The Religion That Started in a Hat

Does the Bible forbid the use of alcohol? A Primer                                      by Jack Kettler

As in previous studies, we will look at definitions, scriptures, commentary evidence, lexical proof, and confessional support for the purpose to glorify God in how we live.

Our study starts with the opinion that the Scriptures do not forbid a Christian from drinking beer, wine, or any other drink containing alcohol in moderation. This week’s study will be a survey of Scriptures relevant to the topic. For those who disagree with the above opinion, there is no agenda to convince people to violate their conscience.

How many times do the Scriptures mention wine? One word search for wine brought up 212 verses. Because of the large number of entries on the topic of just wine, this study will be limited.

Contemporary Definitions:

Wine is the alcoholic fermented juice of fresh grapes used as a beverage.

Grape Juice is the usually sterilized and often diluted juice of grapes used as a beverage.

Wine and grape juice are two different drinks. Today this assessment is undebatable.

The Scriptures do they confuse or enlighten?

Jesus and wine:

“For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!” (Luke 7:33-34)

Did Jesus drink fermented wine? Notice the contrast between John the Baptist and Jesus. John came neither eating bread nor drinking wine. The Pharisees called Jesus a winebibber [drunkard]. A person cannot get drunk on grape juice. Jesus did not get drunk, but the accusation of the Pharisees about Jesus being a winebibber underscores the point that wine in Jesus’s day was fermented.

Jesus began his public life by miraculously turning water into real fermented wine at the Wedding at Cana when the party ran out of its supply. In John 2:1-10 where the ruler of the feast said in verse 10: “And saith unto him, every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.”

“Kept the good wine until now” is meaningless if the wine was just grape juice. Wine is not grape juice. To say that wine is always grape juice in Scripture is to accuse God of using inaccurate language. As Christians, we have a coherent theory of knowledge. God has spoken. God speaks to us in the Scriptures with human language utilizing logically structured sentences in which He tells us the difference between right and wrong and the ability to distinguish between things. The meaning of Scripture is the same for God and man. In the encyclopedia and dictionary entries below, different types of wine and juice will be surveyed.

The wine Jesus made was real wine as seen from Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:

“10. the good wine … until now—thus testifying, while ignorant of the source of supply, not only that it was real wine, but better than any at the feast.” (1)

Wine and Communion:

“For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.” (Luke 2

In this passage from Luke, we see that after the Passover Last Supper, which was the institution of communion Jesus, said, “from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom comes.”

In Jewish life, wine’s symbolic importance is in the Passover, the ceremonial meal called the Seder is observed to this day. In the Seder, the adults drink four cups of wine, representing the redemption of the Israelites from slavery under the Egyptians. In the Jewish ceremonial Seder, real wine is used, not grape juice.

Wine is and has been used during religious occasions such as Passover and the Lord’s Supper.

Wine is used as a sacrament in a majority of church services around the world by the very command of Christ himself.

Wine as a blessing in Scripture:

“And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?” (Judges 9:13)

“Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.” (Isaiah 55:1)

“The LORD hath sworn by his right hand, and by the arm of his strength, surely I will no more give thy corn to be meat for thine enemies; and the sons of the stranger shall not drink thy wine, for which thou hast laboured. But they that have gathered it shall eat it, and praise the LORD; and they that have brought it together shall drink it in the courts of my holiness.” (Isaiah 62:8-9)

“Thou hast put gladness in my heart, more than in the time that their corn and their wine increased.” (Psalm 4:7)

“And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengthened man’s heart.” (Psalm 104:15)

“He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; and wine that maketh glad the heart of man and oil to make his face to shineth.” (Psalms 104:14-15)

“Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.” (Proverbs 31:6)

“Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.” (Ecclesiastes 9:7)

“And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.” (Amos 9:14)

“Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.” (1Timothy 5:23)

Liberty:

“Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” (I Corinthians 10:31)

The following two entries from an encyclopedia and dictionary provide an excellent overview of wine in the Scriptures:

An abbreviated entry on wine from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:

(1) (~yayin), apparently from a non-Tsere root allied to Greek oinos, Latin vinum, etc. This is the usual word for “wine” and is found 141 times in Massoretic Text. (2) chemer, perhaps “foaming” (De 32:14 and Massoretic Text Isa 27:2 (but see the English Revised Version margin)); Aramaic chamar (Ezra 6:9; 7:22; Da 5:1-2,4, 23). (3) tirosh. Properly this is the fresh grape juice (called also mishreh, Nu 6:3), even when still in the grape (Isa 65:8). But unfermented grape juice is a very difficult thing to keep without the aid of modern antiseptic precautions, and its preservation in the warm and not over-cleanly conditions of ancient Palestine was impossible. Consequently, tirosh came to mean wine that was not fully aged (although with full intoxicating properties (Judges 9:13; Ho 4:11; compare Ac 11:13)) or wine when considered specifically as the product of grapes (De 12:17; 18:4, etc.). The Septuagint always (except Isa 65:8; Ho 4:11) translates by oinos and the Targums by chamar. the King James Version has “wine” 26 times, “new wine” 11 times, “sweet wine” in Mic 6:15; the Revised Version (British and American) “vintage” in Nu 18:12; Mic 6:15 (with the same change in Ne 10:37,39 the Revised Version margin; Isa 62:8 the English Revised Version margin). Otherwise, the English Revised Version has left the King James Version unchanged, while the American Standard Revised Version uses “new wine” throughout. (4) Two apparently poetic words are `acic (the Revised Version (British and American) “sweet wine,” Isa 49:26; Am 9:13; Joe 1:5; 3:18, “juice”; Song 8:2), and cobhe’ (“wine,” Isa 1:22; “drink,” Ho 4:18 (margin “carouse”); Na 1:10). (5) For spiced wine three words occur: mecekh, Ps 75:8 (English Versions of the Bible “mixture”); mimcakh, Proverbs 23:30 (“mixed wine”); Isa 65:11 (the Revised Version (British and American) “mingled wine”); mezegh, Song 7:2 (the Revised Version (British and American) “mingled wine”); compare also yayin hareqach, Song 8:2 (“spiced wine”). (6) mamethaqqim, literally, “sweet,” Ne 8:10.

(7) shekhar (22 times), translated “strong drink” in English Versions of the Bible. Shekhar appears to mean “intoxicating drink” of any sort and in Nu 28:7 is certainly simply “wine” (compare also its use in parallelism to “wine” in Isa 5:11, 22, etc.). In certain passages (Le 10:9; Nu 6:3; 1Sa 1:15, etc.), however, it is distinguished from “wine,” and the meaning is not quite certain. But it would seem to mean “drink not made from grapes.” Of such only pomegranate wine is named in the Bible (Song 8:2), but a variety of such preparations (made from apples, quinces, dates, barley, etc.) were known to the ancients and must have been used in Palestine also. The translation “strong drink” is unfortunate, for it suggests “distilled liquor,” “brandy,” which is hardly in point.

4. Fermentation:

In the climate of Palestine, fermentation begins almost immediately, frequently on the same day for juice pressed out in the morning, but never later than the next day. At first a slight foam appears on the surface of the liquid, and from that moment, according to Jewish tradition, it is liable to the wine-tithe (Ma`aseroth 1 7). The action rapidly becomes more violent, and while it is in progress the liquid must be kept in jars or in a vat, for it would burst even the newest and strongest of wine-skins (Job 32:19). Within about a week this violent fermentation subsides, and the wine is transferred to other jars or strong wine-skins (Mark 2:22 and parallel’s), in which it undergoes the secondary fermentation. At the bottom of the receptacles collects the heavier matter or “lees” (shemarim, Ps 75:8 (“dregs”); Jeremiah 48:11; Zep 1:12 in Isa 25:6 the word is used for the wine as well), from which the “wines on the lees” gather strength and flavor.

At the end of 40 days it was regarded as properly “wine” and could be offered as a drink offering (`Edhuyyoth 6 1). The practice after this point seems to have varied, no doubt depending on the sort of wine that was being made. Certain kinds were left undisturbed to age “on their lees” and were thought to be all the better for so doing, but before they were used it was necessary to strain them very carefully. So Isa 25:6, `A feast of wine aged on the lees, thoroughly strained.’ But usually leaving the wine in the fermentation vessels interfered with its improvement or caused it to degenerate. So at the end of 40 days it was drawn off into other jars (for storage, 1Ch 27:27, etc.) or wine-skins (for transportation, Jos 9:4, etc.). So Jeremiah 48:11: `Moab has been undisturbed from his youth, and he has rested on his lees and has not been emptied from vessel to vessel. …. Therefore his flavor remains unchanged (or “becomes insipid”) and his scent is unimproved (or “lacks freshness”)’; compare Zep 1:12.”  Burton Scott Easton (2)

 Another entry from Easton’s Bible Dictionary – Wine

Ashishah (2Samuel 6:19; 1Chronicles 16:3; Cant 2:5; Hosea 3:1), which, however, rather denotes a solid cake of pressed grapes, or, as in the Revised Version, a cake of raisins.

‘Asis, “sweet wine,” or “new wine,” the product of the same year (Cant 8:2; Isaiah 49:26 Joel 1:5; 3:18; Amos 9:13), from a root meaning “to tread,” hence juice trodden out or pressed out, thus referring to the method by which the juice is obtained. The power of intoxication is ascribed to it.

Hometz. See VINEGAR.

Hemer, Deuteronomy 32:14 (rendered “blood of the grape”) Isaiah 27:2 (“red wine”), Ezra 6:9; 7:22; Daniel 5:1 Daniel 5:2 Daniel 5:4. This word conveys the idea of “foaming,” as in the process of fermentation, or when poured out. It is derived from the root hamar, meaning “to boil up,” and also “to be red,” from the idea of boiling or becoming inflamed.

‘Enabh, a grape (Deuteronomy 32:14). The last clause of this verse should be rendered as in the Revised Version, “and of the blood of the grape [‘enabh] thou drankest wine [hemer].” In Hosea 3:1, the phrase in Authorized Version, “flagons of wine,” is in the Revised Version correctly “cakes of raisins.” (Compare Genesis 49:11; Numbers 6:3; Deuteronomy 23:24, etc., where this Hebrew word is rendered in the plural “grapes.”)

Mesekh, properly a mixture of wine and water with spices that increase its stimulating properties (Isaiah 5:22). Psalms 75:8, “The wine [yayin] is red; it is full of mixture [mesekh];” Proverbs 23:30, “mixed wine;” Isaiah 65:11, “drink offering” (RSV, “mingled wine”).

Tirosh, properly “must,” translated “wine” (Deuteronomy 28:51); “new wine” (Proverbs 3:10); “sweet wine” (Micah 6:15; RSV, “vintage”). This Hebrew word has been traced to a root meaning, “to take possession of” and hence it is supposed that tirosh is so designated because in intoxicating it takes possession of the brain. Among the blessings promised to Esau (Genesis 27:28) mention is made of “plenty of corn and tirosh.” Palestine is called “a land of corn and tirosh” (Deuteronomy 33:28; Compare Isaiah 36:17). See also Deuteronomy 28:51; 2Chronicles 32:28; Joel 2:19; Hosea 4:11, (“wine [yayin] and new wine [tirosh] take away the heart”).

Sobhe (root meaning, “to drink to excess,” “to suck up,” “absorb”), found only in Isaiah 1:22, Hosea 4:18 (“their drink;” Gesen. and marg. of RSV, “their carouse”), and Nahum 1:10 (“drunken as drunkards;” lit., “soaked according to their drink;” RSV, “drenched, as it were, in their drink”, i.e., according to their sobhe).

Shekar, “strong drink,” any intoxicating liquor, from a root meaning, “to drink deeply,” “to be drunken”, a generic term applied to all fermented liquors, however obtained. Numbers 28:7, “strong wine” (RSV, “strong drink”). It is sometimes distinguished from wine, c.g., Leviticus 10:9, “Do not drink wine [yayin] nor strong drink [shekar];” Numbers 6:3 ; Judges 13:4 Judges 13:7; Isaiah 28:7 (in all these places rendered “strong drink”). Translated “strong drink” also in Isaiah 5:11; 24:9; 29:9; 56:12; Proverbs 20:1; 31:6; Micah 2:11.

Yekebh (Deuteronomy 16:13, but in RSV correctly “wine-press”), a vat into which the new wine flowed from the press. Joel 2:24, “their vats;” 3:13, “the fats;” Proverbs 3:10, “Thy presses shall burst out with new wine [tirosh];” Haggai 2:16; Jeremiah 48:33, “wine-presses;” 2 Kings 6:27; Job 24:11.

Shemarim (only in plural), “lees” or “dregs” of wine. In Isaiah 25:6 it is rendered “wines on the lees”, i.e., wine that has been kept on the lees, and therefore old wine.

Mesek, “a mixture,” mixed or spiced wine, not diluted with water, but mixed with drugs and spices to increase its strength, or, as some think, mingled with the lees by being shaken ( Psalms 75:8 ; Proverbs 23:30 ).

In Acts 2:13 the word gleukos, rendered “new wine,” denotes properly “sweet wine.” It must have been intoxicating.

In addition to wine the Hebrews also made use of what they called debash, which was obtained by boiling down must to one-half or one-third of its original bulk. In Genesis 43:11, this word is rendered “honey.” It was a kind of syrup, and is called by the Arabs at the present day dibs. This word occurs in the phrase “a land flowing with milk and honey” (debash), Exodus 3:8 Exodus 3:17; 13:5; 33:3; Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13: 27. (See HONEY.)

Our Lord miraculously supplied wine at the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee (John 2:1-11). The Rechabites were forbidden the use of wine (Jeremiah 35). The Nazarites also were to abstain from its use during the period of their vow (Numbers 6:1-4); and those who were dedicated as Nazarites from their birth were perpetually to abstain from it (Judges 13:4 Judges 13:5; Luke 1:15; 7:33). The priests, too, were forbidden the use of wine and strong drink when engaged in their sacred functions (Leviticus 10:1 Leviticus 10:9-11). “Wine is little used now in the East, from the fact that Mohammedans are not allowed to taste it, and very few of other creeds touch it. When it is drunk, water is generally mixed with it, and this was the custom in the days of Christ also. The people indeed are everywhere very sober in hot climates; a drunken person, in fact, is never seen”, (Geikie’s Life of Christ). The sin of drunkenness, however, must have been not uncommon in the olden times, for it is mentioned either metaphorically or literally more than seventy times in the Bible.

A drink-offering of wine was presented with the daily sacrifice (Exodus 29:40 Exodus 29:41), and also with the offering of the first-fruits (Leviticus 23:13), and with various other sacrifices (Numbers 15:5 Numbers 15:7 Numbers 15:10). Wine was used at the celebration of the Passover. And when the Lord’s Supper was instituted, the wine and the unleavened bread then on the paschal table were by our Lord set apart as memorials of his body and blood.

Several emphatic warnings are given in the New Testament against excess in the use of wine (Luke 21:34; Romans 13:13; Ephesians 5:18; 1Timothy 3:8; Titus 1:7). (3)

 Did wine in the Bible have alcohol?

 Thomas Welch discovered the process on how to pasteurize grape juice in the 19^th century, thus making non-alcoholic grape juice practical. Fermentation was a natural process that started once grapes were harvested. Enough yeast is in grape skins that even grapes that fall on the ground will start to ferment.

 Is it possible that all mentions of wine in the Bible involve un-fermented grape juice? The impossibility of this is seen in the many Scriptures that speak of drunkenness with wine to maintain such a theory. At this point, some lexical entries will be valuable.

Consider the following passages and entries from Strong’s Lexicon on wine:

 “And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.” (Genesis 9:21)

Strong’s Lexicon:

its wine,

הַיַּ֖יִן (hay·ya·yin)

Article | Noun – masculine singular

Strong’s Hebrew 3196: 1) wine

he became drunk

וַיִּשְׁכָּ֑ר (way·yiš·kār)

Conjunctive waw | Verb – Qal – Consecutive imperfect – third person masculine singular

Strong’s Hebrew 7937: 1) to be or become drunk or drunken, be intoxicated 1a) (Qal) to become drunken 1b) (Piel) to make drunken, cause to be drunk 1c) (Hiphil) to cause to be drunk 1d) (Hithpael) to make oneself drunk

 “Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.” (Proverbs 23:31)

Strong’s Lexicon:

wine

יַיִן֮ (ya·yin)

Noun – masculine singular

Strong’s Hebrew 3196: 1) wine

“Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart.” (Hosea 4:11)

Strong’s Lexicon:

wine,

וְיַ֥יִן (wə·ya·yin)

Conjunctive waw Noun – masculine singular

Strong’s Hebrew 3196: 1) wine

 “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit.” (Ephesians 5:18)

Strong’s Lexicon:

get drunk

μεθύσκεσθε (methyskesthe)

Verb – Present Imperative Middle or Passive – 2nd Person Plural

Strong’s Greek 3182: To make drunk, pass: I become drunk. A prolonged form of methuo; to intoxicate.

on wine,

οἴνῳ (oinō)

Noun – Dative Masculine Singular

Strong’s Greek 3631: Wine. A primary word (yayin); ‘wine’.

 “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber (οἰνοπότης), a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.”  (Matthew 11:18–19)

Strong’s Lexicon:

drunkard,

οἰνοπότης (oinopotēs)

Noun – Nominative Masculine Singular

Strong’s Greek 3630: An excessive wine-drinker. From oînos and a derivative of the alternate of pino, a tippler.

 As seen above the Hebrew words for fermented wine are found in Proverbs 23:31 (ya·yin), Hosea 4:11 (wə·ya·yin).

 Ya·yin and wə·ya·yin are used synonymously in the Old Testament and are translated in the Greek in the New Testament using the word, oînos (Ephesians 5:18). This connection confirms that oînos refers to fermented wine.

 More from Strong’s Lexicon:

 Strong’s Definitions

οἶνος oînos, oy’-nos; a primary word (or perhaps of Hebrew origin (H3196)); “wine” (literally or figuratively):—wine.

 Strong’s Definitions

יַיִן yayin, yah’-yin; from an unused root meaning to effervesce; wine (as fermented); by implication, intoxication:—banqueting, wine, wine (-bibber).

 The Scriptures distinguish between use and misuse of alcohol:

 “Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.” (Proverbs 31:6)

 If the wine in the Bible was grape juice, what is strong drink? Coca-Cola?

 “But Woe unto them that … follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them.” (Isaiah 5:10)

 There is a principle of Scripture of showing mercy. We see this principle in Proverbs passage along with the warning of drunkenness in the Isaiah passage.

 The danger of reading too much into Scripture:

 The Bible condemns drunkenness. How can a condemnation of drunkenness in Scripture lead to a conclusion of total abstinence for believers? It cannot. If this method of Bible interpretation were true, it would lead to absurdities. For example, the fact that “gluttony” (piggish overeating) is condemned in Scripture would lead to a conclusion of not eating food. Not only is this type of reasoning unbiblical, but it is also logically fallacious.

 For example, a syllogism is a form of logical reasoning that joins two or more premises together to arrive at a conclusion. In addition, a syllogism cannot have a conclusion not contained in the premises.

 Famous example of a valid syllogism:

Major premise: All men are mortal

Minor premise: Socrates is a man

Conclusion: Socrates is mortal

 A logical fallacy using an invalid syllogism:

Major premise: Women like to talk

Minor premise: John likes to talk

Conclusion: John is a woman

 Making a valid syllogism for total abstinence from alcohol is impossible. Why? Because the Bible does not teach total abstinence.

 # 1 A logical fallacy using an invalid syllogism:

Major premise: The Bible condemns drunkenness

Minor premise: All people who drink may get drunk

Conclusion: Therefore, no one should drink

 # 2 A logical fallacy using an invalid syllogism:

Major premise: Some movies are sinful

Minor premise: All who go to movies may be tempted to see a sinful movie

Conclusion: Therefore Christian should not see movies

 # 3 A logical fallacy using an invalid syllogism:

Major premise: The Bible condemns gluttony

Minor premise: All who eat may participate in gluttony

Conclusion: Therefore, no one should eat

 In the above examples, the minor premise is unproven and false. Thus, the conclusion in these cases does not follow. They are examples of an invalid syllogism, which also is a non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow. Hence, either one or both of the premises confer no support for the conclusion.

 # 4 A valid syllogism:

Major premise: The Bible condemns drunkenness

Minor premise: All people who drink may get drunk

Conclusion: Therefore, those who drink should exercise moderation and circumspection

 In the above case, the conclusion follows from the premises.

 Abstinence and Legalism: What is legalism?

 1.      Legalism is the strict conformity to a law or to a religious or moral code, which restricts free choice.

2.      Legalism in Christian theology is the act of putting the law above gospel by establishing requirements for salvation beyond repentance and faith in Jesus Christ and reducing the broad, inclusive and general precepts of the Bible to narrow and rigid moral codes.

 Codes like “do not do this or do not do that” go beyond Scripture by adding to it. Those who promote secondary codes are guilty of adding rules that the Bible does not teach. It is self-righteous Pharisaicalism to pride oneself in keeping special human-made rules.

 The Pharisees in the Old Testament did this by building so-called walls around God’s laws. The laws around God’s law were human-made rules and supposedly kept the Israelite farther away from actually breaking one of God’s real laws.

 Defilement:

 From prior experience in the abstinence community, there are usually un-biblical notions, such, as wine is a source of defilement. Can a substance such as wine defile a person?

 Can wine defile a person?

 “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; that which cometh out of the mouth defileth a man.” (Matthew 15:11)

 It is not that which goes into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but what comes out of his mouth. If something evil is coming out of a man’s mouth, it is a spiritual heart problem. Sipping some wine does not defile a man. The argument that it does is no different than “the devil made me do it.” Giving in to the fleshly desires of the “Old Man,” or “Old Self” (Colossians 3:9-10) is where the real problem is found.

 The apostle Paul adds additional information on Christ’s teaching regarding defilement:

 “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. …” “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” (Romans 14:14, 17)

 “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.” (1Corinthians 10:23)

 Abuse of liberty from the Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 20.3:

 They who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our life.

 Communion and the use of wine from the Westminster Confession of Faith, 29.6:

 “The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.” (Westminster

 In Closing:

 To answer the question at the beginning of this primer, no God does not forbid the use of alcohol in the Bible. Drunkenness is condemned, the use of wine is a gift from God.

 G.I. Williamson summarizes the overall picture in Wine in the Bible and the Church:

“God himself provides ‘wine which makes man’s heart glad’ just as He gives ‘food which sustains man’s heart’ (Ps. 104:14.15). He promises His people that, if they will obey Him, He will bless them with an abundance of wine (Deut. 7:13, 11:14, Prov. 3:10. etc.). He threatens to withdraw this blessing from them if they disobey His law (Deut. 28:39, 51; Isa. 62:8). The Scriptures clearly teach that God permits His people to enjoy wine and strong drink as a gift from Him. ‘You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires, for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household’ (Deut. 14:26). Under certain circumstances it is even commanded of God that wine and strong drink be given (Pr. 31:6, 7). And since wine was used in the worship of God (Ex. 29:40, Lev. 23:13; Nu. 15:5, 7, 10; 28:14), the Bible says wine is something that cheers God as well as man (Jud. 9:13).” (4)

 R.C. Sproul on Wine and Communion:

 “There is an ongoing controversy in that many Protestant churches don’t use wine in the celebration of the sacrament. In fact, I think the majority of churches don’t use wine; most use a form of grape juice. One of the major reasons for that is the problem of alcoholism, and church leaders want to protect their people from unnecessary temptation. In other cases, churches don’t believe Jesus used real wine.

 I agree with Calvin–real wine communicates to our taste buds both elements–pain and joy, sorrow and gladness–and somehow, in my opinion, grape juice just doesn’t do it. I think we lose something there because, in the worship of Israel, God associated certain truths with certain tastes.” (5)

 Quotes:

 “Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object, which is abused. Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women? The sun, the moon, and the stars have been worshiped. Shall we then pluck them out of the sky? …see how much he [God] has been able to accomplish through me, though I did no more than pray and preach. The Word did it all. Had I wished I might have started a conflagration at Worms. But while I sat still and drank beer with Philip and Amsdorf, God dealt the papacy a mighty blow.” – Martin Luther

 “Beer is made by men, wine by God.” – Martin Luther

 “I neither said nor implied that it was sinful to drink wine; nay, I said that, in and by itself, this might be done without blame. But I remarked that, if I knew that another would be led to take it by my example, and this would lead them on to further drinking, and even to intoxication, then I would not touch it.” – Charles Spurgeon

 Notes:

1.      Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 1029.

2.      Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor, “Entry for ‘WINE,’” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, reprinted 1986), pp. 3086-3087.

3.      M.G. Easton M.A., D.D., Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, published by Thomas Nelson, 1897. Public Domain, copy freely.

4.      G.I. Williamson, Wine in the Bible and the Church, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1976; reprinted 1980), p. 9-10.

5.      R.C. Sproul, A Taste of Heaven, Worship in Light of Eternity, (Technology Park, Lake Mary, Florida, Reformation Trust, a division of Ligonier Ministries 1982), p. 170.

“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: THERELIGIONTHATSTARTEDINAHAT.COM

 For More Study

 G.I. Williamson, Wine in the Bible and the Church, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1976; reprinted 1980

 R.C. Sproul, A Taste of Heaven, Worship in Light of Eternity, (Technology Park, Lake Mary, Florida, Reformation Trust, a division of Ligonier Ministries 1982)

 Jim West, Drinking with Calvin and Luther, (Lincoln, CA, Oakdown, 2003)

 Andre S. Bustanoby, The Wrath of Grapes, Drinking and the Church Divided, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1987)

 Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. God Gave Wine, What the Bible Says about Alcohol, (Lincoln, CA, Oakdown, 2001)

Malcolm Muggeridge B. 1903 – D. 1990

Thomas Malcolm Muggeridge was an English journalist and satirist. His father was a prominent socialist politician and one of the early Labour Party Members of Parliament. In his twenties, Muggeridge was attracted to communism but after living in the Soviet Union in the 1930s, he became a forceful anti-communist. – Wikipedia

Malcolm Muggeridge Quotes:

“The media have, indeed, provided the Devil with perhaps the greatest opportunity accorded him since Adam and Eve were turned out of the Garden of Eden.” – Malcolm Muggeridge

“One of the peculiar sins of the twentieth century which we’ve developed to a very high level is the sin of credulity. It has been said that when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse: they believe in anything.” – Malcolm Muggeridge

“The depravity of man is at once the most empirically verifiable reality but at the same time the most intellectually resisted fact.” – Malcolm Muggeridge

“What is called Western Civilization is in an advanced state of decomposition, and another Dark Ages will soon be upon us, if, indeed, it has not already begun. With the Media, especially television, governing all our lives, as they indubitably do, it is easily imaginable that this might happen without our noticing…by accustoming us to the gradual deterioration of our values.” – Malcolm Muggeridge

“What will finally destroy us is not communism or fascism, but man acting like God.” – Malcolm Muggeridge

“Marx and Freud are the two great destroyers of Christian civilization, the first replacing the gospel of love by the gospel of hate, the other undermining the essential concept of human responsibility.” – Malcolm Muggeridge

“Future historians will surely see us as having created in the media a Frankenstein monster whom no one knows how to control or direct, and marvel that we should have so meekly subjected ourselves to its destructive and often malign influence.” – Malcolm Muggeridge

“The greatest artists, saints, philosophers, and, until quite recent times, scientists… have all assumed that the New Testament promise of eternal life is valid… I’d rather be wrong with Dante and Shakespeare and Milton, with Augustine of Hippo and Francis of Assisi, with Dr. Johnson, Blake, and Dostoevsky than right with Voltaire, Rousseau, the Huxleys, Herbert Spencer, H. G. Wells, and Bernard Shaw.” – Malcolm Muggeridge

“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has.” – Malcolm Muggeridge

“The dogmatism of science has become a new orthodoxy, disseminated by the Media and a State educational system with a thoroughness and subtlety far exceeding anything of the kind achieved by the Inquisition; to the point that to believe today in a miraculous happening like the Virgin Birth is to appear a kind of imbecile.” – Malcolm Muggeridge

“[Pascal] was the first and perhaps is still the most effective voice to be raised in warning of the consequences of the enthronement of the human ego in contradistinction to the cross, symbolizing the ego’s immolation. How beautiful it all seemed at the time of the Enlightenment, that man triumphant would bring to pass that earthly paradise whose groves of academe would ensure the realization forever of peace, plenty, and beatitude in practice. But what a nightmare of wars, famines, and folly was to result therefrom.” – Malcolm Muggeridge

“Animistic savages prostrating themselves before a painted stone have always seemed to me to be nearer the truth than any Einstein or Bertrand Russell.” – Malcolm Muggeridge

“The most terrible thing about materialism, even more terrible than its proneness to violence, is its boredom, from which sex alcohol, drugs, all devices for putting out the accusing light of reason and suppressing the unrealizable aspirations of love, offer a prospect of deliverance.” -Malcolm Muggeridge

What did Jesus mean when he said, “Judge not?”                                         By Jack Kettler

Matthew 7:1-3 and Luke 6:37 are passages of Scripture that are routinely misinterpreted. To some, the verses are understood, as a ban against stating, that any action can be called sinful or wrong, since doing so would mean, “judging” someone. How do we understand these Scriptures? Do the Scriptures elsewhere qualify this seeming ban on making judgments? If not, how could a magistrate do his job?

As in previous studies, we will look at definitions, scriptures, commentary evidence, and confessional support for the purpose to glorify God in how we live.

From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia – Judging Judgment:

JUDGING JUDGMENT

juj’-ing, juj’-ment:

Often in the Old Testament for “to act as a magistrate” (Exodus 18:13; Deuteronomy 1:16; 16:18, etc.), justice being administered generally by “elders” (Exodus 18:13-27), or “kings” (1 Samuel 8:20) or “priests” (Deuteronomy 18:15); applied to God as the Supreme Judge (Psalms 9:7,8; 10:18; 96:13; Micah 4:3, etc.; Psalms 7:8 “Yahweh ministereth judgment,” vividly describes a court scene, with Yahweh as Judge).

Often in the New Testament, ethically, for

(1) “to decide,” “give a verdict,” “declare an opinion” (Greek krino);

(2) “to investigate,” “scrutinize” (Greek anakrino);

(3) “to discriminate,” “distinguish” (Greek diakrino).

For (1), see Luke 7:43; Acts 15:19;

for (2) see 1 Corinthians 2:15; 4:3;

for (3)see 1 Corinthians 11:31; 14:29 m.

Used also forensically in Luke 22:30; Acts 25:10; and applied to God in John 5:22; Hebrews 10:30. The judgments of God are the expression of His justice, the formal declarations of His judgments, whether embodied in words (Deuteronomy 5:1 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) “statutes”), or deeds (Exodus 6:6; Revelation 16:7), or in decisions that are yet to be published (Psalms 36:6). Man’s consciousness of guilt inevitably associates God’s judgments as declarations of the Divine justice, with his own condemnation, i.e. he knows that a strict exercise of justice means his condemnation, and thus “judgment” and “condemnation” become in his mind synonymous (Romans 5:16); hence, the prayer of Psalms 143:2, “Enter not into judgment”; also, John 6:29, “the resurrection of judgment” (the King James Version “damnation”); 1 Corinthians 11:29, “eateth and drinketh judgment” (the King James Version “damnation”). H. E. Jacobs (1)

Scriptures

“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” (Matthew 7:1-3)

“Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.” (Luke 6:37)

From Barnes’ Notes on the Bible on Matthew 7:1:

“Judge not … – This command refers to rash, censorious, and unjust judgment. See Romans 2:1. Luke 6:37 explains it in the sense of “condemning.” Christ does not condemn judging, as a magistrate, for that, when according to justice, is lawful and necessary. Nor does he condemn our “forming an opinion” of the conduct of others, for it is impossible “not” to form an opinion of conduct that we know to be evil. But what he refers to is a habit of forming a judgment hastily, harshly, and without an allowance for every palliating circumstance, and a habit of “expressing” such an opinion harshly and unnecessarily when formed. It rather refers to private judgment than “judicial,” and perhaps primarily to the customs of the scribes and Pharisees.” (2)

As seen from Barnes, Jesus was not saying that we should not evaluate whether someone’s choices are immoral. Jesus is talking about narcissistic judgment, not righteous judgment. Practicing discernment involves evaluating or judging. For example, “but test everything; hold fast what is good” (1Thessalonians 5:21 ESV). Some translation use “prove” instead of “test.” Proving or testing involves making a determination, in other words, making a judgment. We are sanctioned and commanded to make biblical judgments. Making a judgment is to be done with humility, not arrogance.

“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” (John 7:24)

In this passage, Christ is most certainly responding the accusation from the Jewish leaders that He was a Sabbath-breaker. Nevertheless, an application that can be drawn from this passage is that we must not judge regarding people by their outward appearance.

If all judging is forbidden, how do we understand the following Scriptures?   

“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you” (Matthew 7:6).

Following these instructions requires the believer to recognize who the “dogs” and the “swine” are. This is a judgment of determination. Likewise, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matthew 7:15). Again, this is a judgment. In addition, “So then, by their fruit, you will recognize them” (Matthew 7:16). We are fruit inspectors. We are to examine. We are to discriminate between the good and bad.

Church Discipline requires making judgments:

“Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglects to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” (Matthew 18:15-17)

In the Matthew passage, Jesus lays out the process for discipline with these words, “if thy brother shall trespass against thee.” So from the initial confronting the brother with his error privately and then taking the matter before the whole church if the brother neglects to hear the matter involves a series of judgments. If the brother fails to hear the church, then excommunication may happen. Excommunication also is a judgment.

In addition, Paul underscores the church’s responsibility to judge its members:

“To deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.” (1Corinthians 5:5-7)

From Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible on 1Corinthians 5:7 we learn:

“Purge out therefore the old leaven, … Meaning either the incestuous person, whose crime might well be compared to sour “leaven”, and be called old because of his long continuance in it; whom the apostle would have removed from them; this is properly the act of excommunication, which that church was to perform, as a quite distinct thing from what the apostle himself determined to do. The allusion is to the strict search the Jews made (g), just before their passover after leaven, to purge their houses of it, that none of it might remain when their feast began; which they made by the light of a lamp, on the night of the fourteenth of the month Nisan, in every secret place, hole, and corner of the house: or this may be an exhortation to the church in general with respect to themselves, as well as this man, to relinquish their old course of sinning, to “put off concerning the former conversation the old man”, Ephesians 4:22 the same with the old leaven here; it being usual with the Jews (h) to call the vitiosity and corruption of nature , ‘leaven in the lump.’” (3)

As seen from Gill, purging out the old leaven requires a determination or judgment.

In closing:

Synonyms for judging:

Analyzing, criticizing, critiquing, evaluating, examining, investigating

There is nothing wrong with the above words. The actions in the above synonyms can be done sinfully or righteously.

When Jesus says not to judge, there is specific context to his teaching. Jesus is condemning rash, self-righteous, and unjust judgments, not judgments altogether. The larger context of Scripture as seen above bears this out as seen in cases of church discipline and proving and testing what is good and discernment when false prophets and teachers are plaguing the church.

Jesus in Matthew 7:1-3 and Luke 6:37 is not contradicting other places in Scripture that involve people making discernments. It is obvious from the larger context of Scriptures that the Matthew and Luke passages are not blanket condemnations of making judgments.

Those who take the Matthew and Luke passages as absolutes:

First, saying the Matthew and Luke passages forbid all judgments, cannot be maintained because as seen above it is inconsistent with the totality of Scripture.

Second, the individual who says, “It is wrong to judge” is making a judgment against those who judge because it is a self-refuting contradiction.

Making false judgments is a violation of the Ninth Commandment!

Westminster Larger Catechism: Questions 143-145:

Q. 143. Which is the ninth commandment?

A. The ninth commandment is, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Q. 144. What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?

A. The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.

Q. 145. What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own, especially in public judicature; giving false evidence, suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth; passing unjust sentence, calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked; forgery, concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others; speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful or equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of the truth or justice; speaking untruth, lying, slandering, backbiting, detracting, talebearing, whispering, scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial censuring; misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; flattering, vainglorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others; denying the gifts and graces of God; aggravating smaller faults; hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession; unnecessary discovering of infirmities; raising false rumors, receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just defense; evil suspicion; envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any; endeavoring or desiring to impair it, rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; scornful contempt, fond admiration; breach of lawful promises; neglecting such things as are of good report, and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering what we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.

Judgment and Humility

“Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!” (1Corinthians 6:3)

The qualifier:

“Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.” (James 4:11)

Notes:

1.      Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor, “Entry for ‘JUDGING,’” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, reprinted 1986), p. 1777. Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Matthew, p. 121.

2.      John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, 1Corinthians, (Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs), 2011, p. 9.

“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: THERELIGIONTHATSTARTEDINAHAT.COM

Frédéric Bastiat B. 1801 – D. 1850

Claude-Frédéric Bastiat was a French economist, and a prominent member of the French Liberal School. A member of the French National Assembly. As a Deputy to the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Bastiat and explained and refuted each socialist fallacy as it appeared. He explained how socialism would inescapably degenerate into communism. Unfortunately, the majority of his fellow citizens ignored his logic. An almost identical situation exists in America today as in the France of 1848. The equivalent socialist-communist ideas and plans that were embraced in France are now running rampant in America through its educational systems and degenerate politicians. His seminal work “The Law” can be found online.

Frédéric Bastiat Quotes:

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” – Frederic Bastiat

“The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.” – Frederic Bastiat

“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?” – Frederic Bastiat

“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” – Frederic Bastiat

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” – Frédéric Bastiat

“But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.” – Frederic Bastiat

“When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.” – Frederic Bastiat

“Each of us has a natural right, from God, to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.” – Frederic Bastiat

“The most urgent necessity is, not that the State should teach, but that it should allow education. All monopolies are detestable, but the worst of all is the monopoly of education.” – Frédéric Bastiat

“It is not true that the legislator has absolute power over our persons and property. The existence of persons and property preceded the existence of the legislator, and his function is only to guarantee their safety.” – Frederic Bastiat

“The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.” – Frédéric Bastiat

“When plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for help.” – Frederick Bastiat,

“Indeed, a more astounding fact, in the heart of society, cannot be conceived than this: That law should have become an instrument of injustice.” – Frédéric Bastiat

The Law by Bastiat The Law, by Frederic Bastiat

What is a Sacrament?                                          By Jack Kettler

As in previous studies, we will look at definitions, scriptures, commentary evidence, and confessional support for the purpose to glorify God in how we live.

Definitions:

Sacrament:

A rite or ceremony instituted by Jesus, and observed by the church as either a testament to inner grace or a means of grace. Various Protestant denominations differ on whether sacraments should be considered to be only testaments to inner grace, or also means of grace, but all agree that there are two: baptism and the Lord’s Supper; some prefer to call these rites or ceremonies ordinances.*

Sacrament:

A visible manifestation of the word. The bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper are considered sacraments in that they are visible manifestations of the covenant promise of our Lord: “In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.’” (Luke 22:20).

God, in the OT, used visible signs along with His spoken word. These visible signs, then, were considered to have significance. “Among the OT sacraments the rites of circumcision and the Passover were stressed as being the OT counterparts of baptism (Colossians 1:10-12) and the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 5:7).” **

Scriptures

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew 28:19)

From Vincent’s Word Studies:

“Teach (μαθητεύσατε)

Rev., rightly, make disciples of.

In the name (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα)

Rev., correctly, “into the name.” Baptizing into the name has a twofold meaning. 1. Unto, denoting object or purpose, as εἰς μετάνοιαν, unto repentance (Matthew 3:11), εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). 2. Into, denoting union or communion with, as Romans 6:3, “baptized into Christ Jesus; into his death;” i.e., we are brought by baptism into fellowship with his death. Baptizing into the name of the Holy Trinity implies a spiritual and mystical union with him. Eἰς, into, is the preposition commonly used with baptize. See Acts 8:16; Acts 19:3, Acts 19:5; 1Corinthians 1:13, 1Corinthians 1:15; 1Corinthians 10:2; Galatians 3:27. In Acts 2:38, however, Peter says, “Be baptized upon (ἐπὶ) the name of Jesus Christ;” and in Acts 10:48, he commands Cornelius and his friends to be baptized in (ἐν) the name of the Lord. To be baptized upon the name is to be baptized on the confession of that which the name implies: on the ground of the name; so that the name Jesus, as the contents of the faith and confession, is the ground upon which the becoming baptized rests. In the name (ἐν) has reference to the sphere within which alone true baptism is accomplished. The name is not the mere designation, a sense, which would give to the baptismal formula merely the force of a charm. The name, as in the Lord’s Prayer (“Hallowed be thy name”), is the expression of the sum total of the divine Being: not his designation as God or Lord, but the formula in which all his attributes and characteristics are summed up. It is equivalent to his person. The finite mind can deal with him only through his name; but his name is of no avail detached from his nature. When one is baptized into the name of the Trinity, he professes to acknowledge and appropriate God in all that he is and in all that he does for man. He recognizes and depends upon God the Father as his Creator and Preserver; receives Jesus Christ as his only Mediator and Redeemer, and his pattern of life; and confesses the Holy Spirit as his Sanctifier and Comforter. Always (πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας) Lit., all the days. Wyc. , in all days.” (1)

“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner, also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death until he come.” (1Corinthians 11:23-26)

From the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges on 1Corinthians 11:26:

“26. For as often as ye eat] These words are not those of Christ, but of St Paul. St John 3:31-36, and Galatians 2:15-21 are somewhat similar instances, but in them it is by no means certain that we have a commentary by the writer on the speech he records, but quite possible that the passage forms part of the speech itself.

ye do shew] Tell, Wiclif. Annuntiabitis, Calvin and the Vulgate. Annoncerez, De Sacy. Some (e.g. the margin of the English Bible) take this imperatively, but it is better as in the text. If Meyer be right in supposing that the word here used is never employed except in the sense of oral proclamation (see ch. 1 Corinthians 2:1, 1 Corinthians 9:14 of this Epistle; and Php 1:16; Php 1:18; Colossians 1:28, as examples of its use by St Paul), we have here strong grounds for affirming that the words of institution formed part of the form of celebrating the Sacrament, even in Apostolic times. The word occurs ten times in the Acts of the Apostles, always in the sense of proclaim.

the Lord’s death] Since this Sacrament was instituted as a memorial of Christ’s Death upon the Cross.

till he come] As long as the Christian Church shall last, this Sacrament will continue to be celebrated for the object for which it was instituted. However widely divided on other points, Christians have agreed in carrying out this prediction for more than 1800 years.” (2)

The Sacraments by Francis Turretin:

“FIRST QUESTION: THE WORD “SACRAMENT” AND ITS DEFINITION

What is a sacrament as to the name and as to the thing?

Necessity of treating the sacraments.

1. As God willed to enter into a covenant with the church (of which we have thus far spoken) in order to apply to her the salvation purchased by Christ, so (such is his goodness) for the greater confirmation of faith, he has condescended to seal this covenant by sacraments as seals, that by them as badges he might distinguish and separate his people from the rest of the world. On this account, the necessity to consider them is incumbent upon us. Not only to ascertain more distinctly their nature and use; but also to unravel more easily the numerous and most important controversies which are wont to be agitated about them by various adversaries. For we cannot behold without grief that those things which were instituted by God to be bonds and symbols of union and concord among Christians, have been made (by the depravity of men) the seed plot of contentions and the apple of discord (melon eridos), which has torn asunder Christians by a mournful divorce.
2. However, this topic contains many heads. First, we will dispute in general concerning the sacraments; second, in particular of baptism and the holy Supper, which are the two sacraments of the New Testament instituted by Christ; third, of the five false and spurious ones added by Romanists. But we must first say something about the word and the definition of a sacrament.

Use of the word “sacrament”

III. We do not think there should be any contention about the word “sacrament.” For although (being Latin) it does not occur in the books of the Old and New Testaments, still its use has been so customary in the church and it has been received so long, that if anyone (influenced by superstition) would abstain from it (as is done by the Socinians, who in this way aim not so much at the word as at the very nature of the sacraments), we think he is scrupulously and preposterously religious. Hence the Romanists do an injury to Luther and the Lutherans to us when they charge us with being shocked at this word, since it is evident that it is ordinarily used by us. But no less ridiculous are the Romanists who, because this word is not found in Scripture, wish to prove its insufficiency. For to whom can it seem strange if a Latin word does not occur in the Scriptures, which are written in Hebrew and Greek?

And its origin

IV It is well known that sacramentum comes from sacrando And its origin. (i.e., “to consecrate” and “to initiate”) as juramentum from jurando, testamentum from testando. With the ancient authors of the Latin language, it signifies two things. (1) The “money” or the pledge deposited by two parties to a suit with the pontiffs in a sacred place, with which he was mulcted who had lost his cause as a punishment of an unjust litigation (as Varro observes, On the Latin Language 5*.180 [Loeb, 1:166-69]). (2) An “oath” which was taken only when some sacred deity was invoked. Hence sacramento contendere (with Cicero) means “to affirm by a solemn oath”; sacramento interrogari, sacramento teneri, etc. But it is used peculiarly to denote a military oath by which soldiers bound themselves by a certain rite and prescribed words to the state and the magistrate, that they would strenuously perform what the emperor had commanded and would not desert the military standards. Hence the phrase obligare sacramento (Cicero, De Officiis 1.36 [Loeb, 21:38-39]) and Isidore (Etymologiarum 9.3 [PL 82.347]). Hence in the old glosses sacramentum is a military oath (horkos stratiotikos). Tertullian: “We were called to the militia of God, even then when we responded to the words of the sacrament” (To the Martyrs 3 [FC 40:22; PL 1.697]).

33. The word, having been transferred from military affairs to sacred uses, was employed by ecclesiastical writers to signify any mystery or sacred and not obvious doctrine. Hence everywhere in the fathers you will find the sacrament of the Trinity, of the incarnation, and of faith, and in general the whole Christian religion comes under this name. In this sense, the word is used in the Vulgate where the word “mystery” occurs (1Tim. 3:16; Eph. 1:9; 5:32). “The sacrament of the seven stars” (Rev. 1:20); “the sacrament of the beast” (Rev. 17:7). More strictly it is taken for a sacred sign or external symbol which exhibits one thing to the sense, another to the mind. In this sense Augustine says, “Signs, when they pertain to divine things, are called sacraments” (Letter 138, “To Marcellinus” [FC 20:40; PL 33.527]). At length and by various degrees, it most recently came to signify a sign and seal of the covenant in Christ, instituted by God in the church. Again, sacrament in this sense is taken either for external signs or rites simply, or for the internal thing signified; or to embrace both the external and internal thing, the sign and thing signified complexly, in which sense it is here considered by us.

The word mysterion answers to it.

1. To this word the Greek word mysterion corresponds, derived also by profane writers either from muein (“to initiate into sacred things,” whence the priests over sacred rites were called mystai, either from closing [para to muein to stoma] the lips, because it was fitting, as Eustathius says, that “the priests of secret rites should close their lips, and not reveal things which were not to be uttered” [tour mystas myein to stoma, kai me ekphainein amemyenta]) or from the Hebrew sthr, which is to “shut up,” hence msthr (“secret”). Afterwards the sacred writers transferred this word from a superstitious to a better use to designate all the heads of the Christian religion, which are hidden from flesh and blood. But in the Scriptures, it is never used for a sacrament, as this word is taken strictly for the signs of the covenant of grace (although in other respects we do not repudiate that word, because the sacraments are really signs of a secret thing or of invisible grace, which have a hidden signification and commend themselves most especially with a latent mystery).

VII. Scripture more properly calls them “signs of the covenant” (Gen. 9:12, 13; 17:11), “signs and seals” of the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4:11), and simply “signs” (Ex. 12:13), “patterns” (hypodeigmata, Heb. 8:5; 9:23) and “figures” (antitypa, 1Pet. 3:21). In the Old Testament, the word ‘vth occurs (Gen. 17:11; Ex. 31:13, 17; Ezekiel 20:12, 20), which denotes a sign and is applied to the old sacraments.

Various definitions of sacrament

VIII. Now although it cannot be perfectly defined, be cause it is something concrete and extraordinary which consists of things which are not in the same genus, still it can be fitly described. By many it is said to be “a sign of a sacred thing,” as Augustine, who says, “Signs, when they pertain to sacred things, are called sacraments” (Letter 138, “To Marcellinus” [FC 20:40; PL 33.527]). The definition of the Scholastics is: “A sacrament is the visible form of invisible grace.” But neither pleases the modem Romanists. Bellarmine says these definitions are imperfect, if they are taken according to the sound of the word; but if they are received according to the sense of the Roman church, they are legitimate because by signs they understand sensible signs established and active (“De Sacramentis in Genere,” 1.2 Opera [1858], 3:20-22). Therefore he seems expressly to find fault with two things in the adduced definitions. The first, that the sacraments are called a visible form too specifically; for he contends that it is sufficient for the nature of a sacrament, if the sign is sensible (i.e., can be perceived by any sense, even if not by the sight). The other, that the sacraments are not said to be active signs (i.e., effecting grace). These two things he expressly places in the definition of a sacrament, which he draws from the catechism of the Council of Trent in these words: “A sacrament is a thing subjected to the senses, which has the power not only of signifying but also of effecting grace” (Catechism of the Council of Trent [tr. J.A. McHugh, 1923], p. 142). This is cunningly proposed by Bellarmine in order to favor the invented sacraments of penitence, matrimony and the like, which are without a visible sign. Again, that he may lay the foundation of that false hypothesis (to wit, that the sacraments of the New Testament confer grace ex opere operato, as they express it, of which we will speak hereafter).

The true definition is proposed.

1. In defining a sacrament, we follow Paul, who, speaking of circumcision, says, it is “a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith” (Rom. 4:11). This is a generic definition and is rightly ascribed to the species. Therefore, this torch throwing its light before us, we say: “The sacraments are the signs and seals of the grace of God in Christ.” Or a little more explicitly: “Sacred visible signs and seals divinely instituted to signify and seal to our consciences the promises of saving grace in Christ and in turn to testify our faith and piety and obedience towards God.” In this definition, the nature of the sacraments is made clearly known from their causes (concerning which something must be said didactically before we treat them argumentatively).

The matter of a sacrament is twofold: the sign.

1. The matter of a sacrament is twofold: one external and sensible, the other internal and intelligible; the former is called the sign, the latter the thing signified. That is perceived by the senses of the body and especially by the sight; but this by the mind, furnished with a fit instrument for it (to wit, faith). That is an element instituted by God in order to signify and seal grace; this is the grace of God in Christ or Christ with all his benefits. Now by the sign we understand whatever in the sacraments has the relation of signification, which is of a twofold kind. First, the external symbols belong here. Second, the ceremonial rites or acts, both of the minister standing in the place of God and of the believers perceiving. The actions of this kind in baptism are the sprinkling of water or immersion; in the Supper, the breaking, distribution and reception of the bread and wine, all of which have their signification. Still by way of eminence (kat exochen) the external elements themselves are called signs for a peculiar reason—because they are earthly things and substances about which such ceremonies and actions are performed.

And the thing signified

1. The other part of the sacramental matter is the thing signified, by which nomenclature is understood Christ himself with all that faith applies to itself for salvation. Now it applies to itself Christ with all the benefits which flow from his passion and death, which Paul embraces when he says, “who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption” (1Cor. 1:30). Thus Christ crucified (who is as it were the nucleus of the sacraments) is signified with all the saving benefits which he purchased for us by his death, for the commemoration of which these signs were instituted, to confirm both its truth and utility—signifying the truth, exhibiting and sealing the utility. As Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb. 13:8), so he has always declared the same grace to his church and sealed it by the sacraments. This is the reason why with respect to the internal matter Paul ascribes the sacraments of the New Testament to believers under the Old (1Cor. 10:1-3); and in turn the sacraments of the Old to believers under the New (Col. 2:11; 1Cor. 5:7). Further, the thing signified differs from the sign in three particulars: (1) in nature and properties, for the sign is an earthly and visible thing; the thing of the sign is heavenly and invisible; (2) in object, for the sign tends to the body, the thing signified to the soul; (3) in the mode of communication, for the mode of the sign is bodily, of the thing signified spiritual.

The form.

XII. The form of the sacrament is placed in the analogy or relation (schesei) of the external matter to the internal, of the sign to the thing signified, by which the thing promised is so represented to our minds that it is caused also to be truly communicated. In this analogy consists the union of the sign with the thing signified, which consequently is neither natural by bodily contact, nor local by contiguity, nor even spiritual by a spiritual energy (energeian) by which the signs are immediately made alive, or the power to regenerate or justify given to them; but it is relative and sacramental, placed principally in three things—signification, sealing and exhibition. The signification depends on the similitude between the sign and the thing signified. The sealing, upon the institution of God by which these external symbols have not only the relation of a sign, but also of a seal; since to the promises are added the sacraments to induce greater confidence in the thing promised, still in such a way that our faith is supported by them and not the word of God, which is self-credible (autopiston). The exhibition of the truth of God because God does not trifle by instituting bare and empty signs; but as by the vocal word he really performs what he promises, so in the sacrament (which is a palpable and visible word) he gives by the thing itself that which the signs represent, so that with the signs (in the legitimate use of the sacrament) is connected the true possession and fruition of the thing signified, as the French Confession, Article 38, teaches (Cochrane, p. 157). Still we do not recognize in the signs any implanted or inherent power by which they either act upon grace or on any quality of the soul, whether we call it a stamp or anything similar. For as the sound of the spoken word at length striking the ears and the air does not strike the heart by any power inherent in itself; so neither does the external sign possess any power to affect the soul, but only strikes the senses.

XIII. From this analogy and agreement, however, between the sign and the thing signified arises the sacramental phraseology; or those enunciations frequently used in the Scriptures (called by theologians “sacramental predications”), in which the names of the signs and things signified are interchanged with each other. The sign is predicated of the thing signified—Christ is called the Passover (1Cor. 5:7); or, on the contrary, the thing signified is predicated of the sign—as circumcision is called the covenant, the body of Christ is called bread. The foundation of these predications is the sacramental union which by analogy (kat‘ analogian) joins the sign and thing signified, and consequently makes these predications true on account of the truth of the signification, sealing and conferring in the lawful use. As in the person of Christ the hypostatical union of the natures makes those predications true in which the properties of one nature are enunciated either of the whole person or also of either nature expressed by a concrete term, yet without any confounding of the natures, because they are united without being mixed (asynchytas) and immutably (atreptos).

The efficient

XIV. The efficient of the sacraments is God alone. (1) He is the sole author of the promises and of the covenant of grace. Now it is his to promise and give grace, of whom also it is to seal it. (2) God is the sole author of the word; therefore of the sacraments also, which are the visible word. (3) They are parts of divine worship, which can be instituted by God alone. Now God effects the sacrament by the word of institution; for the word being added to the element, it becomes a sacrament not by the infusion of a new quality, but by a change of use. There are, however, two parts of the word which is called sacramental: the command and the promise. The command unfolds the dignity of the sacrament and the reason of the use of its lawful administration. The promise demonstrates the thing signified, the perspicuity and truth of the significations and so the whole efficacy of the sacrament; so that no more is to be sought in the external sacrament than is contained in the promise, lest it degenerate into an idol. The word of command is that by which God orders the sacraments to be rightly administered and perceived, by prescribing their formula and commanding their legitimate use. Hence the dignity and integrity of the sacrament ought to be estimated (which is lessened neither by the fault of the minister, nor by the unbelief of the partaker, although the unbeliever perceives the sign alone without the thing). The essence of a sacrament is from the divine institution. Therefore if the sacrament is administered according to it, whether the receiver believes or not, it is all the same. The truth of the promises does not depend on the faith of the believing; otherwise unbelievers could weaken the truth of God and from the infidelity of men God could be made a liar (which is absurd). Therefore, although faith is necessary to perceive the thing signified, still it is not necessary to constitute the essence and integrity of the sacrament.

The end.

1. The end of the sacraments is either proper or accidental. The proper is either principal or primary, or secondary and less principal. The principal is the confirmation of the covenant of grace and the sealing on the part of God of our union with Christ (promised in the covenant) and of all his benefits; and on our part the testification of our deep gratitude to God and of love towards our neighbor. The less principal is that they may be badges of a public profession and of divine worship by which they who belong to the visible church are distinguished from other assemblies. Hence it is evident how great is the philanthropy (philanthrapia) of God, who, letting himself down as it were to us creeping upon the ground, wishes to seize not only our minds but also our external senses with the haste and admiration of his grace, inasmuch as he subjects it to the bodily senses, to the hearing in the spoken word, to the touch and sight in the sacraments. However, signs are wont to be employed in weightier things. For trivialities are not confirmed by signs, but when they are of great importance; as when princes are inaugurated, when marriages are entered into, when donations are made or other agreements, signs are wont to be employed to confirm these things which we wish to be best attested, that they may be known not only by reason, but also by sense. The accidental end is the just condemnation of the wicked and hypocrites abusing the sacraments, which end (accidental through the fault of men) does not overthrow the proper end. For Christ does not cease to be by himself the author of life and the bestower of it with respect to believers, although (by accident on account of the unbelief of men) he is the savor of death unto death and a stone of stumbling and of destruction with respect to hypocrites and unbelievers.

XVI. Now from what has been said it is easily gathered “What are the requisites of a sacrament properly so called.” What are required and concur to constitute it intrinsically and extrinsically, whether as essential parts or as necessary conditions. They are principally these four. (1) The external and visible element with the rite, or the earthly and corporeal matter which holds the relation of sign. (2) The heavenly and spiritual thing contained in the promise of grace, which has the relation of the thing signified, which coheres with the sign in its lawful use, not substantially by composition, but sacramentally by a mystical relation. (3) The divine institution (and that immediate) that it may be a sacrament. (4) The stated and ordinary use of it in the church. For from these four a sacrament properly so called is intrinsically and extrinsically constituted and from them its truth appears and is known. Intrinsically, indeed, from the element with the rite and the word of the promise of grace as essential parts. But extrinsically from the divine institution as the efficient and immediate cause, and from the stated and ordinary use of the testification and sealing in the church as the proximate end.

XVII. This is clearly proved by an induction of the sacraments of the Old and New Testaments; for the divine institution was common to all, as is evident with respect to circumcision (Gen. 17:9-14), to the Passover (Ex. 12:3-20), baptism (Mt. 28:19), the Supper (Mt. 26:26-28). Common was the external sign with some rite annexed: in circumcision the cutting off of the foreskin; in the Passover the lamb slain and eaten; in baptism the laver of water; in the Supper the bread broken and the wine poured out. Common was the word of promise of grace according to the covenant of God and the circumcision of the heart (Dt. 30:6); Christ, the Lamb slain (1Cor. 5:7); the washing away of sins by the blood and spirit of Christ (Acts 2:38; 1Cor. 6:11); and the body of Christ broken and his blood shed for us. Finally, the use of both classes of sacraments was stated and ordinary and common to the church.” (3)

Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 27 – Of the Sacraments:

Section 1.) Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, (1) immediately instituted by God, (2) to represent Christ, and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him: (3) as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church, and the rest of the world; (4) and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word. (5)

(1) Ro 4:11; Ge 17:7, 10; (2) Mt 28:19; 1Co 11:23 (3) 1Co 10:16; 1Co 11:25, 26; Gal 3:27; Gal 3:17 (4) Ro 15:8; Ex 12:48; Ge 34:14 (5) Ro 6:3, 4; 1Co 10:16

————————————

Section 2.) There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other. (1)

(1) Ge 17:10; Mt 26:27, 28; Tit 3:5

————————————

Section 3.) The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it: (1) but upon the work of the Spirit, (2) and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers. (3)

(1) Ro 2:28, 29; 1Pe 3:21 (2) Mt 3:11; 1Co 12:13 (3) Mt 26:27, 28; Mt 28:19, 20

————————————

Section 4.) There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained. (1)

(1) Mt 28:19; 1Co 11:20, 23; 1Co 4:1; Heb. 5:4

————————————

Section 5.) The sacraments of the Old Testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new. (1)

(1) 1Co 10:1-4

In Closing, a summary from the Monergism.com web site on sacraments:

“In Reformed theology, baptism and the Lord’s Supper are sacraments which signify a person’s union with Christ, or being joined to Christ and being treated as if they had done everything Christ had. Sacraments, along with preaching of God’s word, are means of grace through which the Holy Spirit works to portray visibly the promises of the gospel … means that use our sight, taste, touch, and smell. They have no efficacy in themselves but are signs and seals which point us to point us to “the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as the only ground of our salvation” (The Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 67). Sacraments are believed to have their effect through the Holy Spirit, but these effects are only believed to be beneficial in any redemptive way to those who, by grace, turn to trust in Christ alone.” (4)

Notes:

1. Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies In The New Testament, (THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARY), Albany, Oregon), p.176.
2. General Editor, J. J. S. Perowne, D.D., John James Lias, The first Epistle to the Corinthians, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, (Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press, 1897), p. 115.
3. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elentic Theology, Vol. 3, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 337-342.
4. Monergism.com web site on sacraments

“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: THERELIGIONTHATSTARTEDINAHAT.COM

For More Study

* http://www.rebecca-writes.com/rebeccawrites/2012/10/2/theological-term-of-the-week.html

** CARM https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/ctd/s/sacrament.html

Dietrich Bonhoeffer B. 1906 – D. 1945

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German pastor, theologian, anti-Nazi dissident, and key founding member of the Confessing Church. His writings on Christianity’s role in the secular world have become widely influential, and his book The Cost of Discipleship has been described as a modern classic. Wikipedia

Dietrich Bonhoeffer Quotes

“Wherever the Psalter is abandoned, an incomparable treasure vanishes from the Christian Church. With its recovery will come unsuspected power.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

“We must be ready to allow ourselves to be interrupted by God.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

“Christianity without discipleship is always Christianity without Christ.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

“Lord, whatsoever this day may bring, Thy name be praised. Be gracious unto me and help me. Grant me strength to bear whatsoever Thou dost send, And let not fear overrule me. I trust Thy grace, and commit my life wholly into Thy Hands. Whether I live or whether I die, I am with Thee and Thou are with me … Lord, I wait for Thy salvation, and for the coming of Thy Kingdom. Amen.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

“Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession…Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

“When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

“The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

“We must be ready to allow ourselves to be interrupted by God.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

“We pray for the big things and forget to give thanks for the ordinary, small (and yet really not small) gifts.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

“It is only because he became like us that we can become like him.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

“The person who loves their dream of community will destroy community, but the person who loves those around them will create community.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

“I can no longer condemn or hate a brother for whom I pray, no matter how much trouble he causes me.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

“This is the end. For me the beginning of life.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer These were the last words spoken by Bonhoeffer right before the Nazis hung him. The Nazi officer who recorded this also said that he had never seen anyone face death with such peace and confidence.

Heroes of Conscience: A Tribute to Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Heroes of Conscience: A Tribute to Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn B. 1918 – D. 2008

“Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn was a Russian novelist, philosopher, historian, and short story writer. Solzhenitsyn was an outspoken critic of the Soviet Union and Communism and helped to raise global awareness of its Gulag labor camp system.” – Wikipedia

Solzhenitsyn Quotes:

“It’s a universal law– intolerance is the first sign of an inadequate education. An ill-educated person behaves with arrogant impatience, whereas truly profound education breeds humility.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. ‘One word of truth outweighs the world.’” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

“Bless you prison, bless you for being in my life. For there, lying upon the rotting prison straw, I came to realize that the object of life is not prosperity as we are made to believe, but the maturity of the human soul.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

“Unlimited power in the hands of limited people always leads to cruelty.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

“A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.” – Alexander Solzhenitsyn

“Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

“Our envy of others devours us most of all.” – Alexander Solzhenitsyn

“Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

“Pride grows in the human heart like lard on a pig.” – Alexander Solzhenitsyn

“Everything you add to the truth subtracts from the truth.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

“For us in Russia communism is a dead dog. For many people in the West, it is still a living lion.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

“But the world had never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized, and tenaciously malevolent as that practiced by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin, and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principal driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

In memory of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn by Pastor John Piper:

“Yesterday Alexander Solzhenitsyn died at the age of 89. I pause here on my vacation in the woods of Wisconsin to say, Thank you, heavenly Father, for the inspiration of this man’s life.

No one did more than Solzhenitsyn to expose the horrors of the failed communist experiment in Russia. Hitler’s purge would pale, if such things could pale, when compared to ten times the carnage in Stalin’s gulags.

Solzhenitsyn inspired me because of the suffering he endured and the effect it had on him. Here is the quote that I have not forgotten. It moves me deeply to this day. After his imprisonment in the Russian gulag of Joseph Stalin’s “corrective labor camps” Solzhenitsyn wrote:

“It was granted to me to carry away from my prison years on my bent back, which nearly broke beneath its load, this essential experience: how a human being becomes evil and how good. In the intoxication of youthful successes I had felt myself to be infallible, and I was therefore cruel. In the surfeit of power I was a murderer and an oppressor. In my most evil moments I was convinced that I was doing good, and I was well supplied with systematic arguments. It was only when I lay there on rotting prison straw that I sensed within myself the first stirrings of good. Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and through all human hearts…. That is why I turn back to the years of my imprisonment and say, sometimes to the astonishment of those about me: “Bless you, prison!” I…have served enough time there. I nourished my soul there, and I say without hesitation: “Bless you, prison, for having been in my life!” (The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956, Vol. 2, 615-617)”

For the complete message go to https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/thank-you-lord-for-solzhenitsyn

11/12/2018, PRESIDENT PUTIN UNVEILS SOLZHENITSYN MONUMENT

At a ceremony today on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Street in Moscow, Russian President Vladimir Putin unveiled a new monument of Solzhenitsyn.  Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Center — PRESIDENT PUTIN UNVEILS SOLZHENITSYN MONUMENT

The spirits in prison mentioned in 1Peter 3:19, who are they?                       By Jack Kettler

Are these spirits in prison, those who get a second chance at salvation? Are these the spirits of men, or angels or demons? These two are the main questions we will seek an answer to. As in previous studies, we will look at definitions, scriptures, commentary evidence, and confessional support for the purpose to glorify God in how we live.

Scripture

“By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” (1Peter 3:19-20)

ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α΄ 3:19 Greek NT: Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550

ἐν ᾧ καὶ τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν πορευθεὶς ἐκήρυξεν

This passage of Scripture has been the subject of much speculation. We will look at an older historical interpretation and then a contemporary commentary entry – first, the older commentary entry.

First, from Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on 1Peter 3:19:

“(19) By which.—If “by the Spirit” had been right in the former verse, this translation might have stood here, though the word is literally in; for “in” is often used to mean “in the power of,” “on the strength of:” e.g., Romans 8:15. But as that former rendering is untenable, we must here keep strictly to in which—i.e., in spirit. This might mean either of two things: (1) “spiritually speaking,” “so far as thought and sympathy goes,” as, for instance, 1Corinthians 5:3, Colossians 2:5; or else (2) “in spirit,” as opposed to “in the body”—i.e., “out of the body” (2Corinthians 12:2; comp. Revelation 1:10), as a disembodied spirit. We adopt the latter rendering without hesitation, for reasons, which will be clearer in the next Note.

He went and preached unto the spirits in prison.—There are two main ways of interpreting this mysterious passage. (1) The spirits are understood as being now in prison, in consequence of having rejected His preaching to them while they were still on earth. According to this interpretation—which has the support of such names as Pearson, Hammond, Barrow, and Leighton (though he afterwards modified his opinion). among ourselves, besides divers great theologians of other countries, including St. Thomas Aquinas on the one hand and Beza on the other—it was “in spirit,” i.e., mystically speaking, our Lord Himself who, in and through the person of Noah, preached repentance to the old world. Thus the passage is altogether dissociated from the doctrine of the descent into hell; and the sense (though not the Greek) would be better expressed by writing, He had gone and preached unto the spirits (now) in prison. In this case, however, it is difficult to see the purpose of the digression, or what could have brought the subject into St. Peter’s mind. (2) The second interpretation—which is that of (practically) all the Fathers, and of Calvin, Luther (finally), Bellarmine, Bengel, and of most modern scholars—refers the passage to what our Lord did while His body was dead. This is the most natural construction to put upon the words “in which also” (i.e., in spirit). It thus gives point to the saying that He was “quickened in spirit,” which would otherwise be left very meaningless. The “spirits” here will thus correspond with “in spirit” there. It is the only way to assign any intelligible meaning to the words “He went and” to suppose that He “went” straight from His quickening in spirit—i.e., from His death. It is far the most natural thing to suppose that the spirits were in prison at the time when Christ went and preached to them. We take it, then, to mean that, directly Christ’s human spirit was disengaged from the body, He gave proof of the new powers of purely spiritual action thus acquired by going off to the place, or state, in which other disembodied spirits were (who would have been incapable of receiving direct impressions from Him had He not Himself been in the purely spiritual condition), and conveyed to them certain tidings: He “preached” unto them. What was the substance of this preaching we are not here told, the word itself (which is not the same as, e.g., in 1Peter 1:25) only means to publish or proclaim like a crier or herald; and as the spirits are said to have been disobedient and in prison, some have thought that Christ went to proclaim to them the certainty of their damnation! The notion has but to be mentioned to be rejected with horror; but it may be pointed out also that in 1Peter 4:6, which refers back to this passage, it is distinctly called a “gospel;” and it would be too grim to call that a gospel which (in Calvin’s words) “made it more clear and patent to them that they were shut out from all salvation!” He brought good tidings, therefore, of some kind to the “prison” and the spirits in it. And this “prison” must not be understood (with Bp. Browne, Articles, p. 95) as merely “a place of safe keeping,” where good spirits might be as well as bad, though etymologically this is imaginable. The word occurs thirty-eight times in the New Testament in the undoubted sense of a “prison,” and not once in that of a place of protection, though twice (Revelation 18:2) it is used in the derived sense of ‘a cage.’” (1)

Next, from Simon J. Kistemaker’s, New Testament Commentary provides a contemporary interpretation of Spirits from 1Peter 3:19–20a:

“Verse 19 is difficult to interpret, for in this relatively short sentence the meaning of each word varies. D. Edmond Hiebert observes, “Each of the nine words in the original has been differently understood.” Accordingly, we cannot expect unanimity in the interpretation of this passage; concurrence eludes us.

Here is the reading of the New International Version:

19. Through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20a. Who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

What does this text say? Let us look at the component parts, explain them sequentially, and view the text in its context.

1. “Through whom.” The antecedent of the word whom is the term spirit (either with or without a capital letter). If we take the relative pronoun whom to relate to the nearest antecedent, then we understand that it refers to the Holy Spirit (see the preceding verse). Through the instrumentality of the Spirit of God, Jesus Christ after his resurrection “went and preached to the spirits in prison.” Note that in his epistle Peter mentions the Spirit a few times: “the sanctifying work of the Spirit” (1:2), “the Spirit of Christ” (1:11), and the preaching of the gospel “by the Holy Spirit” (1:12).

We can also relate the phrase through whom to the word spirit without the capital letter. If we interpret the phrase in this sense, its meaning actually is “in which” or “in the resurrected state.” The relative pronoun, then, relates to the spiritual state of Christ after his resurrection.

Some interpreters suggest the translation in the course of which. The antecedent of “which” then seems to be the general context. However, the connection between the relative phrase through whom and the nearest term spirit is unmistakable and thus preferred.

1. “Also he went and preached.” What is meant by the word also? Apparently Peter wants us to understand it in the sequence of the verbs put to death and made alive. The words he went and preached follow this sequence in the preceding verse. We understand, then, that after his resurrection Jesus went to preach to the spirits in prison.

In the Greek, the same word (“went”) is used in verse 19 as in verse 22 (“who has gone into heaven”). We assume that if Peter speaks about the ascension of Jesus in the one verse, by implication he does so in the other (also see Acts 1:10–11). We have no certainty, however, because the word went as such is indefinite and means, “to go elsewhere.” But if we interpret Paul’s remark about the “spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Eph. 6:12) spatially, then the verb went can mean “to go up” and can refer to Christ’s ascension. Also, the sequence of verses 18 and 19 indicates that Christ went to preach in his resurrected state.

Does the statement he went and preached mean that Jesus descended into hell? No, it does not, because evidence for this assumption is lacking. Scripture nowhere teaches that Christ after his resurrection and prior to his ascension descended into hell. Moreover, we have difficulty in accepting the explanation that Christ in his spirit went to preach to Noah’s contemporaries. But before we continue this point, we must ask this question:

What is meant by the word preached? The verb stands by itself, so that we are unable to determine the content of preaching. In brief, only the fact of preaching, not the message, is important. That is, we understand the verb preached to mean that Christ proclaimed victory over his adversaries. In his brevity, Peter refrains from telling us the context of Christ’s proclamation. We would be adding to the text if we should interpret the word preached to signify the preaching of the gospel. “Hence we may suppose with reason that it is the victory of Christ over His adversaries which is emphasized in 3:19, not the conversion or evangelization of the disobedient spirits.”

1. “To the spirits in prison.” Do the spirits belong to human beings or to fallen angels or to both? In this passage Peter gives the word spirit two qualifications. First, the spirits are kept in prison. In Revelation, 20:7 John writes that Satan “will be released from his prison” (see also vv. 1–3). And in his second epistle, Peter writes that God sent angels that sinned “into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment” (2 Peter 2:4; compare Jude 6). Incidentally, Scripture nowhere states that the souls of men are kept in prison.

Next, Peter says that the spirits are those “who disobeyed long ago” (v. 20a). He writes, “the spirits … who disobeyed.” He does not say, “the spirits of those who disobeyed.” If this were the case, Peter could mean the souls of departed men who had been disobedient during their lifetime. However, the word spirits as Peter qualifies it refers to supernatural beings. Peter’s use of this word agrees with the connotation in the Gospels, where it refers to “evil spirits” (see, e.g., Mark 3:11). This usage also agrees with intertestamental literature, in which the term spirits designates angels or demons.

According to the writer of Hebrews, Christ does not help angels (2:16). Rather, he redeems the spiritual descendants of Abraham. Furthermore, if we would interpret the word spirits to be those of men, we should realize that Peter’s qualification regarding disobedient spirits points to willful rejection of God’s authority. Scripture teaches that there is no forgiveness for the sin of deliberate disobedience (Heb. 6:4–6; 10:26). Last, no scriptural doctrine teaches that man has a second chance for repentance after death. When the curtain is drawn between time and eternity, man’s destiny is sealed, and the period of grace and repentance has ended (read the parable of the rich man and Lazarus [Luke 16:19–31]). Consequently, I interpret the phrase the spirits in prison to refer to supernatural beings and not to the souls of men.

1. “God waited patiently.” A literal translation of this part of the verse is, “when the patience of God kept waiting.” That is, God’s forbearance lasted 120 years before he destroyed humanity, eight persons excepted, with the flood. The construction, translated “God waited patiently,” stresses the leniency of God before he executed his sentence on the human race (compare Gen. 6:3). From the time of Adam to the day when Noah entered the ark, God exercised patience. Noah’s contemporaries were notoriously wicked and served as agents of demonic spirits in their rebellion against God. There is no other time in history in which the contrast between faith and unbelief, obedience and disobedience, was as pronounced as in the days of Noah. The rebellious spirits seemed to control the human race with the exception of Noah and his family.

Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 3:19–20a

Verse 19

ἐν ᾧ καί—in 1902 British New Testament scholar J. Rendel Harris popularized a conjecture that had been suggested by J. Bowyer in 1763. Harris conjectured that the reading of the first part of verse 19 should be ἐν ᾧ καὶ Ἐνώχ (in which Enoch [went and preached]). Although the suggestion proved to be attractive, scholars applied the rule that for a conjecture to be acceptable, it must fulfill two conditions: the text must be incomprehensible without the conjecture and the conjecture must improve our understanding of that text. Examining the evidence, however, they concluded that the conjecture was unable to satisfy these two conditions and therefore had to be dismissed.

ἐν θυλακῇ—although the noun prison is not explained in the text, its position is emphatic. The prepositional phrase in prison is placed between the definite article the and the noun spirits.

Verse 20a

ἀπειθήσασιν—this aorist active participle in the neuter dative plural clarifies the noun πνεύμασιν (spirits). The participle derives from the verb ἀπειθειω (I disobey). In the aorist tense, it points to sins committed in the past. The position of the participle is predicate. We translate noun and participle as “spirits who disobeyed.”

ἀπεξεδέχετο—this compound verb is in the imperfect tense and in the middle (deponent) voice. It expresses continued action in the past tense. Because of the compound, this verb is intensive or perfective. It means “to wait patiently for” or “to wait it out.”

κατασκευαζομέης—the present passive participle in the genitive case with κιβωτοῦ (ark) in the same case constitutes the genitive absolute construction. Note that the use of the present tense denotes duration; from use of the passive voice we infer that a work force was needed to build the ark.

Additional comments on 3:19–20a:

Interpretations of this particular text are many. Here are some of them listed in chronological sequence.

6. Clement of Alexandria, about a.d. 200, taught that Christ went to hell in his spirit to proclaim the message of salvation to the souls of sinners who were imprisoned there since the flood (Stromateis 6.6).
7. Augustine, about a.d. 400, said that the preexistent Christ proclaimed salvation through Noah to the people who lived before the flood (Epistolae 164).
8. In the last half of the sixteenth century, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine introduced a view that has been held by many Roman Catholics: in his spirit Christ went to release the souls of the righteous who repented before the flood and had been kept in Limbo, that is, the place between heaven and hell where, Bellarmine said, the souls of the Old Testament saints were kept (De Controversiis 2.4, 13).
9. An interpretation promulgated by Friedrich Spitta in the last decade of the nineteenth century is this: After his death and before his resurrection, Christ preached to fallen angels, also known as “sons of God,” who during Noah’s time had married “daughters of men” (Gen. 6:2; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6).
10. Contemporary commentators teach that the resurrected Christ, when he ascended into heaven, proclaimed to imprisoned spirits his victory over deaths.

Although space prevents me from commenting on all the strengths and weaknesses of these views, I select a few of the major objections. And although it is virtually impossible to achieve unanimity in understanding the text, I call attention to the view that many theologians favor.

The first view is the one of Clement of Alexandria. He taught that Christ went to hell in his spirit to proclaim the message of salvation to the souls of sinners who were imprisoned there since the flood. Two basic objections can be voiced against Clement’s interpretation: one, Scripture is silent on imprisonment of souls condemned by God, and two, Augustine’s doctrine that there is no conversion after death repudiates Clement’s view.

Next, Augustine said that the preexistent Christ proclaimed salvation through Noah to the people who lived before the flood. No one disputes the fact that the Spirit of Christ was active in the time between Adam’s fall into sin and the birth of Jesus (see Peter’s comment in 1:11). The objection to Augustine’s view is that he departs from the wording of 1Peter 3:19. Augustine speaks of the pre-incarnate Christ and not of the Christ who “was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit.” Augustine’s interpretation dominated the theological scene for centuries until the doctrinal view of Bellarmine displaced it in the Roman Catholic Church.

Third, Bellarmine taught that even though Christ’s body died on the cross, his soul remained alive. Thus in his spirit Christ went to release the souls of the righteous who repented before the flood and were in Limbo. Bellarmine’s interpretation has been rejected by Protestants, because they point out that Scripture teaches that the Old Testament saints are in heaven (see, e.g., Heb. 11:5, 16, 40; 12:23).

Then there is the interpretation of Spitta. He said that Christ after his death and before his resurrection preached to fallen angels who during Noah’s time had married “daughters of men.” But this view faces a serious objection. Answering the Sadducees who asked him about the resurrection, Jesus asserted that angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (Matt. 22:30). We have difficulty understanding how fallen angels, who are spirits, can have sexual relations with women.

Last, recent commentators teach that the resurrected Christ, during his ascension to heaven, proclaimed to imprisoned spirits his victory over death. The exalted Christ passed through the realm where the fallen angels are kept and proclaimed his triumph over them (Eph. 6:12; Col. 2:15). This interpretation has met favorable response in Protestant and Roman Catholic circles and is in harmony with the teaching of the Petrine passage and the rest of Scripture.” (2)

Next, helpful entries from two encyclopedia dictionaries: 

First, from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:

PRISON, SPIRITS IN

“The phrase occurs in the much-disputed passage, 1 Peter 3:18-20, where the apostle, exhorting Christians to endurance under suffering for well-doing, says:

“Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.” It is plain that in this context “the spirits in prison” (tois en phulake pneumasin) denote the generation who were disobedient in the days of Noah, while the words “spirits” and “in prison” refer to their present disembodied condition in a place of judgment in the unseen world (compare 2 Peter 2:4-9). The crucial point in the passage lies in what is said of Christ’s preaching to these spirits in prison. The interpretation which strikes one most naturally is that Christ, put to death in the flesh, and made alive again in the spirit, went in this spiritual (disembodied) state, and preached to these spirits, who once had been disobedient, but are viewed as now possibly receptive of His message This is the idea of the passage taken by the majority of modern exegetes, and it finds support in what is said in 1 Peter 4:6, “For unto this end was the gospel preached even to the dead, that they might be judged indeed according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.” On this basis is now often reared a mass of doctrine or conjecture respecting “second probation,” “restoration,” etc.–in part going back to patristic times–for which the passage, even so taken, affords a very narrow foundation (see on this view, Plumptre, The Spirits in Prison; Dorner, System of Christian Doctrine, IV, 130-32; E. White, Life in Christ, chapter xxii). It must be admitted, however, that, on closer examination, the above plausible explanation is compassed with many difficulties. A preaching of Christ in Hades is referred to in no other passage of Scripture, while Peter appears to be speaking to his readers of something with which they are familiar; it seems strange that these antediluvians should be singled out as the sole objects of this preaching in the spiritual world; the word “made alive” does not exegetically refer to a disembodied state, but to the resurrection of Christ in the body, etc. Another line of interpretation is therefore preferred by many, who take the words “in which also he went,” to refer, not to a disembodied manifestation, but to the historical preaching to the antediluvian generation through Noah while they yet lived. In favor of this view is the fact that the apostle in 1Peter 1:11 regards the earlier prophetic preaching as a testifying of “the Spirit of Christ,” that God’s long-suffering with Noah’s generation is described in Genesis 6:5, which Peter has doubtless in his mind, as a striving of God’s Spirit, and that in 2 Peter 2:5 there is another allusion to these events, and Noah is described as “a preacher of righteousness.” The passage, 1Peter 4:6, may have the more general meaning that Christians who have died are at no disadvantage in the judgment as compared with those who shall be alive at the Parousia (compare 1Thessalonians 4:15-18). (For an exposition of this view, with a full account of the interpretations and literature on the subject, compare Salmond’s Christian Doctrine of Immortality, 4th edition, 364-87.)” James Orr (3)

Second, from Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology:

Spirits in Prison

“The spirits in prison are referred to in 1Peter 3:19-20, where Peter declares that they disobeyed in the time of Noah and that Christ went and preached to them in prison. This passage has often been identified as one of the most obscure in the entire New Testament. Other passages are often used to interpret this one, but it must be understood in its own literary context and ideological environment.

Verses 19-21 appear in the middle of a christological confession of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (v. 18) and his exaltation to the right hand of the Father (v. 22 cf. 1Tim 3:16 ). Verses 19-21 declare his triumphant declaration to the evil spirits, and contrasts them with Noah, who was saved through water — a type of Christian baptism.

Peter used this confession and triumphant journey of Christ to encourage his readers, who were suffering ridicule and persecution as a result of their conversion (1:6; 4:4. In particular, it follows 3:13-17, which explains how they should respond to unreasonable abuse, especially when they have been zealous in living an honorable life before their accusers (2:11-3:12). And their participation in the triumph of Christ is assured by their pledge of a good conscience in baptism (v. 21).

This journey of Christ took place after the resurrection rather than between his death and resurrection, since the description follows the resurrection in verse 18, and the relative clause “in which” (en ho) refers either to his resurrected spiritual state, or “at that time,” that is, after his death and resurrection. Since the very same form of the participle (poreutheis, “going,” or “traveling”) is used in both verse 19 and verse 22, it is most likely that this is a single journey of Christ through the heavens to the right hand of the Father (v. 22).

The distinctive characteristic of these spirits is that they were in prison when Christ traveled to them, since the prepositional phrase is in the attributive position (tois en phulake pneumasin, “the in prison spirits”).

That these spirits are the evil angels of Genesis 6:1-4 (or their offspring) is indicated by their being in prison, their disobedience in the time of Noah, their mention in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, and the New Testament use of the plural noun (“spirits,” pneumasin) as a reference to evil spirits unless otherwise qualified. This is further supported by contemporary Jewish literature (1Enoch 6:1-8; 12:1-16:4; 19:1; 2Baruch 56:12), which describes these evil angels in the same way as the passage in 1Peter.” Norman R. Ericson (4)

In closing:

As seen by the older Bible commentator Charles John Ellicott, and the older International Standard Bible Encyclopedia entries the difficulty in understanding the text in 1Peter 3:19.

Simon J. Kistemaker in his New Testament Commentary and Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology have the advantage of the most recent tools of scholarship. While the older views on the passage should not be dismissed out of hand, the newer interpretation seems more plausible.

It is safe to say:

The spirits in prison are not men, but fallen angels. Support for this is in 2Peter 2:4–5 and Jude 1:6.

“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly.” (2Peter 2:4-5 ESV)

“And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day.” (Jude 1:6 ESV)

Both of these texts speak of the fallen angels being in chains until the judgment.

Simon J. Kistemaker’s commentary entry on 1Peter 3:19 is convincing when he argues that the spirits are fallen angelic spiritual beings and not fallen men. In addition, Kistemaker reasons that Peter cannot be talking about men. Fallen men do not get a second chance at salvation.

Then Kistemaker cites Hebrews 11:5 that speaks of Enoch to show that godly men in the Old Testament went to heaven, not to prison. Godly men before the resurrection of Christ did not go to spirit prison. This account of Enoch parallels the thief on the cross (Matthew 27:38). Both went to be with Christ.

As a necessary aside. The spirit prison is not Abraham’s Bosom:

Abraham’s Bosom

“Unique phrase found in a parable of Jesus describing the place where Lazarus went after death (Luke 16:19-31). It is a figurative phrase that appears to have been drawn from a popular belief that the righteous would rest by Abraham’s side in the world to come, an opinion described in Jewish literature at the time of Christ. The word kolpos [kovlpo] literally refers to the side or lap of a person. Figuratively, as in this case, it refers to a place of honor reserved for a special guest, similar to its usage in John 13:23. In the case of Lazarus, the reserved place is special because it is beside Abraham, the father of all the righteous. The phrase may be synonymous to the paradise promised to the thief on the cross (Luke 23:43). Together these passages support the conviction that a believer enjoys immediate bliss at the moment of physical death.” Sam Hamstra, Jr. (5)

In the beginning, two questions were asked:

To answer the starting question about the possibility of 1Peter 3:19 talking about spirits of men awaiting a second chance for salvation. It can be said with Scriptural certainty; this is impossible in light of “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment. (Hebrews 9:27) In addition, “For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.” (2Corinthians 6:2)

In answer to the second question at the beginning of this study, it is safe to conclude:

God punished the disobedient angels with imprisonment. When Jesus died, He went spiritually and proclaimed as Ellicott said like “a crier or herald” to these spirits in prison. Jesus proclaimed His victory to the fallen angels imprisoned there. “And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” (Colossians 2:15) Amen!

Notes:

1. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, 1Peter, Vol.8, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 420-421.
2. Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary, Peter, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1986), pp. 141-146.
3. Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor, “Entry for ‘PRISON, SPIRITS IN,’” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, reprinted 1986), p. 2456.
4. Walter A. Elwell, Editor, Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House), p. 745-746.
5. Walter A. Elwell, Editor, Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House), p. 7-8.

“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: THERELIGIONTHATSTARTEDINAHAT.COM