Truth Magazine

By Dick Blackford

No, of course not. The church had preachers before it had deacons. In Paul’s letters to Timothy the qualifications of elders and deacons are given aside from Timothy’s responsibilities as a preacher. To further pursue the answer to this question, we must identify our terms.

“What on Earth in Heaven’s Name Is a Preacher?” That’s the title of a chapter in Charles Hodge’s booklet, Your Preacher. And it is a good question. We must be concerned about heaven’s view of a preacher, for as the Psalmist said: “Forever, 0 Jehovah, thy word is settled in heaven” (Psa. 119:89). What, then, is the work of a preacher – as a preacher? The letters to Timothy and Titus are a gold mine for learning the attitudes and responsibilities of a gospel preacher. In a nutshell, he is to read, study, preach, and be an example (1 Tim. 4:12,13; 2 Tim. 2:15; 4:2).

What Is a Deacon to Do? The word translated deacon means “servant.” There is an office called deacon and those who fill it have certain qualifications to meet, some of which are physical (1 Tim. 3:8-10,12,13). These men were to: (1) first be proved, (2) then allowed to serve (1 Tim. 3: 10). All Christians are to be servants, but not all Christians are deacons for all have not met the requirements. Paul rendered service, but was not officially a deacon. Deacons are mentioned separately from the saints in Paul’s letter to Philippi (Phil. 1:1). (The fact that there is an office neither exalts nor debases the one occupying it.)

The words translated “serve” and “ministration” in reference to the seven appointed to see after the Grecian widows are forms of the word translated “deacon.” These were men who had proved themselves. The fact that they were appointed (and not servants in the general sense) indicates that these were deacons. The deacon has no speciality. His work is auxiliary in nature. He assists the elders and renders a service wherever needed. In this, his work differs from a preacher’s. The preacher’s duty focuses primarily on the Word (studying, guarding, and teaching it).

Leaving the Word of God to Serve Tables

When the seven were appointed to look after the needs of the widows, Luke says, “And the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, it is not fit that we should forsake the word of God, and serve tables. Look ye out therefore, brethren, from among you seven men. . . ” (Acts 6:2,3a).

Someone might argue that preachers of today are not apostles and thus this passage does not apply to them. Obviously, the apostles were primarily under consideration for “the twelve” is the antecedent of “we.” But the apostles were preachers and it was because of this facet of their work that it was “not fit. ” The disciples then numbered in the thousands. Becoming directly involved with serving the widows was a daily event and would have entailed much time. It would have amounted to abandoning the word of God. Two verses earlier we are told of the work the apostles were doing. “And every day in the temple and at home, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus as the Christ” (Acts 5:42). They could not have done this had they misplaced their emphasis on the gospel and put it on benevolence. There is a great commission to preach the gospel to the world. But there is no great commission to do benevolence. Such work was secondary.

Is the Deacon’s Work Physical?

Some have made a “rule” that elders are over the spiritual affairs of the church and deacons are over the physical. It must be remembered that deacons are under the oversight of the elders (1 Pet. 5:2). They assist wherever needed. While there are physical and spiritual matters, the Bible does not limit their work to one or the other. There is a sense in which physical and spiritual matters are interwoven and cannot be separated. Concerning deacons, L.R. Wilson commented: “We may say that there is hardly any service which may be needed that they may not perform ” (The Deacons and His Work, James D. Bales, p. 63). Two verses after the appointment of the seven, we find one of them (Stephen) preaching (Acts 6:8f).

Because of the misconception that many have of the deacon’s work, some have tried to make a deacon (their concept) out of a preacher. He may become the regular janitor, grass cutter, errand boy, or “Jack-of-all-trades.” Preachers and deacons have many things in common because they are Christians. But they are not one and the same.

Is the Preacher Too Good to Dirty His Hands?

It is doubtful that the apostles meant this when they appointed the seven to serve tables. They had been getting their hands dirty before they became apostles (fishing, etc.). Paul made tents and gathered firewood (Acts 18:3; 28:3). They helped the poor (Gal. 2:10; 1 Cor. 16:1-4). However, the apostles’ statement established the fact that there is a matter of priorities. This did not mean they would never do physical things, for they did. But today, many brethren have difficulty understanding the importance and the amount of time involved in preparing sermons, radio-tv programs, newspaper articles, Bible class lessons, bulletins, etc., aside from the preacher’s own personal study which he needs to do. Brethren only see the finished product of a sermon. Preachers do not speak miraculously today.

This writer does not believe that a preacher is too good to get his hands dirty and has always, as a Christian, been willing to take his turn at cutting the grass, cleaning the building, and the like. However, he would oppose being made the permanent janitor. He is a custodian of the Word and not of the premises. There are many duties that could no more be called “preacher’s duties only” than partaking of the Lord’s Supper. When there is carpentry work to be done (unless we have someone with a talent along that line who will use it), we hire a carpenter. When we need plumbing, we hire a plumber. When we need electrical work, we hire an electrician. But when we need printing, do we hire a printer? When we need secretarial work, do we hire a secretary? They are no more peculiar to the preacher’s work than plumbing. It may be that the church cannot afford to hire someone to print and do secretarial work. Somehow, we always manage to afford the plumbers, electricians, and carpenters. Could we be thinking more of our own comfort than of spreading the Word? When we cannot afford a caretaker, we all pitch in. The application becomes obvious. Yet there are many on church rolls (God’s roll is another matter) who do no more than assemble. Every preacher I know would be more than glad to render spiritual service any hour of the night or day. A preacher should be a twenty-four hour Christian. But he should not be regarded as a twenty-four hour employee of the brethren.

Should Preachers Make House Calls?

When the apostles explained their purpose in appointing the seven, Inspiration says, “And the saying pleased the whole multitude. . . ” (Acts 6:5). When similar cases arise today, the whole multitude is often displeased. A preacher may be rebuked for not making regular hospital rounds. He may be reproved for not knowing that a certain person had been sick. (The apostles did not know about the widows until it was reported. If they did not have e.s.p., should preachers today be expected to have it?) Unless it is known that the preacher is “goofing off,” the reproof should be avoided. There may be many who need visiting – newcomers, aged, shut-ins, hospitalized, and prospects. Preachers are usually judged by what they do worst. It is possible to spread oneself too thin. There may be regular spiritual duties which cannot be interrupted, deadlines to meet, etc. Some of the expectations that people have of preachers grow out of the false concept which they have a deacons – along with their false notion that the preacher is a deacon.

Should the preacher do all the visiting? No. Should he do any of it? Yes. First, because he is a Christian. Second, because he is to be an example to Christians (1 Tim. 4:12). He could make his visits count for more than social calls. Why not leave an appropriate tract or bulletin? An idea this writer likes (and which he borrowed from a preacher friend) is to collect empty pill bottles, get some clear capsules and put Scriptures in them, and label it “Prescriptions From the Great Physician.” Distributing these is an effective means of teaching and may open other doors of opportunity. (Prepare two sets of Scriptures – one for saints, one for sinners.) Pertinent announcements can be included (meetings, radio programs, correspondence courses). It will not be necessary for the preacher to feel guilty of i(socializing on company time.”

It is not our purpose to be overly defensive of the preacher. We have tried to avoid two extremes: (1) That the preacher is a socialite or that visitation is his primary duty. Most preachers enjoy visiting. However, if they are busy in teaching (or preparing for it), they may not always be able to arrange to “sit with relatives during surgery,” etc. Martha scolded Jesus as some would the preacher: “If thou hadst been there, my brother had not died” (Jn. 11:21). (2) That he should seclude himself and feel no desire to visit or meet people. If he feels inadequate to meet people, he should either overcome his inadequacy or find another occupation. There is nothing in the apostles’ doctrine that would comfort him in secluding himself.

Conclusion

There is a need to better understand the subjects of preachers and deacons. Hodge says, “The church is the called out, and the preacher is the called on. ” But “there is one security in preaching, we can never be replaced by computers.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 22, pp. 688-689
November 16, 1989

By Michael R. Baggett

Naturally most parents want their children involved in school activities. It brings a glow to the face of any father whose son makes first string on the football team. It causes parents to be proud of their son or daughter when they excel in various sports, in the band, or other school related activities. However, parents, not all school activities are good or wholesome, nor should we be proud our child is involved in such. Sometimes Christians fail to ask: Is this activity my teenager is participating in at school something a Christian ought to be doing? Should you allow your teenage daughter to become a cheerleader for the football team?

Some parents seem to think that since it’s a “teenager” involved it is somehow alright for them to allow them to do things. You know the type . . . “leave them alone, they are just teenagers.” Whether they are teenagers or seniors in college is not the issue. The issue is: Is cheerleading harmless or is it harmful (sinful)?

Do you really condone the manner in which a cheerleader dresses? If your daughter is a cheerleader, more than likely she must dress in violation of 1 Timothy 2:9. This verse teaches that women, young as well as older, “adorn themselves in modest apparel. ” Modest here, has nothing to do with “what’s in,” but with “how” a Christian lady is to dress. “Modest” means “becoming” or in other words, in our language, “decent”! All of the cheerleader uniforms I have ever known of are designed to draw stares and, believe it or not, they do “light the flames” of young men!

Do you want men “lusting” after your young lady, fathers? Yes, I’m aware that some will lust anyway, but should your daughter dress in such fashion as to cause young men to stumble? Jesus says: “Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom offenses come” (Matt. 18:7, NKJV).

Do you approve of “dancing”? Now mothers and fathers, there is no denying that this is what cheerleaders do! The fashion of the “cheer-dances” some do these days, one needs to wonder who the crowds are cheering for – the football team or the girls! The lewd, lascivious movements of these dances make one think of the sinful places where men go and watch the “Las Vegas Show Girls”! Someone had to say this! The dancing your daughter does as a cheerleader makes her guilty of the “works of the flesh” (Gal. 5:19-21). These shall not inherit the Kingdom of God!

Wake up parents! Stop teaching your children the ways of the world! Stop approving of activities God disapproves! “But bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 23, p. 709
December 7, 1989

By Carrol R. Sutton

The question under consideration in this study is one about which scholars are divided. Some do not hesitate to say that deaconesses are authorized in the New Testament. Others say that it is questionable and still others suggest that there is no authority in the New Testament for deaconesses. We cannot answer this question by appealing to scholars since scholars do not constitute New Testament authority. They are divided as to what the New Testament teaches on this subject.

We cannot settle this question by appealing to “historical evidence” because it does not constitute New Testament authority. Neither is it conclusive as to what existed in the first century relative to deaconesses.

The practice of present day churches does not constitute divine authority on this or any other subject. Neither should our preferences, likes or dislikes be considered authoritative.

In an effort to determine what is God’s will relative to deaconesses, our appeal must be to the Word of God. The Scriptures are sufficient to instruct us in righteousness that we might be “furnished completely unto every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, ASV). In the Scriptures we have “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3). The law of liberty is “perfect” and by it we shall be judged in the last day (Jas. 1:25; 2:12). Only God’s revelation as given in the Scriptures can produce “faith” in our hearts (Rom. 10:17).

The primary passage used by those who advocate deaconesses is Romans 16:1. It reads as follows:

I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea (KJV).

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea (Revised Standard Version).

In this passage the word diakonos appears in the Greek text and is translated “servant” in the King James Version and “deaconess” in the Revised Standard Version. It is also translated “servant” in the American Standard Version, New American Standard Version, New King James Version, New International Version and Diaglott as well as some others. Among those that translate diakonos to mean “deaconess” are the following translations: Williams, Moffatt, Macknight and Living Oracles. It also appears in the margin of the ASV as “deaconess.”

The word diakonos appears in the New Testament about twenty-nine other times. It is translated “minister” twenty times, “servant” six times and “deacon” three times. Of the twenty-two translations I checked, Romans 16:1 is the only passage in which some of the translations rendered diakonos to mean “deaconess.” In some other translations diakonos is translated “minister,” “helper, ” “worker, ” etc. in Romans 16:1. It is obvious from this (and other evidence that could be given) that a word may have different meanings as used in different texts and contexts.

If (and this is a big if) diakonos should be translated “deaconess” in Romans 16:1, it would not necessarily follow that “deaconess” means a female “deacon” in the sense of a “deacon ” as used in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 and Philippians 1:1. It could (and probably would) mean nothing more than a female servant or helper. Please keep in mind that the “servants” at the marriage feast in John 2:5,9, the “ministers” (Paul and Apollos) of 1 Corinthians 3:5, the “minister” (Tychicus) of Ephesians 6:21 and Colossians 1:7, the “minister” (Timotheus) of 1 Thessalonians 3:2, the “minister” (civil ruler or rulers) of Romans 13:4, the “ministers” (false apostles) of 2 Corinthians 11:15 and the “minister” (Jesus Christ) of Romans 15:8 are translations of diakonos. Question: Would any scholar or serious student conclude that all these were “deacons” as mentioned in Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8-13? Surely not! Note: It is obvious that diakonos does not ordinarily mean “deacon ” as used in 1 Timothy 3:9-13 and Philippians 1:1. The context (as well as the word) determines its meaning.

The fact that there is “historical evidence” that “deaconesses” in an official sense may have existed by the second or third century is not evidence from the New Testament that such are authorized.

Why I Reject Deaconesses

There are several reasons why I reject the idea that the New Testament authorizes deaconesses in an official sense. Here are some of those reasons:

1. The word diakonos that is translated “deaconess” in Romans 16:1 in the RSV (and some others?) does not usually mean “deaconess” (or “deacon”). Ordinarly it simply means a “servant” or “minister.” In the case of diakonos being translated “deacon” in Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8-11, the context demands (or at least justifies) that such be done. Note: The context of Romans 16:1 does not demand (nor justify) that diakonos be translated “deaconess.”

2. There are no specific qualifications given for deaconesses. If the New Testament does authorize deaconesses, we do not know which women should be selected and appointed to be deaconesses. Question: What “qualifications” would a woman have to meet in order to be a deaconess? Note: If someone replies by saying that deaconesses replies by saying that deaconesses must meet the “qualifications” of I Timothy 3:11 and/or 1 Timothy 5:9-10, let it be observed that neither of those passages mentions nor necessarily implies deaconesses. To say these passages refer to deaconesses would be presumption. 1 Timothy 3:11 says “their wives” (ASV says “women”), and 1 Timothy 5:9-10 says “a widow. ” Not a word is said in either passage about deaconesses!

3. There is no mention of “deaconesses” as a class or as a group although “the bishops and deacons” are mentioned with the saints at Philippi (Phil. 1:1).

4. The feminine form of the word diakonos does not authorize an official class or order of “deaconesses” any more than the feminine form of the word presbuteros (translated elders) authorizes female elders. We have the feminine form in 1 Timothy 5:2 where it- says the “elder women.” One might also consider the “aged women” of Titus 2:3. Note: Women would violate the principles stated in 1 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Timothy 2:11-12, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, etc. if they endeavored to serve as “elders” (i.e. “bishops”) in view of 1 Peter 5:1-4, 1 Timothy 3:1-7, 20:17,28, Hebrews 13:17, etc.

How Did Women Serve In New Testament Times?

We learn from Philippians 4:3 that certain women “labored” with Paul and others “in the gospel. ” It is not specifically stated what they did in such labors. Mary “bestowed much labor” on some. She worked hard (see Rom. 16:6). We are not told specifically what Mary did in such work. Mary, the mother of John Mark, provided her house “where many were gathered together praying” (Acts 12:12). Lydia provided lodging for Paul and his companions (Acts 16:14-15). Priscilla and her husband Aquila were Paul’s “helpers in Christ Jesus, ” provided their house as a meeting place and took Apollos unto them, “and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly” (Rom. 16:3-5; Acts 18:26). We learn from Acts 9:36-39 that Dorcas “was full of good works and alms-deeds which she did. ” We are also told that she made “coats and garments. Phebe was “a servant of the church at Cenchrea. She was a succourer (helper) of Paul and many others. We do not know exactly what she did in serving and helping many (see Rom. 16:1-2). It was prophesied that some women in the last days would prophesy (Acts 2:16-21). We learn from Acts 21:9 that Philip “had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.”

In the first century women were taught to place emphasis on inward, rather than outward, adorning although outwardly they were to adorn themselves “in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety” and “with good works.” Their works were to be such as “becometh women professing godliness” (1 Pet. 3:1-6; 1 Tim. 2:9- 10). They were to engage in such good works as rearing children, lodging strangers, washing the saints’ feet and relieving the afflicted (1 Tim. 5:10). The aged women were to be proper examples and “teachers of good things. ” Along with other things they were to teach young women to be sober-minded, pure, keepers (workers) at home, etc. (Tit. 2:3-5).

As women served in the first century they were to recognize man as the head of woman generally and specifically the husband was to be the head over his wife (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22-25). In giving some instructions for women the apostle Paul said: “Let the woman team in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. ” The ASV says “quietness” instead of “silence” and “have doniinion over” instead of “usurp authority over. ” In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 in addressing the church at Corinth and all saints everywhere Paul said: “Let your women (the women – ASV) keep silence in the churches. for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women (a woman -ASV) to speak in the church.” Women were to learn and apply these restric tions and limitations as they endeavored to serve God.

How May Women Serve Today?

Today, women may and should worship God in the public assemblies along with men. Such passages as 1 Corinthians 14:23-35; 11:20-34; 16:2; Colossians 3:16; Acts 20:7; etc. indicate that women could be and were in the assemblies. The fact that regulations were given specifically to restrict or regulate women in the public assemblies is proof that they had a right to be in those assemblies.

Not only do women have the right (and responsibility) to worship God in the public assemblies but they may and should serve God outside the assemblies in various ways and activities.

As far as I can determine, women today may serve God in the same ways and activities (in principle) that characterized women in the New Testament times. When women prophesied as in Acts 21:9, if they did so by inspiration, although they may and should teach the inspired word of God, they can not do so now by direct inspiration. Of course, today, as back then, women must apply the restrictions and limitations that Paul gave in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as they endeavor to teach and serve God in other ways.

Some Good Works Women May Do

Here is a list of some things that women may do without violating the restrictions imposed upon her in such passages as 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

1. Along with her husband (if married) she may privately expound the way of God more perfectly to preachers who know “only the baptism of John” (Acts 18:26).

2. Teach others one on one and teach classes of women and children in the home or in a room at the church building (Tit. 2:3-5).

3. Visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction (Jas. 1:27).

4. Provide lodging for those who preach the gospel.

5. Bake bread for the Lord’s Supper and assist in caring for the communion set.

6. Write letters to teach and encourage friends, youth and others.

7. Transport the sick and elderly to the grocery store, worship assemblies and various other appointments.

8. Provide a meeting place for the church.

9. Visit and encourage and exhort other Christians.

10. Distribute tracts and other literature that teach the truth.

11. Visit and help hospital patients and shut-ins.

12. Help in bulletin preparation, printing and mailing.

13. Invite people to attend meetings of Christians. They may visit, call or write.

14. Prepare food and arrange for flowers in times of sickness and death.

15. Make contacts for others to visit and teach.

This list is by no means exhaustive, but I trust that it may at least be suggestive of some specific ways that women may serve in the Lord’s church. Women certainly have the right to engage in any authorized work so long as they do not violate some scriptural principle in so doing.

I have no objection to women serving as women served in the church in New Testament times. If there is a special work to be done for which women are more suitable than men, then no one should object to women doing it. Of course, all of us should make sure that we do not encourage women to go beyond the limits God has placed upon them. Let us also be sure that we are not guilty of binding restrictions upon women that God has not bound.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 22, pp. 690-692
November 16, 1989

By H.E. “Buddy” Payne

The question posed above usually arises in connection with a discussion of 1 Timothy 3:8 where, among other things, the Scripture teaches that a deacon must not be “given to much wine.” A similar statement with regard to bishops in 1 Timothy 3:3 indicates that bishops must not be “given to wine.” Because of the difference in these two expressions some assert that deacons (and presumably other Christians) may participate in social drinking while bishops (elders) may not. The discussion of these particular verses and their implications in answering the question above will be postponed until later in the article. Let us turn first to some more fundamental questions.

What do we mean by social drinking? The term “social drinking” is not used in the Bible so we must establish its meaning from modem usage. The word “social” means pertaining to or characterized by friendly companionship or relations. “Drink” or “drinking,” as used in the question above, means to partake of alcoholic beverages. Thus, social drinking means to partake of alcoholic beverages in the presence of companions or friends or to be sociable. In common usage it also implies drinking moderately, not to excess. Thus, the question which forms the title of this article is asking whether a deacon can participate in moderate drinking, drinking which does not cause him to be drunk.

What does the Bible have to say about alcoholic beverages? The biblical terms relating to alcoholic beverages are “wine” and “strong drink.” The word “wine” in our English versions of the Bible most often translate the Hebrew word yayin or yain in the Old Testament and the Greek word oinos in the New Testament. The term “strong drink” translates the Hebrew word sekar and the Greek word sikera. When the two terms are used together, the term “strong drink” probably refers to all kinds of fermented drinks other than wine, which referred primarily to drinks derived from the grape (see ISBE, Vol. 1, p. 993, 1979 revision). The following excerpts from the book The Bible and Wine by Ferrar Fenton are instructive with regard to the usage of the word “wine.”

As in the Hebrew yain, the word does not in the Greek always signify fermented intoxicating drink, but grapes as fresh fruit, dried 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 now commonly called gypsum, was put into it, as it now done in Spain, to make the liquid clear and bright, and prevent subsequent fermentation arising from changes of atmosphere. . .

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 not of our above-mentioned 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 condemned.

The case of Jesus at the wedding feast in Cana of Galilee offers a good illustration of the need for care in dealing with the word “wine” in the Bible. Mr. Fenton calls the passage in John 2:1-10 “one of the most misunderstood, and misrepresented passages in the whole of the gospels,” and then adds the following comments.

The misunderstanding has arisen from imposing upon the ancient Greek text, and ancient Jewish habits of food and drink, entirely the modem 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 … The ordinary drink of the Romans, learned writers ten 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.

It is practically certain that the “wine” created by Christ at Cana was of the non-intoxicating kind, which . . . was “the ordinary drink of the people” in daily fife. The knowledge of that fact disposes of the argument . . . 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.

It appears that the Bible and other ancient documents used the word “wine” to mean either intoxicating or nonintoxicating beverages. In addition to that, even the wine that contained alcohol by natural fermentation was often mixed with water before drinking, thus diluting the alcoholic content even further. (See an interesting article by Robert H. Stein in Christianity Today, June 20, 1975, pp. 9-11.) At the very least it is reasonable to conclude that moderate drinking of today’s wine and other alcoholic beverages involves partaking of much more alcohol than the drinking of the wine of Bible times.

What does the Bible say about moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages? The Bible clearly condemns drunkenness (Gal. 5:2 1; 1 Cor. 6:10) and other drinking as well (1 Pet. 4:3): its many exhortations to be sober minded testify to the wisdom and acceptability to God of total abstinence. Social or moderate drinking lies somewhere between drinking and abstinence. It is a subject which the Bible does not discuss directly or define carefully. Even the ambiguity of the word “wine” testifies to that fact. It is not possible to say from direct statements in the Bible that the drinking of small amounts of alcoholic beverages is sinful or that the drinking of a fixed amount of alcohol constitutes drunkenness. The question of social drinking, whether for deacons or other Christians, is a question that will require the exercising of our spiritual senses to discern whether participating in it is good or evil (see Heb. 5:12-14).

Let us exercise our spiritual senses with the following thoughts.

1. The Bible wams of the danger of wine and strong drink (Prov. 21:19-21,29-35).

2. Modem-day statistics with regard to the number of people who have become alcoholics (approximately one in ten of those who drink) and the destruction that is wreaked upon our society by those who drink alcohol substantiate the Bible’s warnings and graphically illustrate the foolishness of using even moderate amounts of today’s alcoholic beverages.

3. As discussed above, there is a striking difference between the drinking of alcoholic beverages today and the drinking of alcoholic beverages in the days when the New Testament was written. The distilled spirits of today have from three to many more times the alcoholic content of the strongest drinks in the Bible.

4. Can anyone answer how much of today’s wine one can drink without losing some self-control, good judgment and clearness of mind? Are not these characteristics of being sober-minded which God expects of Christians?

5. The New Testament teaches Christians that we are to be proper examples and influences to other Christians and to non-Christians (Matt. 5:13-16; 1 Tim. 4:12; etc.). The force of these exhortations becomes particularly vivid with regard to alcohol when you have to sit through the night with a brother in Christ as he suffers the delirium tremens because he was influenced to begin drinking by another thoughtless human being. What if a brother in Christ, possibly a deacon, had invited this brother over to his home and offered him a beer or some wine with his supper? It is only a social drink! Hear Romans 14:21. “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.”

It is inconceivable to me that any Christian could find himself in a situation in which he does not wield some influence over someone who has a serious tendency to be an alcoholic, or who is simply weak in his ability to control his drinking. In our society and present circumstances it is difficult for me to conceive of any good that could come from lending our influence to the drinking alcoholic beverages at all.

Having exercised our spiritual senses with the weighty considerations above, what is your judgment with regard to a Christian’s participating in social drinking? It is my considered judgment that it is an evil thing. If it is evil for a Christian, it is certainly evil for a deacon.

But what about 1 Timothy 3:8 and 3:3, the passages to which we referred at the beginning of this article? Several comments are in order. First, the word used for wine in both verses is a form of the Greek word oinos, which we showed above to be an ambiguous word. Second, the context here seems to imply alcoholic wine because the bishop or deacon is not to be “given to” or “addicted to” the wine. Third, it is my judgment that the Lord does impose a stricter regulation on bishops than on deacons (or older women – Tit. 2:3). A bishop must have proved himself to be completely in control of himself with regard to even small amounts of the very weak alcoholic beverages consumed in the days the New Testament was written. The deacon’s qualification was not as restrictive, but he was still to demonstrate great self control. However, none of these things nullifies a single statement or conclusion made in the paragraphs above.

It is difficult to understand why any deacon would want to participate in social drinking given the considerations above. Let us all as Christians put away this evil from among us.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 22, pp. 682-683
November 16, 1989