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

1 Tim 2:4

"...who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

A little late night rant. Presidential race just got wrapped up, Obama wins. This is the first passage that comes to mind.

Generally, you only hear this verse coming from some kind of altar call from an Arminian preacher teaching that God's desire is for every single person on the planet and throughout history to be saved. Not so. Let's look at the rest of the context.

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 We can see from the context that the desire on God's behalf is not that every person will be saved, but instead that all kinds of men be saved- here's the part that's important- even the kings and rulers who oppress you.

Right now we're facing a moral crisis in America. What Paul defines as a "giving over" to sin in the area of homosexuality is happening as we speak. And what's more, what Paul said later about others "giving hearty approval" is also the norm. The moral compass is so far off in this country. I actually just had to take a break from typing to argue with someone over the definition of life. When a country can't define what marriage is based on the natural function of the body, or the definition of life based on just the dumbest common sense, then its time we start getting off our behinds and becoming the Christians that the Apostles desired us to be.

Hard times are coming. Times are coming where we will simply no longer be tolerated. And yet despite that, Paul urges Timothy to pray for our rulers, as He has the power to save even those that are our enemies. What we are going through right now is of no comparison to the trials experienced by the early Church. We have yet to face death for our belief in this country. We have yet to worry about exile. We do not have secret meetings in homes. We live a good life, worshiping freely.

Enjoy that freedom, but do not become complacent. Give thanks to God for the graces he has bestowed upon us, and that when the tide comes, he will be merciful and not allow us to be swept up with it.



Grace and peace in the next 4 years,

Mike

Spurgeon on the Grace in having a Sovereign God

Beloved English pastor Charles Haddon Spurgeon once wrote this:

There is no attribute of God more comforting to His children than the doctrine of the Divine Sovereignty. Under the most adverse circumstances, in the most severe troubles, they believe that Sovereignty hath ordained their afflictions, that Sovereignty overrules them, and that Sovereignty will sanctify them all. There is nothing for which the children of God ought more earnestly to contend than the dominion of their Master over all creation- the kingship of God over all the works of His own hands- the throne of God, and His right to sit upon that throne.

On the other hand, there is no doctrine more hated by worldlings, no truth of which they have made such a football, as the great, stupendous, but yet most certain doctrine of the Sovereignty of the infinite Jehovah. Men will allow God to be everywhere except upon His throne. They will allow Him to be in His workshop to fashion worlds and to make stars. They will allow Him to be in His almonry to dispense His alms and bestow His bounties. They will allow Him to sustain the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the lamps of Heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean; but when God ascends His throne, His creatures then gnash their teeth; and when we proclaim an enthroned God, and His right to do as He wills with His own, to dispose of His creatures as He thinks well, without consulting them in the matter, then it is that we are hissed and execrated, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on His throne is not the God they love. They love Him anywhere better than they do when He sits with His scepter in His hand and His crown upon His head. But it is God upon the throne that we love to preach. It is God upon His throne whom we trust.

Yes we do. The God of the Catholics, the Arminians, and the Open Theists is not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is not one who bows to the will of another. He is the one reigning on the throne, who will return one day in triumph, with his robe dipped in blood, eyes aflame, and a sword protruding from his mouth, making war upon all those who deny him. It is this God who we trust, the God who is Jesus Christ, who defends his holiness by punishing all that sets itself against him. He is sovereign in all his ways, and it is for this reason that we say that we can trust him. With Jude we can reply fully and in earnest,

Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. 

Charis kai airene,

Mike

Romans 8:1 Greek Exegetical Outline

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

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

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

ou˙de/n

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

a¡ra

1.     Particle

2.     Lexicons

a.     Illative particle therefore (Strong)

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

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

3.     Comments

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

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

nu√n

1.     Particle (Strong); adv. (BAG)

2.     Lexicons

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

b.     Now at this very time (L&S)

c.     Time, now, the present (Strong)

3.     Comments

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

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

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

kata÷krima

1.     noun

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

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

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

2.     Lexicons

a.     penalty, condemnation (Strong)

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

c.     judgment (L&S)

3.     Comments

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

b.     “condemnation resulting from sin” (Osbourne)

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

toiç

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

e˙n Cristwø√ ∆Ihsou√

1.     prep. followed by prop. n.

2.     Comments

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

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

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

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

Key:

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

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

Strong- Strong’s Accordance

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

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

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

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

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

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