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

Alcohol- What does the Bible say?

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

Translational issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Passages

Ok, now lets look at some debated passages.

Deut 14:22, 24-26:

“You shall surely tithe all the produce from what you sow, which comes out of the field every year.”“If the distance is so great for you that you are not able to bring the tithe, since the place where the LORD your God chooses to set His name is too far away from you when the LORD your God blesses you, then you shall exchange it for money, and bind the money in your hand and go to the place which the LORD your God chooses. You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.”

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

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

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

John 2:7-10

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

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

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

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

The Last Supper

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

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

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

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

2)    Jesus breaks the bread

3)    Jesus drinks the cup

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

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

1)    Bitter herbs are served with unleavened bread

2)    The meal is eaten

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

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

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

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

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

Romans 14

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

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

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

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

Verse 22 says,

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

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

Christian Lifestyle & Ethics issues

The Different Positions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alcohol content

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

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

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

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

Barring Ministers from Drinking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

In Him,

Mike

The Sin of Sodom

Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. And he said, “Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant’s house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way.” They said however, “No, but we shall spend the night in the square.” Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.” But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.” But they said, “Stand aside.” Furthermore, they said, “This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them.” So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door. But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. They struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway. Then the two men said to Lot, “Whom else have you here? A son-in-law, and your sons, and your daughters, and whomever you have in the city, bring them out of the place; for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the LORD that the LORD has sent us to destroy it.” (Genesis 19:1-13)

You’d think this one would be pretty self-explanatory, but as with anyone who wants to twist Scripture to make their viewpoint work, it becomes complicated. The question here is, “What was Sodom’s sin?” As was mentioned in the previous posts, the homosexual agenda likes to make multiple arguments about the same passage, without recognizing that the various arguments are all contradictory. Same goes here. Two arguments are given:

1)    Sodom’s sin was inhospitality.

2)    Sodom’s sin was gang rape.

Its not that each argument is given individually by different proponents; it is that both arguments are given by singular opponents. So, which one is it? Was it inhospitality or gang rape? Can’t be both, if each is presented as the correct one. In actuality, both are right. But they’re not the only ones that are right. The question “What was Sodom’s sin?” is really a trick question. It assumes that Sodom only committed one sin. Homosexuals will play this game with the above two sins, in the hopes that you will think that they only committed one sin. The real question is, what is the sin that was committed that made the Lord destroy them? Ezekiel adds a bit of commentary:

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. (Ezek 16:49)

Now, a word on this. One thing you need to learn about Biblical exegesis is to never trust anyone 100%. There are many expositors on the homosexual side that will quote this verse, and say, “See, we were right… they were inhospitable,” and they stop there. In doing so they prove themselves untrustworthy. The very next verse says:

They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.

This is the reason you have to watch people that like to “proof text” positions. Anyone who states a position and then lists 50 passages after is probably grasping at straws and making more than a few assumptions about the texts cited. Same thing goes for someone who quotes a verse and never addresses the context. Be careful, and always check citations.

So, the problem here is this word “abomination.” In the Hebrew, it is the word to’ebah. It is the same word used in the Levitical law for a moral abomination. Homosexuals will immediately argue that there were many abominations, including eating pork, shellfish, wearing clothing meant for the opposite sex, remarrying after adultery, dishonest scales, homosexuality, and idolatry. They’ll state that it could have been any one of these, therefore the identity of the sin is unknown, and thus confuse your mind with faulty exegesis.

Let’s think this through. All we know about Sodom is written in the book of Genesis. We know that they were destroyed immediately after the issue with Lot and the angels. We know that they attempted homosexual gang rape, and were inhospitable. Of all we know about them, how many things can be identified as an abomination? One thing. Men lying with men. The only abomination we can spot in the story of the destruction of Sodom is that the men of the city wanted to “know” the angels. There is one giant giveaway that no one ever seems to focus on in relation to this issue, but treats as a separate issue unto itself: Lot’s offer of his daughters.

“Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.”

Now to our mindset, the idea of offering your daughters is so offensive, that most focus on this verse as if it stood alone. There’s a reason it is there though, and I believe that this reason proves that the Sodomites were destroyed for homosexuality.

Lot offered his daughters as a more appropriate appeasement for their sexual desire.

Right away, everyone’s red flags start going up, but hold on, let me explain. In general, the first thought most people have is that there is some kind of a lack of respect for women, or that this concerned the fact that women were not held in as high regard in those days. I don’t think that is the case here. If the issue was simply that the men of the city had strong sexual urges, and nothing was particularly wrong with those urges except that they were being inhospitable, Lot could have offered either himself or his sons. Why his daughters then? Let’s make a couple analogies.

You are out on a stroll with your dog and come upon a serial killer attempting to kill another person. If you intercede, you will certainly die. If you shout out, you will die. So, you offer the killer your dog in place of the victim. He kills the dog, and is filled with memories of the past, killing squirrels as a child.

The second scenario is a little more along the lines of the story. Think about a young, single man who is struggling with his sexual urges. He relates to you that he’s at his boiling point, and ready to commit a sin with a woman. A possible suggestion to the man is masturbation in order to sate his urges. He goes through with it, and his urge is held at bay.

In both scenarios, you have a person about to commit a sin. In both situations, a potential lesser sin is substituted for the greater sin. I think you get where I’m going with this. Lot’s offer of his daughters is a response to the wickedness of the act the men of the city wanted to commit. He is essentially saying, “Take my daughters and if you have to sin, sin with them; but please… for the love of all things holy- don’t sin in the way you are about to!” Lot’s terrible offer is proof of how wicked the actions of the men were. It was a much greater sin for a man to lay with a man than for a man to lay with a woman that was not his wife. Even in Levitical law, adultery is not considered an abomination, but homosexuality is. This view is the only view that makes sense of all the information we are given. Here are some questions:

1)    If the men’s sin was that they were inhospitable, how would the offer of Lot’s daughters help that? –It wouldn’t have.

2)    If the men’s sin was gang rape, how would the offer of Lot’s daughters be any different? – It wouldn’t.

3)    On the other hand, if the sin was homosexuality, would the offer of Lot’s daughters have helped the situation if the offer had been taken? –Yes.

In looking at the passage with these questions in mind, only the last question seems to make sense of the passage. Ezekiel states that they were destroyed for committing an abomination. Homosexual actions are the only abomination that we know they committed. Lot’s daughters prove it. Let’s go to the New Testament now for further testimony.

[Edit-- I want to state that I'm not condoning the action of replacing greater sins for lesser sins. I believe that in the historical sections of the Old Testament, the authors' positions were to simply tell what happened. That said, there are a lot of things in the OT that when scrutinized, weren't the most moral of decisions. Think about the entire story of Gideon. He was a deceiver, a murderer, and a doubter of God. But he was commended as a good Judge. How about Deborah? She drove a tent stake through a man's head. Same thing here. Lot may have exchanged a lesser sin for a greater sin, but I'm not saying he was justified. Given the situation he was in, that was the decision he made and the author just told it as it happened. I hope that clears things a bit. -Mike]

And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 6-7)

Whatever these angels are (my belief is that they are the “sons of God” of Genesis 6), they, “in the same way as [Sodom and Gomorrah] indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh…” Lets look at a couple words.

“Gross immorality” is the word ekporneuo, and has the idea of “giving oneself over to fornication.” It is made up of two words, ek- which means “from, out of” and porneuo or “fornication,” where we get our word “porn” from.

The second word group is “strange flesh.” In the Greek, it is sarkos heteros, meaning “flesh of a different kind.” The idea is that the flesh they committed fornication with was of kind that was not natural to them.

The two terms, being in the same context and both being the reason for the destruction of the angels and people of Sodom and Gomorrah, are interrelated. In the case of the angels, they committed fornication and went after strange flesh because they abandoned their proper spiritual body (οἰκητήριον) by taking on human form and taking wives of human women. In the case of the Sodomites, they committed fornication with people that were also not their lot- men. Notice the conjoining phrase “in the same way as these,” which is there to show that the sins of the two groups are correlated. They both were sexually active in a way that is not proper for them.

The fact here is that any action of sexuality between men is an abomination before God. There is no idea here of “committed same-sex relationships,” it is the very action that is condemned. We’ll get more into this in the next passage, as we look at the Law presented in the book of Leviticus, which is crucial to our understanding not only of the subject, but of who Jesus and Paul were, which we will discuss much later.

My challenge- read the book of Leviticus! There’s a lot in there, and even though we live under grace and not under law, it doesn’t mean we throw the book out! So do yourself a favor and read a book of the Bible that you probably wouldn’t even look at if no one told you to do so!

Grace and peace,

Mike