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

Homosexuality: Who was Jesus? Part One

In continuing with the topic of homosexuality, I’d like to do a short study of Christology. Often as it is, the topic comes up of what Jesus taught on homosexuality, and the general consensus is that he didn’t teach anything. In one sense, this is correct; Jesus did not teach explicitly on homosexuality (though he did teach on the definition of marriage, which I have already addressed) in his earthly ministry. In another sense, he certainly did- when we look at the whole of who Jesus was. As I state time and time again, theology matters. Narrowing the discussion of Jesus to only the carpenter of Nazareth in ignorance of his full person as God, and again narrowing it to only what is in the red letters of certain Bibles is theological laziness. It shows that either a person has no desire to understand Christian theology, or that a person is ignoring or possibly overlooking other parts of Christian theology. Theology matters. One weak link in the chain causes the whole chain to fail. So, let’s study Christology together.

Christ as God

The Orthodox Christian understanding of Jesus’ deity is central to understanding the relationship between Christology and the homosexual debate. We as Christians recognize Jesus as God. We refer to him as the Second Person of the Trinity. That is, Jesus is fully God, yet is the Second of Three, the other two Persons being the Father and the Spirit, respectively. A denial of this is across the board heresy, and divides those who are Christians from those who are not.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)

“For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him…” (Col 1:19)

“…although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.” (Phil 2:6-7)

“I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30)

Read the next two as one section. The passage from Isaiah is what John quotes in his gospel.

“For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, ‘HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM.’ These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him.” (John 12:39-41)

“In the year of King Uzziah’s death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.
And one called out to another and said,            ‘Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts,            The whole earth is full of His glory.’
And the foundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of him who called out, while the temple was filling with smoke.
Then I said,            ‘Woe is me, for I am ruined!            Because I am a man of unclean lips,            And I live among a people of unclean lips;            For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.’…“He said, ‘Go, and tell this people:            ‘Keep on listening, but do not perceive;            Keep on looking, but do not understand.’
‘Render the hearts of this people insensitive,            Their ears dull,            And their eyes dim,            Otherwise they might see with their eyes,            Hear with their ears,            Understand with their hearts,            And return and be healed.’ ” (Isaiah 6:1-5, 9-10)

Notice John's commentary: "[Isaiah] saw His glory, and he spoke of Him." Saw who? Spoke of who? Contextually, in John's gospel, he's referring to Jesus. But when we go to the book of Isaiah and read what Isaiah actually wrote in the whole context, we see that he spoke of the LORD. If you don't know, whenever our English Bibles use "the LORD" in small capitals, it means that the original Hebrew is using the tetragrammaton- YHWH. So, John is equating Jesus with YHWH.

Aside from Biblical references, you can also do a study on secular authors and look historically at what Christians have believed from antiquity. Pliny writes to the Emperor of Rome in the early second century AD on what to do with Christians. He mentions a list of ways to find them, which included forcing them to curse Christ or worship statues of the Emperor and offer drink and food offerings to his Genius. True Christians would not do these things. Now, it follows from that, that if Christianity was a Jewish religion (which Pliny also recognizes, saying that the “disease” spread from Israel to Rome), and Judaism was strictly Monotheistic, and we have witness that Christians worshipped only Christ, that therefore Christians were Monotheistic and considered Christ as God. So, from the earliest of their history, it was recognized that Christians worshipped Christ alone. Worship, being something only offered to God, is a historical proof that Christians for their whole history have honored Christ as God. So from this one source (and there are others), we can see that from very early on, people knew 1) that there existed those who were called Christians, 2) that they were Jewish in origin, 3) that they worshipped a man named Jesus, 4) they recognized him as God, and 5) Christians could be distinguished from non-Christians by their beliefs.

Theologically speaking, we recognize Christ as the Second Person of the Trinity.

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit…” (Matt 28:19)

We are Monotheist Trinitarians. That is, we believe in One God, in three Persons. Islam, in contrast, is Monotheist Unitarian. They believe that Allah is one god with only one person. We believe that each member of the Trinity is equally God and of the same essence. As was quoted above,

“For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him…” (Col 1:19)

Paul writes to the church at Colossae that the pleroma (fullness) of God dwelt in Christ. The word “fullness” is used also in the next verse,

“and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority…” (Col. 2:10)

The word here “complete” is the word pleroo (play-raw-oh), which is the verb form of pleroma. The word means “to make full, to complete,” and when applied to Christ, draws an equality of the essence of Christ and God. Theologically, we call this homoousia, “same essence.”

To conclude this section, if Christ is God, and God was the giver of the Law, then Christ also gave the Law. That means that Jesus of Nazareth, the God-Man, upheld the Law of Moses as its Creator, its Author. Therefore, whatever is contained therein, is the very word of Christ Himself. So, when the OT Law denounces homosexuality as evil, it is Christ who is doing the condemning. [Note here, unlike the charge levied against Paul, homosexuality in the OT Law cannot be equated with temple prostitution or pederasty, as those were foreign to Hebrew practice.]

Christ as the Angel of the Lord

This is something that is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and Theologians. There are more than a few examples of it, but I will only name one. In Exodus 3, during the scene of the Burning Bush, Moses writes,

 “The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed. So Moses said, ‘I must turn aside now and see this marvelous sight, why the bush is not burned up.’ When the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, ‘Here I am.’” (Ex 3:2-4)

Maybe you didn’t catch it, but look at the wording. In the first sentence, it is the Angel of the Lord in the burning bush; in the third sentence it is God who is in the bush, vis-à-vis, The Angel of the Lord is God. Pretty simple concept.

The same passage is confirmed in the New Testament, in Acts 7:30-35:

“After forty years had passed, AN ANGEL APPEARED TO HIM IN THE WILDERNESS OF MOUNT SINAI, IN THE FLAME OF A BURNING THORN BUSH. When Moses saw it, he marveled at the sight; and as he approached to look more closely, there came the voice of the Lord…”

I only quoted 30 and 31 for brevity. Once again, notice how Stephen draws the connection between the Lord and the Angel. This time, we have an interpretation given by not only a New Testament author, Luke, but a character within the story. The words in caps are the OT quotation, the words in normal case are Stephen’s words.

Although the Angel of the Lord is designated as YHWH himself, he is also a distinct person.

“Then the angel of the LORD said, ‘O LORD of hosts, how long will You have no compassion for Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which You have been indignant these seventy years?’ The LORD answered the angel who was speaking with me with gracious words, comforting words.” (Zech 1:12-13)

The fact that the Angel is both talking to the Lord and being talked to by the Lord shows that there is a distinction between the two. This is in line with what Jews believed of the Angel. A.C. Gaebelein says, "It is noteworthy and of great interest that the ancient Jews in their traditions regarded the Angel of the Lord, in every instance, not as an ordinary angel, but as the only mediator between God and the world, the author of all revelations, to whom they gave the name Metatron."

So, what we’ve seen so far is that the Angel is both YHWH and someone else at the same time. He’s the only intercessor of the Lord with supreme authority from God. These attributes fit what we know of Jesus from the New Testament. Jesus is God, yet he is distinct from the Father and the Spirit. Equal in essence, different in person. So, what proof do we have to make that connection? John Walvoord makes four points to prove that Jesus was the Angel of the Lord: 1) Jesus is revealed as God in the New Testament, 2) The Angel of the Lord is absent from the New Testament, 3) Both the Angel of the Lord and Christ are sent by the Father, and 4) The Angel of the Lord cannot be either the Father or the Holy Spirit.

Of these, only the last really needs to be elaborated on. John 1:18 says, “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”  This explains that the Angel of the Lord cannot be the Father, as the Angel of the Lord had a body, and was visible to men at various times. The Holy Spirit subsists in spirit form at all times and thus is also invisible. Therefore, the Angel of the Lord, being both YHWH and yet distinct from YHWH, can only be the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ.

Jesus, God, the Giver of the Law

Now that we’ve established that Jesus did make himself visible during the Old Testament times as the Angel of the Lord, let’s look at another place where Jesus made himself visible in the Old Testament. Keep in mind the principles we established about the nature of God, and the individual Three Persons and the distinctions between them.

Then the LORD said, “Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock; and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.” (Ex 33:21-33)

“The LORD descended in the cloud and stood there with him as he called upon the name of the LORD. Then the LORD passed by in front of him…” (Ex 34:5-6a)

Being that the Lord who is depicted here is one that is visible, we once again conclude that it is neither the Father nor the Spirit. That leaves only one other option; this is once again the pre-incarnate Christ. It follows also that it was the pre-incarnate Christ who gave the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, the Levitical Law (Leviticus), and the second giving of the Law (Deuteronomy; deutero- “second”, nomos- “Law”).

So, did Jesus agree with the Old Testament Law? Yup. As a matter of fact, he wrote it. He agreed with its every part, as he declared it to Moses. Once again, we see that Jesus was certainly against homosexuality and declared it as a sin. When Leviticus states that a man should not lay with a man as one lays with a woman, it came from the very mouth of Jesus as the giver of the Law.

[Edit: The Law states that a lot of other things are sins as well, things that Christians do not recognize as sin. For a discussion of that, see my earlier post here.]

Separating Jesus from the Law is impossible, from both perspectives of Christ’s nature as God-Man. We’ve looked at his pre-Incarnate glorified aspect and how it agrees with the law, next time I visit this topic, I’ll go over who Christ was as the Son of Man.

In Him,

Mike