people of God today in the church. We have no fleshly Israel now so far as Christianity is concerned (Galatians 3:28-29). but all Christians are spiritual Israel (Romans 2:28; Romans 9:6; Galatians 6:15). The word twelve signifies all because the whole of fleshly Israel consisted of twelve tribes. The apostles are judging through their writings today while Christ rules with all authority upon his throne.
But the elders have no such authority. They have no authority to bind or loose in matters of faith. That has already been completed in the work of the apostles.
D. The relationship between apostles and elders.
It has been shown that their work and scope of authority are in separate fields, but there is a close connection between their duties and the fields of their work. In the New Testament times when matters of importance to the church arose, both the apostles and elders assembled and considered the matter. (Acts 15:1-6the matter of circumcision and the law of Moses). This matter was settled by the Holy Spirit and not by the authority of the elders. But the elders as well as the apostles saw that the matter was kept in accord with revelation. Both are under the authority of Christ; and both are working for the salvation of the world and the glory of God,
III. ELDERS AND PREACHERS
As in the case of apostles and elders and their relationship, there is a relationship between elders and preachers that must be observed strictly if both are to do their work properly and scripturally. The work of elders and preachers is different; although one might be both an elder and a preacher at the same time. He can do things as a preacher that he cannot do as an elder, or do things as an elder that he cannot do as a preacher. For instance, he may preach for several congregations but he cannot exercise the authority of an overseer in any congregation, Or he may exercise the oversight as an elder in a certain congregation but he can not exercise the oversight of several congregations at the same time.
A. Preachers sometimes try to dominate elders.
Preachers often ignore the eldership. Young preachers sometimes try to do their work without elders, thinking that they can better carry out their ideas and plans without the restraint of the eldership to check them, Many think they know more than the elders, and the sad part is that they sometimes do, but this does not authorize preachers to usurp control of the oversight. No doubt one of the reasons for inefficient elders today is the zeal of young, ambitious preachers who have not learned the standard of God's organization for the church.
In the Apostolic Times of May, 1951, on page 123, brother Rue Porter made this observation: Among the problems confronting the church today, none seems to be more constantly coming up than certain questions relating to the eldership, That is, no doubt, due to the fact that new congregations are constantly gathered together and we have a great number of young and enthusiastic preachers who seem not to have realized as yet that the eldership as pictured in the New Testament is the picture of a perfect standard toward which every man chosen for that work should aim and strive..
Most of the men who have been made elders get little encouragement for the efforts they make, They are looked upon by some preachers and many members as a sort of necessary useless sort of men. Some of us will accept the advice of a man who was never chosen by any one to oversee, rather than follow the counsel of a properly selected and appointed eldership.
To this I say, Amen. One might as well ignore some expression of worship that God has ordained in the church as to ignore this arrangement in the organization of the church.
B. Many preachers act as sole judges of who is and who is not qualified to be elders in a certain place, disregarding the Bible qualifications.
We can all go to the Bible and determine who is and who is not a qualified elder. But when preachers say, That is not necessary to be an elder, when speaking of some qualification, I-'ll just appoint him anyway, that is going too far. Sometimes a preacher refuses to appoint, or allow to be appointed (as if he were the only judge), a qualified man to the eldership by giving some point of qualification that the Bible does not give. For instance, to demand that apt to teach means that the elder must be a seasoned, polished, public teacher or preacher. That is giving a meaning to this qualification that the Bible does not give.
Again in the Apostolic Times, May, 1951, page 123, brother Rue Porter says: One congregation chose and appointed a man with others to serve them as elder, and a young preacher came along and decided that the congregationmost of whose members had been Christians and students longer than he, just didn-'t know enough to select men for the eldership, and so proceeded to attempt the -unseating-' of the elder to whom he objected! Of course the eldership and congregation were pretty prompt in teaching him a lesson he needed very much to learn..
It seems easy for inexperienced preachers to decide that they know just exactly what elders must be in order to be elders, but for some unknown reason seem unable to catch a glimpse of what a perfect preacher should be !
C. Preachers claiming the position and authority of elders when they begin regular work at a place.
A few preachers are so careless in the Scriptures as to claim to be an Automatic Elder when they move to a certain place to begin regular work there. They argue this way: The elders labor in word and doctrine (1 Timothy 5:17); the preacher also labors in word and doctrine, and since the preacher always labors in this field, and it is the work of elders, it follows that the preacher is automatically an elder where ever he labors. That is the real argument. Just such reasoning! One might as well argue as follows: The elders are to teach (Titus 1:9), but women also are required to teach (Titus 2:4), therefore, women are automatically elders. Would not this argument be as strong as the one above?
There are some things wrong with this system. (1) This would completely disregard the qualifications for an elder as given by the Bible. Just any -boy-preacher would be an elder where ever he preaches. The qualifications for an elder might as well be scratched from the Bible. (2) In a congregation where elders have never been appointed this young preacher would be THE ELDERa one man rule. (3) This would put a fence around the preacher that would block any move regarding his discharge from the pulpit, and also many of his other obligations. He would be in position to block any move by the other elders to do anything opposed by him. This would actually reduce itself to a one-man-rule.
Some preachers have actually contended that since it is the duty of the elders to feed the flock (Acts 20:28), and since some preachers do more feeding than the elders, the preacher MUST be one of the elders to have a scriptural arrangement. But it is also the business of preachers to feed (1 Corinthians 3:2). Just because some of the responsibilities of elders and preachers are very much the same, if not the same, is no reason to conclude that the one is equal to the other in all things. It was a responsibility of an apostle to teach, and it is also the responsibility of any Christian to teach the truth. Are we to conclude that every Christian is an apostle?
D. Preachers exercising oversight in the place of the eldership.
Some preachers follow the practice of denominationalism to make themselves THE PASTOR of the congregation where they preach. Why do some evangelists take this oversight? We give here three reasons for this practice.
1. In some places the elders are irresponsible and do not perform their work. This necessarily leaves the duties upon the shoulders of someone else, usually the preacher. He begins little by little to assume their work until finally he is acting as the eldership, even though he did not seek it in the beginning, then he tries to justify his practice in some way,
2. In some places there are no men qualified to become elders and either the membership places all responsibility and authority upon the preacher, or the preacher thinks he must assume the oversight in order for the work to go forward.
3. In some places the elders insist that the preacher take the leading part and make most of the decisions for them. It often forces the preacher into a position that he is not really seeking. But in all cases the evangelist of a congregation has no scriptural authority to take the oversight under any condition.
E. Preachers exercising oversight over the elders.
This is the most extreme claim toward popery we have found to date in the church of Christ. It is contended that preachers are not only EQUAL to the elders in the oversight, but are ABOVE them! Imagine a gospel preacher claiming OVERSIGHT over the elders of the church! But that is not the end. Imagine a gospel preacher claiming OVERSIGHT over not just one group of elders, but over SEVERAL elderships at the same time! This makes the preacher a sort of ARCHBISHOP.
In an article entitled Over and Under The Eldership, by I. C. Nance in the Gospel Broadcast of February 24, 1949, page 141, we find the following: Whereas it cannot be shown that either Titus or Timothy, evangelists, were ever under any eldership after they began their work of evangelism, it can be definitely shown that both of them were over the eldership of at least one (and that's enough). Timothy was placed over the eldership at Ephesus by apostolic authority. And, Ephesus was an old, large, and established church which had had elders for years when this happened. Read all of First Timothy, understandingly. Titus, on the other hand, just a plain evangelist, was placed by apostolic authority over all the churches in Crete. Among his duties was the appointment of elders. Since an evangelist is given power to exercise -all authority-' over a number of churches and, whereas, an elder has only partial authority in only one congregation, it follows that the authority of the evangelist supersedes that of the elder or the eldership. Hence, Titus was over any eldership you might name in Crete. If not, why not?
The direction of thought in this article is wrong and scripturally untrue. The Bible teaches that the elders have the OVERSIGHT of the flock which is among them. If the evangelist is among the flock he is under the oversight of the elders. Titus and Timothy would be included. No passage in all the Bible teaches that any evangelist, as such, ever had the oversight of one person in the church, must less a congregation or several congregations, Timothy and Titus included. Titus was told to rebuke with all authority (Titus 2:15), but that is a far cry from oversee with all authority. The authority of an evangelist is toward the preaching of the word. This, indeed, is a most dangerous doctrine and leads directly to the popery of Romanism. This dereliction of plain truth by those who wear the appellation Gospel Preacher is deplorable.
F. Elders exercising too much authority over preachers.
Many times elders will keep placing their own responsibilities upon the preacher until he is actually trying to do all the work of the eldership. This is taking too much authority on the part of the eldership. Christ did not give the elders authority to delegate their responsibilities to others. They may assign certain work to others to do, but the OVERSIGHT and responsibilities for such can never be assigned to another.
Then some elders try to control a preacher when he is beyond the bounds of their authority. Some have asked: Do the elders of one congregation have the oversight of a preacher who regularly works with them but goes away for a meeting to another locality? Are the elders still over him while he works there? The answer is, NO. And the simple reason is that the elders cannot oversee ANY WORK beyond the local church of which they are elders. The elders where he is in the meeting at the time he is there have the oversight over him and his work. A congregation may send a preacher into a new field of labor and support him, but they do not exercise the oversight over him or those converts where he is preaching in that work, They may discipline him for an unchristian conduct while away in a meeting after he returns, or they may withdraw their support from him and mark him as a false teacher if he does not continue true to the word while at some other place preaching, but that is the extent of their authority over an evangelist whom they may be supporting when he is not laboring among them, When we study the scope of authority of elders this truth will become more evident,
THE ELDERSHIP AND APOSTASY
I. THE MEANING OF APOSTASY
The word apostasy is not found in the Bible by that term, but the expression, depart from the faith is exactly what Webster says apostasy means. In 1 Timothy 4:1 we read: Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils. This is a prediction of an apostasy to come during the latter times, but here it does not tell where and how it will comeonly WHEN. But Paul tells us that this apostasythe mystery of iniquitywas already at work as he wrote the second letter to the Thessalonians (2 Timothy 2:7).
We ask, WHERE will the departing from the faith begin, and HOW will it develop? Does the Bible tell us? We read where Paul called the elders from Ephesus to meet him at Miletus and there he gave them the charge to watch themselves and all the flock among them (Acts 20:28). He then adds: For I know this, (this was a prophecy which Paul knew by revelation,) that after my departing (after his death, for he spoke of his departure being near as death approached2 Timothy 4:6)shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
As to WHERE this apostasy would come, Paul said it would come from among the elders of the church. All real apostasy from truth begins there directly or indirectly. The eldership creates, or allows to be created, some innovation in the church. They become divided over matters and carry it to the whole church for settlement; or they become weak in the discipline and allow worldliness to corrupt the flock of God. As long as the eldership is pure and godly the church in that place will be strong.
As to the HOW, Paul said it would come by grievous wolves entering to devour the flock by false teaching; and some of the elders themselves will speak perverse things to lead away disciples after them. History gives us the full picture of this prophecy of Paul. The apostasy depicted in the New Testament was to come in the latter times, through the eldership of the church, and by false teaching and deception, even within and from among the eldership.
There is a very close relationship between corruption in the eldership of the church and the apostasy. Great care should be taken in selecting and appointing men to be elders because the wrong men can lead to a complete departing of the whole congregation from the faith. That is one reason why this matter is of a most serious nature to the purity of the church of Christ.
II. HOW APOSTASY DEVELOPED AMONG THE ELDERS
Apostasy is a slow working of error, It is a slow departure from the truth. One does not realize that he is drifting, in most cases, until he has gone into apostasy or very near it, Its working is like the facial change of a man. We take a picture and in ten years take another and notice the radical change in the face and features of a man, yet we do not really see the change from day to day because it is so gradual, Apostasy may well be called the cancer of the soul. Like this horrible disease of the body, it begins small and unnoticed and gradually works its way through and around the vital parts of the body until, by its slow working and growth, the body succumbs to its deadly work. It is often too late when the disease is located. The best and only safe-guard against this evil power in the church is a periodical and complete check-up often. This slow persistent working of apostasy is what devoured the early church, and it is what hinders the church today.
Apostasy follows three well defined steps. (1) A change in the divine pattern for the oversight of the church. The governing power must be changed before anything else can be changed. As long as the proper authority remains in the proper place and proper way in the church, apostasy is impossible. (2) The second step is to go beyond the word of God. These corrupt practices religiously must come from some authority beyond the Bible. Something must be added. Once the governing part of the local church is set aside and another substituted, the next step may be taken, and this consists of adding some practice which is not authorized in the Bible, or changing some doctrine of the Bible to suit man's desires. (3) The third step is into complete departure from the truth of God. If one change in the divine order is allowed, who can stop further changes? Paul warned against any advance beyond what is written. (1 Corinthians 4:6). The first step beyond what is written opens the way for any number of steps one would desire to take, and the person who takes the first step can never criticise or censure the one who takes ten or twenty, or even goes completely away from the Bible. How can the man who takes the first step from God's authority by disregarding the divine organization of the church justly censure or correct the man who has gone further and denied the divinity of Jesus, or has denied the inspiration of the Bible? Is not one as much in disobedience as the other? Regarding this very principle James said to keep all the law, yet to disobey in one point is the same as disobeying in all points. (James 2:10), How many commandments of God must one disobey to be lost? It can be easily answered by the principle James gives.
Let us notice briefly just how this apostasy worked in the eldership of the early church. The following is a very brief summary of the working of many years. If the reader is interested in a more thorough study of the development of the various denominational systems in their departure from God's order, he is referred to any good, authoritative church historian or any contemporary writer with these events.
A. The first step was taken when the bishops of a congregation decided to elect a chairman or spokesman for them, and gradually allowed this chairman or spokesman to become their chief. After a few years of this arrangement it was easy to drift into the practice of all other elders of that congregation submitting in most matters to the judgment and demands of the chief elder. This became the general practice in the larger congregations and finally developed into the office of archbishop. No doubt this did not appear to those involved to be a serious thing. It was just an expedient, a method to increase the efficiency of the eldership. But it was a step toward apostasy.
B. This move that created the office of ARCHBISHOP led to another departure. After a few years the archbishop in the larger cities began to reach out and take under control the smaller churches in surrounding towns. Two reasons may be given for this arrangement: (1) The educational and influential superiority of the city bishops over the country bishops. (2) The financial and numerical pre-eminence of the city churches over the country churches. This action came as a direct result of the archbishop idea. The same idea is in process of development within the churches today. The elderships of big churches are having the elderships of little churches channel their money and authority through the big churches to do big things. Anything larger than the local church is not the New Testament church. The second step was to have ONE elder over several churches.
C. The third step was to organize the archbishops. These chairman bishops of several towns were organized into a diocese or county. From the archbishops a chief was appointed. This developed into the office of Cardinal or chief archbishop. This act puts one elder over a section of the country.
D. Still later one of the cardinals was elected from the group to become the chief elder over the church universal, now called the Pope. When this step was taken, the next naturally led to claiming authority for this chief, elder which has never been given to any man, not even the apostles. This is the system of departure that started among the elders in a small way. No doubt it seemed to them such a small thing that one would have been branded a crank or hobby-rider to voice an objection to it. The departure was so gradual that it was not noticed by the majority of people. The same can be true in the church today.
III. SCRIPTURAL ELDERS ARE THE SAFEGUARD AGAINST APOSTASY
There is a NEED for elders today in the church. Many things must be decided about the work and worship of the church. The time of assembling, the place of meeting, the order in the worship, the preparation for the worship, who shall preach and teach, and many other decisions are important. Somebody must do this directing. Is it to be decided by a majority vote, by the preacher or by the eldership? The latter is to make such decisions and is responsible to God for them being done scripturally. We need elders today in the church to do the work of overseeing the flock.
There is no greater work nor higher responsibility than that of the bishops of the church. When one reaches the good degree of Christianity that is required of the elders he has reached the very peak of usefulness in the church.
The elders need a pat on the back and a word of encouragement from the members of the church when they do a good work. We all need encouragement, but especially so when the heavy responsibility of the oversight is laid upon the shoulders of a man. The elders would work much harder and more earnestly if we would give them the encouragement they deserve when their work is well executed.
There must always be a plurality of elders in each congregation. This is one of the best safeguards against apostasy. The following passages of Scripture will show that there was a plurality of elders in each church: Acts 11:29-30; Acts 14:23; Acts 15:4; Acts 20:17; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 4:14; 1 Timothy 5:17 Titus 1:5; James 5:14; 1 Peter 5:1-2.
There can never be less than two elders in each local church. Some ask, How many should there be in a congregation? The answer is, If ANY man. Any and all men in each congregation who can qualify should be appointed. The more qualified men appointed, the more work can be done and the more efficiently it can be done.
Another question of interest: If all the elders die except one, can he remain an elder in that congregation? He can if others are appointed to take the places of those who have died, but he cannot be scripturally THE ELDER. That is exactly what he would be if he remained the only elder. There is no place in all the New Testament that teaches a one man rule in the local church. This would not disqualify him as an elder but it would disqualify his rule as THE ELDER.
Each church must be autonomous (self-governed). If one congregation drifted from the truth, others would not be affected by governmental ties. With each church governed by its own elders it safeguards against apostasy of the whole church.
A plurality of elders in each church will provide a supply for the deficiency in any one man. The strong, spiritual characteristics of several men blended together is a safer oversight than just one man.
IV. WHY MORE MEN ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO BE ELDERS
No doubt the first reason to mention why many are not qualified elders is the lack of energy and will to develop the godly characteristics needed to be a scriptural elder. It is not easy to obtain a good knowledge of the Bible, to live a life above reproach, and to govern and guide a family so as to keep them in the way of the Lord. That is what one must do to become an elder.
A second reason is that there has been such mass substitutions for the eldership today that many have grown to disregard Bible instructions for the elders. Many churches have substituted an office called Leaders to take the place of the eldership. These leaders do not have to be qualified according to the Bible, and since they hold the same office, the qualifications are considered unimportant.
A third reason is the abuse of the eldership in some quarters. This has caused men not to desire the work. When they do not desire the office of a bishop, they will make no effort to qualify. The reason many do not desire this work of oversight is because they have seen and heard the continual abuse and complaining of churches toward the elders. They have heard members speak of them in an unchristian way. They have seen them accused of many things of which they were not guilty. The lack of respect and honor for the bishops has caused many young men never to set their goal to be anelder.
The work of efficient elders is the highest, most noble and needed work among us today. The man who qualifies and does the work of an elder is as near God as he can get on this earth. They are deserving of the deepest and greatest of our love and respect, for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account.
The fourth reason is that the lack of preaching and teaching on the subject has caused many to fail to qualify. Many preachers have purposely tried to keep men from reaching the point to be recognized as qualified men for the eldership. Others have been so unlearned on the subject that they could not preach the truth on the eldership. They do not want to lose any power or control over the church where they preach. In some places the membership of the churches have never heard a gospel sermon on the subject of the qualifications for the eldership. One might as well leave out any other phase of scriptural teaching as this one.
Special Studies
By
W. Carl Ketcherside
Used by permission.
MUST ELDERS BE MARRIED?
Mias gunaikos andra. These are words of Paul. They were written to both Timothy and Titus. They constitute one qualification for an elder. What do they mean? The King James Version translates them the husband of one wife, The Revised Standard Version says married only once. Does the expression mean that marriage is essential to being a bishop? Almost before the last apostle died this was a matter of controversy. It has continued to be so in every generation since. This question bothered the reformers of the nineteenth century, both here and abroad.
On Wednesday, August 4, 1880, the annual conference of Churches of Christ in Great Britain met at Huddersfield. Brother G. Y. Tickle presented a paper on The Eldership. Later, he published it in The Christian Advocate, of which he was editor. Here is an excerpt from the printed version:
I respectfully submit that there is nothing in the directions given to either Timothy or Titus to make it imperative that they should be married men, and that they should have children.. The one, as opposed to plurality, is evidently the emphatic word. But it may be asked, Does it not even in that case include the injunction that he must be a married man? Most assuredly not. If the apostle has before him a man with a plurality of wives and intends to exclude him from the eldership on that ground, you have no right to say that is equal to having a single man before him who is to be excluded simply on the ground of his being unmarried or a widowerfor to be consistent the language must exclude both.
At the same time, Bro. David King was editor of the Ecclesiastical Observer. He took exception to the speech made at the conference. This provoked Bro. Tickle to write in the next edition of his paper as follows:
When we presented our paper on -The Eldership-' to the Annual Meeting we did not expect, and had no desire that it should escape the sifting of a full and fair criticism, We know that it is only by such means that the question can be lifted out of the ruts which a superficial exegesis has sunk for it, and be made to move forward on broad apostolic lines. That the Editor of the Ecclesiastical Observer should allow the whole of our positions, some of them so widely divergent from those he has accepted so many years as unassailable, to pass unchallenged, was not at all to be expected. We have felt, therefore, no surprise either as to the points of his attack, or to the manner in which the attack has been made, but we are bound to say we have never known the Editor so rash and heedless as he has shown himself in this critique on our paper.
After another rebuttal by Bro. King, the controversy was suspended by Bro. Tickle in these words:
We do not think it would be profitable to enter into further controversy on this subject. D. K. intimates that he is not satisfied with the reply in our last issue. We were not altogether satisfied with his attack and are not at all satisfied with his rejoinder. If we answered in the same vein, we are sure dissatisfaction would be increased on both sides. So we prefer to let the matter rest where it is, in the hope that the brethren may be enabled to look away from the men and their little contention to the question in its different phases and on its merits, carefully weighing all that has been advanced in the way of argument in the balances of truth and right reason.
Interest in the issue has been heightened in some sections of the disciple brotherhood in this country in the last two years. A Pennsylvania reader posed the following question to a fellow editor:
If a man has all the qualifications to be an elder except that he has no children, his wife being childless and thus he has no children through no fault of his own, would that in itself bar him forever to serve as elder?
The reply as published went far beyond the original question, for it would appear that the querist assumed that an elder must be married. But the editor responded in these words:
If brethren generally will be gracious enough not to hang me on Haman's gallows, I would like to say that I think we have stretched the domestic qualifications for bishops out of proportions. Paul's stipulations to Timothy and Titus deal with a -normal-' situation, and normally men old enough to be bishops are married and have children. But does Paul draw the line on bachelors or childless married men? I think not. Our straight-laced interpretations would bar even Paul himself from being an elder. The -husband of one wife-' qualification literally means -a one-woman man,-' which is likely a moral restriction against polygamy. Most all scholars take this view, if that means anything. The -Church of Christ-' stands almost alone in its idea that bishops must be married men, an interpretation that is linguistically weak. With such a liberal view I would, of course, say No to the above question. I am always amazed at brethren who think a man must be a husband and father in order to oversee a church, and yet believe that an evangelist who sets the church in order and trains men to be bishops can be either single or childless.
I was not disturbed by this reply. But I must admit that I was amazed at the reaction of many. They actually became emotionally upset and agitated. Instead of bringing forward proof to sustain their position and to show any fallacy in the reasoning of the editor, they began to whisper that he was unsound and unsafe. Some quit taking his paper on the ground that they did not want to read anything which disagreed with their position. My attitude is just the opposite of that. I have long ago determined that I do not learn by reading after those in perfect agreement with me. Those who are not, present things to challenge my thinking. They force me to re-evaluate my convictions. I am thus made to test all things so that I may retain what is good. Accordingly, when I read such an article I invariably follow a three-point program. First, I read it over very carefully to ascertain just what the author intends to convey; secondly, I examine such proofs as he presents by the proper criterion; thirdly, I formulate my own convictions in the light of my personal investigation.
For several months in MISSION MESSENGER I have been conducting a survey of the eldership. Having considered the moral qualifications of the presbyters, I have arrived at the place where I must deal with the domestic requirements. The first question is. whether or not a man must be married to qualify. Strictly speaking, the question is what Paul intended to convey in the expression mias gunaikos andra. That is what should concern us. We ought not to be interested primarily, in whether these words confirm a qualification we have set up. We must seek to find what qualification they set up. Since I am dealing at such length with an issue which may appear to my readers to be of minor importance, I offer as justification the fact that I am of the sober opinion that we can never restore the church of God to its ancient order without restoring the polity ordained by the holy apostles. Any matter related to the government of the congregation of saints is important. This particular one has taken on added importance at this time.
I am deeply indebted to, and appreciative of, the great scholars who have done so much in clearing the ground for those of us possessed of humbler intellects. I doubt that any person now living has a more profound respect for scholarship than the writer. Yet, I recognize that the mere fact that the Church of Christ stands almost alone in its idea that bishops must be married men, is not in itself, proof of either correctness or error in thinking. I shall seek to be objective and not concerned with the idea of any church. What did the inspired envoy of the Lord say, and what did he mean?
Mias gunaikos andra. In generations past men of great learning have held conflicting views. These words have been said to have the following connotations:
1.
To forbid concubinage.
2.
To forbid polygamy.
3.
To forbid remarriage after divorce.
4.
To forbid digamy, or deuterogamy (a second marriage after the death of the mate),
5.
To demand that elders be married men.
At the outset, it must be admitted that most all scholars positively reject the last as being a proper interpretation. There are some notable exceptions to which we will later call attention. But it is likewise true that a careful poll of the same scholars may prove that a majority of them reject the idea that Paul was opposing polygamy by his statement. They believe rather that he was opposing deuterogamy, that is, a second marriage after death of a companion.
Goodspeed translates: Only once married. James Moffatt: He must be married only once. The Berkeley Version: One wife's husband, with an added footnote: If married at all. The New Testament in Plain English has Married only once. The Revised Standard Version reads: Married only once, with the footnote: Greek the husband of one wife.
On the original language itself, Kenneth S. Wuest, in his book on The Pastoral Epistles has this to say:
The two nouns are without the definite article, which construction indicates character or nature. The entire context is one in which the character of the bishop is being discussed. Thus one can translate -a one-wife sort of husband-' or -a one-woman sort of man.-' We speak of the Airedale as a one-man dog. We mean, by that, that it is his nature to become attached to only one man, his master. Since character is emphasized by the Greek construction, the bishop should be a man who loves only one woman as his wife. It should be his nature to thus isolate and centralize his love.
Edmund J. Wolff, D.D., Professor of Church History and New Testament Exegesis in the Theological Seminary, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, says:
Public sentiment at the time looked with disfavor upon the contraction of marriage after the death of one's consort. It was held to be unseemly, if not immoral. To forego a second wedlock was regarded as a mark of high moral strictness. Even the heathen deemed it unbecoming for a widow. It, therefore, behooved one about to step on the high pedestal of pastoral oversight to conform to public sentimentas long as it was not sinful, and to set an example of self-restraint.
Henry Alford, D.D., one time Dean of Canterbury, concurs in this view as shown by his statement:
The view then which must I think be adopted is that. St. Paul forbids second marriage. He requires of them pre-eminent chastity, and abstinence from license which is allowed to other Christians. How far such a prohibition is to be considered binding on us, now that the Christian life has entered into another and totally different phase, is of course an open question for the present Christian church at any time to deal with. It must be as a matter of course understood that regulations, in all lawful things, depend, even when made by an Apostle, on circumstances: and the superstitious observance of the letter in such cases is often pregnant with mischief to the people and the cause of Christ.
The reader is no doubt familiar with Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament. In espousing the above position, the author says:
The opposition to second marriage became very strong in the latter part of the second century. It was elevated into an article of faith by the Montanists, and was emphasized by Tertullian, and by Athenagoras, who called second marriage -a spurious adultery.-'
Among the commentators who believe that the apostle was forbidding second marriages are Bloomfield, Wiesinger, Van Oosterzee, Huther, Ellicott, Wordsworth, and Faussett. There are a number of others who dissent from this view, among them H. H. Harvey, D.D., of Hamilton Theological Seminary, who declares:
It seems clear, therefore, that the disqualification here intended is not remarriage after the death of a wife, but polygamy, or the having at the same time more than one living wife.
To complicate this explanation, Alfred Plummer, M.A., D.D., affirms that:
Polygamy in the Roman Empire must have been very rare. It was forbidden by Roman law, which did not allow a man to have more than one lawful wife at a time, and treated every simultaneous marriage, not only as null and void, but infamous. When it was practiced, it must have been practiced secretly. It is possible that when St. Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus, not a single polygamist had been converted to the Christian faith. Polygamists were exceedingly rare inside the Empire, and the Church had not yet spread beyond it.
As to the rarity of polygamy in the days of the apostles we have the testimony of E. F. Scott, Professor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York.
This has sometimes been taken to imply that only married men were eligible, but a rule of this kind would be contrary to the whole passage, which deals with character rather than status. Neither can it be polygamy which is forbidden, for this was never practiced in the civilized regions of Asia Minor. Perhaps Moffatt is right in translating he must be married only once. . But perhaps the meaning is simply that a bishop must show an example of strict morality. As a man of mature years he would presumably be married, and in the married relation, above all others, he must be above reproach..
Edward, Hayes Plumptree, D.D., Professor in King's College, London, suggests another alternative:
A third explanation is, perhaps, more satisfactory. The most prominent fact in the social life of both Jews and Greeks at this period was the frequency of divorce. This, as we know, Jewish teachers, for the most part, sanctioned on even trifling grounds (Matthew 5:31-32; Matthew 19:3-9). The apostle, taking up the law which Christ had laid down, infers that any breach of that law (even in the case which made marriage after divorce just permissible) would at least so far diminish a man's claim to respect as to disqualify him for office.
Walter Lock, D.D., in The International Critical Commentary, reaches about the same conclusion:
To be unmarried would incur no reproach: such a requirement (marriage) Would be scarcely consistent with the teaching of our Lord (Matthew 19:12) and of St. Paul (1 Corinthians 7:7-8); so the writer is only thinking of the character of a bishop, ifmarried; as in verse 4 he deals only with his children, if he has children.. It also implies, and was probably meant to imply, not divorcing one wife and marrying another.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Ph.D., D.D., in Popular Commentary of the Bible, offers the following:
That a pastor lead a chaste and decent life, confining his attentions to his wife, if he have one, as he normally will, not living in concubinage or bigamy, or rejecting a woman to whom he is lawfully betrothed for another.
N. J. D. White, D.D., in The Expositor's Greek Testament sets forth the view:
It does not mean that the episcopus must be, or have been married. What is here forbidden is digamy under any circumstances.
Nothing is more apparent to the researchist than the wide area of disagreement among the scholars. They are riot agreed upon what the apostle meant. They are not even agreed upon what he did not mean. It is true that a majority take the position that Paul did not intend to set up the married state as requisite to office. On this point, we quote from R. C.H. Lenski, who says:
The emphasis is on one wife's husband, and the sense is that he have nothing to do with any other woman. He must be a man who cannot be taken hold of on the score of sexual promiscuity or laxity. It is plain that Paul does not say here that none but married men may enter the ministry, that every pastor must be married.
John Peter Lange, in his comments upon the passages under consideration, says:
The view that Paul speaks here only of the married state, as a conditio sine qua non for the episcopoi, or that he merely discourages; anything unusual, immoral, or illegal in the married life of such officers, does not fully explain his language.
Scott's Bible agree with the thought expressed by Lange and others, with the words:
Some have inferred from this text, that stated pastors ought to be married, as a prerequisite to their office; but this seems to be a mistake of a general permission, connected with a restriction, for an express command.
A. S. Peake, M.A., D.D., lends the Weight of his opinion to the same view, saying of the passages:
Sometimes wrongly interpreted as alluding to polygamy or adultery, or of forbidding celibacy.
Professor T. Croskery, D.D., in The Pulpit Commentary, also declares:
It does not necessarily compel pastors to marry, like the Greek church.. It seems to mean that the pastor was to be -the husband of one wife,-' avoiding the polygamy that was then common among the Jews, and the system of divorce still so common in that age, and remaining faithful to the wife of his choice.
We need to be careful, lest we leave the impression that all of the commentators and historians are united in the view that Paul did not set up marriage as a qualification, Carlstadt, the illustrious contemporary of Luther, and the fiery reformer, who advocated that a destructive process was the only method of reform, was a notable exception. This man, who was anxious to introduce into ecclesiastical and civil affairs an unconditional adherence to the obvious and literal construction of the Scriptures, steadfastly contended that the bishops should be married men.
Thomas M. Lindsay, D.D., Principal of Glasgow College, in his book, The Church and The Ministry in the Early Centuries, says:
Titus is told that a presbyter or elder must be a man who is above suspicion, who is a faithful husband, and whose children are Christians of well-regulated lives.
In a footnote on the same page is contained the following explanation:
-A faithful husband-' appears to be the best translation of mias gunaikos andra, one who acts on the principles of Christian morality and is not led astray by the licentious usages of the surrounding heathenism.
But Macknight in his work on The Epistles dissents from this view, in this language:
The direction Ihave been considering does not make it necessary, to one's being a bishop, that he be a married person.. But the apostle's meaning is, that if such a person be married, he must, as was observed above, have only one wife at a time.
Albert Barnes concludes that the apostle intended to prohibit polygamy, but writes:
This need not be understood as requiring that a bishop should be a married man.
In the face of all of this contradictory material what is the honest student to do? What did the apostle actually mean by the terms he used? It is possible we may not be able, at this late date, to definitely determine, in the absence of more complete testimony. Certainly we should not be arbitrary or dogmatic in our personal views. We need to proceed with caution and becoming humility, lest we advance an interpretation, then make of it a creed, and proceed to disfellowship others because they will not bow to our will. There is a difference between what the apostle said and what men think that he meant.
It is an easy matter for us to ignore the results of research and investigation and cling to a traditional view without regard to its validity. But this is not an honest approach to the revealed word of heaven. One of our greatest difficulties is that, having taught a thing for so long, we become lifted up with pride. We feel that we cannot change for this would be an admission of error! Or, perhaps, we learn better, but conclude that silence is the better part of valor. If we remain still and say nothing on the issues that are raised, we can retain the plaudits of the masses; whereas, if we speak out boldly we may be hated and hounded as troublers of Israel.
The writer does not feel that he should suppress his honest views in order to please men. In the next issue those views will be clearly set forth and the reasons given for them. Those reasons may not satisfy all of our readers. They may be deemed as insufficient to justify the conclusion reached, but they will be presented in kindness and love, and those who differ will not be castigated nor driven out by the editor. It is our very fervent prayer that you shall read this review again very carefully and save this issue until the next appears. In the meantime, we believe that there is one thing of which all may be certain, and that is that the enforced celibacy of the Roman Church is contrary to the word of God.
In our first article on this subject, published in MISSION MESSENGER last month, we reviewed the positions taken by various scholars. We urge you to read it as a preparation for this second article. It will demonstrate the great differences that exist as to the meaning of the language used by the apostle. It will also show that only a small minority of scholars entertain the view that marriage is a requisite for the eldership.
Those of us who have always contended that a bishop must be married should face up courageously to the difficulties which must be met in the defence of that position. Let me cite but a few. Jesus speaks with commendation of those who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:12). I understand this to refer to those who desist from marriage to advance the kingdom. Is it logical that one who deprives himself of marriage for the sake of the kingdom, should be deprived of an office or function in that kingdom, on the basis that he is not married? Again, we learn from the scriptures that continency is a gift (Matthew 19:11) and that it is a special gift from God (1 Corinthians 7:7). Shall a man be barred from the eldership because he exercises this gift, or, if he desires the office of bishop, must he deny the gift of God?
The expression husband of one wife as relates to the bishop, is on par with the expression wife of one husband as pertains to the widow in 1 Timothy 5:9. It is generally conceded, we believe, that the latter expression means that a widow is not to have married again after the death of her husband. In view of this, is it not implied that Paul, instead of setting up marriage as a qualification, was simply stating that no twice married man could qualify? If it be agreed that husband of one wife is a correct rendering, is the emphasis to be placed upon husband or one. If we were laying down a qualification of marriage for a position, would we say that a man had to be the husband of one wife? If Paul intended to establish marriage as a requisite to office, why did he not use the word for married since he was familiar with it and employed it frequently?
On the other hand, we should not feel that this is the only position beset with problems. Those who settle upon other meanings also have difficulties which they must meet. Certainly the language employed by the apostle meant something, and it meant just one thing when written. It is not a fair or wise approach to say that it could have included a number of various things, for this spirit would do despite to all interpretation, and it is the resort of shallow thinkers and surface reasoners who do not handle the word skilfully.
In presenting my own view as to the question in our heading, I must admit that I do so with some reluctance which I did not feel five years ago. Always before, when writing upon this topic, I have been bold, forward and positive. I merely stated my position derived from years of traditional teaching. It never occurred to me that any person would be so rash as to question it. I admit that I did not strive to find out what the apostle meant, for I thought I already knew. Now that I am again faced with the necessity of declaring my thoughts I find myself both humbled and hesitant. Yet I cannot be true to my readers without expressing my feelings.
My conclusion is that a bishop should be a married man. This is in opposition to the world's scholarship. It may seem presumptuous to array myself against the battery of great reasoners whose opinions I have cited. Surely I must present the bases for arriving at such a conclusion. I know these will be attacked and sifted, and they should be. It may be proven that they are inadequate and insufficient to justify my position. I submit them in all honesty and sincerity. They are my own. I have not consulted with others on the matter. No one else need be charged with them. My only justification in disagreeing with the scholars is that God hath chosen the foolish to confound the wise. Here are the reasons which lead me to believe that bishops should be married.
1. The primitive community of saints, being Jewish, was patterned after the synagogue in government. It is my personal feeling that the synagogue, which was a spontaneous production of the Babylonian exile, was used of God to cushion the shook of transition from Judaism to Christianity. This theme I hope to develop in a future book if God spares my life, At the present, it is sufficient to say that all scholars of note agree that the congregation in Jerusalem was a Messianic synagogue, with its permanent form of government developing along the lines with which the people were familiar. Out of the great bulk of material before me, I present statements from two writers of note.
The first quotation is from Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, D.D., Dean of Westminster, in his Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, Vol. 3, Page 409:
And thus, inasmuch as the synagogue existed where the Temple was unknown, and remained when the Temple fell, it followed that from its order and worship, and not from that of the Temple, were copied, if not in all their details, yet in the general features, the government, the institutions, and the devotions of those Christian communities, which springing directly from the Jewish, were in the first instance known as -synagogues-'. and afterward by the adoption of an almost identical word -Ecclesia,-' assembly house.
The second quotation will be found in The Temple Dictionary of the Bible by W. Ewing, M.A., and J. E. H. Thomson, D.D., under the article Synagogue.
It is not difficult to trace the foundation and practice of the Apostolic Church to the Synagogue system, and to see that we have nothing to do with the Temple worship, which was meant to be unique and to be devoted to the sacrificial ritual.. Every detail of the Primitive Church organization is synagogalthe equality of elders and rulers (Acts 20:17; Acts 20:28), the episcopal power vested in the presbyters, the daily ministration (Acts 6:1), the matter of collections, the use of the word angel (Revelation 2:1) for the presiding elder, and the general order of Christian worship: all are synagogal and presbyterian.
It should not be necessary to tell the serious student that the last word in the quotation has no reference to a denomination in the Protestant world, but to a form of government.
The Jewish disciples were familiar with the rule of elders in the synagogue. (See MISSION MESSENGER, June 1957, page 8). It is conceivable that when the apostles visited a synagogue and reasoned from the Jewish Scriptures, proving that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, the entire synagogue might be converted, in which case there would be no necessity of a change of government, worship or procedure, except the addition of the Lord's Supper. But the Jews had a high regard for the married state and the home. For that reason they taught that a priest should be neither unmarried or childless, lest he be unmerciful.
Dr. Alfred Edersheim, D.D., Ph.D., in an article on Marriage Among the Hebrews, says:
Thus viewed, marriage was considered almost a religious duty, that is, not from lust, nor for beauty, nor yet merely for wealth. For whatever woman was, either for good or bad, she was always superlatively. Stringing together several portions of Scripture, it was argued that an unmarried man was without any good (Genesis 2:18), without joy (Deuteronomy 14:26), without blessing (Ezekiel 44:30); without protection (Jeremiah 31:22), without peace (Job 5:24); indeed, could not properly be called a man (Genesis 5:22).
The same writer in his Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ has this to say:
We can understand how, before the coming of the Messiah, marriage should have been looked upon as of religious obligation. Many passages of Scripture were at least quoted in support of this idea. Ordinarily, a young man was expected to enter the wedded state (according to Maimonides) at the age of sixteen or seventeen, while the age of twenty may be regarded as the utmost limit conceded, unless study so absorbed time and attention as to leave no leisure for the duties of married life. Still it was thought better even to neglect study than to remain single.
In the same book, the author, himself a Jew who came to believe in the Messiah, has this to say about those who had charge of the conduct of public worship, as well as of the government and discipline of the synagogues:
They were men learned in the law and of good repute, whom the popular voice designated, but who were regularly set apart by the laying on of hands,-' or the -Semichah,-' which was done by at least three, who had themselves received ordination.. The special qualifications for the office of Sanhedrist, mentioned in the Rabbinical writings, are such as to remind us of the directions of St, Paul to Timothy (1 Timothy 3:1-10).
Our next authority is C. D. Ginsburg, LL.D., who writes in Early Attendance at the Sanctuary as follows:
It was deemed most desirable that he who acts as the mouthpiece of the people should be able to sympathize with the wants of the people, and should possess those moral and mental qualifications which became so holy a mission. The canon law, therefore, laid it down that -even if an elder or sage is present in the congregation, he is not to be asked to officiate before the ark; but that man is to be delegated to officiate who has children, whose family are free from vice, who has a proper beard, whose garments are decent, who is acceptable to the people, and who has a good and amiable voice, who understands to read properly the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa, and who knows all the benedictions of the service-' (Mishna Taanith, 2 Timothy 2:2). How strikingly this illustrates the apostolic injunction, -A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, and modest. one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity. not a novice,. he must have a good report of them that are without-' (1 Timothy 3:1-7, with Titus 1:1-9).
It would not have been necessary to set forth marriage as one of the qualifications for the presbyters who were selected by the congregation at Jerusalem and appointed to administer the affairs of the community of saints. The brethren who constituted that community were all Jews. They regarded themselves as a synagogue of disciples of the Nazarene. Their superintendents and administrators selected by popular voice would be married men. And we believe that this pattern would be followed in other congregations, even those remote from Palestine. For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus (1 Thessalonians 2:14).
2. The whole tenor of the teaching seems to indicate that a presbyter will be a married man. It may be argued that a definite rule of marriage based upon the mere statement mias gunaikos andros is linguistically weak, but we do not think it will be seriously disputed that the context relates to one who is domestically situated as the head of a household. And just as a gem loses part of its luster out of the setting designed for it, so it is sometimes difficult to appreciate fully a passage isolated from the general frame in which it is placed.
Edward Hayes Plumptre, D.D., Professor in King's College, London, has this to say:
Both this verse and verse 4 appear to take marriage for granted. It is obvious that in a community much exposed to the suspicions or the slanders of the heathen, this would be a safeguard against many of the perils to which a celibate clergy have always been exposed.
Much along the same vein is the statement of J. R. Dummelow, M.A., Queen's College, Oxford, who says the expression probably means that a presbyter must be faithful to his wife, a man of one woman. He adds, In any case the presbyter or bishop is contemplated as a married man.
3. The Holy Spirit presents an analogy in which the home, or household, sustains a relation to the congregation of God, and it is in ruling the first that one demonstrates his ability to govern the second. A presbyter must rule well his own house. He must have his children in subjection with all gravity. The purpose of this qualification is not to determine his ability to beget offspring but to afford a demonstration of his ability to govern them. The argument is that If he know not how to rule his own house how shall he take care of the church of God? The word for house is oikos the inmates of a house, all the persons forming one family, a household. A part of this family are children. In ruling them, the candidate for the eldership shows his ability to govern. If he is not married and has no children how can be demonstrate this ability? How can the congregation know he will be able to take care of the church of God if they have never seen a demonstration of his ability in a household? Can a congregation select a man to govern the church of God who has not demonstrated ability to rule his own house, including his children?
But what about the argument that by setting up marriage as a qualification, Paul would render himself, Barnabas, and Timothy, disqualified for the office? We propose to allow David King to answer this.
We consider that either polygamy or celibacy disqualifies for the eldership. It has been urged that celibacy cannot do so, as, in that case, Paul and Timothy would have been disqualified; certainly they would, and there is no evidence they were not. No one can produce proof that they were qualified for the elder's office, and nowhere are we taught that the qualifications for an apostle, an evangelist, and an elder are the same. On the point now immediately under notice, nothing could be more fitting than that apostles and evangelists, whose work largely required them to move from place to place, and generally rendered impossible a settled home, should be unmarried; while on the other hand, nothing is more seemly and desirable than that overseers in one church, whose duties require settled residence and involve frequent interposition between husband and wife, parents and children, should themselves be married men, who have given evidence that they understand and rightfully deport themselves in that relationship. No one can fail to see that such, other circumstances being equal, could not but present a fitness for the office which the unmarried are without. This is our conclusion after years of thoughtful investigation, and after reading, perhaps, all that can be said on either side.
What should be our attitude toward brethren who honestly differ from us and who think that we make a rigid interpretation without proper justification? Here is how Brother King resolved that issue.
Still the fact remains, that thoughtful, learned, pious brethren conclude that it is not certain that the intention is wider than the exclusion of the polygamist, and, therefore, they decline to reject an unmarried man who is, in all other respects, qualified. Now, we are not prepared to say that these brethren must of necessity be wrong. That they are wrong we have little or no doubt, but the impossibility of their being right is not here affirmed. How then shall the difficulty be met? Each church must meet it for itself, and the understanding of the majority must prevail. Not that the church shall decree what the interpretation shall be; but that each member determine for himself, whether the person, or persons, named has, or have, the required qualifications; each to determine this according to his own understanding of the terms, and the declared will of the majority must be taken as the church-recognition or non-recognition of the fitness of the men submitted for their judgment. But just here comes in an important consideration, which to some extent should influence the decision. There is perfectly safe and certain ground. If only those are ordained who possess the other qualifications and who also are married, everyone will know that the requirements are fully met. Thus perfectly safe and reliable ground invites to occupation.
What course shall I pursue personally? Since starting this series I have learned of a group of brethren in another part of the world who do not consider marriage as a necessary qualification. They will not reject a man who is otherwise qualified but has never married. Suppose I should visit them and labor among them, as I have been invited to do. Would I seek to divide them over this issue? Indeed I would not! If asked to explain my position I would offer my interpretation in meekness and humility. I would avoid becoming dogmatic or arbitrary. I would not tell them that I could not worship with them, nor serve under an eldership, with one or more constituents unmarried. I could not conscientiously appoint such a brother to office with my present attitude, but I would not make an unwritten creed of my interpretation and divide brethren into a married elder faction, and an unmarried elder faction. If I have not grown much in knowledge in recent years I trust that I have at least grown in grace.
To any of my brethren, at home or abroad; to those who fellowship me and those who do not; I would like to say that I will be pleased to read anything you have to say on this issue which may help to throw additional light on the matter. I do not solicit your personal opinions, for I have more of my own than I know what to do with. But if there is some scripture I have overlooked, or some point of logic or reasoning I have failed to see, you will be my friend if you point out my shortcoming, and call my mistakes to my attention. I want to be right above all things else. I am willing to learn from any person who can teach me.
God willing, I shall deal with the questions concerning the children of bishops in my next issue. I trust that you will look forward to that, and that God may bless us all with a deeper insight into His revelation of truth.
ELDERS AND CHILDREN
The question of whether or not elders must have children in order to qualify has long been discussed. The editor humbly submits his views on this issue in the form of questions and answers.
1. Is it your position that a man must be married to qualify as an elder?
Yes, and I gave my reasons for so thinking in the November edition of this paper. I admit there are difficulties presented by this position, but it seems to fulfill the requirements better than any other. Those who desire to study the opposite view, and all should do so, may see it set forth by Bro. Ralph Graham, in Bible Talk.
2. Do you think that an elder must have children?
Yes, I do, because he is contemplated as the head of a family, or household, and he must demonstrate his ability to take care of the church of God by ruling his own family well (1 Timothy 3:5). In connection therewith, it is said he must have his children in subjection with all gravity.
3. Does the term children imply a plurality, or could a man with one child serve, if he possesses the other qualifications?
The word children does not necessitate a plurality. It is used in its common application, and neither legally, naturally, or in the Old and New Testaments does it convey the idea of a compulsory plurality.
4. Can you illustrate what you mean by legally and naturally?
Yes. In this state, there is a law which stipulates that All parents having children under the age of sixteen years must enroll them in school. Could parents having only one child evade that law? Indeed not!
In normal conversation we use the term children in the same fashion. If the Parent-Teachers Association invites to a meeting all parents who have children enrolled in the school, it certainly would not be limited to those who had two or more in school.
5. Give us examples in the Old and New Testaments to illustrate your view.
A good case in point is that of Sarah, at the birth of Isaac. And she said, Who would have said unto Abraham, that Sarah should have given children suck? for I have born him a son in his -old age (Genesis 21:7). Here the term children is certainly equivalent to a son.
In 1 Timothy 5:4 any widow who has children is to be supported by them. This certainly would not eliminate one son or daughter from any obligation, for that would contradict 1 Timothy 5:8; 1 Timothy 5:16 where the singular is employed. Such examples could be multiplied far beyond our space to accommodate them.
6. If a couple having no children of their own, adopt children, would this satisfy the requirements?
Certainly it would. The qualification is not based upon a man's physical ability to beget offspring, but upon his ability to rule or govern the family circle. A wife might be sterile even though her husband was not. If a couple adopts children and they demonstrate ability to rear them in subjection, the qualification is met.
7. Then why could not a man qualify by teaching public school and governing children?
Because the relationship sustained in a school is different than that in a home, and the government of a congregation is analogous to that of a home. There is more to ruling a household than maintaining youngsters in subjection. That is but one phase of it. An elder will be called upon to counsel and advise in domestic difficulties involving husbands and wives, parents and children, employers and employees, etc. It is to qualify him to deal objectively with all such cases that he must be the head of a household so he may know how to care for the church of God.
8. Do the scriptures teach that an elder's children must be members of the church, in order for him to qualify?
I do not think so. I believe that the statement having faithful children in Titus 1:6, is misunderstood by a lot of people. Of course, I may be in error about it myself, but I merely give my view of it, after making very careful and earnest study, as objectively as I know how to do so.
9. Do not most of the modern translations imply that the expression means children who are Christians?
Yes. Some of them even use the expression. For instance, The Twentieth Century New Testament says, Whose children are Christians. But this is not a translation. It is a commentary. It expresses what the translators thought the apostle meant, not what he said. There is no word for Christian in the text, and it is not a translation to use this word for the term that does appear.
10. Does not Thayer in his lexicon say the term means one who has become convinced that Jesus is the Messiah and the author of salvation?
Actually, Thayer does not say that. He merely translates the words of Prof. Grimm to that effect. Strictly speaking, belief in Jesus is not included in this word at all. It simply means trustworthy, of good fidelity, and relates to one who can be relied upon. There is not one thing in the term itself to indicate belief in any specific person, proposition or thing.
11. Then why did the lexicographers assign it a specific application?
That is easily understood. The term pistos appears in a New Testament framework or background. In many cases, it has to do with a state of conviction relative to Jesus as the Messiah, The lexicographers of New Testament usage would obviously slant their thinking in that direction in any case of question. I think they have done so here. They thought the contextual usage justified it; I do not think so. The term is applied to God, Christ, servants, stewards, and the word, as well as to children,
12. Do you have some justifiable basis for disagreeing with these authorities?
That all depends upon who is to be the judge of what constitutes a justifiable basis. The Bible says Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but it also says, The way of a fool is right in his own eyes. I think that I am correct in my conviction that a man may be appointed to the eldership before his children are old enough to accept the gospel and assume the responsibility of the Christian life.
13. On what ground do you reach that conclusion?
First, let it be remembered that the strict meaning of the term pistos is trustworthy, reliable. Qualifications relating to the children were written by the apostle to Timothy at Ephesus, and Titus at Crete. I do not think they differ. Whatever was required of children in one place would be required in both. If an expression used in writing to Titus is obscure or ambiguous, it may be explained in the language to Timothy, or vice versa. The statement to Titus is having faithful children, and to Timothy, it is, having his children in subjection. I conclude, then, that faithful children are children in subjection to the will or rule of the father. Faithful children are those who are trustworthy and reliable because they are in subjection to paternal government. Paul defines what he means when he says Faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. This is the negative attribute, while trustworthy is the positive.
14. Is it not to be presumed that children who are reared by Christian parents will obey the Lord when they get old enough?
That does not necessarily follow. God said, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me (Isaiah 1:2) and I do not think that earthly parents are any better than God. The fact that God's children rebelled against him is no reflection against the way in which he nourished and brought them up. We need to be careful in assuming that a profligate child is always a reflection against the parents, lest we reflect against the fatherhood of God.
15. If a man had one or more children, under subjection, yet none were old enough to become Christians, I take it you would ordain him as elder.
Of course, that is not the only qualification. But if a man was fully qualified otherwise, and his children were under subjection and obedient to his discipline, I would appoint him as elder, if the congregation selected him. The qualification is not the ability to get your children into the church, as desirable as that may be, but to govern and control the family circle. I know a man who reared his family in a denominational influence, and they were always very close as a family. All became members of the denomination. When the father was somewhat advanced in years, he and his Wife became convinced that denominationalism was wrong, and obeyed the pure gospel. The children, all being married, would not leave the denomination in which they were reared. But this faithful, godly man could qualify as a bishop over the flock of God.
Extracts by FRANK HAMILTON from
The
BIBLE
and
WINE
BY THE LATE
FERRAR FENTON, M.R.A.S., M.C.A.A., ETC., ETC.
(Translator of the Complete Bible into Modern English)
A. & C. BLACK, LTD.
4, 5 & 6 Soho SQUARE, LONDON, W. 1.
13th July, 1938.
FRANK HAMILTON, ESQ.,
6701 ATLANTIC AVENUE,
VENTNOR, N. J.
Dear Sir:
We shall have no objection to your reprinting this as you suggest, provided that the reference to the Translator of the Complete Bible appears on the title-page as in proof which we are returning herewith.
Yours very truly,
A. & C. BLACK, LTD.
(H. A. G.)
The Bible and Wine
Thus saith Jehovah: As the new wine is found in the cluster,
and one saith, Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it:
so will I do for my servants-' sake, that I may
not destroy them allIsaiah 65:8.
(See also Deuteronomy 32:14 and Jeremiah 48:33.)
Having now completed the examination of the Old Testament, and its teachings upon the uses of fruits as foods or drinks, I proceed to do the same by a careful survey of the Greek text of the New Testament, and the methods in which the old Greek and Mediterranean nations prepared the fruit of the vine-plant for use in their domestic life. This latter, of course, can only be learned as to technical details from writers outside the Gospels, who treated the subject as one of agriculture and manufactures, but who, by living at the same period as the Evangelists and Apostles, were personally acquainted with the matter to which both refer.
GREEK TEXTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Oinos, Oinon, Texts in Greek.
Oinon, the Grape-tree or Vine-plant.
Oinion, the fruit of the Vine or Grape-plant. It is also used to denote various kinds of drinks or confections of other succulent fruits, such as the date and lotus fruit, according to Liddell and Scott's Lexicon. According to Professor Samuel Lee, of Cambridge University, the root of the Greek word is undoubtedly the Hebrew vocable, Yain, Wine; which, as I have before shown, under the sections of my essay devoted to the philology of that Hebrew noun, was not confined to an intoxicating liquor made from fruits by alcoholic fermentation of their expressed juices, but more frequently referred to a thick, non-intoxicating syrup, conserve, or jam, produced by boiling, to make them storable as articles of food, exactly as we do at the present day. The only difference being that we store them in jars, bottles, or metal cans, whilst the Ancients laid them up in skin bottles, as Aristotle and Pliny, and other classic writers upon agricultural and household affairs describe. Consequently the contention of some of my correspondents that the Greek oinos, always meant fermented and intoxicating liquor is totally inaccurate, and only arises from ignorance, or prejudice in favour of the delusion of the commentators of the Dark Ages, who fancied drunkenness was the highest delight, and intoxication an imperative Christian practice; because Mohammedan Arabians were a sober people.
Oine, and Oinon, the Grape, or Vine-plant. Oinos. wine, or drink made from any fruit or grain, such as dates, apples, pears, barley, the lotus seed. If specially indicated as made from Grapes it is called Oinos -ampelinos.
As in the Hebrew Yain, the word does not in Greek always signify fermented intoxicating drink, but grapes as fresh fruit, dried as raisins, or prepared as jam, or preserved by boiling for storage, or as thick syrup for spreading upon bread as we do butter; and that syrup dissolved in water for a beverage at meals, as described in the Hebrew Bible by Solomon and others, and amongst Greek writers by Aristotle, and Pliny amongst the Roman ones. This mixing of the syrup with water ready for use at meals is alluded to in more than one of our Lord's parables. The liquid was absolutely non-alcoholic and not intoxicating. Grape-juice was also prepared by heating it, as soon as possible after it had been squeezed in the press, by boiling, so as to prevent fermentation, and yet preserve its thin liquid form as a drink. To ensure this certain resinous gums were dissolved in the juice, or sulphate of lime, or what is commonly called gypsum, was put into it, as is now done in Spain, to make the liquid clear and bright, and prevent subsequent fermentation arising from changes of atmosphere. All these plans for producing a non-intoxicating wine are still followed extensively in every grape-growing country of Southern Europe and Asia, as of old. Similar wines made in France can now be obtained in London from Ingersoll and Melluish, of 10 Eastcheap, E. C. This is not a paid advertisement, but noted because I believe it may benefit some readers to know the fact, and to support my statements in the text.
It should never be forgotten that when reading in the Bible and the classic pagan writers of Wine, we are seldom dealing with the strongly intoxicating and loaded liquids to which that name is alone attached in the English language, but usually with beverages such as above described. They were as harmless and sober as our own teas, coffees, and cocoas. Had they not been so, the ancient populations would have been perpetually in a more or less pronounced state of drunkenness, for they had none of our above-noted herb-made drinks to use as a part of their dietary. These facts should never be forgotten when we read of wine there,for it was simple fruit syrup, except where especially stated to be of the intoxicating kinds, which latter the Prophets and Legislators always condemn.
Leaving further exposition, I now turn to the New Testament.
REFERENCE IN ST. MATTHEW
St. Matthew 9:17: Neither do they pour new wine (fresh grape-juice) into old wine-skins; for if they did, the skins would burst, and the wine (grape-juice) be spilt, and the skins destroyed. On the contrary, they pour fresh juice into new skins, and both are safe together.
Only a determination to misread this metaphorical illustration of the subject which Jesus was discussing with the disciples of John, can pervert this passage into a recommendation or sanction for habitual use of intoxicating liquors. That the oinon, that is fresh grape-juice (if literally translated), referred to had not been fermented to the still liquid form is clear, for if it had been so it would not burst the old wine skins by beginning to ferment in them on account of the yeast or acid with which the old skins were saturated, setting up the alcoholic action. To keep the juice of the grapes sweet and wholesome it needed to be specially prepared before being poured into new sweet skins, when it would keep pure and benefit men as an article of diet, as His auditors knew well, as a syrup or jam, such as the ancient writers upon agriculture and domestic economy inform us were in common daily use. Jesus wished to show John's disciples that before He could form an Organization or Church to be the instrument of continuing His doctrines, He had to prepare His disciples by a course of mental education to receive His spiritual teaching, freed from the dead rituals of the Sadducean priesthood of Jerusalem, and then inspire them with a newly-created Organization to preserve and serve out the Gospel doctrines to mankind.
The interpretation put upon His parable by the ignorant commentators of the Dark Ages, that He was insisting upon the drinking of intoxicants, is little short of blasphemy, and it is a disgrace to our better informed age that writers should Say that Christianity has given a sacred character to wine and its use, as some I have read declare, in opposition to the Mohammedan -condemnation of it. By wine this writer clearly says he meant alcoholic liquor.
REFERENCES IN ST. MARK
St. Mark 2:22: Nobody pours new wine into old wineskins; but if done, then the new wine (that is, the fresh unprepared grape-juice) would burst the skins, and both the wine and the skins would be wasted. On the contrary, new wine must be put into new skins.
To this passage my preceding comment will apply; but the following citation will demand a special consideration from both myself and readers, for it has been curiously distorted by commentators from its true bearing. It is
St. Mark 15:20-24: And when they had insulted Him they took off from Him the purple robe, and clad Him in His own attire, and led Him out for crucifixion. Then they seized a passerby, who was coming up from the countrySimon the Cyrenian, the father of Alexander and Rufusforcing him to accompany them, to carry the cross, and took Him to Golgotha (which means Skull-field), where they offered Him wine medicated with myrrh: but He refused to drink it. There they crucified Him, and divided His clothing among themselves, casting lots as to what part each should take.
The question suggested in the above, to which no one seems to have found an answer, is: Why did Jesus refuse to drink the wine, medicated with a narcotic by the Centurion, out of a feeling of mercy to the victim, whom he knew had been unjustly condemned to death upon a false accusation, and that Pilate had been driven to condemn him by terror for his own personal safety, after the Sadducean priests had threatened to accuse him to the Emperor at Rome as a confederate with Christ to incite a revolt of the Jews against the Empire, unless he did hand Jesus over to their will to be crucified? This narcotized liquor does not seem to have been offered to the two robbers who had been convicted of real crime, and therefore we must conclude, as I have done, that it was an act of mercy from the Centurion who commanded the detachment of soldiers, specially to Jesus. Then why should Christ not have drank it? He would know the kindness of heart of the soldier, and the nobility of soul that inspired the feeling of mercy. Then why did He not accept the act of mercy?
Oh! is the only answer I have ever read, or heard spoken, Our Saviour refused the narcotic wine because He did not wish to diminish in the slightest degree the cruel tortures of the death He was about to suffer for mankind!
As to the bodily torments, He was only to suffer the same as the two miserable robbers, His companions in the method of death. Consequently there must have been a far more powerful reason for His refusal than that commonly given. What was it?
Was it not the following?Upon that day Jesus the Messiah had entered upon His office of the Eternal High Priest of Mankind, and was about to sacrifice the Paschal Lamb, His earthly body, upon the cross. St. Paul, commenting upon the fact, wrote: Do you not know that a little ferment ferments the whole mass? Clean out the old ferment, so that you may be a sweet mass, and thus you will be unfermented. For Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us, so that we might keep a Festival, not with an old ferment, neither in a ferment of filth and wickedness, but, on the contrary, with unfermented purity and truth (1 Corinthians 5:6-8). By this we can perceive that the Crucifixion not only occurred during the Passover week, but was done by Christ offering Himself, that is, His body upon the cross at the Passover to free mankind from sin, but He was also spiritually the High Priest fulfilling the duties of His office of Sacrifice (Hebrews 10:22-28).
As the officiating High Priest was, by the Law given through Moses, prohibited from drinking intoxicating wine during the period of his ministration, before entering the Sanctuary, or whilst engaged in its duties, to refresh my reader's memory I give the whole passage from Leviticus 10:8-11.
Then Moses spoke to Aaron and commanded: -You or your sons with you shall not drink of wine or an intoxicant when you are going to the Sanctuary, so that you may not die. This is an everlasting institution for your posterity.
-For you shall distinguish between the sacred and the common, and between sin and purity, so that you may teach the sons of Israel-'.
These Divine Laws, and the statements of the Apostles, show why Jesus refused to drink of the drugged wine offered to Him by the pagan but merciful Centurion, or by his order; the wine was the ration liquor served out to the Roman soldiery as part of their dietary, and was fermented as well as drugged, and so was an intoxicant, and forbidden to Christ as our High Priest, and also as an Israelite humanly; and the whole nation was also prohibited during the seven days-' Preparation for the Passover from having any fermented thing in their dwellings or to drink fermented liquors,and Jesus came to fulfil the whole law. He obeyed it absolutely, and refused both as Priest and as an Israelite to drink the intoxicant offered to Him. He did not abstain with the object of securing to Himself the utmost of bodily agony; nor is any such motive suggested in the Gospels. As a further illustration of the continuous force of this command in regard to the ministering priesthood from the Hebrew Church of God to the Christian one, I now subjoin the striking passage from St. Luke's Gospel in Luke 1:11-16 :
REFERENCES IN ST. LUKE
Then a messenger of the Lord appeared, standing at the right of the altar of incense. And on seeing him, Zacharias was struck with awe, and gave way to fear.
-Fear not, Zacharias, said the messenger, addressing him, -for your supplications have been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will give birth to a son for you, and you shall give him the name of John. He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will exult at his birth, for he shall be distinguished in the presence of the Lord, and shall drink no wine or strong drink. [1]But he shall be full of the spirit of holiness, even from his birth, and shall turn many of the sons of Israel back to the Lord their God, and will advance in His presence in the spirit and power of Elijah-'.
[1] See Numbers 4:2-4.
Upon the above no comment is needed.
Luke 5:37: No one pours new (that is, fresh grape-juice) wine into old wine-skins; for if he did the new wine would burst the skins and the wine be spilt, and the skins destroyed. On the contrary, new juice must be stored in fresh wine-skine, and both will be preserved.
This may seem in contradiction of the foregoing, but that it is not the reader can ascertain if he turns to my exposition of the equivalent text of Matthew's Gospel, Matthew 9:17, upon page 5 of this essay.
Luke 7:33: To what, therefore,-' He added, -shall I liken the men of this generation? They are like children sitting in a market-place, and shouting out to one another,
We piped to you, and you did not dance;
We wailed, and you did not weep!
For John the Baptizer came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and you say, A demon possesses him! The Son of Man comes eating and drinking; and you say, Look at Him!an eater and drinker of wine,a friend of tax gatherers and profligates! Wisdom, however, will be justified by all her children-'.
In this striking passage from the Gospel there is not the slightest encouragement for the habitual use of intoxicants of any kind, by whatever name they may be called. The whole force of the reproof of our Lord to the men of His day lay in the falsehood of the statements of His and John's critics.
That is, that the charge against John, the Nazarite, was a lie, and the libel against Jesus was also a lie, both invented by malicious adversaries, because the two inspired teachers denounced the hypocrisy and vices of that age, and of all succeeding ones. Only a perverse effort to justify themselves in drunkenness could ever have made commentators distort the narrative into a command to Christians to drink alcoholic liquors as a sacred duty, and to impose them upon all the converts they make from amongst hereditarily sober nations or tribes.
Luke 10:29-37: A lawyer. asked. -Who is my neighbor?-'
Jesus in reply to him said, -There was a man who, on going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, fell among robbers, who both stripped and wounded him, and went away, leaving him half dead.
-It happened also that a priest was going down the same road, but seeing him, he passed on the other side. And in the same way a Levite also, when he got to the same place, looked at him and passed along. But a certain Samaritan on a journey came to where he was, and seeing him, took pity, and went to him and dressed his wounds, making use of oil and wine. Then, setting him upon his own beast, he conveyed him to an inn, and took care of him. And as he was leaving the following day, he threw down two denarii, and said to the host, Attend to him; and whatever more you spend I will repay you upon my return. Which, therefore, of these three do you think proved a neighbor to him who fell amongst the thieves?-'
-He who pitied him,-' was the reply.
Jesus then said, -Go you and do the same-'.
Wine is certainly mentioned in this beautiful illustration of what constitutes true humanity and neighborly kindness, but there is not in it any command to drink intoxicants, or statement that the -wine-' used with the oil to prevent inflammation of the wounds was a fermented alcoholic liquor. Therefore it cannot justify missionaries in teaching the converts they make from the habitually sober Mohammedan and Hindu peoples, or from barbarous tribes in Africa or elsewhere, that the Christian Faith demands they should, as one of the first acts to prove their adoption of it, drink intoxicating wine in its most sacred rite of the Holy Sacrament, and to habitually do so in domestic life to show they are not influenced by their former religions, with the result always following, according to very wide testimony, that those converts become, as did the converts of those ardent missionaries who of old crossed sea and desert to make even one proselyte, and by the example of their personal vices made the convert a double child of Hell to what he had been as a heathen, instead of becoming a son of God. To justify my comment, the reader (and the missionary) have only to read the history of the extermination of the New Zealanders, the Sandwich Islanders, and the Fijians under the curse of intoxicants, and fornication, its attendant, within thirty to fifty years after their profession of the Christian religion. These are facts, not wild assertions, and it is shameful that our missionaries should shut their eyes to the terrible history, and refuse, when their attention is directed to it, to inquire into the cause.
REFERENCES IN ST. JOHN
John 2:1-10: There was a marriage at Cana in Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was present; and Jesus was invited to the marriage with His disciples. And when the wine ran short, Jesus was spoken to by His mother, who said to Him:
-They have no more wine.-'
Jesus said to her in reply :
-What is that to you and Me, mother? Has not My time yet come?-'
His mother then said to the attendants, -Whatever He bids you, let it be done.-'
Now, there were standing there, for the Jewish purifications, six stone water-jars, holding from two to three firkins.
Jesus said to them, -Fill the jars with water.-'
They accordingly filled them to the brim. He then said to them,
Now draw out, and take to the master of the feast.
They accordingly did so. And when the master of the festival had tasted the water which had become wine(not knowing where it came from, although the servants who had drawn the water knew)he called the bridegroom, and said to him:-'A man usually serves out the best wine at the beginning, reserving the inferior until the guests have tasted, but you have kept the best wine until now-'.
Probably the above is one of the most misunderstood, and misrepresented passages in the whole of the Gospels.
The misunderstanding has arisen from imposing upon the ancient Greek text, and ancient Jewish habits of food and drink, entirely the modern and Northern European conception, that the word wine always means intoxicating liquor. Amongst the old Orientals and the Romans, such an idea was not attached to wine as a universal conception. On the contrary, their best wines were not fermented at all, as I have shown from the Old Testament above, and will now go on to do with Roman classical writers.
The ordinary drink of the Romans, learned writers tell us, was juice of the grape, which they mixed with water, both hot and cold(the same as the mingled or mixed wine of Solomon, and the parable of Jesus about the royal feast at the King's son's marriage), and sometimes with spices. Fermented wine was rare in early Roman times; was only used as an act of worship in the temples, and men under thirty years of age, and women all their lives, were forbidden to use it, except at the sacrifices.[2]
[2] Valerius Maximus, Book ii. 1, 5; vi. 3; Aulus Gellius, Book x. 23; Pliny xiv. 13.
Fresh grape-juice was called mustum, and to make it keep without fermentation it was boiled until it became thick, like our treacle, or molasses, and in that state was named defrutum, that is, made from fruit, and stored away in large jars for future use, to be eaten spread upon bread, as we do butter or treacle, or mixed and stirred up in water, as we do sugar in tea, to make a drink, as stated above. The Greek scientist, Aristotle, says that by keeping for a time in the skins or jars, it became as thick as butter, and had to be cut out by spoons. The Roman writer, Pliny, records that when the grape-juice was boiled down to one-third of its bulk, to secure the finest flavor,that is, to be made into the best wine,it was called sapa, from which word comes our vocables, sapid, well-flavored, and savory, delicious in taste.[3]
[3] Pliny, Book.
To give variety of flavor, herbs and spices were often boiled in the juice during its preparation.
Such was the best wine of the Ancients, the sweetest and nicest flavored to the taste,not as we imagine and mean, the most intoxicating, when we speak of best wine.
It is practically certain that the wine created by Christ at Cana was of the non-intoxicating kind, which, as I have shown by the references to them, the ancient writers upon agriculture and domestic economy say was, the ordinary drink of the people in daily life. The knowledge of that fact disposes of the argument I have heard even good ministers of religion found upon the narrative, asserting that the guests were all drunk before the miraculous wine was produced, and therefore that Jesus decided to make them more so, to show His disciples and the people the sacred nature of intoxicants.
I am not exaggerating when I state this, for I have more than once had that very argument brought against me in private discussion over the subject. And indeed the old translations seem to justify their contention. I need not add that these old versions were made innocently by men ignorant both of the Greek and Hebrew domestic habits, and therefore of the idiomatic powers and import of their languages.
REFERENCES BY ST. PAUL
Romans 14:21-23; chap. Romans 15:1-3: It is noble not to eat flesh, or to drink wine, or anything by which your brother is made to stumble, or is offended, or is weakened.
You have faith? Have it by yourself before Godhe is happy who does not convict himself by what he approves! and all not originating from faith is sin. And we, the strong, ought to support the weakness of the feeble, and not to indulge ourselves. Let each make himself pleasant to his neighbor to promote loving-kindness. For Christ did not indulge Himself.
What a loving but forcible reproof the above is to our missionaries, whose mania for denouncing the Mohammedan and Hindu peoples for not habitually drinking intoxicating liquors is notable. Nay, I may add, forcing their converts to drink them as the first and most essential sign that they have become Christians, until, as a fact, the names Christian and drunkard are held in the popular mind of Asia and Africa to have the same meaning,All the Sahibs-' servants in Calcutta are -Christian-' now, said Mr. Bayard Taylor's native attendants to him during his travels in India, for they all drink brandy! And that is the popular idea of the essence of Christianity. I know this from personal acquaintance with educated Asiatics, and it is painful to hear them speak on the subjectat least, to my feelings.
I did not know our religion had spread so much in India, the American statesman says he answered.
Oh, yes, it has, was his attendant's reply, for they all drink brandy!
I surely need not ask our missionaries to reflect on this record.
Ephesians 5:18-21: Be not drunk with wine, in which there is folly; but instead be full of the Spirit, speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and dancing in your hearts to the Lord; giving thanks at all times for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the God and Father,and supporting one another in a reverence of Christ.
The Apostle here refers to intoxicating drink, which he condemns, not to the simple unfermented grape-juice he did in Romans 14:21, which I quote immediately above. Surely I need not add a comment.
1 Timothy 3:8: Deacons should be grave; not deceitful, or addicted to much wine, nor greedy for money, but they should preserve the secret of the faith with a pure understanding.
In this rule for the ministers of the Church there is no indication whether the Apostle speaks of the ordinary domestic unfermented wine of his day commonly used then in domestic life, as I have shown, or of the same juices fermented so as to be intoxicating. Probably he meant the latter, which he clearly forbids.
1 Timothy 5:23: No longer drink water alone, but use with a little wine for the stomach, because of your frequent infirmities.
This advice of the Apostle to his friend is the favorite field of battle of those who claim the habit of using intoxicating drinks to be commanded to Christians. But St. Paul could hardly have so contradicted himself in his prohibition of the habitual use of intoxicating wine to the ministers of the Church as he had done (see 2 Timothy 3:8 above), and a few lines afterwards have ordered Timothy, who held an Apostolic position in it, to regularly drink such liquor? It is only gross ignorance of the customs of olden times, and of the idiomatic use of the Greek language that originated the absurd import thus put upon St. Paul's words. Stomach wine, or wine for the stomach, the old writers upon Greek medicine tell us, was grape-juice, prepared as a thick, unfermented syrup, for use as a medicament for dyspeptic and weak persons, and there cannot be a doubt but that was the wine for the stomach, the Apostle told his friend to use a little of mixed with water, which it is evident that Timothy, like other pious Jews of that period, restricted himself to, and had drunk previously, so as to avoid breaking the Levitical command against priests drinking wine or strong drink during the course of their ministry.
However, as the passage has been made, by mistranslation and perversion, a serious stumbling-block, I venture to give it as in the Greek:
No longer drink water alone, but use with a little wine for the stomach, because of your frequent infirmities.
The Apostle's use of the dative case, which must be rendered in English by the adverb with, indicates that a little stomach wine should, as a medicament, be mixed, or mingled as in other parts it is translated, with water, as the syrup anciently prepared from grapes and other fruits was done for use as a tonic to the stomach in cases of dyspepsia. When this fact is known, the absurdity of teaching that this bit of advice is a sacred sanction for always drinking intoxicant wine, in the place of water as a beverage, will be seen. Missionaries to pagan nations ought especially to avoid repeating the false rendering of the versions of this Epistle, which are unfortunately by irreflection put into their hands.
Among the recommendations of this book is the following from the Dean of Durham, D.D.; The book is full of the most interesting matter, and I feel sure that you have rescued the Bible from the degrading imputations of taking sides with the disciples of drink. I wish the truths contained in it could be forced into people's heads. It ought to be spread broadcast.
PART TWO
INTOXICATING WINE AT THE HOLY COMMUNION
Extracts by Frank Hamilton from
THE BIBLE AND WINE by Ferrar Fenton.
The Anglican bishops at the Lambeth Conference also declared, That the example of our Lord necessitates the use of fermented (and therefore alcoholic and intoxicating) wine in the administration of the Lord's Supper. This is indeed a strange statement for bishops of the Church of God to have made. I ask, What historical or other facts have the bishops in proof of this God-dishonouring statement? and I answer, None. They have simply made it because the Roman, Greek, and Anglican Churches have used intoxicating drink for commemorating Christ's great act of atonement for the sins of men for generations. But their using it is no proof that Jesus Christ used it at the first institution, or that it was used by the Apostles and the sub-Apostolic Churches. If Christ did use it, it never should have been used; and there is not a trace of evidence to show that His fruit of the vine was intoxicating. We know that at the end of the second century and onwards heathen customs were gradually introduced into the Christian system, and took the place of Apostolic usages.
There is no divine authority for the use of wine at all, fermented or unfermented, at the Passover; and at what period it was introduced by the Jewish priests no one appears to know. But all agree that Almighty God absolutely forbade even the presence of bharm (yeast, ferment, leaven) at the Passover, because it is the cause of putrefaction. It putrefles or rots fruit, corn, vegetables, etc., etc., and is the emblem of corruption, disease, and death, and not of life. Fermentation is putrefaction, and it would be almost, if not quite, impossible in our Lord's time to have found any fermented wine that did not contain bharm (leaven). And therefore, according to the teaching of the bishops, Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, used and sanctioned the use of the very thing which had been strictly forbidden to be even present in the dwellings of the people at the Passover!
Now, Jesus Christ described the wine that was being used at His Passover as the fruit of the vine, e.g., the offspring of the vine, or that which is borne of the vine. Now, the vine does not bear intoxicating drink. The fruit of the vine is not intoxicating. There is no alcohol in the fruit of the vine. It is pure, good, wholesome, and health-giving, a beautiful emblem of the life and strength-giving grace of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Intoxicating wine is the emblem of disease, sin, and death. Moreover, just think of the condition the party keeping the Passover must have been in; for the Jewish Mishna (chap. 10) says: A person shall not have less than four cups of wine, even if they be given to him from the fund devoted to the charitable support of the very poor. Each cup must contain the quarter of a quarter of a hinthat is three gills English measureso that the four cups would contain twelve gills, or a bottle and a-half (three pints). So Dr Lightfoot tells us (Vol. 9, p. 151). If the wine used was fermented grape-juice, the four cups would contain about six ounces of pure alcohol, equal to twelve ounces of proof spirit; and when we remember that each member of the family of twelve years of age and upwards had to drink four cups, twelve gills, it is certain that, if the wine was intoxicating, they must have been drunk at the end of the feast, especially the women and the boys and girls who were not accustomed to the use of intoxicating wine. How terrible to think of the mass of drunkenness in the Jewish families on the Passover night!
It is perfectly revolting to think that our Lord and Saviour could countenance or sanction such a man-injuring and God-dishonoring system.
Jesus Christ was God's High Priest. And Almighty God had strictly forbidden the priests to use intoxicating wine when ministering before Him. In Leviticus 10:8-10 it is written: The Lord spake unto Aaron, saying, Drink no wine nor strong drink, thou nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tent of meeting, that ye die not: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations: and that ye may put difference between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean. God had also forbidden the presence of all fermented things at the Passover Service. It was therefore impossible for His Incarnate Son to act contrary to the Father's will, for He said, I am come not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it (Matthew 5:17).
Although the customs of the Jews are no certain guide to Christians in this matter, yet it is an undeniable fact that vast numbers of pious Jewish families have used unfermented wine at the Passover all down the ages, and are using such wine now year by year. It is simply the fruit of the vine. They cut up a quantity of raisins and place them in an earthen vessel, and add water to them, and allow them to simmer in the oven for a time, then separate the juice from the skins and pips, then put it in the Passover vessel, and they use the wine (juice) for the Passover Service.
In our Lord's time there was always an ample supply of the pure fruit of the vine, which was preserved in an unfermented state.
The theologians have taught, and alas, still teach, that the contents of the cup which our Lord said was His blood was of the same nature as the thing which the Scriptures had said was as the poison of serpentsas the adder's poison. How can such a death-producing thing be a fit emblem of the life-giving power of the blood of Jesus Christ?
It is painful to realize how the Churches have erred, and misrepresented Christ, and misled the nations by forcing the use of intoxicating wine on the Lord's table and upon mankind.
The general word for wine, oinos, is never used in Holy Scripture to describe the wine used at the Lord's Supper. Is this by chance, or is it of design? Surely it is of design, because oinos might be intoxicating, but the fruit of the vine never is.
According to God's command (Leviticus 10:9) and the teaching of the Jewish Mishna, they were not allowed to drink intoxicating wine when serving before the Lord. How terrible it is to be taught by Christian theologians that Christ broke the divine law, and taught His infant Church to break the law He Himself had made, for He was the lawgiver with the Father and the Holy Ghost.
If the wine which was used at the first institution was intoxicating, then the great body of Nazarites, Rechabites, the followers of John the Baptist, and especially the Essenes (a vast multitude of the best of the. people), would be prevented partaking, because they never used intoxicating wine of any kind, Jeremiah's description of the Nazarites might fairly be used to describe these holy people. They were purer than snow, whiter than milk, more ruddy in body than rubies (Lamentations 4:7). These people were all abstainers from intoxicating drink, and were in much favor with the Lord. Surely it is not possible that the Lord of life would cause all these people, who were the cream of society in that day in Jerusalem, to violate their consciences by forcing upon them the intoxicating cup.
It is most trying to many communicants who are abstainers to be forced either to partake of the intoxicating wine or to pass the cup. It is especially trying for them to have to take their children to the holy table, where they will taste intoxicating drink for the first time. And some of it is most intoxicating, having not less than from 10 to 30 per cent alcohol in it.
The four passages in the New Testament (R.V.), in which is given the account of the Institution of the Lord's Supper.
ST. Luke 22:15-20.
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; his is my body. 27 And he took a cup, And gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, 26 Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many unto emission of sins. 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth OF THIS FRUIT OF THE WINE, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and when he had blessed, brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take ye: this is my body. 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it. 24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many. 25 Verily, I say unto you, I will no more drink OF THE FRUIT OF THE VINE, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of Cod.
15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
16
For I say unto you, I will not eat it, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 17 And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves. 18 For I say unto you, I will not drink from henceforth OF THE FRUIT OF THE VINE, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.
23 For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, how that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; 24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you; this do in remembrance of me. 25 In like manner also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.
NOTE.In no one of these four passages does the word oinos, wine, occur.
The fruit of the Vine before and after it is fermented.
THE COMPONENT PARTS of THE FRUIT OF THE VINE, UNFERMENTED.
THE COMPONENT PARTS of THE ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR into which the Fruit of the Vine is CHANGED BY FERMENTATION.
Gluten.
Gum.
Aroma.
)
(
Alcohol.
Acetic Acid.
O Enanthic Ether.
Extractive.
Succinic Acid.
Glycerine.
Bouquet.
Albumen.
Sugar.
Tannin.
Tartaric Acid.
Malic Acid.
Potash.
Lime.
Sulphur.
Phosphorus.
Albumen.
Sugar.
Tannin.
Tartaric Acid.
Malic Acid.
Potash.
Lime.
Sulphur.
Phosphorus.
EXPLANATION.The reader will observe at the top of the Left Table, in a bracket, the names of three constituents, Gluten, Gum and Aroma, which do not appear in the Right Table. These are the constituents of the grape which are wholly destroyed by fermentation.
At the top of the Right Table will be seen in italics, seven constituents, Alcohol, Acetic Acid, OEnanthic Ether, Extractive, Succinic Acid, Glycerine, and Bouquet, which are not constituents of the grape, and do not appear in the Left Table. These are entirely new products, generated out of the three constituents of the Left Table, which have been destroyed by fermentation (putrefaction).
Other constituents appear in both Tables. The introduction of the italic letters in the Right Table is intended to indicate that the proportions of the constituents in which they occur have been materially diminished in the transformation of grape-juice into alcoholic liquor. The thick black letters represent what is left of the original grape after fermentation.
Thus it will be seen that by a triple process of destruction, addition, and abstractionthe result of fermentationgrape-juice loses all the essential qualities of THE FRUIT OF THE VINE. It should be specially noted that, in parting with its gluten and gum, and with nearly the whole of its sugar and albumen, the nutritive and life-sustaining qualities of the fluid are destroyed, for it is to these constituents that grapes owe their value as human food,
Thus it is demonstrated that
ALCOHOLIC WINE is not the FRUIT OF THE VINE.
There are Thirteen different words or vocables used (in the Bible); Nine in the Hebrew and Chaldee, and Four in the Greek, all of which are rendered by the European translators indiscriminately as Wine or Strong Drink, although all intrinsically are solid substances, but which may be turned into intoxicants by human ingenuity. When, however, we examine the passages where these words are used, we find the sacred writers speak, in the most numerous cases, of them, not as intoxicants, but as foods, which was their ordinary form of consumption. Where distinct reference is made to them as means after human manipulation of intoxication, drunkenness, and debauchery, their use in that form is invariably condemned and vehemently denounced by the Prophets and Moralists of the Bible as the causes of personal sin and national ruin. Their use in these forms of alcoholic liquors, or fermented wine, was absolutely forbidden in the religious ordinances of the Temple or Altars, and especially from the sacred rites of the Passover, and to all priests during the period of their ministrations.
Grape Juice, unfermented, is WINE, and a lawful emblem.
ST. CYPRIAN, A.D. 230.When the Lord gives the name of His body to bread, composed of the union of many particles, He indicates that our people, whose sins He bore, are united. And when He calls WINE SQUEEZED OUT FROM BUNCHES OF GRAPES His blood, He intimates that our flock are similarly joined by the varied admixture of a united multitude.Epst. 75 ad Magnum.
THE FOURTH COUNCIL OF BRAGA, held A. D. 675.Reference being made to some who used no other wine but what they pressed out of the cluster at the Lord's Table, and to others who communicated with the unpressed cluster, the Council condemned the use of uncrushed grapes with waterthus, by implication, allowing the use of expressed grape-juice. (Dupin Eccl. His. p. 20, 3rd. Edition, pub. 1724. Bingham, Ant. of the Christ, Ch. v. 410).
THOMAS AQUINAS, 13th Century.In unripe grapes the juice is still in process of being developed, and has not yet the form of wine: therefore this Sacrament cannot be fulfilled in the juice of unripe grapes.
The juice of ripe grapes, on the other hand, has already the form of wine; for its sweet taste evidences a mellowing change, which is its completion by natural heat (as it is said in the Meteorologica, iv. 3, not far from the beginning); and for that reason this Sacrament can be fulfilled with the juice of ripe grapes.
ST. ANSELM, Archbishop of Canterbury, A. D. 1096.He behaved so that all men loved him as their father. He bore with even mind the ways and weaknesses of each. To each he supplied what he saw they wanted. Oh, how many, given over in sickness, has he brought back to health by his loving care! You found it so, Hereward, in your helpless old age, when disabled by years, as well as by heavy infirmity, you had lost all power in your body except in your tongue, and were fed by his hand, and refreshed by wine squeezed from the grapes into his other hand, from which you drank it, and were at last restored to health. For no other drink, as you used to say, could you relish, nor from any other hand. (Quoted from Eadmer by DEAN CHURCH, in his life of St. Anselm, p. 81, new ed., Lond., 1882.)
There is much danger to some Communicants in Communicating in Fermented Wine.
Dr. B. W. RICHARDSON, F.R.S.Dr. Kerr has drawn no imaginary picture of the danger menacing reformed drunkards in taking the Communion in Fermented Wine. I say the danger is very great indeed in regard to a considerable number of people. The physician's room is, in fact, a confessional. Very often statements are made to us physicians which are made to no others. In respect of this very question, hardly a month passes but some one speaks to me on this very point. I could at this moment, if it were right to do so, name at least ten persons who wish to accept the Communion, and who do not go to it from the fear lest they should fall back into those ways from which they have been rescued.CHAIRMAN'S speech, Church Homiletical Society, Chapter House of St. Paul'S, London, Nov. 1st, 1881.
The REV. NEWMAN HALL, LL.B.Unfermented Wine has been adopted at Christ Church, Lambeth, for the Holy Communion, by the unanimous opinion of the minister and elders. The Rev. N. Hall explained from the pulpit the reasons for this decision. There were many reclaimed drunkards in our churches, who feared that the taste of alcohol might act upon them like a spark to gunpowder. This was no idle fear. He had been told in Edinburgh, on good authority, of two elders of churches who had thus fallen. The previous week he had been told by a brother minister of a drunkard in the West of England who was frequently taken home in a wheelbarrow from the public-house. He became a teetotaller, and, as was hoped, a Christian. He joined a Congregational Church. The next Sunday again he tasted the intoxicating cup, and that very week was taken home intoxicated. Mr. N. Hall referred to his own father, who, as deacon of an Independent Church, and then as elder of Surrey Chapel, during 30 years, handed the cup to others, but never tasted it himself.
A young minister of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church changed from unfermented to fermented wine at his communion services, because he was taught that otherwise he would dishonor his Lord, who made, drank and used intoxicating wine.
DID THE LORD JESUS CHRIST DRINK INTOXICATING WINE?
The theologians have taught all down the ages that our blessed Lord and Saviour did drink intoxicating drink as His ordinary everyday drink, because they say there was no such thing as unintoxicating wine in His day. But the eyes of some of the most learned of our day appear to be opening wide enough to see that the theologians were wrong.
Dr. Kynaston, Professor of Greek at Durham University, says: We cannot prove from the words in the Bible that our Lord did or did not drink intoxicating wine. This is a step in the right direction. The theologians have also taught equally definitely that oinos always meant intoxicating wine; but Sir Richard Jebb, Professor of Greek at Cambridge University said that oinos is a general term, and might include all kinds of beverages.
Anacreon, who wrote some five hundred years, B.C., Ode lii, says:
Only males tread the grapes,
Setting free the oinos (wine).
Here, at this early period, we see that the juice in the grapes was called (wine) oinos. And all sane persons know that the juice in the grapes is not intoxicating. Nothing is clearer to those who have studied this question than that the Hebrew word yain and the Greek word oinos were, as Professor Sir R. Jebb says of oinos, general words in those early days, and were used to describe sometimes the fruit on the vines, the juice in the grapes, the juice when it was being pressed out, when it was preserved in an unfermented state and therefore unintoxicating, and when it was fermented and intoxicating
There is overwhelming proof that there has been in use all down the centuries, in all grape-growing countries, grape-juice fermented and intoxicating, and also an abundance of grape-juice preserved in an unfermented state, and therefore not intoxicating; and both have been called wine.
But the unintoxicating, in addition to being called wine, has been called by various other names, such as glukus, vinum, mustum, sapa, careum, siraeum, hepsema, pekmez, new wine. A great many more names might be added, but a full description may be seen in Dr. Norman Kerr's book on Wines, Scriptural and Ecclesiastical, also in the Temperance Bible Commentary by Dr. F. R. Lees and Dr. Dawson Burns. These words mainly describe a wine made from grape-juice by reducing the juice to a sweet liquid by boiling. It was too thick and too sweet to drink pure. And this is a main reason why the Greeks and Romans added so much water to it before drinking, and also why water was added to it before it was used at the Lord's Supper. Water was also added to the intoxicating wine to reduce its intoxicating power.
Varro speaks of gathering wine.
Cato of hanging wine (grapes on the vine).
Columella of unintoxicating wine.
Celsus says: Gather the berries of the myrtle, and from them express wine.
Ovid says: And scarce can the grapes contain the wine they have within.
Ibycus says:
And new born clusters teem with wine,
Beneath the shadowy foliage of the vine.
Goethe beautifully says:
And bending down, the grapes o-'erflow
With wine into the vat below.
There is therefore clearly no justification whatever for the misleading statements of the theologians, viz., that there was no such thing as unintoxicating wine in the days of our Lord. And it is equally clear that there is no proof, either in holy Scripture or out of it, that our Lord ever drank intoxicating wine.
It is no more true to say that the word wine always meant intoxicating wine than it is to say that the word bread always meant fermented bread just as the word bread sometimes meant fermented bread and sometimes unfermented. So the word oinos (wine) sometimes was used to describe the grape-juice when it was fermented and sometimes when it was unfermented. St. Matthew 26:26, Jesus took bread and blessed it. Here it is not stated whether the bread was fermented or not, but we know it was unfermented (unleavened), because it was the Passover bread. Haggai 1:11, I called for drought upon the corn, and upon the new wine, and upon the oil. It is clear that the new wine in this verse means the growing grapes, for if the wine was in the casks or skin bottles the drought could have no effect upon it. The translation in this passage, like many others, is misleading; instead of new wine it should be vine-fruit (Thirosh). Thank God! there is therefore not even a trace of evidence to prove that our Saviour Jesus Christ ever drank or sanctioned the use of intoxicating drink,
HISTORY SHOWS THAT THERE HAS BEEN UNFERMENTED WINE ALL DOWN THE AGES
The theologians have denied the existence of unfermented wine and have asserted that all drinks described by the words shekar, thirosh, yain, or oinos were fermented and intoxicating. This theory I have already controverted, but it is most important in this discussion to show that unfermented wine has been well known, and has been drunk and used more or less for sacramental purposes all down the ages.
It has been known by many names, but the thing itself has existed, and does exist, in many countries at this day. In fact, all the grape-juice the earth produces could be preserved in an unfermented state.
I have shown that it was well known and much used by the Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. Isaiah says: Buy yain (wine) and milk. Aristotle says: Oinos glukus (thick sweet wine) is wine, though it is not so in reality, for its taste is not vinous, therefore it does not intoxicate.
Columella speaks of unintoxicating good wine. He also gives the following recipe for preserving it unfermented, i.e., That your must may always be as sweet as when it is new, thus proceed. Before you apply the press to the grapes take the newest must from the lake, put it into a new amphora, bung it up and cover it up very carefully with pitch, lest any water should enter, then sink 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; it will remain sweet for a year (Book 12; ch. 29). And if for one year, it is equally true to say it will remain sweet for many years.
Rev. S. Robinson, Missionary at Damascus, when writing on the food of the country, says: The fruit of the vine is a substantial part of the people's food from August to December. Bread and grapes are substantially the food of the people. The fruit of the vine is preserved in substance as thick as honey, and called dibs.
Pliny, who lived in the apostolic age, says: The first of the artificial wines has wine for its basis; it is called adynamon (i.e., without strength), and is made in the following manner: twenty sextarii of white must are boiled down with half that quantity of water until the amount of the water is lost by evaporation. This beverage is given to invalids (stomach wine that Timothy was advised to take a little of) to whom it is apprehended that wine (i.e., fermented wine) may prove injurious (Book 14: ch. 19).
Dr. H. Adler, Chief Rabbi of the British Empire, says: I know of no authority for limiting the use of the word -wine-' to fermented wine (Speech, Medical Society, London, Feb. 20th, 1883).
Sir James Miller, Professor at Edinburgh, Surgeon to Queen Victoria, said to an extensive wine-grower on the Moselle: Have you any unfermented winejuice of the grape? And received for reply: Tuns, ten years old (Nephalism, pp. 147, 148).
The juice of the grape has been preserved in an unfermented state in all grape-growing countries, and in some for 3,000 years, and it has been called wine. It is called wine by nearly all the great travellers and in ancient and modern dictionaries. It is sometimes called new or sweet wine in the Bible.
A short time ago I met a missionary who is laboring in Syria, and I said, Do the natives preserve their grape-juice in an unfermented state and use it as drink and food? And the answer was, Yes, they do; it is thick and very sweet, and is in common use in the villages in Syria. They make us presents of it, and we eat it with porridge and drink it mixed with milk, also use it as you use golden syrup with bread. Here we have the very custom continued to our day, referred to by the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 55:1), where he says, Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. I have drunk some of this myself, and it is a delightful drink. It is simply the Greek glukus, or the Latin mustum or defrutum, mixed with milk,
PHILIP SIDERSKY, a Christian Jew, told Mrs. Hamilton that at the Passover Supper the Jews squeeze the juice from a bunch of grapes into the chalice.
FRANK HAMILTON.