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

Romans 8:1 Greek Exegetical Outline

This probably won't be of much use to any of you, but if you're curious about a good format to do exegetical outlines, here's an example. First, mark any important words, these will be the words you will work with. In this particular verse, almost all the words are useful for a solid exposition of the verse. Next, list the part of speech for each particular word. After that, list entries from various lexical and dictionary sources. After that, list any useful words from commentaries.

Pretty simple. This allows you to have a good outline starting from the original language and will allow you to familiarize yourself with each word so that as you begin to prepare a message, you will already be familiar with the skeleton of the verse in the original language.

Ou˙de/n a¡ra nu√n kata÷krima toi√ß e˙n Cristwø√ ∆Ihsou√

ou˙de/n

1. Adj., Nom., Sing., Neut.
2. Lexicons
1. From ou˙de and ei™ß
2. pronoun No one, nothing, not any, no* (TDNT, L&S)
3. adj No (BAG)
3. Comments
1. “ou¡de÷n kata÷krima, does not mean nihil damnatione dignum (nothing worthy of condemnation,) as Erasmus and many others render it, but  there is no condemnation.” (Hodge)
2. “emphatic…(ouden, “not one”)” (Moo)

a¡ra

1.     Particle

2.     Lexicons

a.     Illative particle therefore (Strong)

b.     Inferential (Illative) particle so, then, consequently, you see (BAG)

c.     Attic usage functions like ou™n –less strongly; then, therefore (L&S)

3.     Comments

a.     “…Therefore indicates that what follows is an inference…” (Hodge)

b.     “The combination a¡ra nu√n… is an emphatic on, marking what follows as a significant summing up.” (Moo)

nu√n

1.     Particle (Strong); adv. (BAG)

2.     Lexicons

a.     Adverb of time now; Lit., of time- now, at the present time, of the immediate present, designating both a point of time as well as its extent. (BAG)

b.     Now at this very time (L&S)

c.     Time, now, the present (Strong)

3.     Comments

a.     “The ‘now,’ as in 3:21; 5:9; 6:19,22; 7:6, alludes to the new era of salvation history inaugurated by Christ’s death and resurrection.” (Moo)

b.     “The emphasis on now returns to the idea of the two epochs in salvation-history. The now-ness of this new age of salvation (cf. 3:26; 5:9, 11; 6:19,21) means that the condemnation of the old era is no longer.” (Osbourne)

c.     “There is, therefore, now, i.e., under these circumstances, viz., the circumstances set forth in the previous part of the epistle. (Hodge)

kata÷krima

1.     noun

a.     from katakri/nw, v., to give judgment against (Strong)

                                                        i.     from kata/, prep., according to (Strong)

                                                      ii.     and kri/nw, v., to judge, decide (Strong)

2.     Lexicons

a.     penalty, condemnation (Strong)

b.     prob. Not ‘condemnation’, but the punishment following sentence, punishment, doom.” ou˙de«n k. toi√ß e˙n Cristw√ ˙Ihsou√ there is no doom for those who are in Christ Jesus

c.     judgment (L&S)

3.     Comments

a.     “The word katakrima means ‘probably not “condemnation”, but the punishment following sentence’ (Arndt-Gingrich)- in other words, ‘penal servitude’. (Bruce)

b.     “condemnation resulting from sin” (Osbourne)

c.     “[quotes BAG, Bruce]…But Paul does not appear to use the word so narrowly, for in 5:16 and 18 katakrima is used as the antithesis to justification to sum up the penal effects of Adam’s disobedience. Is the scope of the word even broader than this, extending beyond the penalty of sin to the power of sin? Many think so and argue that 8:1 announces the breaking of sin’s dominion in all its aspects… Therefore, like “death,” a parallel term (cf. 5:16 and 17; 5:18 and 21; and 8:1 and 6), katakrima designates the state of lostness, of estrangement from God, the state in which all are born and in which, unless Christ be embraced by faith, all will die and spend eternity.” (Moo)

toiç

            1. Def. Art., Dat., Pl., Masc.

e˙n Cristwø√ ∆Ihsou√

1.     prep. followed by prop. n.

2.     Comments

a.     “…united with him in his death and resurrection” (Osbourne)

b.     “Paul’s description of the new order into which men and women are introduced by faith in Christ.” (Bruce)

c.     “1. They are in him federally, as all men were in Adam…2. They are in him vitally, as the branch is in the vine…; or, as the head and members of the body are in vital union… .” (Hodge)

d.     “Those who are in Adam experience all the liabilities of being descended from him. Similarly, those in Christ experience all the blessings that accrue to those who belong to God.” (Schreiner)

Key:

BAG- Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, “A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament.”

L&S- Liddell and Scott, “An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon.”

Strong- Strong’s Accordance

Osbourne, Grant, “Romans: The IVP New Testament Commentary Series.”

Bruce, F.F, “Romans: Tyndale New Testament Commentaries.”

Schreiner, Thomas, “Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ, A Pauline Theology.”

Hodge, Charles, “Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.”

Moo, Douglas, “Romans 1-8: The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary.”

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