Truth Magazine

By David O. Lanius

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Robert F. Turner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Leon Goff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Timothy 3:3, 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Carl A. Allen

I trust you will read the whole article and follow the material till the end. Should you do this, it will be easy to understand the conclusion drawn. When I see the title of this article, “Swear not at all” I am reminded that the Bible teaches there were those who did swear.

God Swore

“Since he could swear by none greater. he sware by himself’ (Heb. 6:13). This had reference to a promise God made to Abraham. From this text we learn God did swear. Immediately, I am confronted with the problem, did God do something he forbade his people to do? It would be as if he is saying, “You are not to swear; but, I am going to do it!”

Jesus Swore

Jesus was told by the high priest, “I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God” (Matt. 26:63). The definition of “adjure” is, “to cause to swear, to lay under the obligation of an oath,” but this word is “an intensive form” of the definition I have just given. The high priest called upon him, under the highest oath; called upon him to swear, “whether or not he is the Christ.” Under these circumstances, Jesus answered  under oath. One is compelled to ask, “Did Jesus do what he told others not to do?”

Angels Swore

“And the angel that I saw standing upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his right hand to heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever and ever” (Rev. 10:5-6). After observing that God swore, it is not strange to find an angel doing the same. Since the angels are lower than God, they can swear by someone greater; thus, he swore by “him that liveth for ever and ever.” He confirmed his word with an oath. This made it sure and steadfast, he could swear by none greater than “him that liveth for ever and ever.” Did the an-gel do what God forbade man to do?

Paul Swore

“But I call God for a witness upon my soul, that to spare you I forbear to come unto Corinth” (2 Cor. 1:23). Here is an apostle, in the New Testament dispensation, engaging in an act to “call God for a witness upon my soul,” which is swearing. There is no question about what Paul did; but, did he sin? I think not, and hope to offer proof that neither he, the angel in Revelation 10 sinned, nor Christ sinned.

Matthew 5:33-37

The first part of this text says, “Thou shalt not forswear thyself’ (v. 33). This obviously appeals to Leviticus 9:12, Numbers 30:2, and Deuteronomy 23:21. A casual reading of these passages will show that one is not to perjure himself or, “foreswear,” or give a false testimony under oath. Of course, a false testimony is always wrong; you do not make a false thing true by swearing. The text of this pas-sage states, “but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths.”

Matthew 5:33-37 is parallel with Matthew 23:16-22. In these two con-texts there is dealt with the idea that oaths are only binding when there are certain things involved, and if those certain things are not involved, then the oath is not binding. This was a religious way to lie! Jesus condemned it. “Woe unto you. ye blind guides, that say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple. It is nothing: but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple he is a debtor. Ye fools and blind: for which is greater, the gold, or the temple that hath sanctified the gold?” (Matt. 23:16-17). He also deals with swearing by the altar. Consider the same argument made by the “heaven,” “earth,” “Jerusalem,” or thy “head” in Matthew 5:34-36. In the middle of all of this he says, “Swear not at all.” You can understand what kind of swearing he is talking about  “Foreswearing.”

Truthful Speech

We are taught to “lie not one to another: seeing that ye have put off the old man with his doings” (Col. 3:9). James teaches concerning the tongue, “Therewith bless we the Lord and Father: and therewith curse we men, who are made after the likeness of God: out of the same mouth cometh forth blessing and cursing. My brethren,. these things ought not so to be” (Jas. 3:9-10). How can one think of swearing for truth and error? Swear by one thing and you must do it, swear by other things and you do not have to keep your word! Amazing! My brethren “these things ought not so to be.” Even old Herod, as mean as he was, respected an oath when he made it (Mark 6:23: “And he sware unto her, Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom”).

The solution to this problem is, “Let your speech be, Yea. yea: Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than this is of the evil one” (Matt. 5:37). Tell the truth! “And I say unto you. that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned” (Matt. 12:36-37). Tell the truth!

James 5:12

“But above all things, my brethren. swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath: but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay: that ye fall not under judgment.” Note the idea of swearing by the heaven or earth; and, consider the in-formation in Matthew 5:33-37; also, that found in Matthew 23:16-22, and immediately one is compelled to note that he is dealing with men who swear but do not perform unto the Lord their oaths. This same passage  James 5:12  clearly states that our speech is to be yea, yea; and nay, nay. One has to consider James 5:12 in the light of what the Bible teaches in other places, the extended text, and in so doing we learn the truth. We are to “perform unto the Lord thine oaths” (Matt. 5:33).

Swearing and Cursing

I have heard men, preaching, who would begin on the subject of “swearing” and end up talking about “cursing,” as if they were the same. A statement in Mark 14:71 is worthy of consideration: “But he began to curse, and to swear. I know not this man of whom ye speak.” In this text a distinction is to be made between “cursing” and “swearing.” Should you make the mistake of saying the two are equal, then you have God swearing, thus cursing; Christ swearing, thus cursing; an angel swearing, thus cursing; and Paul swearing, thus cursing. Did they sin? No, the terms are not equal. Notice that Peter was swearing to that which was a falsehood! “I know not this man!” (Mark 14:71). That, my friends, was a lie.

Court of Law

The passages we have dealt with do not teach concerning this, Matthew 5, 23, James 5. All of these passages have to do with “performing unto the Lord thine oaths” (Matt. 5:33). The closest you would come to oaths in court is found in Matthew 26:63, when the Lord was before the high priest. In this passage he was under oath  “I adjure thee.” Jesus did not forbid the practice: but rather, practiced it.

Today

A common practice was to find ways to be relieved of one’s responsibility: “Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother. That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is given to God: he shall not honor his father. And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition” (Matt. 15:5-6). Then we are told by the religious world, and some of my brethren: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matt. 7:1), as if this would keep me from dealing with the man’s sins. The rest of the passage teaches, “then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brothers eye” (Matt. 7:5). Jesus tells us clearly in John 7:24, “Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” We are not to look for ways out of what we have said; or, from doing our duties to the Lord.

Don’t try to find ways to get out of doing what you said you would do. “Perform unto the Lord thine oaths.” When I obeyed the gospel, I made a confession to the Lord: “I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” In this confession I made a pledge, a vow, to be faithful to the Lord, all the days of my life (see W.E. Vine, Vol. I: 224). I need to perform unto the Lord my word, and be faithful to him all the days of my life. My speech is to be “yea, yea; nay, nay, what is more than these is of the evil one.” If I am going to swear some-thing that I do not intend to keep, “Swear not at all.”

Guardian of Truth XL: 3 p. 26-27
February1, 1996