Romans 14:14-23: The Use of Christian Liberty, Part Two

Hey everybody! Been a while since I’ve posted, for various reasons. Mostly I just needed a break from studying for a while. Back at it.

We’re picking up where we left off, and then I really want to get back to going through passages dealing with homosexuality, digging into the New Testament passages.

We left off talking about the first half of Romans 14, and ended with verse 13, Paul’s admonition to both groups, the weaker and the stronger, to not put a stumbling block in front of another Christian. If you haven’t read the first part to this trip through chapter 14, I suggest you go read that one first. Let’s go.

(v14) I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Paul is making a simple statement here. These “areas of contention” are not sinful per se, but can be sinful depending on one’s personal convictions. This may sound strange, and hard to swallow at first, but when it comes to gray areas, Christian morality could be seen as relativistic. R-rated movies, for instance, are not in themselves wrong, but one person may be convicted that they are, and one person may be convicted that they are not, and a third person may be convicted that some are and some are not. However, it is truly not relativistic- it is not the person deciding these things, but the Holy Spirit who is leading them according to their maturity in the Father. If a person decides a certain activity should be avoided, then that is their own conviction, and to break that conviction would be sin.

On a second note, we have to remember our audience. Remember when we talked about the situation in Rome, we had Jewish and Gentile Christians who had disagreements about the Mosaic Law’s place in the Christian life. So when Paul says that nothing is “unclean” in itself, we should be immediately reminded of the Law’s ordinances against certain foods. And why are they not unclean? We should also remember Peter’s dream in Acts 10:10-16. The Lord has done away with the ceremonial laws of the Mosaic Covenant, and made what was once unclean to now be clean.

(v15) For this reason, if on account of food your brother is grieved, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.

Now, many people like to jump to this verse and 20-21 to try to draw the conclusion that if it is possible that the weaker brother is offended by the stronger’s use of his liberty, that it is the responsibility of the stronger brother to abstain from whatever activity is causing his brother to be offended. We must remember context here; what was said in v13, which was the beginning of the paragraph that also contains this verse, has direct bearing on what it is that is hurting our brother. In our study of v13 we have already established that in order to cause our brother to stumble, contextually, they must be coerced into doing what it is that we feel freedom in. This makes sense with the use of the word grieved.

For connects this verse to verse 13, with v14 acting as a parenthesis, adding insight to instruct us on the proper way to view gray areas, that they are not inherently sinful.

Grieved (lupew) here should hence be viewed in the sense of feeling guilty, because the stumbling block must be participatory in order for it to be called such. So, we grieve our brother by placing a stumbling block in front of him, which is to cause him to take part in our liberty against his conscience, which would therefore make him feel guilty, because he feels that he is doing something wrong.

This type of action is against the rule of love. Agape is used here, “unconditional love.” This is the love that we are supposed to share with our fellow Christians, a love that “bears all things.” The same love that Christ showed for his Church. When we entice our brothers to break their conscience, we are not following the law that Christ lived by.

Destroy means exactly how it sounds, with permanency (See Mk 1:24, Lk 4:34). When speaking of a person, it can carry the meaning of putting to death, killing, bringing to ruin, and eternal destruction. Once again, remember what we said of stumbling blocks in v13, and the permanency with which they cause people to fall. The idea here is the same; to cause someone grief in stumbling is to bring about their ruin spiritually. This could range from them being unable to ever get away from this sin all the way to a denial of their faith. Either way, the consequences of this are dire, and result in a breaking of fellowship. Christ died for all believers, and we are to show each believer the same love that Christ showed them on the cross.

(vs16-17) Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

In the same way that the For in v15 skipped v14 and reached back to v13, so the Therefore here skips v15 and points back to v14. Paul’s point that nothing is unclean in itself is the reason for the stronger brother to not allow weaker brothers to speak of their liberality in degrading ways. Many times, especially here in America, a person’s Spirituality is measured by the things they don’t take part in. A person can be viewed as a Spiritual giant by making a deal about not drinking, only listening to Christian music, not watching movies, seeing no point in sporting events, and the list goes on and on. The problem is that those things do not make a person Spiritual- for just as Paul says here, the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking. There are much more important things that Christians are to focus on besides simply the choices one makes in his daily life. Instead, it’s the fruit of the Spirit that shows the activity of the Spirit in one’s life (Gal 5:22). It isn’t unusual to hear a preacher go off on a rabbit trail on some topic of pop culture and condemn it as completely sinful. We have to be careful on the things we condemn. Certainly there are some things which the Bible specifically teaches about, and those things that are called sin, should be called sin. The problem is when we start to draw conclusions about certain things, and then call the application the sin, rather than calling the sin, sin. For instance, to look at something like The Lord of the Rings, and say, “It contains wizards, and wizards practice magic, and the Bible says magic is evil, therefore The Lord of the Rings is evil and it is sinful to read it,” is applying a scriptural truth to something that Scripture was not directly speaking against. Scripture does not speak against fiction, nor does it speak against reading or writing about things that are sinful, but only condemns the actual act of witchcraft. To apply Scripture to something that it wasn’t speaking about is simply that, application, and application is not always dogmatic. But, these are more often than not the sermons that get the Amen!'s, where all the older folks nod their heads approvingly. For some reason, these denials of applicational evils bring emotions to the surface, but are not good or evil in reality, and should not be lingered on.

For this reason, the stronger brother should not allow a fellow Christian, the weaker brother, to speak of his freedom as evil. They should be reproved in gentleness, and with Scripture (2 Tim 3:16). Notice in 2 Tim 3:16 the use of the word correction. The Greek word, epanorthosis, carries the idea of improvement, correcting in a way that makes it better than before. This should be the goal of the stronger brother in rebuking his weaker brother; to show the grace of God through our freedom in Christ in a way that builds his brother up in knowledge through the use of the inspired text. Knowledge in the Christian life is important- without knowledge, there can be no faith. Thus the liberality of the stronger brother can be a good thing to the weaker brother, it can be a means by which they can learn more about the grace of God and the freedom we have in Christ.

(v18-20) For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and causes to stumble.

In this way refers to righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Bill Mounce said, “While freedom is a right, it is not a guide for conduct. Love serves that purpose. Rights are to be laid aside in the interest of love." There is a difference between freedom and antinomianism. Freedom is something that can be picked up and set down at will. That’s what makes it free. Those who are strong have the ability to, of their own will, decide to set something down and pick it up depending on which is the proper choice at the moment. Antinomianism is a noose- when you believe there are no laws, that you can do what you want when you want, you become unable to set down anything, and the noose only tightens until it is inescapable. True freedom builds up, but libertinism tears down.

(v21) It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.

Once again, as was stated in the commentary to v13, contextually, for someone to stumble is to fall into a sin that they do not come out of. The same Greek word I have translated as stumbling block in v13 is used in v20, proskomma, and the verb form proskoptw is used here. Again, the admonition given by Paul is to not take part in something that will cause a weaker brother to also take part in the same thing. The NASB’s translation of gives offense in the previous verse is misleading. The idea is not simply being offensive, as many people construe this passage, but causing them to stub their toe on a sin that causes them to fall down and not get up.

(v22) The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.

This entire verse is stated in the second person singular (‘you,’ as opposed to ‘you all’), which adds emphasis to the rather personal tone to this verse. Also, remember the context; the previous verses are once again directed toward the stronger brother, so we should take this verse also. Paul is explaining in this verse that each person’s convictions are their own, and no one else’s. This underlines the previous passages’ directions against not causing your brother to stumble and not allowing evil to be spoken of those things you consider good. When a person is convinced in himself that something is clean, he should not allow another to force a change in his convictions. Each person’s convictions are their own, and are something that comes from faith. A stronger brother is given a larger measure of faith, and the weaker brother is lacking faith (v2). There is no reason someone who is stronger, and has the faith to partake, should allow someone who is weaker and lacking faith, to dictate the terms of their convictions. This follows from the second sentence of this verse. When a person feels free to partake in a certain activity, and does so under no negative conviction, they are happy. It is a good thing to partake in our freedoms granted to us by Christ. Exercising that freedom is as Christian as any other ordinance we recognize, so long as we are not causing our brothers to sin.

(v23) But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

This is the definition of stumbling. Once again, Paul brings into this issue the problem of faith; those who take part in something they believe is wrong are not practicing faith in the issue. From what was stated in v1, we can see that they simply cannot practice faith in partaking, because they lack faith in the issue at hand. An admonition from v5 can be added here. Freedom is a matter of strength in faith. If one is not personally convinced through the Spirit and in learning, then they are simply following the convictions of others. Stumbling then becomes easy, as the conviction was not theirs to begin with. The weaker brother should be fully convinced in his own mind, through learning and Spiritual discernment, for whatever his mind is easily convinced of without discernment, he can become easily unconvinced of. We should each, weaker and stronger, be confirmed in our beliefs, with strong reasoning for why we believe what we do. This is a foundation that both strong and weak can grow on, and through love, come to understand and accept the other for their contrasting convictions.

I hope this study has been helpful. We are all led by the Lord to our own decisions and convictions. The important thing is not to let others’ convictions cloud ours. How the Lord leads us in our freedom is between us and him. 

For the one who believes we are free to do it, they should practice care, lest it turn to frivolity. Being the cause of another's fall is grievous indeed! With being acknowledged as the stronger brother comes the responsibility of harnessing that strength. The rule of moderation is always a good bet, the pendulum that swings wide swings wrong. Too much liberality causes injury to fellow Christians, but too many restrictions make for strife and unhappiness.

To the one who believes that restrictions makes for a pious life before God, the words of Colossians 2:20-23 speak volumes:

If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence. 

Notice that abstinence-type rules are said to come from "teachings of men!" A life of law is not a Christian life. They have only the appearance of wisdom, but contain no wisdom in truth. They hinder life, but are of no avail against sin- in yourself or in others. One of the greatest myths in Christianity is that abstinence will help curb the sin in others by not being a temptation yourself. This is simply not true. Simply put, a life of law and abstinence is not life- it is law.

Grace and peace to you,

Mike

Romans 14:1-13: The Use of Christian Liberty, Part One

Christians have seemingly always bickered over what is right and what is wrong in areas where the Bible has not spoken, and it will probably always be that way. I can think of a number of examples in my lifetime that seemed to be big deals, and have changed over time. On the other hand, there are some things that still seem to persist, and probably will always persist as areas of contention. Other things, seem to be issues here in the States, that are not even considered issues overseas, particularly in Europe. Arguing over them and trying to prove that they are right or wrong are seldom fruitful. In most cases, both sides are dead-set in their ways and are inflexible in hearing the other side’s opinion, or in some cases, biblical proof. So what are we to do about these topics? Are we to allow it to divide us? Are we to set rules against one another so that no one is offended? Romans 14 gives us a great set of guidelines in dealing with the issue of loving one another in areas of disagreement. Paul, the great Apostle, addresses issues of sin in two different groups- the strong, and the weak. Let’s dive in. (I also apologize for the rather poor English in some of the translations, they’re my own translations from the Greek and are kind of choppy since I was trying to be very literal.)

(vs 1-2) But the weak in the faith, accept these ones- not for passing judgment on their doubting thoughts. The one, indeed, who has faith, he may eat anything, but the weak one eats herbs.

Straight away we can see the division of the two groups by Paul. The passage is directed at the strong, and they are told to “accept” the weak. It makes sense that this charge would be given to the strong- after all, they’re strong! As Uncle Ben always told Peter Parker, “With great strength comes great responsibility.” The strong are charged with care for the weak. Within the context, the strong are defined as those who understand the parameters of Christian liberty. These are people who are strong enough to partake in a plethora of activities, because of their greater knowledge in understanding that in amoral areas (areas that are not intrinsically right or wrong), there is nothing that is in itself unclean.

The weaker, in contrast, are those who either live a life governed by rules, or at the least, in the areas addressed- food and wine- have set up rules for themselves to abstain from partaking. To those (especially in modern culture) that abstain from such practices, this term may seem condescending, and downright rude- but Paul adds something about their weakness important to this issue. What makes them weak? Is it simply that they abstain? No, look at the wording- they are weak in the faith. Notice that the word the is present. It is not weak in faith, as if they are missing a measure of quantity of faith; instead, they are actually weak in THE faith, meaning that their actual Christianity is somehow weaker due to their abstinence. John MacArthur says, “He was speaking of believers… who are weak in their understanding of and living out their true faith in Jesus Christ.” This does not mean that Paul is only addressing immature Christians, it means that those that abstain from these activities are actually missing something in their knowledge of the Gospel. There are some commentators who see in verse 2 that the strong have faith, but there is no corresponding mention of faith for the weak, meaning that the weak may not be practicing faith in the issues at hand.

1 Cor 8:6-7 fleshes this out a bit.

…yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

Those that are weak are so because they (in some way) lack the knowledge that there is one God and one Lord. You see, there are no such things as idols (1 Cor 8:6), so eating meat sacrificed to an idol is meaningless, because the idol doesn’t actually exist. Nonetheless, there were people that abstained because they were afraid of honoring a foreign god by eating the food sacrificed to it. They missed the point- there is only one God, therefore, the meat is just that- meat. They are weak in the faith because they are somehow lacking in their understanding of who God is. Grant Osbourne says, “…they had not understood that their faith (i.e., their relationship to God in Christ) meant complete freedom from all legalistic requirements… by faith, Paul meant that they believed that they had to follow these practices in order to walk with Christ properly…” Such a thing is contrary to a free life, a life that has been ransomed by Christ.

Paul’s charge to the strong is that they are to accept the weak, but not for passing judgment. This word judgment is going to come up a few times in this chapter, and is used in a variety of ways. Paul was clever with his language, and liked to repeat certain words or parts of words to illustrate points, and that’s what he’s doing here. In this case, he’s telling the strong Christians not to only tolerate the weaker brothers so that they can look down on them, to puff themselves up. The point of them being there is not so that we can look at ourselves (remember Paul regarded himself as one of the strong) and think, “Oh, I remember when I was like that. I’m sooooooo much better now. Pity on them.” (Actually, I wanted to type Pity the fool…) The weaker brother is as much a part of the body as we are, and is equal in the eyes of God. We are to treat them as fellow brothers, holding them up in their weakness, and not grieving them.

(vs 3-4) The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Regard with contempt is the word exoutheneo, and has the idea of “regarding as worthless.” This means that the strong are not to look at the weak with the mindset that we are somehow better than they. In these verses though, the greater chastisement is given to the weaker brother, and Paul continues with the thought that they are somehow lacking in their understanding of the faith by teaching about judging the stronger in relation to our shared status as elected by God. Those who partake in what the weak condemn have not ruled themselves out of service, or proven themselves unusable, for God has accepted him. I think there exists within legalistic (both greater and lesser) circles, the idea that Christians that partake in certain activities such as listening to secular music, watching R-rated movies, drinking alcohol, etc., will somehow have a lesser testimony for Christ as long as they partake of those things. Instead, what Paul says in essence is mind your own business. Yes, you may disagree with what someone else does, but do not judge him for it, he is answerable not to you, but only to his Lord- a Lord that both you and him alike share. This goes for placing laws on one another, as often happens within Churches. This could take shape in a number of ways, from requiring church staff to abstain from certain activities to requiring church membership to wear ties and coats to services. John MacArthur says once again, “It is also sinful, however to try to impose our personal convictions on others, because, in doing so, we are tempting them to go against their own consciences.” You see, for the weak to judge the strong by condemning them, and then acting on it by forbidding them from what their conscience does not condemn, is to potentially cause them to sin by placing a means of temptation before them. If you had listened to secular music your whole life, and were forbidden to do so because you got a job at a church that forbid it for staff members, it would be a sin for you to listen to that music as long as you are under their authority. The problem is, there is nothing wrong with listening to secular music per se, so you may be tempted to turn on some music while no one was around, like in your house or car. Maybe, just maybe, as you were flipping through stations you heard a song you once liked and paused to listen a bit. Would that not be sin? You see, for the weak to place rules on the strong is to put a cause of sin before them, and to do so needlessly. Paul is saying that these amoral areas are neither right nor wrong, their “rightness” and “wrongness” are solely determined by the conscience of the one partaking, and it should be left up to them to make that decision for themselves.

(vs 5-6) One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who is observing the day,  he is observing it for the Lord; and the one who is eating, for the Lord he eats, for he gives thanks to God; the one who does not eating for the Lord he does not eat, and he gives thanks to God.

Everyone has their own reasons for doing what they do. Those that are justified in doing those things are justified because they do them out of an understanding that in doing so they are exercising the freedom they have in being finally justified by God on account of the meritorious work of Christ on the cross. They no longer have a need to work for their merit, and therefore their acts are free. In this, they are able to glorify God. On the flip side, those that withhold from partaking in whatever they choose to abstain from, do so from a desire to honor God by not partaking in something that they consider to be wrong. In both cases, what is done is done to the glory of God. Eating or not eating is therefore irrelevant. Whether you abstain or not makes no difference. We are to accept each other equally and rejoice in the freedom to either partake or abstain. “That is, both parties are actuated by religious motives in what they do; they regulate their conduct by a regard to the will of God, and therefore, although some, from weakness or ignorance, may err as to the rule of duty, they are not to be despised or cast out as evil… The Lord is he who died and rose again, that he might be Lord both of the living and the dead. It is to him the believer is responsible, as to the Lord of his inner life.” (Charles Hodge)

(vs 7-12) For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.” So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

This is a restatement of the previous verses, the word for gives that away. All Christians live their lives for the Lord. Everything we do is to be used to glorify him, both in life and death. So, both groups do what they do in service to God and the other group is not to condemn nor judge them for their actions. The actions of our brethren should not give us cause for concern simply because our consciences disagree. Every man will stand before God, and those that are elect will be asked to answer for the time that was given to them.

(v13) No longer shall we therefore judge each other, but this you all decide, rather, not to set a stumbling block or a trap before a brother.

This is probably the most important and most controversial verse in this chapter, followed closely by v21. Again, sorry the wording is kinda rough, its my own translation from the Greek, and I was trying to be as literal as possible. Since this verse is important, let’s split it up.

No longer shall we. Paul is addressing both groups in this passage, and using the first person plural (we), he includes himself. Often with this verse, commentators apply this verse primarily to the stronger brother, saying that his liberality will cause another to stumble, and therefore he should give it up. On the contrary, this verse goes both ways; not only to the stronger, but to the weaker also.

Therefore. This verse ties to what was said before, particularly in verses 5-12.

Judge each other. Here’s that word judge again. Important to this verse, since we’re dealing with people “sizing each other up” spiritually. Judging can have a plethora of uses, and this verse encompasses nearly all forms. Judging can be “casting judgment upon,” as in considering someone a sinner based on his actions. There are many Christians, particularly in the issue of alcohol, who believe that no true Christian would ever drink a drop. There is also “judgmentalism.” Judgmentalism has more to do with seeing oneself as superior to another due to a certain introspective pietism. “I don’t do what you do, and that makes me better (and “better” can also mean a lot of different things; more equipped for ministry, better suited to administration, more holy, etc.) than you.” This is legalism to a T. This is more often the case, for both groups. For the stronger, it is easy to be puffed up with pride and arrogance, and see oneself as better for having a greater understanding of the truth; for the weaker, it is usually that since they have piety to abstain, they are somehow in the possession of a greater holiness, or cleanliness, or are more suited to the needs of ministry. In either case, it is simply not true. 1 Cor 8:8 States this plainly:

But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat.

In essence, as we said before, mind your own business. That goes for both groups. What our brothers and sisters do or don’t do is their own concern, not ours. We shouldn’t be going sticking our noses in each other’s business for the purpose of judging them. Instead, if all things were the way they are supposed to be, I should be able to stand next to my abstaining brother with my glass in hand and pipe in mouth, both of us rejoicing in the glory of our Saviour, without a care for the actions of the other.

But this you all decide, rather. As opposed to the previous, which was in the first person plural (we), this is in the second person plural (you all). It is also imperative. Paul is giving his audience a direct command. On top of that, it is in the aorist tense. Usually, when talking about the aorist tense, its referred to as the “past completed” tense, as in Rom 8:30, where the entire “golden chain” is in the aorist tense, signifying that all parts have already been completed by God, including our glorification. In this case, the verb is not past tense per se, but is “punctilliar.” That means that it is a one-point-in-time occurrence that is completed at that point. So when you keep that in mind alongside with the imperative, Paul is telling the audience this is something they need to do immediately; they need to understand this; make up their mind, and get on with it. That said, it should be a fairly simple concept that can be decided rather quickly.

Not to set a stumbling block. To set has no significant meaning, it simply means “to place.”  Stumbling block is the Greek word proskomma and literally means “striking against,” and carries the idea of the foot actually striking a stone, causing them to fall. In this case, it is to be taken metaphorically as an occasion for sin. The “stumbling” is that of falling into sin. It should be taken as causing one Spiritual injury, not simply offending the person, but actually causing them to take part in a sin that somehow interrupts fellowship with Christ (cf. v23).

A trap. Is the Greek word skandalon, and according to Marvin Mayer, has the idea of  of “a stick in a trap that had bait on it.” John Constable says that the “Greek word translated "stumbling block" (NASB) or "obstacle" (NIV; skandalon) describes a snare used to catch an animal or victim as it walks by (cf. Matt 16:23; 1 Cor. 8:13).” The two words taken together form what is called a hendiadys, meaning that the two words are put together to form a singular meaning. Charles Hodge says, “The words (πρόσκομμα and σκάνδαλον) rendered a stumbling-block and an occasion to fall, do not differ in their meaning; the latter is simply exegetical of the former,” and in similar fashion Grant Osbourne says, “The two words are virtually synonymous.”

From all this information, we should understand the passage as being a direct command from the Apostle Paul to both groups, commanding them to not be a cause of sin to members of the other group. For the strong, this means that they should not use their liberty in such a way that the weak would do the same things that they do even though they consider it wrong. Verse 23 says,

But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

So, for the strong, they should not be doing their business in a way that entices the weak, like a baited trap, so that they become ensnared in sin. 1 Cor 8:10 illustrates this:

For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?

This ties in directly to Romans 14:13 in that the very same term stumbling block is used in the previous verse, 8:9:

But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.

So, from the cross reference in 1 Cor 8:9-10, I believe it can be proved that to place a stumbling block before the weak means specifically to entice someone who disagrees with what the strong is taking part in, to take part in themselves. So, for instance with the case of alcohol, it is not wrong for a Christian to simply drink alcohol, whether at home or in a restaurant. What is wrong is to drink it knowing that a weaker brother is present, and to do so in a way that entices them to come join you. That would be sin, and is what Paul is commanding against.

On the other hand, the weak are not to place a stumbling block before the strong, by forbidding them from doing what their conscience has deemed to be good for them. There is a principle in Rom 7:7 that can be applied here:

…I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.”

The idea here is that a person may practice something knowingly, and not have anything wrong with it and thus continue practicing it without any damage to their conscience, but once a law is placed before them barring them from said activity then they are responsible for upholding that law. So, when the weaker places a law against an activity pertaining to conscience before the stronger brother and holds him to it, he is placing a stumbling block before his brother by making what was once not unclean to be unclean (v14). Following from that idea, 7:8 reads,

But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.

So, not only does law make what was once not sin to be sin, but it also produces a desire to do what is commanded against. So what this says about the placing of stumbling blocks before the stronger brethren is that when a law is placed before them, it has the tendency, as a law, to produce a desire to break it. Therefore, I believe the principle is here, in referring to the weaker brother, that they are not to hold the stronger brethren accountable to their weaker conscience, as it tempts the stronger brother to break a law that they personally don’t believe exists, or simply don’t agree with. As with the case of the stronger brother, this is a sin for the weaker brother, and Paul commands against it.

There’s also an application here as to how the two words proskomma and skandalon relate to our Saviour, as the Apostle Peter says in 1 Peter 2:8,

“A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.

The words stone of stumbling are the Greek words lithos proskommatos. Look familiar? It should, along with the next phrase rock of offense, which are the Greek words petra skandalou. They are the same words used by Paul (although in different cases/tenses). The obvious idea used here by Peter is that when Christ is a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, those that stumble over him fall away eternally. While that may not be Paul’s idea contextually, it does convey the idea of falling into a sin that they may not ever get out of. Such is the purpose of a trap or snare. When you catch something in a trap, you don’t do so to let it go. The trap is there with the intended purpose of killing the prey. So should we understand it here and with Paul. A proskomma and skandalon that is placed before a brother is something that causes them to sin in a way that is of the most serious nature, and is not merely something that is “offensive.”

With that I’ll end the first half. There’s still a second half to the chapter which applies what was said in the first half, and I’ll get to that as I have time. Hope this was helpful, and as usual, if you have questions, leave them in the comments section and I’ll answer them as best I can!

In Him,

Mike

Rachel Held Evans on the Today Show: An Explanation

So RHE has a new book out, called A Year of Biblical Womanhood. Now, off the bat, I haven't read it, and I won't. I can get the gist of it from listening to her explain her point, and respond to the overall theme though. It is certainly a familiar theme, its something that I've answered before, but we'll go through it again since this is a completely different context. Here is Evans' appearance on "The Today Show."

The interviewer begins the interview asking the audience, "What kind of life does the Bible want you to live?" The premise behind Evans' book is that she spent a year practicing what she believes the Bible has said that Christian (she defines herself as Evangelical, whatever that means) women are to live like. One question arises right at the start: if this truly is Biblical womanhood, why doesn't any Christian woman anywhere do what she did, even in part? There has to be an answer. Who does she have in mind, the Amish? They're probably the only people who live even remotely like the way Evans has portrayed the Biblical life. But, the Amish are not your typical, run-of-the-mill Christian. So what kind of Biblical Womanhood is she confronting?

Evans states that her book is a response to the uprise of Christian books condoning a Biblical lifestyle for women. Two more things here. First, if her version of "Biblical Womanhood" is so much different that these other authors' versions, then has she even read these other authors, and read them well enough to understand what it is they are promoting? Second, it is readily apparent that her response to "Biblical Womanhood" is that "you can't do it," or at the very least, "this is very silly." Either way, she's mocking the Bible. She's mocking Christians, and she's mocking Christian history- and she's doing it in front of a primarily non-Christian audience. Talk about arming the enemy. Even though she says she doesn't like reducing the Bible to an "adjective," she certainly is giving non-Christians extra ammo to use in their mockery of Christians, and particularly, the Bible.

The biggest, most glaring issue here is her hermeneutic with which she reads the Bible. As I said above, I've tackled the topic of the Law before, but its time to rehash. Why do I believe that how she portrays "Biblical Womanhood" is incorrect? Its because she ignores the context of what she's reading. She takes Old Testament Law and puts it on par with New Testament Grace.

The Law of Moses is divided into three parts: the Moral Law, the Priestly Law, and the Purity Law. There is no clear division within the whole of the Mosaic Law, but these three headings make up for the whole of the Law.

The Moral Laws pertain to the parts of the Mosaic Law that are moralistic in nature. They are rooted in the idea of clearly defined right-and-wrong, based on the immutable goodness of God's nature. Things like not committing incest, or making sure to revere one's parents, or to "Be holy as I am holy." These are things rooted in morals.

The Priestly Laws pertain to the Levites and the Temple practices. How to offer a sacrifice, on what days, the types of offerings permitted, so on and so forth. Jesus' atonement was final, and this part of the Law was fulfilled. Heb 6:6 speaks of Christian Jews returning to the temple system, and that it is a re-crucifying of Christ, because since Jesus was the atonement for all sins, we no longer need to sacrifice.

The Purity Laws cover the laws that deal with the separation of Israel. The Israelites lived amongst many different people groups. God gave them specific laws to show that they were separate. Odd things like not shaving the corners of the beard, eating shellfish, not mixing fabrics, or not mixing crops. These were all pictures of the separation of Israel to God, that he had chosen them out of the other nations and had consecrated them to him. We are not Israelites, therefore these laws do not pertain to us. They were tied to the land and given to a specific people. On top of that, we are under grace. We no longer have need of laws, for as Paul said, "...all things are lawful for me..." Grace has done away with the need to work. Grace allows that we are able to serve God and Christ according to how we are led by the Spirit, and we are not tied down to a rulebook.

What we have with RHE is a refusal to acknowledge any kind of context given in Scripture. I mean, its not too difficult to look at how many times within the two statements of the Mosaic Law that God specifically says, "Say this to the sons of Israel..." God is obviously only addressing a certain people group, and Christ's atonement sets that in stone. We are not bound to Law. That is the reason I do not expect my wife to go live in the shed once a month. She is free from that, thankfully.

Another thing I saw was her use of Proverbs. For instance, her use of the Prov 25:24,

It is better to live in a corner of the roof, than in a house shared with a contentious woman. 

Here is something people don't usually know, and this word may throw you off a bit: Gnomic. No, it has nothing to do with garden ornaments or short friendly woodland people with pointy hats. Gnomic truth is the contrast of Absolute truth. Proverbs is a book of gnomic truths. These are general truths, not commands, not laws, not requirements. These are things that would be true, given certain circumstances, or according to a certain prerogative. That is why we can have completely contradicting Proverbs! Look at this:

Prov 26:4- Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will also be like him. 

Prov 26:5- Answer a fool as his folly deserves, that he not be wise in his own eyes.

These two passages, right next to each other, contradict one another when taken literally. That's because they are not Absolute truths. They aren't true in every one of life's situations. There are times when one is true, and there is a time when the other is true. That is the essence of a gnomic truth; its truth lies in principle. Another example is of when I once dated a girl and her dad (after one freaking date...yikes!) told me I couldn't marry his daughter until I graduated college because Proverbs 24:27 says:

Prepare your work outside, and make it ready for yourself in the field; afterwards, then, build your house.  

He wanted to hold me to it. Now, there's nothing wrong with the verse itself, nothing silly or foolish about it at all. Its a good principle. Its better to wait to build a household until you've got your ducks in a row. But, its not a law, its not a rule, and its not something that may be applicable in 100% of situations. Think about how many pastors you know that got married while they were either still in college or at Seminary. A lot. The work on their farm wasn't done yet; yet they began to build their house anyway. That's the point behind a principle, a gnomic truth. It's not absolute.



So, what we can see from RHE's monthly camping out in her front yard due to "Lady's Week" is that she has no understanding of how the Old Testament works. On top of that, she is clearly displaying a lack of knowledge when it comes to what Christ's work on the cross was really all about, and what it did for us in freeing us from law. What does it mean to be under Grace, free from the yoke of bondage? It means that we are not held to these things. Unfortunately, they never reviewed her take on New Testament passages, but since I don't own the book, this isn't a book review. I'm reviewing what was said on national television.

So my encouragement to women is that there really is a Biblical womanhood that does not require you to live outside for a week every month. More importantly, TRUE Biblical womanhood says that you don't have to! To live according to the Bible means upholding the whole book as it defines itself. Christ fulfilled the law (Rom 8:2). We are free from dead works (Heb 9:14). Therefore, we are no longer bound to the yoke of the Law, but are free in Christ to live unto good works.


Va con Dios,

Mike

The Importance of Paul

A trend I've been seeing lately is people becoming more fed up with the great Apostle Paul, some to the point of abandoning him altogether. Islamists hold that Paul changed Christianity, as do some atheist and agnostic scholars, and obviously homosexual non-Christians abhor him. Most of what I've been seeing though is an increasing view of Paul's teachings as being either totally or somewhat incompatible with what the red letters say, and its coming from the general populace of Christians. This view really sets in stone my belief that Christians either don't know anything about Christian history, or simply don't think through the consequences of changing what has been set in stone for nearly 2000 years. As I've stated in a few places, this is the product of a Christianity that is now willing to question everything with a skeptical eye.

I question everything, let me make that clear- but I do it in search of knowledge, not due to skepticism. If you've been following my blog articles at all, you'll know that I'm not exactly supportive of a "blind faith" version of what "faith" is. My great hope and desire is that all Christians become increasingly literate in Christianity, and more aware of why we believe what we do. Asking questions is part of that. There is however, a difference between asking the questions "Why is that there," "Why do we believe that," and "How am I supposed to accept this?" The first two question with an intellectual curiosity, a desire to know. The third question asks with a self-centered skepticism that puts the focus on the person's own worldview, rather than viewing Scripture as the revealed Word of God, and accepting any answer regardless of the culture clash. Some things are difficult, no doubt. To be sure though, there is nothing in Scripture that is worth "throwing out" based on its incompatibility with the culture around me. Its all in there for a reason.

The Apostle Paul's teachings fall right in the center of this. His views on a patriarchal family, the fact that homosexuality is a sin, and that women are not allowed to teach men have all been viewed negatively by various groups, and its gotten to the point that people aren't just ignoring his individual teachings- they're willing to throw out Paul altogether. The general consensus about Paul among his enemies is that he and his theology are merely the product of his Pharisaical upbringing and his Hellenistic, Second Temple Jewish worldview. Essentially, Paul's teaching are all chalked up to the culture he grew up in, and have no relevance to Christianity today.

Rachel Held Evans, a voice within the Emergent movement who has been working her way up the "Christians You Need to Know" ladder, voices this opinion in her blog:

 As a woman, I’ve been nursing a secret grudge against the Apostle Paul for about eight years

As if we're supposed to empathize with her because she's pointing out that its a woman thing. The bold print is her own, amongst a list of things that are not in bold, so she's emphasizing this point about herself. She simply does not want to accept what Paul says. That's all there is to it. Now if you're familiar with Evans' views, and especially her interpretive hermeneutic (I cringe calling it that), you'll know she's not a Biblical scholar, and she's definitely not a theologian of any sort (in her new book, she refers to Islam as "the Nation of Islam," which is the Farrakhan movement...). So, how much of what we're about to read has she really thought about? Not much. The hermeneutic is emotion. Its all about feeling and responding according to our culture.

There are some things that I think people haven't thought about with Paul. Some things that Christians find central to defining what Christianity is that we would actually lose by negating Paul. But maybe I'm wrong- maybe people like Rachel Held Evans have thought through these things. Maybe people are willing to throw out Paul because they simply don't care. What a scary thought. Either way, so that you might be informed- Christian- here are some reasons to hold on to our beloved Apostle.

Canonicity

"Canonicity" is a big word for saying "what books we think are inspired." For example, the six Star Wars movies are considered "Star Wars canon." The comic books however, are not. They contain things either not endorsed by George Lucas or things that are inherently contradictory to the six movies. It goes the same with Scripture. We have a set of writings that we consider to be absolute in their necessity to what it is we believe.

The problem is, I think a lot of people are under the impression that the only reason we have these books is because a group of people got together and chose them for one reason or another. That's not the case- the group of books is actually entirely accidental, more or less (from our historical perspective of course; Spiritual from our Christian mindset). There was no ecumenical council that decided everything. Early Christians were just smart enough to start collecting writings from Church leaders that they recognized were of a different nature. This is reflected in the various early Papyrus and Codices that we have. Nowhere do we have a set of the complete New Testament before around 300AD. But, we do have various groupings of the different books that we call the NT. That means that there were Christians living in different areas that had collected different sets of manuscripts and kept them together, and that there was overlap within the groups until someone noticed that there were a set of documents that were particular to all the different Christian populations, and decided to put all of them together. Whoever this was though, certainly wasn't of any authoritative sort that decided for the church what was to be canon and what wasn't.

The reason that we have the books we do is because they all work together, in a very weird and oddly coincidental sort of way. When you remove one, or a few, you start affecting all the rest, and with as developed as Christian theology is today, removing one or a few would be detrimental to what we have concluded up to this point.

All this said, let us look at Paul. Paul was the most prolific of the NT writers. Of the twenty seven books of the NT, Paul wrote either 13 or 14, depending on who wrote Hebrews. Going with 13 books, that means that Paul wrote 48% of the NT. His importance within Christian theology well displayed thus.

Paul is also mentioned in the Book of Acts and is depicted as having been chosen by Christ Himself through a vision, and thus commissioned as the Apostle that replaced Judas Iscariot. Of the 28 chapters of Acts, 19 focus on Paul.

The Apostle Peter groups Paul's letters in with the rest of the Scriptures (graphas- "writings") in 2 Pet 3:16. Peter regards Paul as "our beloved brother" (2 Pet 3:15), and also gives the warning that people will try to distort what he says, "to their own destruction."

So what affect does removing Paul from our Christian canon have on the New Testament? Here's a list of some important points, in no particular order of importance:

1) We lose the Pastoral epistles- 1, 2 Timothy and Titus. Without these, we have virtually no instruction on how churches are to be run. We have no rules concerning the choosing of pastors, elders, or deacons. We have no rules or guidelines concerning their lifestyles, their beliefs, their status as Christians, or their position of authority within the church. We basically lose the structure of Church.

2) We lose the writings of Luke- Luke and Acts. If Paul was a false apostle, and at odds with Christ's teachings, we definitely lose Acts. Not only would it nullify his choosing by Christ on the road to Damascus, but it would make Luke a liar, or at least Luke's sources untrustworthy, and therefore we cannot hold either work as being "infallible." We would have to begin to question the veracity of both books and the trustworthiness of Luke himself.

3) We lose Peter- Acts, 1, 2 Peter. If Peter endorsed Paul and held Paul's writings up with other Scripture, which would include the Gospels, we would also have to question Peter's doctrinal authority. We know from Galatians that Paul, on at least one occasion, stood up to Peter- so perhaps Peter was swayed by Paul's beliefs and conformed to the "Pauline Brand" of Christianity. At the very least, we would have to deny 2 Peter based on his outright approval of Paul. From the other perspective, this is the perfect alibi for the canonicity of Paul. Jesus definitely commissioned Peter, and Peter in turn, approves of Paul and regards his writings as equal with other Scripture. So... yeah.

4) We lose historical information about the spread of Christianity and the trials of Christianity based on any books that are removed above. Paul's missionary trips, his jailing, Peter's remarkable release from prison at the hands of angels, the story of Annanias and Saphira, and so many others.

5) We lose the book of Romans. Romans is widely regarded as the single greatest and most important book in all of the Bible. Without it, we lose an infinite amount of Christian apologetics (ever heard of the "Romans Road?" or used it?). We also lose the single most logical book dealing with Salvation. Nearly the entire book is a single, rolling argument for the necessity of a faith-without-works-based salvation. I could go on and on about the importance of this book.

In all, to remove Paul from Scripture would wreak havoc on the Bible itself. A good portion of Scripture would be removed. Other books and at least one other Apostle would be called into question, and likely also removed.

Doctrine and Theology

This is the big one. There is so much at stake by removing Paul from canon that one cannot fathom that there would really be anything left to what we regard as Christianity, especially Protestantism. There are an infinite number of doctrines that hinge on Paul's writings. Paul, almost across the board, is regarded to be the highest of every Christian theologian that history has ever produced. Outside of Catholicism, he is regarded to be the greatest of the Apostles. His importance as a teacher and a guide is limitless. Here are some things to think about in losing him:

1) We lose our archetype of the proper Christian walk. Many, including myself, hold him to the height that he is the pinnacle of what the Christian life is to be. Let's remember, Christ wasn't a Christian. While we are commanded to live as He did, we also have to be real and recognize that Christ is God, and therefore to live as he did is an impossibility. He didn't have a sin nature. But to live as one who had the struggle of a sin nature is entirely possible. Of all the Apostles, only Paul gave the command to follow his own example (1 Cor 11:1, Gal 4:12). It is possible to experience victory within the Christian walk- living with Christ as our perfection, and Paul as our witness, we are able to find true hope in life.

2) As stated above, we lose the Book of Romans. There are so many things written there, I would be hard pressed to list every one, and would fail trying. Not every one of these is solely found in Romans, but there are many things in Romans that are stated so plainly that without them, orthodox Protestantism would be severely at a disadvantage in its theological structuring. Within Romans, there are some clear-cut things that we would certainly lose an argument for, in chronological order:

• Not just the notion that men are guilty of sin, but that all men are guilty of sin, both Jew and Gentile, from all history. The natural inclination of all men is to have sufficient knowledge of God, and reject him.
• The "Wages" argument for salvation by grace alone. Salvation cannot be by works because then God would "owe" us Salvation.
• We would lose the only absolute statement on the doctrine of Salvation by grace alone apart from works, Romans 3:28. The removal of this statement gives Roman Catholics much more ground in their doctrine due to James 2:24, which is an exact opposite statement, and without Romans 3:28, it would be at best difficult (though not impossible) to establish a grace-alone doctrine in light of James' words.
• That the Law, in its essence, was good, and should not be looked at as evil or an enemy in any way.
• Justification by Faith.
• Imputation of Righteousness to believers is a parallel to the imputation of Adam's sin to humanity.
• We have been crucified with Christ and no longer are under the yoke of sin.
• There is no final condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
• The Holy Spirit makes up for our inability to pray.
• That "all things work together for good"- that there is purpose in all of life's situations.
• Two of the most important passages on predestination/election- Romans 8:29-30 and 9:6-24.
• That Christians cannot be separated from the special love given to them by Christ.
• That God chooses some unto Salvation and passes over others, and does so to make his name great.
• The most clear presentation of the entirety of the Gospel- Romans 10:9-10.
• That the "wild branches" will be reunited with the "natural branches".
• The argument of weaker brothers vs stronger brothers in regards to areas of conscience.

And that's not even complete, not to mention that its only one book.

3) We lose many of the most important passages on our doctrines of the deity of Christ, two of the most important being the "Kenosis" of Philippians 2:6-7, and Colossians 1:15. Jesus existed in the morphe of God, the exact class and likeness of Deity, and emptied himself upon taking on flesh. Jesus was also the prototokos- the "firstborn" of all creation, contrasted with the "first created" (which is a different word- protoktistos) of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

4) Spiritual gifts. Paul is the most long-winded of the NT authors on the subject of the out-workings of the Spirit, which makes up the majority of what we know about the Spirit. Unlike the Father and the Son, our understanding of the Spirit is largely formed by what we know of what he does through us. Without it, we don't really know much about him. Romans 8 is considered the most important chapter on the Spirit. 1 Cor 12-14 is the most concise section on the gifts of the Spirit. 1 Cor 14 is the only passage concerning the proper practice of tongues, and the key verse for cessationism is 1 Cor 13:10.

And those are just a few. So many volumes have been written on the Theology of Paul of Tarsus that this paltry blog can hardly do them justice. Suffice to say, we would be at a theological crux at the loss of Paul. The loss goes far deeper than just answering the problem of a supposed contradiction between Paul's heavy-handedness and "in-your-face" style with Jesus' supposed "focus" on love above all other things.

Christian Life and Ethics

So many things to list here. And I'm not going to hit a tenth of them.

1) What sins are we to avoid? Paul's writings contain several of what we refer to as "vice lists."

2) What are the defining qualities of a saved person? Paul answers this several times over, and relates them to the activity of the Spirit.

3) How is a family to operate? Paul sets the standard as the monogomous (1 Cor 7:2), same-sex (Rom 1:26-27), complementarian (Eph 5:22-33; Col 3:18-19; Tit 2:5), loving (Eph 5:25, 28; Col 3:19; Titus 2:4-5), and nuclear (Col 3:18-21).

4) How is the local Church body to operate? The pastoral epistles of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are all written by Paul and outline the structure, function, and discipline of the local body. Without it, we'd be up the proverbial creek with no paddle.

5) The concept of "the Spiritual man" vs. "the natural man" (1 Cor 2:14-15) is typical of Paul. His emphasis on Spirituality as being the center of Christian life is central to his teachings.

We could continue to go on forever. The point becomes abundantly clear- Paul is central to Christian Scripture, thought, life, doctrine, and theology. Without him, Christianity would not be what we know it to be.

This little (ahem) blog isn't a warning to big name guys with lots of letters after their names that write books on canonicity and really couldn't care about Christianity itself. This has been a warning to the normal people- those who have questioned Paul in light of the contemporary focus on Jesus' teachings on loving one another (of course, forgetting that Paul wrote "the love chapter," 1 Cor 13). As Rachel Held Evans said on a recent episode of NBC's "The Today Show,"

...that's the challenge...trying to figure out what parts of [the Bible] apply, and should be followed literally, and which parts are maybe culturally influenced, and how do we decide- I try to defer to Jesus, because I'm a Christian, and love the Lord with all my heart, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself, and that's how I try to decide what parts I'm going to practice. "Does this help me love God better?" "Does this help me love my neighbor better?" So the stuff I wanted to keep after the year related to that.

The idea here is that it's okay to throw out portions of Scripture simply based on what we believe to be irrelevant or unloving. We become the hermeneutic. We decide what to believe and not believe. This is a dangerous path, and its quickly becoming a trend amongst (primarily) young Christians, and is the result of not asking the question "What is at stake?" when certain writers or portions of Scripture are ignored. Remember Peter's warning:

Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Pet 3:14-16, italics mine.)

Paul is at the pinnacle of Christendom. He is our highest Apostle, our example as a Christian, and the most prolific writer of the entire Bible. There is no praise worthy of a mere human that we could lavish upon him that would be sufficient- and he would deny all of them in deference to our Lord and Savior, of which his own mouth confesses that,

...from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.

Mike

An Introduction to Romans 8

Hey there!

Been a little while since I’ve been at this blog regularly! That’s fine, I’ve found that after teaching I need some time to let my brain drain out, so a little time off was necessary. Back at it though. I teach Sunday School at my church, and the new semester is approaching, and I’m thinking I’ll probably teach through Romans 8, so I thought I’d like to share with you what I’m learning as I go along.

The Great 8. What a title to such a glorious chapter.

Romans 8 is probably the greatest and most important single chapter in all of the Bible. It holds a dear place in my heart as it was truly the height of my own personal study years ago as I was really diving into theology and Biblical exegesis in my own personal life outside of school. It was funny, as I dug out my commentaries on Romans and began to thumb through the pages, I found that nearly all my commentaries and my Bibles open directly to Romans 8. The amount of notes in those pages is glorious and is testament to the importance of this chapter.

Romans 8 is probably the most “Spiritual” chapter in the New Testament- the word pneuma is used 21 times and only twice does it not refer to the Holy Spirit. The Spirit’s role in the life of the mature believer is paramount, and stands in direct antithesis to the Christian who lives without the Spirit as described in the previous chapter.

It is also highly theological. Paul uses such words as “condemnation,” “redemption,” “perseverance,” “foreknew,” “predestined,” “justified,” and “elect.” The chapter is truly inexhaustible theologically; the amount of study that has gone into “the golden chain” of vs 29-30 is representative of the highly profound nature of the chapter.

Before we get into Romans chapter 8, we have to look at it within the larger context. Context is a very important element of Biblical interpretation and study, but with the book of Romans as a whole it is probably the absolute most important. Personally, I have found that when discussing (read: debating/arguing) some topic with another person and Romans is brought up, the discussion finds its conclusion quickly once context is addressed as it is easy to overlook the larger argument of the book and focus on individual sections.

Romans, unlike other books, is written in an extremely logical manner. The book as a whole forms a continuous argument from 1:18 through 15:13, having both a lengthy introduction and an even longer conclusion. When looking at particular section of the argument, finding any remotely applicable interpretation of specific sections requires a knowledge of both the immediate and the larger context, and what Paul’s purpose is in saying what he does at any particular point. The argument can be broken up into sections, each one adding to the snowballing argument. Many different theories as to how the book should be divided have been given, not differing so much in content but moreso in how specific or general the divisions themselves have been made. This is the division given by F.F. Bruce, which is a good general layout for understanding the book:

1:18- 3:20- Sin and Retribution; The Universal Need Diagnosed
3:21-5:21- The Way of Righteousness: The Universal Need Met
6:1- 8:39- The Way of Holiness
9:1-11:36- Human Unbelief and Divine Grace
12:1- 15:13- The Christian Way of Life

This is a simple division. More specific divisions of course can be made, and depending on the subject at hand, may need to be.

The first subject introduced by Paul is the beginning of his lengthy argument: The Problem of Sin. From the very beginning of his discourse he establishes the fact that there is a God, that he has revealed himself sufficiently through what is around us, and that we have, as a race, rejected him.

Paul divides humanity into two classes- the Gentiles (1:18- 32), and the Jews (2:1- 29). The Gentiles are shown to have rejected God by replacing him with idolatry. They proclaim wisdom in their folly, and are given over to sin by God as punishment for that exchange. Their sin is compounded in this, and they encourage one another in their sin, leading only to death.

The Jews, in their haughtiness, have thought themselves to be greater and more righteous due to both their pedigree and that they were given the Law- but their sin is equal. Because they have the Law, they will be judged by it, and found equally as guilty as the Gentiles. Paul concludes by segueing into the next section by demonstrating that Jews without faith are not truly Jews- only those that are circumcised in the heart can be said to be truly sons of Jacob.

Therefore, all men are under sin, and before we can improve ourselves we must fix our relationship with God. The problem is we can’t. Our only true “free will” is that we will choose whatever suits ourselves, ie.- sin (3:10-18). Man, in his sin, always tries to mend the separation by his own will, which is law and selfishness (3:20).

We cannot find the solution to the problem of sin from within ourselves; the solution must come from without; namely, from God (3:23). The solution to the problem is to be declared just by God himself. This justification cannot be earned by works; or it would be from ourselves and not from God, so it must be given as a gift. Paul’s treatise on salvation is summed up in 3:28:

“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.”

He goes on to illustrate this point in Romans 4, how men were saved by faith in the Old Testament. Abraham, who lived before the Law, and therefore could not be saved by it, “believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Righteousness is something declared by God, and is imputed to our account. Our righteousness is based on the work of Another.

And with Romans 5 we have the beautifully worded verse 1:

“Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

All that was outlined in 1:18-3:20 is now undone. God’s wrath is no longer upon us (5:9). We were once enemies, at enmity with God, but now we are at peace with him. This happened through the imputation of righteousness from the account of Christ to our own account. Sin was imputed to us through Adam. Through his sin we have all sinned. We are not guilty of his specific sin, but guilt of that sin has been charged to us through because we have him as our father. But, just as that guilt of sin has been passed to us through he who is seen as the representative of our race, Adam, so has righteousness been passed to us through he who is the head of the elect, Christ.

Being that we have had righteousness imputed to Christ, we have been baptized into his death, and therefore we have died with him (6:3-9). We no longer need to sin. We have been freed from it. Compared to our old life of being caught in a cycle of it (1:24-32), we are now completely freed from it. Where we were once slaves to sin, we are now slaves of righteousness (6:18).

Because the Law was the onset of sin, for we would not have known sin without the Law, we are therefore freed from it (7:6). Just as a wife is freed from her husband in death, so we, who have died with Christ are free to be united to him. The Law, which is pure and holy, brought on sin by making us aware of it. Through the Law, sin was able to take hold of us. But, having died to the Law and being bonded to Christ, we are now free to live unto righteousness. Sin, having become shown as sin, has become “utterly sinful” (7:13).

That said, we are still human. We still sin. Sin takes hold of us and drags us down. We as Christians, born again unto Christ, having been freed from sin and death and being at peace with God, are still fleshly. Though we wish to do well, so many times we do not. Not once here is the Holy Spirit mentioned. And why not? It is to show the contrast between he who lives according to the Spirit and he who does not. We are helpless without the Spirit. Even as Christians, with so many benefits having been justified by faith, are still incapable of good without the Holy Spirit. We cannot do it on our own. We are different from those who are unsaved in that we can concur with the Law of God “in the inner man,” they cannot (7:22). It is the sin in us that produces sin, at constant war with the mind. “Who will set me free?” Notice that it is a passive statement. This is not a battle we can win of our own merit, but must come from the power of someone else. Romans 8 has that answer.

“There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

See you next time.

Mike

Alcohol- What does the Bible say?

I’m tired of hearing about this issue. It’s a dead horse that’s been so long dead and yet people decide they still want to kick it. Most Christians think its outright wrong, many think Christians should simply abstain, and a few think there’s nothing wrong at all. Most non-Christians get the idea that since the majority is against it, that it must be wrong and their jaws drag on the floor when I take a hearty draught from a pint of my favorite ale- and do it with gusto. So, let’s settle this. What does the Bible say about drinking alcohol? Is it right or wrong? Let’s go.

Translational issues

The first thing to draw attention to is the use of the word “wine.” One major law of translation and interpretation is that when a word has multiple meanings, always use the primary meaning unless it makes no sense, in which case move to a secondary or tertiary meaning. For example, if I say, “I’m going to a rock concert,” you would take the primary meaning of the word “rock”, which is “stone,” and reject it based on context, then move to a secondary meaning which is “a music genre.” The word “wine” can also mean “grape juice.” One way that many Christians interpret “wine” is to take any instance where “wine” is used negatively and treat it as meaning alcohol, and any instance where it is used positively and treat it as “grape juice.” Hence, we have problems like in the wedding at Cana, where people will try to make the suggestion that Jesus turned the water to grape juice, because you can translate the word “oinos” that way. This is poor translational practice. The primary meaning of the word “oinos” is “wine,” and unless demanded by the context, should be translated that way.

The Bible does draw a line between the alcoholic content of drinks, and the English usually translates them as such. They are usually divided by strong drink (OT only: rDkEv shekar), wine (OT: NˆyÅy yayin NT: oinoß oinos), sweet wine (OT: syIsDo asis NT: gleuvkoß gleukos), and new wine(OT: vwøryI;t tirosh, NT: oinoß neoß oinos neos). Though there are apparent lines drawn, the lines are also a tad blurry. “Wine” can also mean grape juice, and “new wine” does not equal “unfermented wine.” Norman Geisler says, “Some have held that old wine is fermented but that “new wine” (vwøryIf) was always unfermented. But two passages clearly oppose this theory. Hosea 4:11 says both “old wine” (NˆyÅy) and “new wine” (vwøryIf) “take away the understanding.” So even “new wine” can cause drunkenness.” (“A Christian Perspective on Wine-Drinking,” Bibliotheca Sacra vol 139. A note on Geisler- he’s a hit and miss. Most anti-alcohol sites on the net will source this article, as it is condescending of wine drinking, but his handling of Scripture is poor, he jumps to conclusions that are unsubstantiated, and uses early church sources as if they were infallible. Take the good, spit out the bad- in a few instances he’s right, as he is here.) The only true line that can be drawn is between “wine” and “strong drink,” and the latter is only used in the Old Testament. “Strong drink” is equivalent to our use of “liquor,” meaning alcohol of a higher content. “Wine” is more of a generic word that can refer to grape based wines to barley wines like beer, and other more moderate drinks.

My point here is to stay away from interpretations that try to favor one translation over another based on point of view. Words can be taken multiple ways, but it is up to the skilled translator and interpreter to decide how the passage should be read. The author’s opinion is that in every case, “wine” should be taken as meaning an alcoholic beverage. There is no Biblical instance where the word “wine” has a more preferable interpretation of being “grape juice” based on immediate context.

How is Alcohol Used in (not 'by') the Bible?

Outright, we can say that in every instance, drunkenness is wrong. It is declared a sin over and over again. There simply is no question about this. There are two types of drunkenness, and a third that we will refer to as “glad of heart,” which is taken as drunken by many Christians. Alcohol was also used as a medicine, we will only discuss that in short.

The first type of drunkenness is the everyday drunk. Isaiah says, “Woe to those who rise early in the morning that they may pursue strong drink” (Isa 5:11). This is the person that can be truly called an alcoholic. Not many fit into this mold, but we’ll address it simply to say that is a sin. Addiction to anything is frowned upon by Biblical authors, and alcohol is given special treatment.

The second type is the “one-off” drunk. Either the person who has a little too much on accident or likes to party occasionally. The teaching here once again is, “Do not be drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Holy Spirit.” (Eph 5:28) Christians are not supposed to get drunk, whether intentionally or by accident. Personally, its happened to me a few times, and I have regretted it each time, and count it as sin. Rightfully so.

The major one to look at is “glad of heart.” Anyone who has drank alcohol knows this feeling. The best way to explain this is to use the description that often goes with alcohol, “Alcohol is a drink best shared.” Now, the non-drinker will immediately write of a feeling of any of the effects of alcohol as “drunkenness,” but this is not so. The Bible praises alcohol for its effects, and wine is praised as being good for mankind. The Psalmist praises the Lord for his provision in Ps 104:14-15: “He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, And vegetation for the labor of man, So that he may bring forth food from the earth, wine which makes man’s heart glad, that he may make his face glisten with oil, And food which sustains man’s heart.” Here God is thanked for giving us wine, and for the effect of wine, which is to make “man’s heart glad.” Solomon says in Ecc 9:7 to “drink your wine with a cheerful heart,” and again in 10:19 that “wine makes life merry.” The one thing that I think of when I read these passages is when I’m at a Christians house and a beer commercial comes on and someone says something to the effect of, “Look at them, they think they’re having fun.” Or when a preacher condemns alcohol commercials for always having a social, good-time feel to them, and then saying that they don’t know what true fun is. The fact is, the Bible itself says that alcohol is great for making merry, it makes man happy, and its okay to drink it for that reason. There is no Biblical statement or principal that can take away the blessing that alcohol is for humanity. As Ben Franklin said, “Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards, there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine, a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy.”

We are told several times that alcohol was used for medicine; in 2 Sam 16:2, Luke 10:34, and 1 Tim 5:23. Not too many people use alcohol as a medicine nowadays, so there’s not too much use in discussing it. I will address one more passage though, Proverbs 31:6. Our friend who we quoted previously, Norman Geisler, throws this passage under the “medicine” heading, by saying this: “Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to him whose life is bitter” (Prov 31:6). This indicates that strong drink was used as a sedative or pain-killer for the dying, and that wine was also used to calm the nerves of those who were deeply bereaved or in deep distress.” I think this is a misappropriation. I think that he is understating what is being said here. For the dying person, alcohol was given so they didn’t feel the effects of death, be it pain or whatever. It was to dull their senses. Calling it a “medicine” may not necessarily be wrong, but its not altogether correct either. I could huff the nitrous out of a bottle of whip cream and it would be the exact same thing as what the dentist gives me, but I wouldn’t call it medicine. In the second case, “calming the nerves” isn’t using alcohol as a medicine. Its inviting a sorrowful friend out for a beer. By giving it to them, you’re indicating that you’re in their presence. You don’t just tell them to go drink their sorrows away or to take a teaspoon of alcohol at night, you go have a drink with them, to “make their heart glad.” It gets lumped in with the above paragraph on the benefits of alcohol. It can be used to cheer someone up.

Specific Passages

Ok, now lets look at some debated passages.

Deut 14:22, 24-26:

“You shall surely tithe all the produce from what you sow, which comes out of the field every year.”“If the distance is so great for you that you are not able to bring the tithe, since the place where the LORD your God chooses to set His name is too far away from you when the LORD your God blesses you, then you shall exchange it for money, and bind the money in your hand and go to the place which the LORD your God chooses. 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.”

This passage is discussing how Israel should tithe, and more specifically, what to do when you cannot make the journey to tithe. In that case, a person is to take his tithe, buy whatever he wants, and eat before the Lord.

Norman Geisler has this to say on this passage, “The passage in Deuteronomy 14:26 which appears to commend buying “strong drink” (r;DkEv) cannot be used as a divine approval for drinking it for three reasons. First, the Old Testament clearly condemns drinking “strong drink,” as the above passage indicates. Therefore this isolated and unclear passage must be understood in harmony with the clear Old Testament teaching against “strong drink.” Second, the passage does not say they should drink it but only that they should buy it. Third, “strong drink” was used for medicinal purposes, so the commendation is probably to buy medicine (see Prov 31:6).”

First, the OT does not condemn drinking “strong drink” alone. In every passage Geisler quotes in his paper, the Bible also condemns wine alongside it, and yet as stated above, wine is given as a blessing. It is only condemned when it is overused. We also talked about Prov 31:6 and using it as a “medicinal” passage. One must wonder, were people dying in such numbers, or were that many people depressed that a person could potentially buy “strong drink” every year? C’mon. The context says, “whatever your heart desires.” An ox could be viewed as a new car or a tractor, a pretty hot commodity. Sheep had a number of uses. And wine and strong drink? Are we really supposed to buy the idea that a desire of the heart would be for medicine? "Man, I really want some medicine, that would make me sooo happy right now." No, it was used to drink, to rejoice with one’s household. And to use Dr. Geisler’s logic, the passage doesn’t say that it couldn’t be used to drink, so, yeah. In all, the Lord states himself that it was ok to buy wine and strong drink, and within the same context commands that people rejoice. It is my opinion that this is as clear as it gets to saying that the Lord is ok with drinking, of course taking in hand the condemnation of drunkenness.

John 2:7-10

Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” So they filled them up to the brim. And He said to them, “Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.” So they took it to him. When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom, and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.”

I love this passage in reference to this topic. I love it because I simply, laughingly, cannot believe that people honestly believe that Jesus turned water to grape juice. That may seem harsh, and I apologize for it, but it’s the honest truth. About as honest as I love John 1:1 because I, in the same way, cannot believe people can take it to say that Jesus wasn’t God. Gimme a break!

Point 1: Jesus was a Jew. He was at a Jewish wedding fest. He was with other Jews. Jews drank wine. Fact. If Jesus served grape juice at the wedding fest 1) there would be a riot, and 2) it would make no sense of the headwaiter’s words. The headwaiter says, “…you have kept the good wine until now.” Firstly, saying “you have kept the good wine” insinuates that whatever Jesus served was of the same essence as what was previously served. So, if Jesus turned water to grape juice, we would assume from the headwaiter’s words that they had been serving grape juice previously. A completely unjustified interpretation. Secondly, if Jesus “kept the good wine until now,” he’s saying that whatever Jesus made was better than whatever was served previously. Grape juice better than wine? Seriously? I want some of this grape juice. I’ve had some really, really good wine in my day, and I have yet to drink a grape juice that even somewhat compares. Please find me some of this stuff! All joking aside, it doesn’t make any sense. Grape juice does not compare to wine, nor would a headwaiter- someone who deals in wine- compare the two.

Point 2: The headwaiter specifically states that people were getting drunk on the stuff he was serving. He says in full, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” First things first- Greek. The words “drunk freely” is the singular word mequo (methuo) in the original Greek. In context, the specific word is mequsqwsin (methusthosin), which is in the aorist tense. The aorist tense, in simple terms, means “past completed.” It is something that has taken place in the past that is complete. Translated, it would say, “…and when the people have already become drunk…” What the headwaiter is saying is that people have already become drunk, especially by his last line, “…until now.” Balancing the verse may sound something like this, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have already become drunk, he serves the poorer wine, but you have saved the good wine for when people have already become drunk.” It is essentially a picture of the Law vs Grace. Jesus is the better wine, and he was served last. Nonetheless, the interpretation of this passage insofar as deciding the alcohol content of the wine is solely dependant on the words of the headwaiter. His language, from the Greek words used to the way he phrases himself, makes no room whatsoever for anything other than an alcoholic beverage. There is simply no wiggle room here. Jesus turned water into wine.

The Last Supper

We’re going to look at two different passages, as they’re referring to the same event anyway. The first is Luke 22:20:

And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.”

Before I get to the second passage, I want to address something I’ve heard before in relation to this passage specifically. I’ve had it stated to me that “this cup” refers to any beverage in general, and is a freedom from God to not be bound to drinking alcohol during communion. In essence, “this cup” should be taken generically, instead of “this wine.” This is profoundly incorrect. “This cup” should indeed be taken as a specific cup within the Passover meal. We have to remember not to “Christianize” Jesus. Jesus was not doing a Communion service. He was taking part in Passover. There’s a bit to be learned about Passover to show what exactly was going on here. We’ll only focus on a part of it. In the Matthew’s account, the order goes:

1)    Judas dips with Jesus and is shown to be the traitor

2)    Jesus breaks the bread

3)    Jesus drinks the cup

4)    Jesus states he will not drink from the “fruit of the vine” until his second coming

This order is important, because the order of the Passover seder is

1)    Bitter herbs are served with unleavened bread

2)    The meal is eaten

3)    The second matzah, which was broken and hidden, is retrieved and served.

4)    The third cup, the cup of Redemption, is served.

So we see a parallel here. Judas was shown to be the betrayer during the serving of the bitter herbs. The meal is not stated. “My body which is broken for you” is shown to be the second piece of unleavened bread. Finally, “This is my blood of the covenant,” is shown to be the third cup, the cup of Redemption. So, why in Luke does Jesus say, “this cup”? Because he’s pointing at a specific cup during the Passover meal. There is a reason for using the word “this,” and it isn’t to make the cup a generic “whatever you feel like” beverage. Instead, it is to identify Himself as the Redeemer. On to the next passage.

“But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” (Matt 26:29)

Ok, so what was it that Jesus drank? Was it grape juice? Some will answer yes. Nope. It has already been identified that Jesus was taking part in the Passover. First off, Passover was served with wine, not with grape juice. Done. No arguments. Second, following what was said above about the order of the Passover, he’s saying this for a specific reason, which is that he will not drink the fourth cup of the Passover until after his return. The fourth cup is the cup of Completion. He can’t take it yet, because things have not been completed. So what will we drink with Christ in Heaven? We will very specifically drink the Fourth cup of the Passover, which is wine. I highly doubt anyone will have any complaints when that day comes. I know I will certainly be raising a glass that day!

Romans 14

This whole chapter deals with matters of the conscience, so I’m not going to quote the whole thing, nor am I going to do a verse by verse presentation of the passage. I’m just going to make a few points about specific parts. There is also a parallel passage in 1 Cor 8:7-13. Read that one too.

The context: We have Jews living in Rome who are living according to their own customs, namely, abstaining from eating meat and drinking wine that had been served to idols. They wouldn’t do it. On the other hand, the Romans were Gentiles who hadn’t been raised under the Law, and didn’t have the same reservations. To them, it was just food and drink, no big deal. The problem was that essentially the Jews were viewing the Romans as sinners, and the Romans were throwing their liberty in the Jews’ faces. Wrong on both sides.

First off, the passage is directed at the Romans. “Accept the one who is weak in faith.” Right off the bat, the Jews are being called weak. Why? Because they lack the faith to realize that the meat is simply that, just meat. “One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only.” So Paul is identifying one party as strong and the other as weak. This chapter is essentially Ben Parker telling Peter Parker that, “With great strength comes great responsibility.” Paul is telling the Romans to take care with their weaker brothers, and not to be a stumbling block to them.

Speaking of which, jump down to verses 13 and 20. Usually, the drinkers and non-drinkers are on the same page up to this point. At vs 13 and 20 though, the non-drinkers usually point here and say that Christians are to abstain from anything that could offend another Christian. Let’s go to Greek again. First off, the word “offense” in v20 is the same word used for “obstacle” in v13. Second, look at 1 Pet 2:8- Jesus is called by Peter “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.” Same two words are used in Peter as are used in Romans. The point of the two words is to convey an action that causes a person to fall away from Christ for good. The Greek words themselves both have the connotation of tiger traps, or of falling into a pit and dying. This is not simply seeing someone lighting a cigarette and you turning your nose up at it. Paul is referring to the kind of action that tempts a person into a sin that ensnares them so much that they don’t come away from it again. Like going out with an abstaining church family that has teenagers and ordering a beer in front of them. Not something too commendable. All of the “stumbling” language used throughout the chapter should be read in this light. In teaching on this passage I usually reference a story I once heard about D.L. Moody and Charles Spurgeon. Supposedly, Spurgeon and Moody were together in America and Spurgeon, an avid smoker, lit up a cigar in front of Moody. Moody marched over to him and said, “That, sir, offends me.” Spurgeon pointed at Moody’s stomach and said, “That offends me.” Moody was a very large man. You get the idea. What may be offensive to one person may not be offensive to another, which leads us to my last point on this passage.

Verse 22 says,

The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.

The idea of the whole passage is that whatever you do, don’t be convicted by it, and don’t disapprove of the one who doesn’t match your own convictions. Everyone is lead by the Spirit in different ways, and each is lead according to how much faith he has. One person may only be able to handle so much of one thing, while another person is able to handle a different amount. The importance is for the one who has little faith not to condemn the one who is stronger (the one who takes part), and for the one who takes part not to be irresponsible with his weaker brother. So, for the alcohol topic- if you think drinking is wrong, don’t call those who disagree sinners. Don’t frown when they talk about it. Don’t tell them that they can’t do it, or bar them from ministry if they do. On the flip side, if you do drink, watch out who you’re drinking with. Don’t flaunt it. Don’t be telling the teenagers in your youth group how awesome beer is. Be responsible with your actions. At the same time, don’t hide it- as Paul says, “Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil.”

Christian Lifestyle & Ethics issues

The Different Positions

Typically there are three ways to view the use of alcohol in the Christian life. They are usually defined as:

1)    Abstinence- Christians are not to drink at all.

2)    Reservation- There is nothing wrong with alcohol, but there is no need to drink it, so Christians certainly shouldn’t drink.

3)    Moderation- There is nothing wrong with alcohol and the Biblical guideline is not to get drunk off it, nor be a slave to it. Its fine as long as it is enjoyed responsibly.

The first one can be written off. There is no single piece of Scripture that states that it is wrong to drink alcohol. There is no single piece of Scripture that states that specific members of the Church are to abstain either, specifically, those holding office.

The second one is where we really find the argument lies. Most people will fall here, though their reasons for being there are due more to ignorance than anything. The majority of people that I talk to don’t want to say that the Bible says its wrong, because it doesn’t, but at the same time they’ve been raised to believe that drinking is essentially wrong, so they find a happy medium by saying that there’s nothing wrong with it, but that Christians shouldn’t do it. It is almost equivalent to people being Theistic Evolutionists, they’re trying to find a happy medium that ends up contradicting itself anyway. I go to Romans 14 for this one. If you don’t think its okay for yourself, that’s fine! But don’t hold it as a universal ethic for all Christians. That is quite simply legalism. What is fine for you may not be fine for someone else, and you cannot hold someone to your own personal convictions. I once dated a girl that on our first date told me that she thought there was nothing wrong with alcohol, but was raised in a non-alcoholic household, and when she married, would not allow alcohol into her house. That was enough for me, and I was just about to order a glass of wine! Ha ha, with dating we can just part ways and call it “incompatible,” but with the Church it’s a little different. Legalism can be defined as “applying one’s own convictions to another person, and holding that person accountable to them.” Let’s make sure we are not doing this, and as I’ve already defended the use of alcohol through Scripture, this applies to alcohol as well. We cannot bar each other from actions related merely to conscience.

Alcohol content

The strongest argument usually levied by those against alcohol was (to my knowledge) first put forth in an article called “Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times,” by Robert H. Stein. In it, he puts forth the argument that the wine drank by people in NT times, as well as by the Church fathers had water added to it, usually mixed in a 3:1 water/wine ratio, and therefore our wine that we get out of the bottle is not the same, and would be considered “strong drink.” Norman Geisler, who’s article is quoted all over on anti-alcohol websites, leans heavily on Stein’s article.

I have a number of issues with this position. First off has to do with what was already mentioned about John 2:10 and the words of the headwaiter. Stein asserts that “one would have to drink over twenty-two glasses…to consume the amount of alcohol that is in two martinis,” and that, “...one’s drinking would probably affect the bladder long before it affected the mind.” How does that mesh with what the headwaiter said at Jesus’ wedding? Are we to assume that the people attending had already drank at minimum 15 glasses before Jesus turned the water to wine? I don’t know about you, but I can’t drink that much. Anyone who’s done stupid college stuff knows the old gallon of water in an hour challenge. You simply can’t do it. You throw up or give up before the hour is up. It simply makes more sense to assume that the people were drinking regular wine, in the range of 10-13% abv.

Second, I have a question which has not been answered yet, but I suppose it could get answered if I went on maybe a home brewing forum or something like that. The article in question assumes that “watering down” wine is the same as taking a bottle of our store-bought wine and adding water to it. Gross. My question is- is it possible that what was being watered down was some form of a concentrated mix, and that our wine today already is watered down? It makes sense to me that possibly people bought concentrated wine because it may have been easier to store, and since it was drank in such quantity, it would be much easier to mix at home than to buy it pre-mixed and needing to continually run to the market for more. I don’t know. My point I guess is that there is an assumption being made in the article that isn’t thought through, something related to the actual brewing process. I know that with beer, water is added at different stages. Could it be the same with wine? Maybe a certain stage of the fermenting process is pushed off until the purchaser decides to do it at home? Until I get this question answered, I’m throwing the whole thing out the window, because you cannot condemn what comes out of the bottle until you know what you’re comparing it to.

Third, and regardless of the previous two, comes the question of where to draw the line. How much alcohol is allowed before it is “dissipation?” 5%? 2%? 9%? Who knows? Who can say? There really is no way to say. Concluding that we should therefore just stay away from alcohol altogether goes against the praises of it that I mentioned above. My personal feeling on this is that no matter what the abv or proof is on the bottle, just don’t get drunk on it. Otherwise, alcohol is alcohol, whether its wine, gin, beer, or whatever.

Barring Ministers from Drinking

This is one that really bothers me the most. Not just ministers, but anyone in ministry really. No saint has the authority to place a law not given in Scripture on another saint. I’ve already pointed that out as being straight up legalism. There is a logic to it though, and of course, I’ve got a refutation of it!

The thought process goes like this: If a person in the congregation (let’s say a teenager, they’re nice and impressionable) finds out a person on staff drinks. Now they may use that as an excuse to go drinking themselves. If such were the case, then the staff member could be found at fault for causing, or at least being a reason, for someone else’s sin. A teenager is underage. Alcohol is attractive to them. If they found out their youth pastor drinks, they might say, “Well he does it, so why can’t I?”

My refutation is found in a simple parallel. If it works for alcohol, it needs to work for other scenarios as well. Teenagers (high schoolers) aren’t married. Sex is attractive to them. If their youth pastor is married, we can safely assume he’s having sex with his wife. A teen could go ahead and start having sex and say, “Well he does it, so why can’t I?”

Would we blame the youth pastor in such an instance? Nope. Why? Because its silly. The kid knew it was wrong and needs to take responsibility for his own behavior. GUESS WHAT? Is the same with alcohol. Legal age is 21. If a teen drinks, its on him or her. Not the youth pastor’s fault.

In both cases, you have an adult partaking in something along Biblical guidelines, and that something is forbidden to a certain class of people. In both cases, their partaking has been made a temptation to the person of the other class. I appeal to you that there is no difference between the two of them. If a person can be barred from drinking alcohol while on staff, a person should be barred from marital sexuality while on staff as well. And heck, it could be anything. A pastor’s wife should never braid her hair, or wear a skirt above the knee. An elder should never wear jeans to Church. Whatever. The idea is that people can be tempted by a plethora of things, and who’s in charge to put limits on people? Go to Romans 14. To put a law on someone according to your own conscience is for the weaker brother to rule over the stronger, and it is sin. There, I said it. It is sin to bar a Christian from something that the Spirit is not convicting him or her of. Trying to gloss over it by quoting 1 Cor 8:13 is missing the picture. In that passage, Paul is discussing something that has been given up by him according to his own conscience. It was not set in front of him as a written contract, nor was it stated by someone that he must conform to it to speak or serve in a given Church. Marriage was given up by Paul of his own will according to his own convictions. So should it be with alcohol.

Also, to bar someone from something that is not considered wrong by the one doing it could be a cause of sin to them, in which case, a contract or spoken agreement could be a stumbling block. Think of it this way- if I say “don’t think of an alligator,” what did you just do? You thought of an alligator. Is there anything wrong with it? Nope. So if I said not to do it, why did you? That’s our nature. If there is nothing wrong with something, and you’re fully convinced there’s nothing wrong with it, it is very likely you’ll brush the law to the side and do it anyway. So for a Church board to bar a member of the Church from a certain activity, in this case alcohol, could very well be a cause of sin. Once that contract or agreement is made, it is sin to the person to breach the contract. Would it be necessary to breach it by drinking? Nope, one could very easily do it in one’s heart. If said person was with friends or family and they were all drinking, it would be very easy to fall into lust, or more realistically, to succumb to peer pressure, because in all actuality there isn’t anything wrong with what they are doing, instead, the law imposed on them made it wrong. This flows with Paul’s logic stated in Rom 7:7,

On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.”

I’m not trying to apply this verse to the topic, I’m just saying that it follows the same logic. By placing a law before another person, you make what was once not sin to be sin. Therefore, it is my opinion that no Church organizing body should prohibit its membership, lay or pastoral, from partaking in any activity that would be considered “decisions/acts of the conscience.”

Conclusion

I hope I’ve clearly made my case. I do not believe that there is any Biblical reason in any of the glorious 66 books that can be used to make a case against drinking alcohol responsibly. Drunkenness aside, alcohol is a gift of God to make life better. I love it. Beer is one of my favorite things and I relish it. I can’t think of better times in my life than sitting around a table with friends or family and enjoying alcohol together and laughing. The Bible in no way condemns this behavior, and neither should any Christian. It is something to be used responsibly however, and as with any other matter of the conscience, our liberty should not be a cause of sin to another. On the flip side, no Christian should ever condemn another Christian nor bar them from the partaking of alcohol. Not only do they not have the right, but it is sin to the one that does it. I hope this has helped you all a bit in your understanding. Hopefully I’ll get back to writing again and stop taking so many breaks between blogs ha ha.

In Him,

Mike