The Case of the Drunken Adulterer

The Case of the Drunken Adulterer

(1Tim 3:1-7 & Titus1:4-9)

          The name of this morning’s sermon is “The Case of the Drunken Adulterer”. I’ve given it this title because we’re going to get into the two most controversial issues concerning eldership: “the husband of one wife” and “not addicted to wine”. To do this, we’ll need to investigate what the scripture truly says concerning these two suspect qualifications and, using the intelligence that God has given us, determine the verdict on the views that are taken of them.

          On one hand, we have the traditional teachings; on the other, the non-traditional.

           Tradition has taught us about these in this way: If you divorce your wife for any other reason except adultery and then remarry, you are then also committing adultery because, since divorce is a sin, you now have two wives: the one you sinfully divorced and the one you sinfully married. Tradition has taught that divorce and remarriage is a sin and therefore disqualifies any man who has the desire to be an elder or deacon.

          Tradition has also taught that consumption of any alcoholic beverage of any sort, at any time, at any place is a sin; that if I have a glass of wine with my dinner on Saturday evening in the privacy of my own home, according to the Bible, I’m sinning.

          In my own study of these qualifications, I’ve come across several different views. There are those who hold strictly to the traditional view and refuse to even entertain the thought that tradition is wrong.

There are those who believe that these things are alright for the “regular Christian”, but elders and deacons are held to a higher standard; Sort of a separation of who has and who hasn’t sinned in the same circumstance.

And then there are those who believe that the traditional teachings on the subjects are only man-made preferences or      misinterpretation of the scripture.

So, who’s right, the traditionalist or the non-traditionalist? Is there one of these groups who has all the answers, or could the truth lie in amongst a combination of these views?

There is something that I’d like to make clear at this point. I am a conservative, but not a traditionalist. I believe that to truly understand the scripture we need to go beyond what our English-translated Bibles say and dig into the original words that were recorded by those who put pen to paper to give us the complete and inspired word of God. For those who have the desire to more completely understand what God is saying to us, there are several good computer programs that have the Strong’s Concordance built into it. If you don’t use a computer very often, then I’d suggest that you at least buy and use a concordance. You’ll find that seeing the scripture as originally written can have a great affect on your understanding. So, having said that, let’s get started into solving the Case of the Drunken Adulterer.

The first determination that we have to come to is: Is drinking alcohol sinful? Now, there could be opinion after opinion about this subject. And we could rely on “tradition” to get our answer. But, are our opinions what determine such important matters as this when we can get the answer from God’s word? Just because “it’s always been taught that way” does that always make it right? What if what we’ve always been taught is not what the Bible shows us? Are we more bound to tradition than Scripture? I hope not!

I’d like to ask: did Jesus sin? I know that we should be able to answer this without much thought. Of course, Jesus didn’t sin! How many times have we read that in our Bibles and taught that in our classes and assemblies? We know that if Jesus Himself had sinned, He couldn’t be the Unblemished Sacrifice.

In the gospels of Matthew and Luke, the account is recorded of John the Baptist, being in prison, sending disciples to Jesus to ask Him if He was the One which was to come. Jesus answered in a way that John would no doubt understand His meaning. Then, after speaking of John and his work, Jesus said this: Lu 7:33-34 "For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, 'He has a demon!' The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'"

Now, if we go back to Luke 1:15, we read where the angel Gabriel said to Zechariahs, “For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb”.  Do we believe that Gabriel was forbidding that John have Welch’s? Or could it be that he was speaking of wine of the fermented type? The old wine that Jesus later spoke of? And if that’s the case, does this refer back to what Jesus said about eating and drinking? Does this indicate that Jesus did, at least at times, drink fermented wine? If you say “No”, how do explain the contrast Jesus made in Luke 7? And, if you say “Yes”, how can we say that alcohol in itself is a sin and still look at Jesus as sinless? It just doesn’t add up!

Then, there’s the Greek word that’s used both in 1Tim. 3 and Titus 1. Typically, when wine is mentioned, the word “oinos” is used, which simply means “fruit of the vine”, both non-alcoholic and alcoholic. It’s interesting to note here, however, that oinos is not the word used, but “par`-oi-nos”. This word is translated by the Strong’s concordance as: “Staying near wine. Tippling”. I’d never heard of “tippling” before, so I looked it up in the dictionary. It means: “to drink liquor in habit or excess”. I noticed that it doesn’t merely say, “to drink liquor”, but to do it in habit or excess. I find it also interesting that the Scripture we just read where Jesus said that they called him a drunkard; that word (oy-nop-ot`-ace), means the exact same thing: being a tippler.

Folks, concerning alcohol, the Scriptural evidence that I find shows it not to be sinful of itself, but in how it’s used because the Bible speaks of excess. I mean like, it’s ok to eat. But don’t make yourself sick from it. That’s gluttony. Jesus was accused of that, too.

Now then, it’s time to move on to the next part of the mystery, the really tough one: the husband of one wife.

As I sat thinking about how to start looking at this, I thought about how many situations that I’ve seen men in that made them feel, through what they’d been taught, that they had no opportunity at all to serve the Lord in the function of elder or deacon. And, when I’d ask why they felt that way, their answer would be something like, “This person”, or, “That person taught it that way”. Or, “That’s what I’ve always been told”. There’s practically never any actual Scriptural reason for them thinking that way. Oh, the Bible might come out during our discussion, but it always goes back to who told them what! What’s say we dispense with that on the basis of hearsay, and look at the evidence.

1Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:6 say the exact same things in both English and Greek. The New American Standard Version puts it “the husband of one wife”, as do the KJV, NKJV, RSV, ASV, and others. The NIV says, “husband of BUT one wife”.

However, none of these in a best translation of the Greek. The Greek reads, “aner mia gune” Aner means: a man. Mia means: a particular. And Gune means: woman. In other words: A one-woman man. But what’s that mean? Well, to me, it could only be one of two things. It either means that a man HAS only BEEN married to one woman or, a man IS only married to one woman.

Now, the biggest, though not the only issue concerning this, is that of divorce. We’ve been taught for years that divorce is a sin and that any man who divorces and remarries, except for the reason of marital unfaithfulness, is an adulterer. But, it that really what the Scriptures say?

What most who hold strictly to the traditional teaching either don’t know or refuse to accept is that where a lot of our English translations have the word “divorce”, a lot of times it should read “put away”.

We need to understand the difference between the words put away and divorce in scripture.  This is a very common problem.  The two words are translated from different Greek words and those Greek words have different meanings.  And even though they have a similar root word, apo, they don’t share the same historical beginning.  The two words are not the same.

“Put away” (Greek:  apoluo) in scripture means to separate or separated in the sense that it’s used today.  A couple that’s only separated are still married.  The marriage contract still stands until it is broken by adultery, death or a written divorce document.  You could read the phrase “put away” as “separated”, not divorced”.  I’ve had some say that put away is the same as divorce, however, this not the case.  One of the best examples is when Christ was with a crowd of people in Matthew 15:32, Mark 6:36 and Mark 8:3.  When it came time to send the people away the Greek word apoluo is used.  Christ did not divorce the crowd, but rather physical separation is what was discussed.

“Divorce” (Greek:  apostasion) in scripture means that a bill of divorcement has been written and that the couple is no longer married.  They then separate as part of the divorce.  The bill of divorcement ends the contractual ties.

Most instances of apoluo have been mistranslated when associated with marriage.  If you see the phrase “put away” or “send away”, then that is correct.  However, when you see the word “divorce”, you should check the Greek.  If the Greek word is “apostasion” or very close that word, then the word “divorce” is correct.  Usually you will find the Greek word “apoluo” or a word close to that.  That is a time when the phrase “put away” or “separated” should have been translated.  In the Greek “apostasion” is only found in three verses, Matthew 5:31, Matthew 19:7 and Mark 10:4.  In each case, it is preceded by the phrase “a writing of” or “a bill of”.  All other instances of the word divorce in the new testament are mistranslations and should be understood as the opposite meaning,  only “separated”, not divorced!

When one carefully examines the Hebrew and Greek it is easier to see that the Bible teaches one unified teaching on marriage and divorce.  The New Testament and the Old Testament do not teach different doctrines.  The Bible teaches one unified doctrine:  that one may divorce.

One who is divorced as just described, may remarry.  There are limitations and a proper way for things to be done.  When one becomes aware of the translation errors, then one can understand from whence came the “once you’re divorced you can’t remarry” false doctrine.

Let’s look at a couple of scriptures:  Mt 5:31 MKJV "It was also said, Whoever shall put away (apoluo G630) his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce (apostasion G647).”

 Mt 5:32 MKJV “But I say to you that whoever shall  put away (apoluo G630) his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery.  And whoever shall marry her who is put away (apoluo G630) commits adultery.”

The correct reading of the scripture should be:  Mt 5:32 MODIFIED MKJV “But I say to you that whoever separates  [without divorcing his wife], except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery [when she marries another].  And whoever shall marry her who is [only] separated commits adultery.”

So, divorce is not a sin, but only a remedy for a sinful situation.

If divorce and remarriage is not the issue concerning “the husband of one wife”,  then the only other possibility could be Polygamy. 

Some may question the fact that polygamy was not prevalent in the Jewish culture at that time, and try to dismiss this possibility.  However, Paul was sending two evangelists, Timothy and Titus, out into pagan territory (Timothy to Ephesus and Titus to Crete) where polygamy was still widely practiced.

Now, getting back to the elder – I find no Scriptural reason for a man who has an occasional drink not to be qualified as an elder. I also find no Scriptural reason why a man who has been divorced not to be an elder.

There are many views on both of these subjects, and we’ve tried to look at them the best we can in the time we have, this morning. To gain a fuller understanding, we’d need to dig much deeper into these both. I hope that if you have questions about either, we can look into it together.