Hunting for the text of the New Testament

All right, so how might we explore the cumulative impact of all these differences? Actually, it is quite easy, though sensationalists avoid mentioning this. One reason why textual criticism is so complex is that we have so many manuscripts, in different scribal forms, from such a wide area, over a long period of time. One of the main theories (though this has recently been challenged) is that there are three main ‘families’ of manuscripts:

1. The Western tradition, which consists of early manuscripts from a wide area, and was the basis of translations in the Western church, in particular Jerome’s Latin translation the Vulgate, which was the dominant biblical text in the Roman church.
2. The Eastern tradition, or Byzantine text-type  , which consists of around 80% of all manuscripts, though none of them very early. Known as the Majority Text (MT), this was the dominant text used in the Eastern church, and was the basis of theTextus Receptus   (TR), a collation of manuscripts by Erasmus during the Reformation. When it was decided to make translations from original Greek texts rather then from the Latin Vulgate, this became the basis of early English translations up to and including the AV in 1611.
3. The third player in the drama is what is known as the Alexandrian text type  ; this includes Codex Sinaiticus   and Codex Vaticanus   (used by Westcott and Hort   in 1881) and consists of a smaller number of much earlier manuscripts which take us much closer to the original texts. It is this group of manuscripts which are sensationalised as introducing the differences from earlier manuscripts, and these are the basis of all modern translations.

read more: http://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/hunting-for-the-text-of-the-new-testament/

Original Text Is Without Errors, Not the Copies.

As noted in the article Bible, Alleged Errors in, this does not mean that every copy and translation of the Bible is perfect. God breathed out the originals, not the copies, so inerrancy applies to the original text, not to every copy. God in his providence preserved the copies from substantial error. In fact, the degree of accuracy is greater than that of any other book from the ancient world, exceeding 99 percent ^[1]

Do not tell me KJV is perfect.....

---

^[1]Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 92–93.

Book Review: One Bible Only?

Roy E. Beachum & Kevin T. Bauder, General Editors

Grand Rapids, MI

Kregel Publications. 2001. 238 pp. $13.99

Subtitled, Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible, this book does an excellent job of refuting the position of King James only adherents. The editors are both professors at Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Plymouth, Minnesota. A total of seven contributors were involved in producing this title. It covers the background and origin of the King-James-only controversy, with separate chapters on the debates concerning the OT and NT texts, followed by a chapter on the preservation of Scripture as it relates to the controversy.

A discussion of translation theory and an examination of several 20th century versions is also included. Four Appendices then follow: a question-and-answer format regarding the controversy; an essay on Fundamentalism and the KJV only position; a reprint of the preface to the KJV; and finally a reprint of the address of Thomas Armitage at the founding of the American Bible Union. The Introduction is by Bauder.

Earnest counsel is given here that all Bible believers should be hesitant to be dogmatic about the merits of any one translation’s methods. Neither formal nor dynamic equivalence is believed to be the inherently better theory. Both methods have their strengths and weaknesses, depending upon the use for which a given translation is intended.

As Bauder asserts, if the preservation of the Word of God depends upon the exact preservation of the words of the original documents, then the situation is dire. No two manuscripts, whether the Masoretic or the Textus Receptus, contain exactly the same words. Neither do any two modifications of the KJV text contain exactly the same words. Either the advocates of KJV only must specify, a priori and without Biblical evidence, a single manuscript or edition of the Bible in which the exact words are preserved, OR they must modify their insistence upon exact preservation.

Read more: http://www.biblecollectors.org/reviews/one_bible_only.htm

Do not tell me, we must have one Bible, that is KJV....

The task of NT textual criticism

Thus the task of NT textual criticism is vast and unfinished. Certainly, advances have been made since the material began to be collected and examined in the 17th century. Both Hort and von Soden present texts better than the printed texts of the Renaissance, and provide a sound basis upon which satisfactory exegesis may proceed. It is evident that many of the principles behind the Alexandrian text were sound. But it must be constantly borne in mind that even the best philological work of antiquity demands critical scrutiny if we seek the original text. The textual critic will be as the scribe discipled in the kingdom of heaven, bringing forth from his treasures things new and old. The busy textual projects of the post-war years should bring us nearer to the apostolic ipsissima verba than previous generations were favoured to come; yet we cannot but build on other men’s foundations.^[1]

Be humble, and start to be honest, accept textual criticism...

---

^[1] J. N. Birdsall, “VII. Conclusion,” ed. D. R. W. Wood et al., New Bible Dictionary (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 1179.

Copies of the Autographs (to c. 150)

Most of the New Testament books were written during the second half of the first century. Those manuscripts were written under the direction of the Holy Spirit and were inerrant. They were undoubtedly written on papyrus and have all subsequently been lost. Nevertheless, the autographs of the New Testament were providentially copied and circulated before they became illegible or lost. These copies were made as early as a.d.95. If copying had not begun very soon after the autographs were written, there would be no Bible today because papyrus survives for long periods of time only under exceptional conditions. Just as the autographs were written on papyrus rolls, so the earliest copies were probably written on papyrus rolls. Soon, however, papyrus codices were produced, and parchment and vellum were employed still later. Very few, if any, of the early copies are extant today, for basically the same reasons as indicated with regard to the autographs (see chap. 20).

Although there were many early copies of the autographs, they are not all of the same quality, for as soon as a manuscript was copied misprints began to creep into the text. Some of the early copies were highly accurate and quite expensive, as they were copied by professional scribes. Manuscript copies made by less capable scribes were less expensive, but they were of a generally poorer quality and wider distribution.Still other copies made in this early period were quite poor in quality, as they were often copied by nonprofessionals and were often all that an individual or group could afford to have made. Gordon Fee correctly calls this a “Period of Confusion (to a.d. 400)” and adds that

during the second century in particular, when each NT book was being transmitted independently of the others and when there was wide geographical distribution of these documents with little or no “controls,” such scribal errors proliferated. Once an error was introduced into the text, it was then copied by the next scribe as his “received” text. Sometimes a scribe “corrected” what he thought to be errors and in doing so created errors of his own.^33[1]

majority text maybe corrupted...think about this.

---

³³ Gordon D. Fee, “The Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 425.

^[1]Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Rev. and expanded. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 445–446.

Respect the multidisciplinary nature of careful study

There are several different ways to look at any piece of literature. In the case of the Bible, it pays to look from every angle that might yield a payoff. It is convenient to think of 11 such angles, or “steps,” in the study process:

1. Text—Seeking the original wording to avoid treating a scribal error that accidentally crept into the text as original.

2. Translation—Studying how to best convey in a modern language the concepts conveyed by the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek.

3. Grammar—Analyzing the language of the passage under consideration to be sure it is not misunderstood.

4. Lexical content—Seeking the correct meaning of a passage’s words.

5. Form—Studying the literary category and the characteristics that make any passage special.

6. Structure—Analyzing the way that the elements of a passage are ordered and how that affects its meaning.

7. Historical context—Studying the milieu in which the Bible was revealed to humans, which helps yield the point of its contents.

8. Literary context—Studying how a passage fits within the book of which it is a part and how that affects its meaning.

9. Biblical context—Analyzing what a passage contributes to the Bible as a whole, and what the rest of the Bible contributes to understanding the passage.

10. Application—Seeking to conform beliefs and actions to the guidance that the Bible imparts.

11. Secondary literature—Examining the wisdom and diligent study of others as they have put it into books and articles.^[1]

I hope we may do sincere Bible Study, please do not use big jargon like theologian!

No two handwritten NT manuscripts are identical

It is important to remember that prior to the printing press every copy of Scripture was made by hand, and all hand-copied documents of substantial length of the same document differ from one another. No two handwritten NT manuscripts of any NT book or group of books are identical. But we have every reason to believe that every original reading has survived in some manuscripts. That is why textual critics study as many manuscripts as possible.^[1]

What is the fuss, quarreling for NT manuscripts, please show me a perfect Manuscript!

---

^[1]Charles W. Draper, “Textual Criticism, New Testament,” ed. Chad Brand et al., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary(Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 1573.

New Testament Greek

Cremer’s dictionary deals with a problem that has not yet been solved, namely, that of NT Greek.

a. This question was already discussed in the early church.³⁴ When the NT was becoming known in the Greek world, the educated attached great value to the writing of good Greek. The NT could not compete with the published literary works of the time.³⁵ Celsus compared the sentences of the Bible with Plato and came to the conclusion that everything was better expressed among the Greeks than in the NT (Orig. Cels., VI, 1). The apostles were uncultured tax-gatherers and fishermen who could not measure up to Greek philosophers (I, 62). Similar objections were constantly raised. How did the church respond to them?

Two arguments were used in defense of the Greek of the NT. First, it was said that the apostles deliberately used simple speech to make themselves generally understood. The preacher’s task is not just to win the clever. Out of love for all men he consciously turns as well to the simple and uneducated, to women and children, even to the uncivilised, in order to convert them. Hence the Christian teacher has to use a language which all can understand and which can captivate all.³⁶

The second argument starts with the fact that the apostles themselves were simple people who could not match the skilled speech of the philosophers. Another reason was thus given for the success of primitive Christian preaching. According to Origen, what won people to Christ was not fine speech or oratorical skill, not the art of dialectic or rhetoric, but Christ himself. If Jesus had chosen clever folk to proclaim his teaching, Christianity might have been taken for a philosophical school. But now that uneducated people, fishermen and tax-gatherers, who did not have even the rudiments of learning, have not only spoken to the Jews with shocking boldness about faith in Christ but also preached Jesus successfully to all nations, one has to ask what is the source of the unparalleled power of their words to convince. The only possible conclusion is that a higher than they has been speaking and that he has endowed their words with persuasive force (Orig.Cels., I, 62 [GCS, 2, 113f.]).^[1]

My point is please use simple English to reach out to the unsaved, use NIV please....

---

NT New Testament.

³⁴ E. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa, II⁵(1958), 521–534; J. Vergote, Art. “Grec biblique” in Dict. Bibl. Suppl., III (1938), 1321–1323.

NT New Testament.

NT New Testament.

³⁵ “To use a non-Attic word was a very serious literary offense and a work not adorned with figures of speech had no claim to a place in literature; in short, writing well or badly distinguished Greeks and barbarians. A public of this kind could only regard the religious documents of the Christians as monstrosities,” Norden, op. cit., 516f.

NT New Testament.

Orig. Origen, of Alexandria (185–254 a.d.), pupil of Clement of Alexandria, and most learned and fruitful representative of ancient Christian scholarship and culture, ed. by different scholars in Die griech, christl. Schriftsteller der ersten 3 Jahrhunderte, 1899 ff.

Cels. Contra Celsum.

NT New Testament.

³⁶ Orig. Cels., VI, 1 (GCS, 3, 72); Isidore of Pelusium Ep., IV, 67 (MPG, 78, 1124f.).

Orig. Origen, of Alexandria (185–254 a.d.), pupil of Clement of Alexandria, and most learned and fruitful representative of ancient Christian scholarship and culture, ed. by different scholars in Die griech, christl. Schriftsteller der ersten 3 Jahrhunderte, 1899 ff.

Cels. Contra Celsum.

^[1]Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 632.

Failure to resolve personal disputes (1 Corinthians 6:1–11)

The topic of judgment continued as Paul shifted to another disorder afflicting the Corinthian church. The same laxity in dealing with the immoral brother was found in cases of personal disputes between members which the church refused to adjudicate. It was yet another manifestation of the divisive spirit which racked the congregation.

With the introductory phrase “Do you not know,” Paul pointed toward certain truths which should have prevented the problem in the first place. The phrase recurs six times in this chapter alone. (Outside this letter this construction appears only three other times in the NT.) Paul had used it before (3:16; 5:6) and would subsequently use it again (9:13, 24) to the same effect. The implication that they should have known these things must have painfully hit home to a church enamored with its own wisdom and knowledge.

6:1. Paul’s chagrin about this issue was great, not only because it further divided the church, but also because it hindered the work of God among the non-Christians in Corinth (cf. 10:32). Those related by faith needed to settle their disputes like brothers, not adversaries (cf. Gen. 13:7–9).

6:2. The first of six do you not know phrases in this chapter (cf. vv. 3, 9, 15–16, 19) concerned the role of saints in judging (cf. John 5:22; Rev. 3:21). Paul had probably taught this doctrine in Corinth in the course of his founding the church there, since he cited it as an indisputable proposition.

6:3. Since they were going to judge supernatural beings (the fallen angels, 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6), surely they should handle mundane matters satisfactorily.

6:4. The form of the Greek word (kăthizete, appoint) may be a statement (indicative) or a command (imper.). The NIVhas taken it as a command, making the difficult phrase men of little account refer to those in the church not too highly esteemed for their “wisdom”; but Paul considered them more than adequate for the task.

“Appoint” may be indicative (and therefore a question; see alternate trans. in marg.) which seems more likely in view of verse 5. If so, the participle translated “men of little account” would be better rendered “men who have no standing” in the church, that is, non-Christians. The sad refrain of verse 1 to which Paul would refer yet a third time in verse 6 was thus heard again.

6:5–6. No doubt the statement in verse 5 reddened some of the wiseCorinthians’ faces. Certainly a part of Paul’s concern in this issue was the harmful effect such legal wrangling would have on the cause of the gospel in Corinth (9:23). Such lawsuits certainly did not glorify God (10:31–33).

6:7–8. Because their greed dishonored God, Paul concluded that the important issue was lost before the case had begun. He therefore said that mundane loss was preferable to the spiritual loss which the lawsuits produced. As it was, the Corinthian lawsuits seemed not to have been so much a matter of redressing wrong or seeing justice served as a means for personal gratification at the expense of fellow believers. This was “body life” at its worst!^[1]

My point is when you start to solve problem in court room, you are losing from day one.

---

imper. imperative

NIV New International Version

trans. translation, translator, translated

marg. margin, marginal reading

^[1]David K. Lowery, “1 Corinthians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 515–516.

Lying....

A lie is a statement not in accordance with the mind of the speaker, made with the intention of deceiving. In the OT the practice of lying is denounced as an attribute of sinners (Lev. 19:11, Ps. 5:6, Prov. 6:17), though it is sometimes recorded of otherwise righteous people, e.g. of *Abraham (Gen. 20:2), *Jacob (Gen. 27:32), and *David (1 Sam. 21:2). These lies, however, are usually regarded as excusable because they were told in cases of necessity without the intention to hurt. In the NT the standard is higher, and lying is so abhorrent that for the disciple a simple affirmation of the truth is to take the place of an oath (Mt. 5:37). St *Paul, too, exhorts Christians to put away falsehood (Col. 3:9; cf. Eph. 4:25), and in the Bk. of Rev. the virgins who follow the Lamb are praised because ‘in their mouth was found no lie’ (14:5). The NT teaching is followed by the Fathers, though with slight divergences. Some of them, e.g. *Origen, St *Hilary of Poitiers, St*Jerome, and St *Chrysostom, held that a lie may be lawful, e.g. in order to save an innocent man from death. St *Augustine, however, and following him St*Thomas Aquinas, hold that lying is always sinful, because it perverts the nature of human speech, which is meant to express man’s thought, not to disguise it. Acc. to St Thomas lies are never lawful, and even ‘officious’ lies, i.e. those told for the benefit of someone without the intention of deceiving, and ‘jocose’ lies, told for amusement, are reprehensible. St Thomas admits, however, that in certain cases it may be prudent to hide the truth under some ‘dissimulation’. In modern times the problem of the lawfulness of lying in these cases, when, e.g., human life would be endangered or a secret violated not only by speaking the truth but also by preserving silence, has given rise to several theories attempting a solution. They either permit *mental reservation (q.v.) or assert that not everyone has the right to the truth (so, e.g., H. *Grotius and S. *Pufendorf), or, what seems most in agreement with common sense, that there may arise conflicts of duty in which the choice of a lie is a lesser evil. These, however, are exceptional cases which do not prejudice the general obligation of speaking the truth, without which an ordered human society which is built on mutual trust would become impossible.^[1]

Do not tell lie, until you divide the Bible-Presbyterian Church in Singapore....

---

q.v. quod vide (Lat., which see).

^[1] F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford;  New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 1017–1018.

The present controversy

The two sides in the present controversy concerning scriptural authority are becoming increasingly polarized. On the one hand, there are those who view the Bible as only edifying religious literature and Jesus Christ as the most profound of all human prophets. Inspiration in these circles connotes nothing more than a general illumination that all spiritually sensitive people share to some degree. It is therefore not uncommon to hear it alleged that some Christian classics or even devotional masterpieces in other religions are inspired by the Spirit of God in the same sense as Scripture.

On the other hand, there are those who in their zeal to safeguard the divine authority of Scripture define inspiration in terms that approach mechanical dictation. In this view the Bible becomes a celestial tape recorder, and its true humanity is thereby denied. The inerrancy of Scripture is affirmed in the sense of mathematical or scientific precision which allows for no inconsistencies in the details of what is reported. The focus is no longer on the divine content but on the mode of expression by which Scripture comes to us. The language of the text is regarded as flawless as historical science understands this term.

There is an important sense in which the Scripture does not err: it does not err in what it affirms concerning the law and gospel, the two sides of the revelation of God. It does not err in what the Holy Spirit intends to teach us in and through the biblical text, and this teaching extends to the truth about man and the world as well as the truth about salvation. The Psalmist declares: ‘The sum of thy word is truth’ (119:160; cf. Is. 45:19; Jn. 17:17). Paul insists that he is ‘speaking the truth in Christ, I am not lying’ (Rom. 9:1). In the pastoral epistles the truth handed down by the apostle is described as trustworthy (pistos) and deserving of full acceptance (1 Tim. 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:11; Tit. 3:8). Similarly in the fourth gospel we read: ‘This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things … and we know that his testimony is true’ (Jn. 21:24; cf. 19:35).

Scripture does give a wholly reliable and trustworthy account of God’s dealings with man in biblical history. Yet this does not mean that everything in Scripture must be taken at face value. Nor does it mean that the human authors of Scripture were taken out of their cultural and historical milieu and thereby rendered free from human limitations. They were both children of their times and prophets to their times.

Inspiration should be understood as the divine selection of the writers and their writings for the purpose of intruction in salvation and training in righteousness. It does not mean that the Holy Spirit overruled the personalities of the human authors; instead he worked in and through them. Our Reformed fathers referred to the accommodation of the Spirit to the language and concepts of that time. This means that there is something of the provisional and relative in the Bible, even though its message and teaching derive from God himself.

In this light we should understand that the Bible in and of itself is not revelation, but revelation is given in the Bible. It is not the letter that is the truth but the Spirit acting upon the letter (1 Cor. 2:4; 2 Cor. 3:6). The criterion for faith is the Spirit speaking in and through the text of Scripture. As Zwingli retorted when John Faber declared that there must be a judge, ‘The Spirit of God out of Holy Scripture itself is the judge’ (The New Cambridge Modern History: The Reformation 1520–59, II, p. 101).

In order to hear and know the veritable Word of God, in order to perceive the Spirit-intended meaning of the words, we must search the Scriptures. We must ‘dig out’ the truth that is contained in the Scriptures (Dwight L. Moody). We must seek the spiritual discernment necessary to apprehend spiritual truths (1 Cor. 2:9–16). As the Psalmist declares: ‘Open my eyes, so that I may see the wonderful truths in your law’ (Ps. 119:18 GNB; cf. Lk. 24:45). The Word of God is likened to a ‘rich treasure’ that one must ‘find’ or uncover in the Scriptures (Ps. 119:162 GNB).

The Bible is not a systematic set of rules that can be immediately perceived and then applied. It is more like a uranium mine that yields its precious metal only after a careful and painstaking search. The interpretation of Scripture is a work of faith; it is not intended for those who refuse to exert themselves and submit themselves to the guidance and direction of the Spirit. John Chrysostom observed that the meaning of the scriptural text often ‘lies buried at a great depth’; indeed, only special enlightenment from the Holy Spirit can enable one to apprehend it.

The authority of the Bible is derivative: it is anchored not in itself but in its divine Author and divine centre, Jesus Christ. It is a signpost that points to Jesus Christ, and at the same time it is a vessel that carries the truth of Jesus Christ. Luther described it as the ‘carriage of the Spirit’. He also referred to Scripture as the ‘swaddling clothes’ in which the Christ-child is laid.

The most potent symbol for the Word of God is not the book itself but the cross of Christ shining through the pages of the open Bible. For it is Jesus Christ whom the Bible attests; it is his salvation that the Bible proclaims and conveys. According to Calvin the promises of God are ‘sure and infallible’ only when we ‘resort always to Jesus Christ’ (Sermons on Ephesians, Banner of Truth, 1973, p. 176).

We need to recognize again that the Bible has two sides: a divine and a human side. It is a human witness to divine revelation, for as 2 Peter says, men spoke from God (1:21). But at the same time it is God’s self-revelation through human authors; as the Epistle to the Hebrews expresses it, God spoke to men (Heb. 1:2). The Bible is the Word of God indirectly—in and through the words of men.

Calvin rightly described the Bible as the ‘unerring rule of faith and practice’. The certainty of its truth, he said, is derived from the interior witness of the Spirit. The majesty of its doctrine also argues for its truth, though this can be perceived only by faith.

It is a mistake to appeal to external evidences to buttress or prove the divine authority and inspiration of the Scriptures, for the Bible authenticates itself. It carries its own credentials. This must not be taken to mean, however, that the claims of the Bible are persuasive because of their logical force or rational coherence. Instead they persuade and convict because the Spirit of God inheres within the book that he inspired. The text of Scripture is the property of its divine author who alone can regenerate and renew sinful humanity.

I do not wish to imply that external evidences in support of Scripture are of no value whatsoever. They may indeed cast new light upon the Bible and confirm its claims concerning itself, but this confirmation is given only to those who already believe. Archaeology has shown the amazing accuracy of the Bible even in many of its historical details, but this does not and cannot prove its perfect accuracy in this regard. Neither can archaeology or historical science establish the divine authority and inspiration of Scripture.

The authority of Scripture is rooted not in the manner of its writing but in the way it is applied by the Spirit to direct us to Christ. Its divine-human origin is subordinate to its salvific role or function. The inspiration of the text of Scripture is in the service of the communication of its message. Scripture is best seen as a human medium, prepared by the Spirit, through which we come to know the benefits of Christ. It is not just a human witness to Christ but a divinely appointed means through which we receive saving knowledge of Christ. These writings were designed to make us ‘wise unto salvation’ (2 Tim. 3:15 KJV).

The Bible might be likened to a drinking fountain whose water is drawn from an underground spring. The water of life is hidden, and we therefore have access to it only by means of this fountain. Unless we go to the fountain and drink from it, our spiritual thirst will not be satisfied. It may still be a beautiful structure, it may even have historical or scientific value, but it will not be the fount of salvation. It is not enough to appreciate the literary style of the Bible or even its doctrinal profundity: we must experience its life-giving power.

Donald Bloesch, “The Sword of the Spirit: The Meaning of Inspiration,” Themelios, No. 3, May 1980 5 (1980): 15–16.

Call to Worship for Bible-Presbyterian Churches in Singapore

Dear brother and sisters, the Bible tells us in many places that we should not hide our sins from Almighty God our heavenly Father, but confess them from our hearts with humility, sorrow and with a resolve to obey God from now on.

The Confession from Bible-Presbyterian Churches in Singapore.

Almighty and most merciful Father, we have erred and strayed from your ways like lost sheep. We have followed too much the ideas and wishes of our own hearts. We have offended against your holy laws. We have left undone those things which we ought to have done, and we have done those things which we ought not to have done. And we cannot help ourselves.

The Lord Prayer, read by the Bible-Presbyterian Churches in Singapore.

Our Father, who art in heaven;

1. Hallowed be thy Name;

2. Thy kingdom come;

3. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth;

4. Give us this day our bread for subsistence;

5. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors;

6. And lead us not into temptation;

7. But deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever and ever. Amen. 

The Grace for Bible-Presbyterian Churches in Singapore

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with us all, evermore. Amen.

BROTHERS, PRAY FOR THE SEMINARIES

We cannot overemphasize the importance of our seminaries in shaping the theology and spirit of the churches and denominations and missionary enterprise. The tone of the classrooms and teachers exerts profound effect on the tone of our pulpits. What the teachers are passionate about will by and large be the passions of our younger pastors. What they neglect will likely be neglected in the pulpits.

When I was choosing a seminary, someone gave me good advice. “A seminary is one thing”—he told me, “faculty. Do not choose a denomination or a library or a location. Choose a great faculty. Everything else is incidental.” By “great faculty” he, of course, did not mean mere charismatic personalities. He meant that wonderful combination of passion for God, for truth, for the church, and for the perishing, along with a deep understanding of God and His Word, a high esteem for doctrinal truth and careful interpretation and exposition of the infallible Bible.

I believe his advice was right: choose a seminary for its teachers. Which means that when we pray for our seminaries, we pray especially for the minds and hearts of faculty and those who assess and hire them.

When we stop to think for a while about what to pray, we start to clarify our own concept of ministry. We can’t pray without a goal. And we can’t have a goal for a seminary faculty unless we have a vision for what kind of pastors we want to see graduate. So the more we try to pray, the more we are forced to define what we value in the pastoral office. And once we clarify this, we begin to ponder what sort of person and pedagogy cultivates these values.^[1]

---

^[1] John Piper, Brothers, We Are Not Professionals: a Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002), 261–263.

Jesus Christ was drinking wine

^{Luke 7:33} For John the Baptist did not come eating bread or drinking wine, ^h and you say, ‘He has a demon!’ ³⁴ The ^•Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ ^i[1]

What is “wine” means in Luke 7:33

3631.  οἶνος ŏinŏs, oy´-nos; a prim.word (or perh. of Heb. or. [3196]); “wine” (lit.or fig.):—wine.^[2]

3196.  יַיִןyayin, yah´-yin; from an unused root mean. to effervesce; wine (as fermented); by impl. intoxication:—banqueting, wine, wine [-bibber].^[3]

οἶνος (oinos), wine. Cognate words: οἰνοπότης, οἰνοφλυγία, πάροινος. Heb. equiv. fr. LXX: יַ֫יִן (115×), תִּירוֹשׁ (35×);  + 10 more. Aram. equiv. fr. LXX: חֲמַר(2x)

6.197 (28) wine Mt 27:34; Lk 1:15; 7:33; 10:34; John 2:3 (2), 9, 10 (2); 4:46; Ro 14:21; Eph 5:18; 1 Ti 3:8; 5:23; Tt 2:3; Rev 6:6; 14:8, 10; 16:19; 17:2; 18:3, 13; 19:15; Did 13.6; Herm, M X, iii, 3; Herm, M XI, 15; Herm, M XII, v, 3 (2)

6.198 (10) wine Mt 9:17 (3); Mk 2:22 (4); Lk 5:37 (2), 38

6.204 (1) wine Mk 15:23^[4]

3885 οἶνος(oinos), ου(ou), ὁ(ho): n.masc.; ≡ DBLHebr3516; Str 3631; TDNT 5.162—1. LN 6.197 wine, naturally fermented juice of grapes (Jn 2:3; Eph 5:18; 1Ti 3:8; Tit 2:3); 2. LN6.198 οἶνος νέος (oinos neos), new wine, newly pressed juice of grape, possibly just beginning the fermentation process (Mt 9:17; Mk 2:22; Lk 5:37, 38+); 3. LN6.204 myrrhed wine (Mk 15:23+) see 5046^[5]

ΟΙΝ̓͂ΟΣ, ὁ, Lat. vinum, wine, Hom., etc.; παρʼ οἴνῳ over ones wine,Lat.inter pocula, Soph.; οἶνοσἐκ κριθῶν barley-wine, a kind of beer, Hdt.^[6]

QUESTION—What is meant by Jesus eating and drinking?

In contrast with John, Jesus ate and drank like ordinary people [Arn, TNTC]. In connection with the previous verse, it is implied that Jesus ate bread and drank wine like other men [Lns, TG, TH]. It refers to a way of life and refers to Jesus’ practice of entering into the social life in the towns and even attending banquets with sinners [Su]. He had no ascetic restraints such as John’s [AB]. Jesus behaved as though there was always something to celebrate [WBC].^[7]

 In distinction from the Baptist Jesus drank wine, as may be seen from Mt. 11:19; Lk. 7:34 (Jesus as οἰνοπότης). According to Mk. 2:18–22 and par. Jesus justified His conduct on the ground that the time when the bridegroom is present is one of festivity. Jesus is more than a Nazirite; hence the corresponding OT regulations do not apply to Him. He explains this in the parable of the new wine and the old skins, Mk. 2:22 and par.The new which he brings cannot be mixed with the old. Lk. 5:39 added the difficult saying: καὶ οὐδεὶς πιὼν παλαιὸν θέλει νέον· λέγει γάρ· ὁ παλαιὸς χρηστός ἐστιν.^[8]

John was too much of an ascetic, and Jesus was too much of a libertine (in the Pharisees’ definition of the term). Neither extreme could make the religious leaders happy.^[9] When Jesus came, they said, “He’s too smooth! He parties, you know. And goes around with sinners.”^[10]Jesus mingled with the people and preached a gracious message of salvation, and they said, “He’s a glutton, a winebibber, and a friend of publicans and sinners!”^[11] 7:34 The accusation that Jesus was a glutton and drunkard came from the Jewish authorities. Though He undoubtedly mixed with the less-than-respectable, there is no indication that the charges of gluttony and drunkenness were anything more than caricature.^[12]Jesus was eating and drinkingJesus did not fast like the disciples of John (see 5:33), and He was not under a Nazirite vow like John was. Furthermore, He frequently dined with tax collectors and sinners—those whom He came to save (see 5:27–32).^[13]The reproach belonged to the general way of our Lord’s way of living, consorting as he did with men and women in the common everyday lite of man, sharing in their joys as in their sorrows, in their festivity as in their mourning. But the words specially refer to his taking part in such scenes as the feast in the house of Matthew the publican.^[14]The rejection of the gospel message is not due to the form of its presentation. John preached the gospel while living an ascetic life-style (Luke 5:33a). Jesus preached the gospel in the joy of the kingdom’s arrival, but both were rejected (5:33b–35). Neither satisfied the wishes of this generation because their message was the same. Both preached a message of repentance (cf. 3:3, 8 and 5:32; 13:3, 5), and both offered salvation to the outcasts (cf. 3:12–14 with 4:18; 5:27–32; 7:22).^[15]Besides, while Christ accommodated himself to the usages of ordinary life, he maintained a sobriety truly divine, and did not encourage the excesses of others by his dissimulation or by his example.^[16] Paul does not use the term much. In R. 14:21 he recommends total abstinence from flesh and wine should the weaker brother be upset about eating and drinking.^21[17]A moderate use of wine can be beneficial to health, 1 Tm. 5:23;^[18]

Conclusion

Jesus reached out to a generation who said of John the Baptist, “He has a demon,”and who said of Jesus, he “is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and ‘sinners’ ” (7:33–34). They rejected the message of the one who was to prepare the way for the Messiah, and they did not receive the one who came to be a redemptive friend of sinners, like they were. But His heart was still moved with compassion toward them. He still healed and preached the good news to a generation of needy people.^[19]

Question: "Did Jesus drink wine/alcohol?"

Question: "Did Jesus drink wine/alcohol?"

Answer: There is only one group of people who are explicitly told in the Bible to never drink wine/alcohol, and that is the Nazirites (Numbers 6:1–4). Jesus was not a Nazirite; He was a “Nazarene,” a native of the town of Nazareth (Luke 18:37). Jesus never took the Nazirite vow. 

Christ’s first miracle of turning water into wine at the wedding at Cana almost certainly involved a fermented beverage. According to Jewish wedding tradition, fermented wine was always served at weddings; if Jesus had provided only grape juice, the master of the feast would have complained. Instead, he said the wine was better than what was previously served; it was apparently a “fine” wine (John 2:10–11).

The Greek word for “drunk” in John 2:10 is methuo, which means “to be drunken” or intoxicated. It is the same word used in Acts 2:15 where Peter is defending the apostles against accusations of drunkenness. The testimony of the master of the feast is that the wine Christ produced was able to intoxicate.

Of course, just because Jesus turned water into wine doesn’t prove that He drank the wine at the wedding, but it would have been normal for Him to do so. What it does prove is that Jesus doesn’t condemn drinking wine any more than He condemns eating bread. Sinful people abuse what is not inherently sinful. Bread and wine are not sinful, but gluttony and drunkenness are (Proverbs 23:2; Ephesians 5:18). 

In Luke 7:33–44, Jesus said, “For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’” (emphasis added). In verse 33 Jesus is making a contrast between John the Baptist’s “drinking no wine” and His own practice. Jesus goes on to say the religious leaders accused Him (falsely) of being a drunkard. Jesus was never a drunkard, any more than He was a glutton. He lived a completely sinless life (1 Peter 2:22); however Luke 7 strongly suggests that Jesus did indeed partake of alcoholic wine.

The Passover celebration would also have commonly included fermented wine. The Scriptures use the term “fruit of the vine” (Matthew 26:27–29; Mark 14:23–25; Luke 22:17–18). Of course, Christ participated in drinking from the Passover cup (Mark 14:23).

All Christians would agree drunkenness is sinful, and Christ Himself warns against it (Luke 12:45). However, a biblical view of wine is that it is given as something to delight in (Psalm 104:14–15). There are plenty of warnings against alcohol abuse, in texts like Proverbs 20:1, because sinful men are more likely to abuse wine than to use it in moderation. Those who try to use Jesus’ probable use of wine to excuse their drunkenness should heed the warning in Luke 12:45. Christians who want to keep a biblical view of drinking wine should either drink in moderation, never to drunkenness, or abstain totally.

read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-drink-wine.html

Sunday Quote: J. Gresham Machen on False Ideas

"False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation to be controlled by ideas […] which prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion."

- J. Gresham Machen, "Christianity and Culture," Princeton Theological Review 11 (1913): 7.