Are Bible Translators Traitors?

A famous Italian proverb declares “traduttore, traditore,” which means, “translator, traitor.” Those who assume this is true are unaware [of] how difficult it is to produce a translation. Every translator at some point invariably discards the meaning of the original text.

A committee of scholars assembled to produce a translation typically adopts an overarching philosophy of translation. In simplest terms, there are two. The first is called “formal equivalence,” which seeks to account for virtually every word in the original text by producing its English counterpart in translation. This is “word-for-word” or “literal” translation. The second is called “dynamic equivalence.” This approach seeks to capture the thought of the original verse in context, and then re-create that thought using whatever English words are most precise. This is “thought-for-thought” translation. But adopting an approach does not mean that all the translators will apply it equally. There is also a matter of interpretation. When the biblical text allows more than one translation due to ambiguity in the context, grammar, or word usage, a translator needs to make his or her own decision—which can lead to controversy.

First Corinthians 7:1 is illustrative of the potential hazard.

ESV

“It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

NASB

“It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”

NIV

“It is good for a man not to marry.”

NLT

“It is good to live a celibate life.”

The most “word-for-word” of these translations is that of the NASB, which captures the literal reading of the Greek words in the verse, particularly the verb “touch” (ἅπτοιαι, haptomai). Other translations move away from the ambiguous “touch” to “have sexual relations with” (ESV).

The most controversial renderings are the NIV (“It is good for a man not to marry”) and the NLT (“It is good to live a celibate life”). How is it that the translators could go from a Greek word that means “touch” to these options?

The answer is that the translators factored in what was presumed to be the wider context of the chapter and, ultimately, the writer. In 1 Corinthians 7:7–8, Paul describes himself as single. His advice to the Corinthians in several places is that it would be wiser for those who are not married to remain unmarried (1 Cor 7:7–8, 26–27) because of an undefined “present distress” (7:26). This context is presumed in 7:1 by the NIV and NLT.

These translations are certainly plausible but still problematic. While Paul notes a “present distress” in 7:27, can we be certain that Paul was thinking of that distress in 7:1? Might Paul have been thinking about sexual morality instead? The verses that immediately follow 7:1 speak frankly of sexual temptation (7:2–4). If morality was on Paul’s mind, then the ESV is more on target. The point would then be an admonition to avoid sexual contact outside of marriage, not to avoid marriage itself.

Translation isn’t just a matter of matching words of one language to words of another. Rather than consider Bible translators as traitors, we need to be sympathetic to their burden. Reading multiple translations can reveal the complexities of the process.

***

Dr. Michael S. Heiser is a scholar-in-residence for Faithlife, the makers of Logos Bible Software. He is the author of The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible and has taught many Mobile Ed courses, including Problems in Biblical Interpretation: Difficult Passages I.

This article is excerpted from Dr. Heiser’s book I Dare You Not to Bore Me with the Bible.

Important Assignment for Rev Dr. Quek Swee Hwa and Rev Phillip Heng

Both senior pastors may invite Charles and Jeffrey for an afternoon tea, and for a total reconciliation between the two of them. We need peacemakers like them.

Even South Korea is befriending North Korea. What about BPC in Singapore ???

So, you want to be a textual scholar?

The Bibles we read today come from different manuscripts that don't always match. That creates a problem if you're translating the Scriptures from Hebrew or Greek into English (or any other language).

Which manuscript should you follow?

With the Old Testament, for example, you're working from three equally important textual traditions (see pages 32—34). When these manuscripts don't agree, how do you decide which version to translate? This is where the painstaking work of textual criticism comes in.

When comparing the same passage in different manuscripts, there are basically two kinds of variations (or variants) that might occur during the copying process:

• a change the scribe made unintentionally (in other words, a mistake);

• a change the scribe made intentionally.

Of course, some changes can't be categorized either way. To determine which reading should carry more weight, the textual critic looks closely at the nature of the variation.

UNINTENTIONAL CHANGES

Scribes do make mistakes. They're only human, after all. Here are some specific examples of unintentional changes that could have happened when scribes were copying ancient manuscripts.

TRANSPOSED LETTERS: Sometimes a scribe seems to have mixed up two letters. One likely example can be seen in these two readings of Proverbs 14:32:

REVISED STANDARD VERSION, FOLLOWING THE SEPTUAGINT	ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION, FOLLOWING THE MASORETIC TEXT
The wicked is overthrown through his evil-doing, but the righteous finds refuge through his integrity.	The wicked is overthrown through his evildoing, but the righteous finds refuge in his death.

At the end of the verse, the Hebrew text behind the Septuagint reads (bétümmö; "in his integrity"), while the Masoretic Text reads (bémötö; "in his death"). So the difference between these variants is only two letters.

IN HIS INTEGRITY in.lnz ininz IN HIS DEATH

While most English translations follow the Masoretic Text, scholars are divided over which reading is original. (For an explanation of the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text, see pages 33—34.)

MISTAKEN LETTERS: Some letters in the Hebrew alphabet look alike, and scribes could easily get them confused. For example, Genesis 10:4 identifies a group of people known as the "Dodanim" ( ). However, 1 Chronicles 1:7 refers to the same group as the "Rodanim" ( ). Most scholars think 1 Chronicles 1:7, with Hebrew letter "1 (resh, "r"), is correct and that Genesis 10:4 reflects a mistake using the similar-looking letter -T (dalet, "d").

DIFFERENT VOWELS: Hebrew writing originally used only consonants. In the Middle Ages, a system was created to indicate the vowels by adding tiny dots and dashes above and below the consonant characters. Proverbs 10:24 ends with the consonants y, t, and n. The Masoretic Text shows the vowels as i and e, but the reading reflected in ancient Aramaic translations suggests the vowels u and a. Many English translations continue to follow this ancient understanding of the meaning of the verse.

READING IN THE MASORETIC TEXT	READING REFLECTED IN ARAMAIC TRANSLATIONS
yiten he will grant the desire ofthe righteous	yutan the desire of the righteous will be granted

WORD DIVISION: "God is nowhere." That's a great message! But wait—maybe someone really meant to write "God is nowhere." This kind of mistake was easy to make when copying long passages of Scripture. Here's an example from Hosea 11:2 involving different ways of spacing the Hebrew letters. Following the Septuagint, the New Revised Standard Version has "They went away from me." But following the spacing in the Masoretic Text, the New American Standard Bible has "They went away from them."

NEW REVISED STANDARD VERSION, FOLLOWING THE SEPTUAGINT	NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE, FOLLOWING THE MASORETIC TEXT
They went away from me. (literally "from before me, they")	They went away from them. (literally "from before them")

EYE SKIP: In the copying process, a scribe is constantly looking from a source manuscript to the copy he's making and back to the source. In returning to the source, he looks for the word or phrase he just copied, to see what comes next.

An eye skip happens when the scribe goes back to the right word or phrase, but it's at a later spot in the text. When he starts copying from the new spot, any material in between gets lost.

Look at Leviticus 4:25—26 and notice that the two underlined phrases are identical:

25 Then the priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of its blood at the base of the altar of burnt offering. 26 And all its fat he shall burn on the altar ...

This quotation is from the English Standard Version, based on the Septuagint. But the words in red are missing from the Masoretic Text because a scribe skipped them. Looking at the source text, he saw the Hebrew phrase mizbach ha'olah ("altar of burnt offering") and wrote it down on his copy. Then, when he looked back at the source text to see what came next, his eyes went to the second occurrence of the phrase and started copying from there. He jumped ahead to verse 26 before he had finished verse 25.

HOMOPHONES: These are words that sound alike even though they are spelled differently, like "there," "their," and "they're." Homophones could lead to errors when scribes were copying a manuscript that was being read aloud to them. For example, the two Hebrew words below sound exactly the same, "10," but they mean entirely different things.

The word on the left is a prepositional phrase with a suffix, meaning "to him" or "for him"; the word on the right means "no." For a scribe taking dictation, it would have been easy to hear "LO" and write the wrong word (as appears to have happened at 1 Sam 2:16 and Isa 9:2).

HAPLOGRAPHY: This refers to omitting identical words or phrases that occur side by side. Basically, it amounts to writing once what should have been written twice.

In the Masoretic Text, the end of Judges 20:13 says,

"Benjamin [ , bnymn] were not willing to listen." The singular subject "Benjamin" doesn't match the plural verb "were," suggesting an omission. A note in the margin explains the error: the text should read "the sons of Benjamin [ , bny bnymn]," but the similarity between the two Hebrew words caused the scribe to skip the first one.

DITTOGRAPHY: This is essentially the opposite of haplography—writing twice what you should have written only once. Here's an example from the Masoretic Text of Leviticus 20:10:

If there is a man who commits adultery with the wife of a man who commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, he shall be put to death.

Some translations follow this reading exactly (for example, KJV, NASB); others regard the repeated phrase (in red) as a scribal mistake and omit it (ESV, NRSV).

INTENTIONAL CHANGES

In addition to making mistakes, scribes occasionally made deliberate changes to the text they were copying. Technically speaking, there are four types of intentional variants.

TlaaUNE SOPHERIM: This is Hebrew for "emendations of the scribes," and the scribes actually provide a list of the things they changed intentionally. There are 18 of these in the Hebrew Bible, according to scribal tradition.

ITTURE SOPHERIM: This means "omissions of the scribes"— things they left out.

GLOSSES: Sometimes a scribe may have added a word or phrase to the text to explain something he thought would be too difficult for a reader to understand.

EUPHEMISMS: If a scribe thought the original text was risqué or indelicate, sometimes he might substitute a different word or phrase.

There are some well-known examples of intentional variants, because the scribes more or less give us a heads up to what they're doing. Habakkuk 1:12 is an interesting example of tiqqune sopherim. The Masoretic scribal tradition informs us that the text originally read "You will not die" —with "You" referring to Yahweh. But in many Masoretic manuscripts, the phrase was changed to "We will not die"—and chances are that's what you'll find in your English translation. Somewhere along the way, a scribe or a scribal school thought it was offensive to suggest that God could die. They changed the text, but they left a little notation to explain the change.

Another example of tiqqune sopherim occurs in 1 Samuel 3:13. The King James Version says the wicked sons of Eli "made themselves vile," but the English Standard Version says they "were blaspheming God." These are two quite different translations. The Hebrew has three consonants reading "were blaspheming themselves" (on}, meaning "for themselves," "about themselves," "with respect to themselves")—hence the KJV reads "made themselves vile." But the original text actually had five consonants. If we fill in the other two, we get the word "God"

KING JAMES VERSION, FOLLOWING THE TlaaUNE SOPHERIM	ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION, FOLLOWING THE ORIGINAL TEXT
for his sons were cursing themselves	for his sons were cursing God

So the original text had the sons of Eli blaspheming God, and at some point a scribe thought that idea was too offensive to reproduce. By deleting two consonants, the scribe changed the wording and the meaning.

EVALUATING TEXTUAL VARIANTS

With many variants, it's hard to say whether the scribe intended to make a change. If we can't really tell that it's an unintentional error, and if the scribes haven't told us it's something they changed on purpose, what are we supposed to do? Here are some principles that textual critics have developed to guide their work:

PREFER THE OLDER READING: Generally, older manuscripts are considered more reliable than later manuscripts because they are closer in time to the original composition—which means there have been fewer opportunities for copying errors to occur. However, even our oldest manuscripts are copies, so this principle has limitations. An early manuscript can still include errors or deliberate changes.

PREFER THE READING FOUND IN MULTIPLE MANUSCRIPTS: If a particular reading is found in just one manuscript, it's less likely to represent the original. Normally we can expect the best and oldest reading to show up in more than one or two manuscripts. However, this guideline should be balanced with the previous one about the manuscript's age. Evidence from just a few older manuscripts might outweigh the evidence from many recent manuscripts. Scholars also might give more weight to a reading that appears in multiple manuscripts across several textual traditions.l PREFER THE DIFFICULT READING: One principle (called lectio dificilior in Latin) says the more difficult reading is probably the original. There's some logic to this idea: a scribe would tend to simplify as he copied a text, not make it harder.

PREFER THE SHORTER READING: Ascribe would tend to add words to explain the meaning, not take words out—so the original is more likely to be the shorter reading (called lectio brevior). However, by lengthening the reading, the scribe often made it more difficult—so the principles of lectio diffcilior and lectio brevior sometimes work against each other.

PREFER THE READING THAT BEST FITS THE AUTHOR: This involves paying attention to an author's writing style. Remember, Hebrew developed over time, just like any other language. If you're in a passage full of older ways of writing and you find a variant reflecting a newer style, chances are that a scribe has "corrected" the writer's old usage.

A similar approach can be applied to an author's vocabulary. If one manuscript uses WordA where another uses Word B, which word is original? Well, if Word B is never used by that author anywhere else, it's a good bet that the original is Word A.

The literary forms and techniques can also give us clues. In some cases, the author is doing something deliberate in the structure of the text that can help us discern the original reading.

No one's omniscient. No textual scholar can look you in the eye and say, "We have reproduced the original text exactly—in every word, every syllable."But in most cases, scholars can tell with a high degree of certainty what the text would have originally said—or at least they can give a highly educated guess. They can say, "You know, we have a really good idea that the text we're now presenting for modern study and scholarship is very close to what would have been the original content of the Bible."

****On a related note, here's a guideline not to follow: Some textual scholars choose to follow the Masoretic Text simply because it's the Masoretic Text. They've just decided this tradition has a special heritage that gives it priority over other traditions. But this is not a good rule of thumb, because sometimes the Masoretic Text can be shown to have a copying error. Moreover, even within the Masoretic tradition, there are differences between manuscripts.

Adapted from Michael S. Heiser, "OT 281: How We Got the Old Testament," Logos Mobile Education (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), and from Amy Anderson and WendyWidder, Textual Criticism of the Bible, rev. ed., Lexham Methods Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, forthcoming; see facing page for pre-order information).

Keep Watching

REFLECTIONS FROM THE CHURCH FATHERS

Christ the Mountain. AUGUSTINE: The central place they are all coming to is Christ; he is at the center, because he is equally related to all; anything placed in the center is common to all.… Approach the mountain, climb up the mountain, and you that climb it, do not go down it. There you will be safe, there you will be protected; Christ is your mountain of refuge. And where is Christ? At the right hand of the Father, since he has ascended into heaven. Sermon 62A.3.

Forgiveness Begins in Jerusalem. BEDE: It was opportune that the preaching of repentance and the forgiveness of sins through confession of Christ’s name should have started from Jerusalem. Where the splendor of his teaching and virtues, where the triumph of his passion, where the joy of his resurrection and ascension were accomplished, there the first root of faith in him would be brought forth; [there] the first shoot of the burgeoning church, like that of some kind of great vine, would be planted.… It was opportune that the preaching of repentance and the forgiveness of sins, good news to be proclaimed to idolatrous nations and those defiled by various evil deeds, should take its start from Jerusalem, lest any of those defiled, thoroughly terrified by the magnitude of their offenses, should doubt the possibility of obtaining pardon if they performed fruits worthy of repentance, when it was a fact that pardon had been granted to those at Jerusalem who had blasphemed and crucified the Son of God. Homilies on the Gospels 2.15.

Peace Through Christ. ANTHANSIUS: Who is the one who has done this, or who is the one who has joined together in peace people who once hated one another, except for the beloved Son of the Father, the Savior of all, even Jesus Christ, who because of his own love suffered all things for our salvation? For from ages past the peace he would initiate was promised. On The Incarnation 52.1.

Walk in the Light. JEROME: For all who do evil hate the light and fail to come to the light lest their works be proven. But you, the house of Jacob, the house of my people, come with me and let us walk together in the light of the Lord. Let us accept the gospel of Christ and be illuminated by him who said, “I am the light of the world.” Commentary on Isaiah 1.2.5–6.

Thomas C. Oden and Cindy Crosby, eds., Ancient Christian Devotional: A Year of Weekly Readings: Lectionary Cycle A (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2007), 11–12.

Melted down in mutual forgiveness and reconciliation

Insofar as the writer is concerned, he and senior colleagues of the B-P Church had gone through the mighty revival meetings led by Dr. John Sung in Singapore 1935. The working of the Holy Spirit was so manifest that hundreds came to the Lord, confessing their sins in tears of repentance and restitution. Drunkards and opium smokers, cigarette chain-smokers, were delivered snap from their iron-clad shackles. Feuding elders and deacons were melted down in mutual forgiveness and reconciliation. The Church Hall at Telok Ayer Street, where John Sung preached, suddenly became a powerhouse of prayer and praise, of hearty singing and joyful release...

Timothy Tow, BP Faith, n.d. 81

Reconciliation

Seek reconciliation at once. Remember love will not prevent misunderstandings or quarrels. Because we are human, seldom is husband or wife completely right or completely wrong. Any misunderstandings or quarrels should be settled immediately, on the same day they occur before going to bed at night. “...let not the sun go down upon your wrath” (Ephesians 4:26). Be humble enough to say, “I was wrong” followed closely by “I am sorry.” James says, “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another” (James 5:16). A successful marriage requires two sincere forgivers who can accept and forgive as God accepts and forgives us.

Timothy Tow, Counseling Recipe, n.d. 67

FEBC, TLBPC, LBPC, these are all BPC in Singapore, but they cannot reconcile and forgive one another, they are not loving one another, how come? Aren't they reformed?

Visions, Revelations, and Questions

September 25: Visions, Revelations, and Questions

Zechariah 6:1–7:14; Acts 22:22–23:22; Job 29:13–25

The prophets of old had visions and dreamed dreams. They experienced apocalyptic nightmares and witnessed breathtaking scenes of beauty. Perhaps most fascinating, though, is how they reacted. Zechariah provides us with an example of both the revelation and the proper response.

“I looked up again, and I saw, and look!—four chariots coming out from between two mountains, and the mountains were mountains of bronze.… And I answered and said to the angel that was talking to me, ‘What are these, my lord?’ And the angel answered and said to me, ‘These are the four winds of the heavens going out after presenting themselves before the Lord of all the earth’ ” (Zech 6:1–5).

Zechariah could not have understood what he was seeing, but he paid attention, and he asked questions. Although we may not experience visions as confounding as Zechariah’s, we certainly have the opportunity to be perplexed by God. Our response should be modeled after Zechariah’s: Ask questions and then act. Zechariah’s life was marked by asking and responding, and it made a difference for his generation. People came to God because Zechariah was willing to be God’s instrument.

How many people experience incredible revelations from God and then fail to respond? How many people come near enough to glimpse God’s plan but never pay close enough attention to receive it from Him? How much are we losing as individuals, and as people, because we don’t care enough to ask God for the answers?

What confusion or uncertainty can you overcome by asking questions?

JOHN D. BARRY

John D. Barry and Rebecca Kruyswijk, Connect the Testaments: A One-Year Daily Devotional with Bible Reading Plan (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012).

Spiritual Authority

• “To offend God’s authority is a rebellion far more serious than that of offending God’s holiness.” - Watchman Nee, Spiritual Authority

Be open minded

1. Don't become too harsh to those who are speaking in an unknown tongue.

2. Be open-minded in wine drinking.

3. Use a drum to celebrate your reunion.

4. Reconcile to one another as soon as possible, do not drag your feet.

5. I will come very soon to talk to you face to face.

words to FEBC TLBPC and LIFE BPC

Charles and Jeffrey, True Life BPC and Life BPC. Both of you are a twins brothers, but you are quarreling all the time.

And both of you are claiming you are Reformed pastors, you hate sin, that is good, but i find that you do not have love. Both of you are nothing in the sight of God. Your knowledge puffs up in pride. Return to your first love toward one another in Christ, especially those who are in Christ, take care of the poor and widow among you, then you will be called great in heaven, if not i will come to the church to rebuke you when you are standing and preaching at the pulpit. Do not think i am very far away from you, i am watching you by day and by night.

In Christ 

Drum

Whereas we use the organ or piano to enhance our singing, they use every instrument that Israel as a nation uses. They have their drums and cymbals. As to the guitar, we do not object as long as it is played with the right beat with solemnity.

Timothy Tow, Psalm, n.d.

 (√ of following; cf. 𝔗 תֻּפָּא Ex 15:20 timbrel, Arabic دُفٌّ (duffun) drum).

Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 1074.

Human interpretation

While the Bible is infallible, human interpretations are not. Even though God’s word is perfect (Ps. 19:7), as long as imperfect human beings exist, there will be misinterpretations of God’s Word and false views about his world. In view of this, one should not be hasty in assuming that a currently dominant assumption in science is the final word. Some of yesterday’s irrefutable laws are considered errors by today’s scientists. So, contradictions between popular opinions in science and widely accepted interpretations of the Bible can be expected. But this falls short of proving there is a real contradiction.

Baker Encyclodedia of Christian Apologetics

1 Co 14:2

For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth; but in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

1 Co 14:2.

1 Co 14:14.

For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 

1 Co 14:14.

Whereas speaking with tongues is of profit only for the one who speaks (→ I, 722, 15 f.), the prophet edifies the whole community. The prophet’s message is for all the members, while the man who speaks with tongues speaks to God and does not profit the whole body, 1 C. 14:2 f. It is true that human volition is not ruled out in the case of the man who speaks with tongues. When Paul himself does this, he is master of his actions, 1 C. 14:19. The man who speaks with tongues does not have to speak if he does not want, so that the number of those who speak with tongues at divine service may be fixed, 1 C. 14:27. But the understanding has no part (1 C. 14:14), and to those outside the man who speaks with tongues seems like a maniac, 1 C. 14:23 → IV, 959, 7 ff. Prophecy, on the other hand, is intelligible speech. The spiritual experience is worked out and presented by the prophet in intelligible form, so that what is said may be understood by all, including outsiders as well as members, 1 C. 14:24 f. → V, 141, 21 ff.

Gerhard Friedrich, “Προφήτης, Προφῆτις, Προφητεύω, Προφητεία, Προφητικός, Ψευδοπροφήτης,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 852.

Two instances of tongues-speaking as different in character.

Another difference between Acts and Corinthians is the relationship between tongues and unbelievers. The tongues of Acts 2 are an evangelistic tool that opens the door for unbelievers to come to Christ. However, in 1 Corinthians 14 Paul discourages the use of tongues in worship because of the potentially negative impact they might have on an unbeliever in their assembly (14:23). This contrast between Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 pushes us toward seeing the two instances of tongues-speaking as different in character.

Finally, the tongues of 1 Corinthians 14 are clearly ecstatic rather than a matter of thought, meaning that the tongues speaker at Corinth did not use his or her mind when speaking in them (14:14). They seemed to be having religious experiences in which they uttered unrecognizable sounds that they perhaps interpreted to be the “tongues of angels” (13:1). These were non-rational experiences that by-passed their minds and their thinking. A non-believer might have compared them to the frenzies of the Dionysian festivals or the mysteries of Eleusis, a town about fourteen miles northeast of Corinth. The word the NIV translates as “out of your mind” in 14:23 (mainomai) may refer to these kinds of religious experiences.

Tongues is apparently a phenomenon that has occurred in many different religions in the history of the world. You could argue that the non-Christian incidences are counterfeit experiences. But a more likely suggestion is that certain human brains are “wired” in this way while others are not. This possibility leads us to wonder whether at times some spiritual gifts are instances of God magnifying aspects of who we are naturally rather than God gifting us completely “from scratch.” Is the gift of faith God magnifying some aspect of us that was already there before we came to Christ? Is the gift of leadership the magnification of certain gifts that we had even before God sanctified them as His own?

Kenneth Schenck, 1 & 2 Corinthians: A Commentary for Bible Students (Indianapolis, IN: Wesleyan Publishing House, 2006), 191–192.

1 Cor 14:2, tongue speaking

For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

In the use of the word tongue, there is not a pleonasm, as in those expressions—“She spake thus with her mouth,” and “I caught the sound with these ears.” The term denotes a foreign language. The reason why he does not speak to men is—because no one heareth, that is, as an articulate voice. For all hear a sound, but they do not understand what is said.

John Calvin and John Pringle, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, vol. 1, 435.

The fourth petition

But by this petition we ask of God all things in general that our bodies have need to use under the elements of this world [Gal. 4:3], not only for food and clothing but also for everything God perceives to be beneficial to us, that we may eat our daily bread in peace. Briefly, by this we give ourselves over to his care, and entrust ourselves to his providence, that he may feed, nourish, and preserve us. For our most gracious Father does not disdain to take even our bodies under his safekeeping and guardianship in order to exercise our faith in these small matters, while we expect everything from him, even to a crumb of bread and a drop of water. For since it has come about in some way or other through our wickedness that we are affected and tormented with greater concern for body than for soul, many who venture to entrust the soul to God are still troubled about the flesh, still worry about what they shall eat, what they shall wear, and unless they have on hand abundance of wine, grain, and oil, tremble with apprehension. So much more does the shadow of this fleeting life mean to us than that everlasting immortality. Those who, relying upon God, have once for all cast out that anxiety about the care of the flesh, immediately expect from him greater things, even salvation and eternal life. It is, then, no light exercise of faith for us to hope for those things from God which otherwise cause us such anxiety. And we benefit greatly when we put off this faithlessness, which clings to the very bones of almost all men.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 908.

A certain man has abundant wine and grain

At the same time Paul’s statement is no less true, that we must “pray at all times” [Eph. 6:18; 1 Thess. 5:17]. For however much after our heart’s desire affairs may prosperously flow and occasion for happiness surround us on all sides, still there is no point of time when our need does not urge us to pray. A certain man has abundant wine and grain. Since he cannot enjoy a single morsel of bread apart from God’s continuing favor, his wine cellars and granaries will not hinder him from praying for his daily bread. Now if we should consider how many dangers at every moment threaten, fear itself will teach us that we at no single time may leave off praying.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 857.

SPECIAL TOPIC: BIBLICAL ATTITUDES TOWARD ALCOHOL (FERMENTATION) AND ALCOHOLISM (ADDICTION)

SPECIAL TOPIC: BIBLICAL ATTITUDES TOWARD ALCOHOL (FERMENTATION) AND ALCOHOLISM (ADDICTION)

  I.      Biblical Terms

    A.      Old Testament

      1.      Yayin - This is the general term for wine, which is used 141 times. The etymology is uncertain because it is not from a Hebrew root. It always means fermented fruit juice, usually grape. Some typical passages are Gen. 9:21; Exod. 29:40; Num. 15:5, 10.

      2.      Tirosh - This is “new wine.” Because of climatic conditions of the Near East, fermentation started as soon as six hours after extracting the juice. This term refers to wine in the process of fermenting. For some typical passages, see Deut. 12:17; 18:4; Isa. 62:8–9; Hos. 4:11.

      3.      Asis - This is obviously alcoholic beverages (Joel 1:5; Isa. 49:26).

      4.      Sekar - This is the term “strong drink.” The Hebrew root is used in the term “drunk” or “drunkard.” It had something added to it to make it more intoxicating. It is parallel to yayin (cf. Prov. 20:1; 31:6; Isa. 28:7).

    B.      New Testament

      1.      Oinos - the Greek equivalent of yayiNeos oinos (new wine) - the Greek equivalent of tirosh (cf. Mark 2:22).

      2.      Gleuchos vinos (sweet wine) - wine in the early stages of fermentation (cf. Acts 2:13).

  II.      Biblical Usage

    A.      Old Testament

      1.      Wine is a gift of God (Gen. 27:28; Ps. 104:14–15; Eccl. 9:7; Hos. 2:8–9; Joel 2:19, 24; Amos 9:13; Zech. 10:7).

      2.      Wine is a part of a sacrificial offering (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 23:13; Num. 15:7, 10; 28:14; Deut. 14:26; Judg. 9:13).

      3.      Wine is used as medicine (2 Sam. 16:2; Prov. 31:6–7).

      4.      Wine can be a real problem (Noah- Gen. 9:21; Lot- Gen. 19:33, 35; Samson- Judg. 16:19; Nabal- 1 Sam. 25:36; Uriah- 2 Sam. 11:13; Ammon- 2 Sam. 13:28; Elah- 1 Kin. 16:9; Benhadad- 1 Kin. 20:12; Rulers- Amos 6:6; and Ladies- Amos 4).

      5.      Wine can be abused (Prov. 20:1; 23:29–35; 31:4–5; Isa. 5:11, 22; 19:14; 28:7–8; Hosea 4:11).

      6.      Wine was prohibited to certain groups (Priests on duty, Lev. 10:9; Ezek. 44:21; Nazarites, Num. 6; and Rulers, Prov. 31:4–5; Isa. 56:11–12; Hosea 7:5).

      7.      Wine is used in an eschatological setting (Amos 9:13; Joel 3:18; Zech. 9:17).

    B.      Interbiblical

      1.      Wine in moderation is very helpful (Ecclesiasticus 31:27–30).

      2.      The rabbis say, “Wine is the greatest of all medicine, where wine is lacking, then drugs are needed.” (BB 58b).

    C.      New Testament

      1.      Jesus changed a large quantity of water into wine (John 2:1–11).

      2.      Jesus drank wine (Matt. 11:18–19; Luke 7:33–34; 22:17ff).

      3.      Peter was accused of drunkenness on “new wine” at Pentecost (Acts 2:13).

      4.      Wine can be used as medicine (Mark 15:23; Luke 10:34; 1 Tim. 5:23).

      5.      Leaders are not to be abusers. This does not mean total abstainers (1 Tim. 3:3, 8; Titus 1:7; 2:3; 1 Pet. 4:3).

      6.      Wine used in eschatological settings (Matt. 22:1ff; Rev. 19:9).

      7.      Drunkenness is deplored (Matt. 24:49; Luke 11:45; 21:34; 1 Cor. 5:11–13; 6:10; Gal. 5:21; 1 Pet. 4:3; Rom. 13:13–14).

  III.      Theological Insight

    A.      Dialectical tension

      1.      Wine is a gift from God.

      2.      Drunkenness is a major problem.

      3.      Believers in some cultures must limit their freedoms for the sake of the gospel (Matt. 15:1–20; Mark 7:1–23; 1 Cor. 8–10; Rom. 14:1–15:13).

    B.      Tendency to go beyond given bounds

      1.      God is the source of all good things (creation is “very good,” Gen. 1:31).

      2.      Fallen mankind has abused all of God’s gifts by taking them beyond God-given bounds.

    C.      Abuse is in us, not in things. There is nothing evil in the physical creation (cf. Mark 7:18–23; Rom. 14:14, 20; 1 Cor. 10:25–26; 1 Tim. 4:4; Titus 1:15).

  IV.      First Century Jewish Culture and Fermentation

    A.      Fermentation begins very soon, approximately 6 hours after the grape is crushed, especially in hot climates with non-hygienic conditions.

    B.      Jewish tradition says that when a slight foam appeared on the surface (sign of fermentation), it is liable to the wine-tithe (Ma aseroth 1:7). It was called “new wine” or “sweet wine.”

    C.      The primary violent fermentation was complete after one week.

    D.      The secondary fermentation took about 40 days. At this state it is considered “aged wine” and could be offered on the altar (Edhuyyoth 6:1).

    E.      Wine that had rested on its lees (old wine) was considered good, but it had to be strained well before use.

    F.      Wine was considered to be properly aged usually after one year of fermentation. Three years was the longest period of time that wine could be safely stored. It was called “old wine” and had to be diluted with water.

    G.      Only in the last 100 years with a sterile environment and chemical additives has fermentation been postponed. The ancient world could not stop the natural process of fermentation.

  V.      Closing Statements

    A.      Be sure your experience, theology, and biblical interpretation do not depreciate Jesus and first century Jewish and/or Christian culture! They were obviously not total abstainers.

    B.      I am not advocating the social use of alcohol. However, many have overstated the Bible’s position on this subject and now claim superior righteousness based on a cultural/denominational bias.

    C.      For me, Romans 14:1–15:13 and 1 Corinthians 8–10 have provided insight and guidelines based on love and respect for fellow believers and the spread of the gospel in every culture, not personal freedom or judgmental criticism. If the Bible is the only source for faith and practice, then maybe we must all rethink this issue.

    D.      If we push total abstinence as God’s will, what do we imply about Jesus, as well as believers in modern cultures that regularly use wine (e.g. Europe, Israel, Argentina)?


Robert James Utley, The Gospel according to Luke, vol. Volume 3A, Study Guide Commentary Series (Marshall, TX: Bible Lessons International, 2004), Lk 22:18.

ELDERS

ELDERS

Timothy is to have a special responsibility for the elders of the church (5:17–25). They are to be honoured for their work as preachers and teachers—and properly paid. They are also to be protected from gossip and slander. If they are guilty of misbehaviour they must be rebuked publicly, because they bear public responsibility.

It is vital that those who preach and teach the gospel shall live a pure and open life. For this reason, time and care must be taken in appointing elders. Some attitudes and actions (both bad and good) don’t come to light until much later. Timothy must be careful of his own life, too but he should certainly allow himself a little wine!

Andrew Knowles, The Bible Guide, 1st Augsburg books ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 2001), 651.