When did the times of the Gentiles begin?

The Times Of The Gentiles

Q. Why do you and many others refer to the beginning of the Times of the Gentiles as starting with Nebuchadnezzar instead of earlier when the Assyrians conquered northern Israel? Why isn’t that part of the reigning and trampling of Gentiles?

A. When the Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdom, it was meant by God to be a warning to the South. Ezekiel explained this in his story of the two adulterous sisters (Ezekiel 23). Earlier, all the believers had moved to the southern Kingdom in protest against the North’s apostasy ( 2 Chron. 11:16), and Judah, as the south was called, was still a powerful representative of God’s Kingdom on Earth. But when God sent Nebuchadnezzar to conquer Judah for failing to heed the warning, the Kingdom ceased to exist.

Later Nebuchadnezzar dreamed of a giant statue. Daniel said that it represented four earthly kingdoms, and that as King of Babylon Nebuchadnezzar was the head of gold. Daniel said as far as God was concerned, Nebuchadnezzar was king of the whole Earth, the first gentile to be so designated (Daniel 2:37-38). Then Daniel spoke of three other earthly kingdoms that would follow his. We know them as Persia, Greece and Rome. Based on this dream, scholars have begun the times of the Gentiles with Babylon. From that time on the world’s powers have all been gentile kingdoms, and will continue to be until the 2nd Coming.

Website: www.gracethrufaith.com

Salvation for Women

Are Women Saved Through Childbirth?

Q. My question has to do with 1 Timothy 2:8-15 and in particular verse 15. As I was reading this morning, I read my wife this passage and she looked a me in amazement and with a resounding “what do you mean saved through childbearing?”. Now I know we are all saved by first believing in Jesus by grace through faith and nothing else. So does this verse have another meaning to being saved?

Could childbearing give inference to “spiritual children”(plural)? Or does it mean that women from Eve to now will be saved by the “childbearing” of Jesus(singular)? The verse says “she will be saved” and then “if they continue”, which goes from singular to plural. This verse also seems a bit “conditional” in that women must “work” at something in order to be saved. I don’t think that’s what its saying, but it just “looks” that way. And as always, I look forward to your answers!

A. First of all, on its face 1 Tim. 2:15 appears to be a contradiction of everything we know the Bible says about salvation. Therefore, since the Bible can’t contradict itself, our initial understanding has to be incorrect.

It appears the problem was created when English translations began omitting the article “the” before childbearing. Today most English translations don’t have it. But this omission changes the meaning of the passage from “women, like men, will be saved through the birth of the Child if they come to Him in faith,” as I believe Paul originally intended it, to “women will be saved in a different manner than men by having children and behaving correctly”. Such a change puts this one verse in opposition to every other verse in the Bible that deals with salvation, and can not be correct.

I believe Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) has the correct translation of 1 Tim. 2:15.

“and she shall be saved through the child-bearing, if they remain in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety”.

Further more, Paul’s own statement in Gal 3:26-29 indicates that where salvation is concerned there’s no difference between men and women. As for the switch from singular to plural, since Eve was the woman in view in the previous verses, it implies that from the first woman to the last, salvation is by faith in the Child who was born.

Remaining in faith means to rely on their faith alone, with love, sanctification, and sobriety being the proper expressions of gratitude for their salvation, as it is with men.

Website: www.gracethrufaith.com

God's Command to Noah

Was Noah Given Contradictory Instructions?

Q. I was flying back from Chicago a few days ago, and I had the pleasure of sitting next to a geologist/palentologist. I was curious about all the articles he was reading and we got into a very civilized conversation, and I asked some very pointed questions regarding his scientific methods. It turned out that he was very much a worshiper of science and an atheist. I kept the conversation light, curious, and respectful he did the same. Every time I mentioned the Word of God, or what God has done, and will do, he spouted that God contradicts Himself through out a document written by man with no scientific proof.

His one focused contradiction was in Gensis 6:19-21, and 7:2-3. My response to this was that God was giving specific requirements for certain animals clean/unclean. And yet he still says its contradictory.

So my question to you, what is God actually telling Noah to do in regards to the animals to be stored in the Ark?

A. In Genesis 6:19-21 God told Noah that 2 of every kind of animal would come to him to be saved from the coming flood. In Genesis 7:2-3 He further instructed Noah to take 7 of each kind of clean animal as well as 2 of the unclean ones. Your unbelieving friend sees a contradiction because he wants a reason to doubt. You and I see no contradiction because we understand that God was simply clarifying His instructions so that enough sacrificial animals would be included. Therefore it’s not the statements themselves, but our perception of them that’s different.

As is the case with unbelievers, your friend missed the real question that the comparison between the two passages is meant to raise. And that is, how did Noah know the difference between “clean” and “unclean” animals? The Levitical system was still over 1000 years in the future. The answer is that the idea of innocent blood being shed for the remission of sin had to have been introduced immediately after the fall to protect fallen man from dying in his sins. It was only formalized at Mt. Sinai.

Website: www.gracethrufaith.com

Take responsibility for your behaviour

An Illustration of James 1:15

Q. Could you please give me an illustration for this verse, James 1:15 - "Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." I mean how do you explain this verse. I find it not easy though it seems easy.

A. James was talking about taking responsibility for our sins. He said we can’t accuse God of tempting us because He is neither tempted by evil nor does He tempt anyone else. (James 1:13) In verse 14 he said we are enticed to sin because of our own evil desires, which cause lustful thoughts. When these thoughts are given consideration they become sin, which under the Law is punishable by death. (James 1:15)

To illustrate, say I’m walking down the street when I see a beautiful woman coming toward me. This woman is not my wife but I find her desirable to look at just the same. If I entertain even a momentary thought on what it might be like to become sexually involved with her, I’ve committed the sin of adultery which is punishable by death.

Can I blame God for making the woman so attractive, or for causing her to cross my path, or for making me a healthy man with human desires? No. I can only blame myself for entertaining such a thought about a woman I’m not married to.

This is one of the illustrations Jesus used in Matt. 5-6 to show us the need for a Savior, because it’s impossible for us always avoid doing thing like this. And the same is true of an angry thought, or an envious one, or an untruthful one.

James was making the point that we can’t blame God when we succumb to the temptations of this world. From other passages we know that Jesus died for all our sins so we won’t have to. (Col. 2:13-15) And even after we’re saved, when we take responsibility for our sins and confess them as such, God is just and faithful to forgive us and will purify us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9) so we won’t become estranged from Him.

Website : www.gracethrufaith.com

Water Baptism

Is Baptism Necessary For Salvation?

Q. My intention here is not to be insulting, but you are cherry-picking. Jesus established the minimum requirement when he said in Mark 16:16 that you must believe and be baptized. So what gives with your explanation? Belief is to be active; you must apply some action for faith without works is dead! I’m glad you mention John 3:16 because it flows from what Jesus said in 3:5 “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. This “water” birth Jesus speaks of is baptism. None other!

A. By saying I’m cherry picking, I assume you’re referring to my use of John 6:28-29 to support my view that belief is the only requirement for salvation. Do you realize that you’re also implying that Jesus was less than honest with the people who had asked the question “What is the work that God requires?” If ever He had an opportunity to lay out clearly everything that God needs from us, that was it. All He said was, “The work of God is this. Believe in the One He has sent.” If you’re right about the necessity for baptism to assure salvation, then Jesus didn’t tell them the full story, the thief on the cross didn’t go to paradise, and Paul was also wrong in Romans 10:9-10, 13 and in 1 Cor. 1:13-17 when he said the Lord didn’t call him to baptize people but to preach the Gospel.

You’ve misinterpreted James on the issue of faith without works being dead. He was saying that true faith will manifest itself in works, not that works must be added to faith to make it real.

I also think you’ve interpreted John 3:5 incorrectly. Remember the context is being born again. Being born of water is our first birth, the physical birth from our mother’s womb and the birth water that surrounded us. Being born again is when we’re born of the Spirit. It’s our second birth. Baptism is not in view in this passage.

Don’t get me wrong. I support baptism as the public confirmation of a private decision, but I don’t believe the Lord intended it to be essential for salvation.

Website: www.gracethrufaith.com

Questions on 1 John?

A Question On 1 John

Q. 1 John 4:1-3 admonishes us to “not believe every spirit… but to test the spirits.” Further, “every spirit” is of God if it confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.

What are those “spirits” we are to test? Am I correct in assuming that the “spirits” we are to test are the message a speaker or writer promulgates? That a speaker/writer who denies the divinity of Jesus is not of God?

What does it mean to deny that Christ has “come in the flesh”? Surely it’s not something so simplistic as to deny the existence of the historical Jesus — a position that very few scholars espouse today. If not, however, what does it mean?

In a chance encounter, or even in a theological discussion, somehow I can’t imagine asking another person, “Has Jesus Christ come in the flesh?” What “modern” question can one use to “test a spirit” in a speaker or writer?

A. 1 John is directed specifically against a false teaching that would become known as the Gnostic Error. Their main contention was that divinity (being pure) and humanity (being sinful) could not possibly co-exist in the same body. Therefore if Jesus was human He couldn’t have been God and couldn’t have died for us.

I think the phrase “come in the flesh” is an abbreviation John used referring to the fact that God became man and dwelt among us in order to die for our sins, and whoever believes this is given the authority to become a child of God and will have eternal life. He said those who deny this are not of God, and of course the Gnostic teachers denied this (and still do).

Another Question About 1 John

Q. Please explain 1 John 5:8 and, if you could, 1 John 5:16-18…. sin leading to death and not leading to death. Thanks for your supernatural insight.

A. 1 John 5:7-8 is a controversial passage over which bitter arguments are held. Some say the part of the passage which reads, “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” never appeared in any early manuscript and was added in the 1500’s at the insistence of the Catholic Church. Others claim the reason it can’t be found in early manuscripts is because it was removed by people opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity. To me it’s an argument that leads nowhere, because neither side can offer conclusive proof to support their position.

In my opinion there is plenty of evidence for the Trinity in the Bible without getting stuck on the authenticity of one verse. For example, you only have to read Genesis 1:1-2 and John 1:1-2 to see the three persons of the Trinity present from the moment of Creation. And a careful reading of the New Testament will confirm that all three are said to dwell within every believer.

As for 1 John 5:16-18 we’re responsible to pray for a believer we observe in the commission of a sin, asking the Lord to forgive him. The exception is a sin that leads to death. The only such sin is to deny that Jesus died for us. There’s no forgiveness for that. I believe that John was referring specifically to those who followed the Gnostic teaching of the day denying the deity of Jesus and saying that being a mere human He couldn’t have died for our sins.

Website: www.gracethrufaith.com

Bible Questions

Casting The Stones?

Q. I recently heard that the stones on the breastplate that the priest wore, were taken out, and cast down, much in the way (for those who practice it) chicken bones are thrown down, to see what God wanted them to do. I was told, “that is the only way they heard from God”.

This, I just don’t believe! I have never read anywhere in God’s word of the Preist throwing down the stones out of the breast plate. Surely, if God can speak to Moses, and Abraham, He spoke to those High Priests.

Also, on tithing. Study the word “storehouse”. A lot of people think “money” If it was only money, then why did Paul need all that help carrying it with him? Anyway, just some of my thoughts.

A. There’s no merit to the idea that the High Priest took the stones out of the breast plate and cast them down. He received answers from God with the Urim and Thumim, two lots kept in a hidden pocket behind the breastplate. One meant yes and the other meant no. Which ever one He pulled out of the pocket was God’s answer. (Exodus 29:30, Numbers 27:21)

According to some, the reason Paul needed help to carry the offering was that they converted it to gold coins and had them sewn into their clothing. They did this to avoid being robbed on the highway. Had they not done so it would have required a wagon to haul all the silver coins and that would have drawn the attention of highway robbers.

Website: www.gracethrufaith.com

Bible Questions

Why Did God Go To Sodom And Gomorrah?

Mr. Kelley,

Thanks as always for your time and teaching.

Q. I have a question about Psalm 33 and Genesis 18. In Psalm 33 it states that God sees all of mankind from Heaven. He is able to view and know every man and woman’s thoughts, feelings, etc. There are a number of other places that say as much as well, this is just the one I remembered the Book and chapter for.

In Genesis 18:20-21 He says that He is going down to look at Sodom and Gomorrah to see if the sin and wickedness is as bad as the outcry that has reached Him.

Why? Why would He need to go and see in person when He can see from Heaven?

A. You’re right. God knows and sees everything, so there has to be another reason for His visit. While He used the situation in Sodom and Gomorrah to explain His sudden appearance on the road by Abraham’s home, several important things happened while He was there. First there was the promise of a son for Abraham and Sarah. Then there was the institution of the fellowship meal, a tradition that continues in the Middle East to this day. And finally there was the fact that for the sake of the righteous, God will withhold judgment of the wicked.

All three of these are important to us today. Isaac was called the child of the promise, who was supernaturally born, and later became a model of the Lord’s sacrifice for us (Genesis 22). Jesus used the tradition of the fellowship meal to explain that the Church consists of sinners who are saved by Grace, not because of their meritorious behavior (Matt. 13:33) And in removing Lot from Sodom before destroying it, God created a model of the Rapture of the Church, which has to be removed removed from the time and place of judgment ahead of time. (Luke 17:28-29)

Website: www.gracethrufaith.com

Millennium

Understanding Rev. 20-22

Q. Please help me understand the following. You state that only the Church Age Saints will live in the New Jerusalem during the Millennium. And that the Church Age Saints will be able to go back and forth from the New Jerusalem and earth. What scripture supports that those Saints will be able to go back and forth? Is the New Heaven and New Earth created after the Millennium? Also, when the New Heavens and New Earth are created will the Church Age Saints still reside in the New Jerusalem or will they live on the New Earth? Does scripture give insight what they will be doing (work, play, create, govern etc.) with regard to the New Heavens and New Earth? Thank you for any clarification on the above.

A. There is much confusion surrounding the New Jerusalem and New Heavens and New Earth that arises from what I believe is a misunderstanding of the chronology in Rev. 20-22.

Here’s a quick time line as I see it. In Rev. 20 the first 6 verses deal with the time at the beginning of the Millennium just after the Lord’s return. Then verses 7-15 skip to the End on the Millennium to deal with the final disposition of Satan and the resurrection of unbelievers. In Rev. 21:1 John went back to the beginning of the Millennium to describe the New Jerusalem which he saw coming down out of heaven. To let us know he was backtracking, John opened chapter 21 with a direct quote from Isaiah 65:17 which describes Earth at the beginning of the Millennium. When the Lord returns, the Earth will be in total ruin from the terrible destruction of the Great Tibulation and will have to be restored to the condition it was in when Adam was created to make the promises of Isaiah 65 and other places come true for Israel. The first 5 verses of chapter 22 are a summary of Ezekiel 47:1-12, another view of Earth at the beginning of the Millennium, confirming that chapters 21 and 22 describe the Millennium, not eternity.

Following the Rapture, the Church will dwell in the New Jerusalem forever. All we know about what we’ll be doing is that in some way we’ll be assisting the Lord in His millennial reign. The Bible offers no information or detail about life in eternity. As for the saints going back and forth, Jesus went back and forth, and 1 John 3:2 says we’ll be like Him.

Website: www.gracethrufaith.com

The Narrow or the Broad Road?

Two Roads, Two Gates, One Goal

This Week’s Feature Article by Jack Kelley

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” (Matt. 7:13-14)

This passage is often quoted in reference to the different roads traveled by unbelievers as opposed to believers. Unbelievers are said to be on a broad road with many fellow travelers, all on the way to their destruction. Believers on the other hand are a small segment of humanity and are on a narrow road to salvation. This difference is further defined by some as pertaining to our behavior. The unbeliever’s gate is wide and his road is broad, supposedly indicating that there’s room for all kinds of sinful behavior, while for the believer it’s a small gate and a narrow road suggesting that there’s very little latitude for misbehaving. A careless step or two and you may find yourself being rerouted onto the broad road.

If you look at these 2 verses alone it’s easy to understand why so many see them this way. But in the context of the chapter a different picture emerges.

In Matthew 7 the people in focus all claim to be believers, and the emphasis is on their fruit. The Lord began by admonishing us against judging others,

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” (Matt. 7:1-2)

Verses 3-5 have to do with judgment within the community of believers.

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

We’re all sinners and hypocrites who have a tendency to pounce all over even the “minor” sins of others while ignoring our own massive list of transgressions. Why is it that those who test the Lord’s patience to the max are often the most acrimonious in their accusations of others?

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? (Romans 2:1-3)

Intolerant, judgmental believers are convinced they’re defending the faith and that they’ll receive the commendation due them from the Lord. But these verses indicate quite the opposite.

As much as we ignore the warnings in verses 3-5, our disregard for verse 6 is even more glaring. It has to do with our attitude toward unbelievers.

“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.”

Expecting the unbelieving world to conform to our moral standards is ridiculous. And yet to the world the church is known primarily for its holier-than-thou hypocrisy in doing just that. Like the Pharisees of old we demand that others live up to behavioral standards we ourselves don’t keep. For example studies show that our divorce and abortion rates are no different from theirs. And it’s a known fact that we indulge in more than our share of adultery, theft, gluttony, avarice, greed, and so on, as well.

It’s like we have forgotten all about the Lord’s advice that the best way to convert the world is for the Church to become what it was meant to be, an agent of His love (John 13:34-35). Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance? (Romans 2:4) It’s God’s kindness and mercy that bring people to Him, not threats of condemnation.

Some think it’s persecution when unbelievers pass laws that contradict our beliefs and restrict our freedoms while promoting the freedom of others. But maybe it’s just them turning on us for the way we’ve pushed our beliefs on them, like the Lord said they would.

In Matt. 7:7-12 the way to salvation is explained to us. It’s summarized in verse 8. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. It doesn’t matter who you are or what you’ve done. If you ask for it, you’ll receive it. It’s this message of hope that’s needed for our time, not judgment and condemnation.

I don’t think it’s an accident that in verse 10 the Lord asked, “Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?” The comparison of bread with a stone takes us back to the Wilderness Temptation when Satan challenged Him to turn stones into bread. He replied, “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.” (Matt. 4:4) God’s Word is life, and Jesus is the bread of life (John 6:35). Stones are dead. If we ask for life will the Lord give us death instead?

But the comparison of a fish to a serpent symbolizes the central thought of the entire chapter. The fish stands for Jesus and became the symbol of His followers. The serpent stands for Satan. Jesus called the leaders of His day’s organized religion children of the devil (John 8:44), who with their insistence on a mindless obedience to their laws (Isaiah 29:13) rather than faith in a coming Redeemer, made their converts twice the sons of hell as they were (Matt. 23:15). They had turned God’s love into a tool of the devil, and sadly there are many in the church still doing the same thing today.

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.(Matt 7:12) The phrase Law and Prophets was a Jewish idiom for their Scriptures, the Old Testament. While we think of the Golden Rule as a New Testament idea, Jesus said it summarized the Old Testament as well. If you don’t want to be judged, don’t judge. If you don’t want to be condemned, don’t condemn. If you want mercy, be merciful. If you want to be forgiven, forgive. If you want to receive, give. (Luke 6:36-38)

There’s a reason why verses 13-14 are in the middle of the chapter and not the beginning or the end. Up till now we’ve been looking at misdirected believers who think they’re defending the faith but instead will find themselves defending fruitless lives at judgment time. Now we’ll see examples of those who claim to be in the Church, but will actually be left behind when the Rapture comes.

Matt. 7:15-23 warns us against following false prophets, saying, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ (Matt. 7:22-23)

Appearing to perform miracles in the Lord’s name does not make someone His follower, so we shouldn’t blindly accept them as such, but should inspect their doctrine. Remember Satan will appear to perform miracles and will deceive many. (2 Thes. 2:9-10) Only those who do His father’s will can claim the Son, regardless of what else they say or do. And what is the father’s will? Here’s the Lord’s answer. “My Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:40)

Nowhere is the Father’s will as it regards our salvation stated more clearly. Anyone who adds any requirement or qualification to this declaration (or takes anything from it) is a false prophet even if they perform miracles in the Lord’s name.

“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.

But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.” (Matt. 7:24-27)

Here is the Lord’s summary statement complete with one final comparison, this one aimed at the liberals. In Matt. 16: 16-18 Jesus called Peter’s confession that He was the Christ (Messiah), the Son of the Living God, the rock on which He would build the Church. Paul wrote that the rock Moses struck to provide water for the Israelites represented Christ. For they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. (1 Cor. 10:4) From ancient times, the priest would call God’s people to worship saying, “Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation.” (Psalm 95:1) And today we sing, “On Christ the solid Rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand.”

A doctrine of salvation that’s built upon anything other than the personal relationship with Jesus that comes from being born again rests precariously on sinking sand. (John 3:3) He alone is the foundation of our faith, and unless our salvation is built exclusively upon this Rock, it will be of no avail to us when we stand before Him on that Day.

From the context of the chapter, we can see that the Lord’s topic was salvation. We don’t deserve ours so we shouldn’t judge others when it looks to us like they don’t deserve theirs. We have no right to think of ourselves as being better than unbelievers, so we shouldn’t try to impose our values on them. We received our salvation simply because we asked for it in faith. There was no merit or worthiness involved, nothing to commend us. But we should be very wary of those who would propose alternatives to salvation by grace through faith alone, whether by adding to or subtracting from it, even if they perform miracles.

Now let’s go back to verses 13-14. Each of the two roads is thought by its travelers to be the way to salvation. But the name engraved above the wide gate is Works and multitudes who call themselves Christians are striving to get there. They run the gamut from extreme legalism to extreme liberalism, but have in common a belief that it’s their behavior that saves them.

The legalist proudly proclaims, “Jesus may have begun my salvation, but I finished it. I have kept the commandments and no longer sin. I have earned the right to call others to account for their behavior. How else will they learn?”

The false prophet says, “I’m a miracle worker, just like the Lord was. Who can doubt that I’m His.”

The artificially modest liberal says “I’m a good person and I’ve tried to live a good life. There are many roads to salvation and as long as we’re sincere in what we believe, the Lord will understand and accept us.”

None of them realizes the road he’s on leads to destruction.

But at the end of the narrow road stands a small gate on which the word Faith is inscribed. As we come alongside the few travelers on this road we can hear them softly singing,

“Just as I am, without one plea,
but that thy blood was shed for me,
and that thou bidst me come to thee,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.”

This is the road to Life.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9) Selah. 07-18-09

Website: www.gracethrufaith.com

Wine or Juice?

Is Drinking Wine Forbidden?

Q. How do you interpret Proverbs 23:34 and reconcile it with it being okay to drink alcoholic beverages? It seems if one should not even look upon wine when it is fermented (as Proverbs 23:34 says, and I believe this means to look upon in in the light of desiring to drink it), then God does not want us to drink it at all because of the sin and degradation it leads one into.

Many go to the wedding feast where Jesus turned the water into wine to justify drinking alcoholic beverages because if it wasn’t okay then surely Jesus would not have turned water into wine. But has anyone thought it possible the water that Jesus turned to wine was not fermented wine? In light of Proverbs 23:34, I believe Jesus turned the water into the pure juice of the vine (not fermented). Otherwise, Jesus has contradicted His own words. I don’t believe Jesus would do something God said not to do. I don’t believe Jesus would have provided fermented wine to those at the wedding feast knowing there would be some who would consume too much and end up drunk and committing other sins that drunkenness leads to. If that were the case, then Jesus himself would have been a stumbling block and a hypocrite.

Paul said it was okay to “take a little wine for thy stomach’s sake” (medicinal purposes). I believe that would be the only occasion to take of alcohol during biblical times. Now days we have so much “medicine” for various illnesses that does not contain alcohol that there is no excuse to consume alcohol in any form.

Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus turned the water into (fermented) wine?

A. The Bible repeatedly warns of the dangers in drinking too much and its first mention of wine described the sorry outcome of Noah’s drunkenness. (Genesis 9:20-27) But it doesn’t forbid drinking.

Proverbs 23:29-35 refers to someone who drinks too much, a drunk. This is indicated by the fact that the writer describes someone who lingers over wine (vs. 30), has hallucinations while drinking (vs. 33), feels no pain even when beaten, and whose first thought upon regaining consciousness is for another drink (vs. 35).

As for the wedding feast, the master of the feast complimented the wine Jesus provided as being superior to the wine the groom served. Jesus drank wine (Luke 7:34) and at the Last Supper gave some to His disciples.

As for proof, in John 2 the Bible says wine, not juice. The primary dictionary definition of wine is “the fermented juice of grapes, made in many varieties, such as red, white, sweet, dry, still, and sparkling, for use as a beverage, in cooking, in religious rites, etc., and usually having an alcoholic content of 14 percent or less.” The Greek word John used appears 32 times in the New Testament and is translated wine every time. On the two occasions when the Bible refers to wine that hasn’t had time to ferment, it always adds the prefix “new”. That’s good enough for me.

While I agree with your sentiments about the dangers of drunkenness, we can’t re-interpret the Bible to accommodate them.

Is Alcohol A Sin?

Q. I was brought up to believe that there are two forms of Wine in the bible. One that is alcoholic and one that is not. Talking to a friend recently, he believes that it is not a sin if it is used casually, and you’re not getting drunk. So the question is: Is alcohol a sin? Could you provide me with verses that tells us that there are 2 different forms of Wine in the Bible. Thank you. I really like your site, and plan to visit it often.

A. The Bible contains 238 references to wine, new wine, sour wine and wine vinegar. We presume that new wine had not yet fermented and therefore was non-alcoholic.

The drinking of wine and other alcoholic beverages is mentioned through out the Bible in such a way that God could not have considered it a sin. He authorized the Israelites to use their tithe money to buy wine or other fermented drink in celebrating the Fall Feast. (Deut. 14:24-26)

Ecclesiastes 9:7 says, ” Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do”.

During the Wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11) Jesus turned water into wine for the wedding banquet. Whether Jesus drank any Himself or not is irrelevant. He couldn’t have provided wine for the guests if it was a sin to drink it. (James 1:13) In Matt. 11:18-19 He said people accused Him of being a glutton and a drunkard because He did enjoy food and drink. He was obviously referring to fermented drink.

Paul encouraged Timothy to have a glass of wine for his stomach problems (1 Tim. 5:23)

The danger is in misusing alcohol to a point where our inhibitions are relaxed causing us to sin in ways we wouldn’t if sober.

Should We Consume Alcohol Or Not?

Q. My question is on Alcohol. I get really confused on whether we should consume alcohol or not. I know drunkenness is a no no and is not an issue for me, but I do like a beer every now and then. Should I feel guilty about doing this?

Also if you could explain the wine/new wine issue. I’ve heard some preachers say it was grape juice, but isn’t there a verse that says don’t get drunk on new wine? Great site by the way.

A. There is no Biblical prohibition against wine or any other fermented drink. As you say, the problem is with drunkenness. The Lord authorized using tithe money to purchase wine or other fermented drinks for the Feast of Tabernacles. (Deut. 14:24-26) And Paul cautioned us to avoid causing a weaker brother to stumble by drinking in the presence of one who can’t handle alcohol or feels that drinking is wrong. (1 Cor. 10:31-33) By this he was implying that drinking was OK under the right circumstances.

Wine Or Juice?

Q. Some Christians believe it is a sin to drink wine, and that whenever the Bible refers to wine, it really meant grape juice. I always thought that new wine was juice, and “wine” meant just that. We know that Jesus turned water into wine, and Col. 2:16 tells us not to let another judge us in food or drink. Can you please clarify this?

A. The sin in drinking is drinking too much. The water Jesus turned into wine at Cana was so good that the master of the banquet thought it better than the wine the groom’s father had provided. The Lord authorized the Israelites to use their tithe money to buy wine or other fermented drink for their Feast of Tabernacles celebration. (Deut. 14:26)

It’s not a sin to drink, but we are admonished not to drink in the presence of someone who has an alcohol problem, or who would be put off by it. (1 Cor. 10:31-32) The safest thing to do if you’re going to have a drink is to have it at home. Then you don’t run the risk of offending someone.

Was It Wine Or Juice?

Q. Did Jesus create wine at the wedding, saving the best for last? Or did he create Grape Juice out of water? Its my opinion that he made wine. What’s yours?

A. Either way it would have been a miracle, but the closest thing to grape juice back then was something called “new wine” or “sour wine.” It was imbibed primarily as a thirst quencher since as it’s name implies it was decidedly tart. The wine served at weddings on the other hand was a fermented drink, and therefore sweeter, meant to help the guests feel and express their joy at the new couple’s union. By his comments in John 2:10, the Master of the Banquet identifies the results of the Lord’s miracle as not only wine, but wine of the finest quality.

Website: www.gracethrufaith.com