Convictions and Complexities about Drinking
Image
Today I am going to take a stab at applying convictions and preferences to the subject of drinking. Let’s begin with convictions.
Convictions in General
A conviction is a belief or value we embrace as a crucial part of what we stand for and who we are. It is very different from a preference—or merely assenting to a belief or value.
For the believer, there are two levels of conviction. The first level—the deepest level—involves biblical conviction, although some deep convictions may extend beyond the Bible (e.g., a soldier surrendering his life for our country’s freedom). Our biblical convictions should be first and foremost. Where the Bible is emphatic, we must be clear and take a firm stand. This does not mean we must demand others to take that stand, but we certainly must urge fellow believers to follow what the Word actually says. This is not necessarily what we think it says, but what it actually says.
The difference between a biblical conviction and a preference is that we would suffer loss rather than disavow our biblical convictions. It may mean we lose a job, flunk a class, or be ostracized. In some nations, it means imprisonment or even death.
A preference, however, is something we prefer, but would not suffer for. For example, if we preferred to attend church Sunday mornings but lived in a culture where Friday was the national day off (as in a Muslim country), we could adjust and conduct church on Friday.
As our society becomes more aggressively anti-Christian, we are often disappointed to see supposed believers who (we thought had convictions) cave in. We discover that their “convictions” were actually preferences.
A lesser level of conviction involves beliefs that are not emphasized in the Bible; these are matters of conscience. Paul mandates we respect one another’s consciences in Romans 14:1-23 and I Corinthians 8:1-13.
Use of Alcohol, the Bible, and Evangelical/Fundamental History
Many Christians suggest that the Bible teaches moderation in drinking, while many others have concluded that the Bible teaches total abstinence. My suspicion is that the younger generations are more likely to embrace drinking, while the older generations oppose the idea.
Some of us choose to avoid alcohol—not because we believe it is wrong in moderation—but because it would be wrong for us. Take my case: I hail from a long line of alcoholics, including my father, uncles, and both grandfathers. I may have a genetic predisposition, so I am better off not getting into the habit.
How did abstinence and conservative evangelical/fundamental Christianity become paired together in the first place? In 1750, no Christians (to my knowledge) were against drinking in moderation. The Puritans, for example, would discuss theology while drinking ale. All churches used fermented wine for communion. How did things change?
Change began with the temperance movement. Evangelical Christians have a heritage of supporting the temperance movement of the early 20th century (that resulted in Prohibition). Because of the push against alcohol, a company named “Welch’s” began bottling unfermented grape juice—for communion use!
In addition, conservative evangelicals started rescue missions over 100 years ago—before the current secular “soup kitchens” caught on. People who have an alcoholic background are often brought down by just one drink, so our spiritual forefathers’ attempts at helping these people meant across-the-board abstinence for all church members. Some church covenants still require church members to totally abstain.
Today we battle all sorts of drug abuse, making substance abuse one of America’s premiere issues. Most people have concluded that Prohibition was a drastic mistake, and few of us are working with rehabilitated alcoholics. Like it or not, many Christians in America are now drinkers, at least on occasion. At the same time, we are completely free to abstain. We do not need to start drinking to prove with are with the times, free, or flexible!
When it comes to the Bible, alcohol use (in moderation) is the biblical example. The Greek word for unfermented wine (trux or trugia) is never used in the New Testament. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how someone could stumble over using grape juice (if that is what “wine” meant, as some claim) in Romans 14:21. A natural interpretation—and all Bible versions agree—tell us that Jesus turned the water to wine, not grape juice. We must pursue a biblical (rather than historical and agenda-driven) ethic.
Many Christians believe drinking alcohol is wrong, even in moderation. Others choose to abstain because of a logical argument (alcohol does more harm than good). Others take a moderation approach. But all of us need to be sensitive to others.
We do not allow alcohol at church events for good reason. Romans 14:21 (ESV) reads:
Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.
Sometimes we need to adjust our habits based upon those around us, but only at the time. Otherwise we would all be abstainers and all vegetarians! Consideration for those who have sincere beliefs is a good thing; this is not the same as letting people with legalistic bents bully and impose their rules upon us.
Paul is talking about “weaker brothers” who would not be upset they didn’t get their way—but would be truly hurt—and perhaps emboldened to do things that bothered their consciences.
Moderation and Christian Alcoholics
Alcoholism within the Christian world is a genuine problem. Some people are typically driven toward excesses. Others (like Native American Indians) have a biological factor that makes alcohol highly addictive.
Drunkenness is a sin. Ephesians 5:18 says, “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit” (NASB). The problem, though, is that most alcoholics (or occasional drunks) live in denial. One time, I knew a man who became so drunk he got in a fight with a fire hydrant. He lost. But he would talk about being able to “hold his liquor” and “not being drunk a day in his life.” The denial factor is strong.
Because we seem to have two polarized camps—drinking is always wrong or drinking is okay—we have failed to give real guidance to those who do drink.
So here is my attempt to do so. If you do drink, do you have to drink every single day? Or do you generally drink more than two or three drinks in a given day, or more than ten drinks a week? Are you safely within the boundaries of moderation? (For more information on defining moderation, see www.moderatedrinking.com.)
If you have a problem, you should elicit the prayer support of discreet members of our church family (like our elders, for example). There is no shame about enrolling in a treatment program or seeking Christian counseling.
All of us have our struggles; we all need the Holy Spirit to work within us through the Word, prayer, and relational involvement with our church family. Sometimes the best way to overcome sin is to focus upon loving God and loving others.
Ed Vasicek Bio
Ed Vasicek was raised as a Roman Catholic but, during high school, Cicero (IL) Bible Church reached out to him, and he received Jesus Christ as his Savior by faith alone. Ed earned his BA at Moody Bible Institute and served as pastor for many years at Highland Park Church, where he is now pastor emeritus. Ed and his wife, Marylu, have two adult children. Ed has published over 1,000 columns for the opinion page of the Kokomo Tribune, published articles in Pulpit Helps magazine, and posted many papers which are available at edvasicek.com. Ed has also published the The Midrash Key and The Amazing Doctrines of Paul As Midrash: The Jewish Roots and Old Testament Sources for Paul's Teachings.
I was going to post a few thoughts on my own perspective on the topic, but soon realized I had more than 500 words, so… I think maybe I’ll just post as a short article tomorrow.
But I want to say that I appreciate Ed’s tone here and the emphasis on helping believers who have come to the conclusion that some alcohol consumption is permissible for them.
I also think Ed’s summary of the history of how total abstinence became status quo among most of the old-time evangelicals and later fundamentalists is correct. Billy Sunday era revivalism along w/the temperance movement (and, interestingly, early feminism) were all part of the mix.
Rom. 14, Greek words for “unfermented wine,” wisdom angle, etc….. tomorrow.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Thanks for the article. My understanding was that the support of prohibition from “Christians” was largely coming from the modernists. Is that not true?
Is “new wine” a translation of “[new] oinos” - i.e. a beverage from newly squeezed grapes, which would have very little fermentation - certainly not even enough to give a person a buzz?
Point being that I agree the Bible does not declare 100% abstinence, but there was a preference for juice from grapes that were freshly squeezed. Why settle for what is okay (fermented) when we, in the 21st century, have access to what is best (unfermented)?
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Alcohol Today: Abstinence in an Age of Indulgence by Peter Lumpkins
Ancient Wine and the Bible: The Case for Abstinence by Brumbelow
You may also be interested in the following article:
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-problem-with-drunk-prea…
Aaron, I look forward to your article.
David R. Brumbelow
See Acts 2: 13 for whether “new wine” was alcoholic or not. Reality is that unless extraordinary measures are taken to prevent fermentation, grape juice ferments quickly. That white powder on the skin of grapes is yeast, which occurs naturally in the air and feeds on whatever sugar is available. (this is how you get sourdough, properly—a true sourdough is not started by adding a packet of Fleishman’s to flour, water, and potato peels—you just leave the flour & water exposed to the air and it will start to bubble in a few days….it’s actually a different type of yeast that works with lactobacilli to give it that characteristic taste)
So new wine is not completely fermented—that’s why it’s also called “sweet wine”—but it definitely contained alcohol. And which was better? Well, look at Luke 5:39. The ancients preferred fully fermented (“drier”) wines, according to our Savior. Part of the attraction for old wines was also that it was pretty completely fermented and would not become vinegar if exposed to air.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Music, wine, dance, sex, food, wealth, and power are all celebrated in the Bible. They are all counted as blessings from God. We should seek out and enjoy all of the above, but in moderation, within God’s plan, and in worship of the Creator (rather than the creation).
It is true that the world, flesh, and Devil twist each of the above to abuse it, worship it, and throw it back in God’s face. It is a sin to take a blessed provision of God, and worship it, abuse it, or twist it. We all struggle with sin, but the answer is not to necessarily reject the blessing outright. The answer is to use the blessings of creation to worship the Creator (as is done in communion with wine).
There is a subgroup of Christians who, out of noble motive, attempt to distance themselves from excess and abuse by viewing some of the above as sin. Although they take this view in an effort to avoid sin, they go beyond what the Bible plainly says.
It’s worth noting that Romans 14 is specifically talking about food and drink sacrificed to idols, not just some arbitrary “stumbling block” out there. So those who would use it as a reason to compel others’ abstinence ought to be asked what idol that wine or steak was sacrificed to, and why they’re objecting to wine per Romans 14 but not that hamburger in their hand.
Sorry, but most of the time, “Romans 14” means “I am blackmailing you into giving up your freedom in Christ to support my Victorian cultural views.” It’s way past time for that to end.
Regarding the alcoholic, are we to believe that the alcoholic can drive past multiple bars, liquor stores, beer trucks, billboards, vineyards and restaurants serving/advertising alcoholic beverages every day on the way to work, but cannot handle a brother in Christ enjoying a glass of wine? Seriously?
It certainly isn’t what I’ve seen. A good friend of mine is an abstinent alcoholic, and he works as a Lutheran pastor—serves real wine every week to his congregation. He will eat meals at bars with his family—no problem. Other friends of mine noted that when they go to Mass, they tell the priest with a simple hand gesture that they are alcoholics, and the priest will provide them grape juice at Communion. They also went to company events where liquor was served with no problem.
Really, the same logic that is used to justify compelled abstinence could be used to tell a pretty young lady to disfigure herself so that her beauty would not be a stumbling block. Sorry, but that is simply not what the Scripture tells us to do. It tells us about moderation and self-control.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]It’s worth noting that Romans 14 is specifically talking about food and drink sacrificed to idols, not just some arbitrary “stumbling block” out there. So those who would use it as a reason to compel others’ abstinence ought to be asked what idol that wine or steak was sacrificed to, and why they’re objecting to wine per Romans 14 but not that hamburger in their hand.
Absolutely not true, Bert. Where on the passage is idolatry mentioned? Nowhere! It’s only assumed by interpreters who want to see it there. There are similarities with 1Cor 8-10, where idolatry is the issue, but the differences make it clear that the subject in Romans is not connected to idolatry at all.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don, historians note that the traditional sacrifices to Zeus were meat and wine, and that the temple markets were where the poor could actually afford these items. Now you can ignore this, and the obvious parallels with the passages in 1 Cor. you mentioned, but reality is that we are supposed to exegete Scripture in its historical and Biblical context.
Which means that, absent evidence to the contrary, our initial estimate ought to be that Romans 14 is talking about food offered to idols. Sorry, Don, this is really, really basic exegetical method here.
Besides, given that wine was used in Temple worship and was spoken of as a blessing from God, as was meat, and given that the Holy Spirit said “take, Peter, kill and eat” with regards to this issue, we have to assume that for Paul to even entertain the notion of abstinence from these good gifts of God, there must be a very emphatic reason.
Idolatry fits. Victorian social gospel does not.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
The burden of proof is on those who claim idolatry is the issue in Rm 14. There is not one word in the chapter that leads to that conclusion. In 1 Cor, a specific word is used that clearly designates the issue as idolatry. Romans, written layer, probably in Corinth itself, makes NO mention of any connection to idolatry. You actually have no exegetical foundation to make the connection. What you have is eisegesis, not exegesis.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Click above for largerMy own view is a hybrid B-C
Ancients had both fermented and unfermented wine.
The following article presents some, but not all, ancient methods of preserving unfermented wine:
Preserving Unfermented Wine in Bible Times
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2010/10/preserving-unfermented-wine…
Also see the article:
Ancient Wine Production and the Bible
David R. Brumbelow
Helpful article from the ESV study Bible: “Biblical Doctrine - An Overview”
(click on image for larger)
- Absolutes define the core beliefs of the Christian faith
- Convictions, while not core beliefs, may have significant impact on the health and effectiveness of the church
- Opinions are less-clear issues that generally are not worth dividing over
- Questions are currently unsettled issues.
Where an issue falls within these categories should be determined by weighing the cumulative force of at least seven considerations:
- Biblical clarity
- Relevance to the character of God
- Relevance to the essence of the gospel
- Biblical frequency and significance (how often in Scripture it is taught, and what weight Scripture places upon it)
- Effect on other doctrines
- Consensus among Christians (past and present)
- Effect on personal and church life.
These criteria for determining the importance of particular beliefs must be considered in light of their cumulative weight regarding the doctrine being considered. For instance, just the fact that a doctrine may go against the general consensus among believers (see item 6) does not necessarily mean it is wrong, although that might add some weight to the argument against it. All the categories should be considered collectively in determining how important an issue is to the Christian faith. The ability to rightly discern the difference between core doctrines and legitimately disputable matters will keep the church from either compromising important truth or needlessly dividing over peripheral issues.
- The drinking in moderation vs total abstinence would fall into the “opinion” category
- Take for example the criteria of: is there a “Consensus among Christians (past and present)”
- Fundamentalists tend to collapse the concentric circles and make everything of utmost importance.
Don, exactly why should we ignore the fact that Paul further defines why he might, or might not, eat meat or drink wine in 1 Corinthians? Or why the possibility of abstaining from meat or wine would be counter-intuitive to those who understood them as a gift?
The exegesis of difficult passages is always supposed to occur in light of other passages on the topic, and with an understanding of the culture to whom those passages were written. For example, let’s try to parse out 1 Tim. 2:15 without appealing to our knowledge of history and that culture. Do we conclude that we need to keep our wives barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, or else they be damned?
If we exclude parallel passages and a reference to their culture, that is exactly what we ought to conclude.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Jim]
- The drinking in moderation vs total abstinence would fall into the “opinion” category
- Take for example the criteria of: is there a “Consensus among Christians (past and present)”
- Fundamentalists tend to collapse the concentric circles and make everything of utmost importance.
I would have to say that not only do we tend to make everything of utmost importance, but in doing so, we often undermine what is truly important. For example, if you ask many fundamentalists for an explanation of the Trinity, you will often get the ice-water-steam explanation that is actually a better explanation for Modalism, which is a heresy. In the same way, when one makes questions (should we dance, should we drink, should we eat meat) pretty much a criteria for fellowship, we undermine grace alone and faith alone.
“Majoring on the minors”, as it were.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Don, exactly why should we ignore the fact that Paul further defines why he might, or might not, eat meat or drink wine in 1 Corinthians? Or why the possibility of abstaining from meat or wine would be counter-intuitive to those who understood them as a gift?
There is a lot of information to deal with in comparing the passages. I am preaching through Romans 14 just now. Well, I finished it last Sunday. I started on January 11. I also did a side bar on 1 Cor 8-10. A lot of material to cover, really not time to do it here, but if you are interested you can check out my sermons at gbcvic.org, pdfs are included for each message.
[Bert Perry] The exegesis of difficult passages is always supposed to occur in light of other passages on the topic, and with an understanding of the culture to whom those passages were written. For example, let’s try to parse out 1 Tim. 2:15 without appealing to our knowledge of history and that culture. Do we conclude that we need to keep our wives barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, or else they be damned?If we exclude parallel passages and a reference to their culture, that is exactly what we ought to conclude.
1 Tim 2.15 is irrelevant to this discussion.
Romans 14 is not difficult. Paul is very specific about the kinds of things he is talking about. He is not talking about idolatry. Do you think that someone who spent three chapters dealing with idolatry amongst the Corinthians would not specifically mention it if he was dealing with the same issue with the Romans? Especially seeing as where he is writing from?
My point in this is not to take up the wider point of this thread, but to address the errant interpretation of Romans 14 that many people accept without dealing with the text. There is no way you can read Rm 14 as dealing with idolatry without reading that into the text. You have to leave your presuppositions aside and let the Bible speak.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
What I find compelling: The Corinthians, among their many problems, had an issue with people getting drunk at communion (I Corinthians 11:21):
- Yet Paul, provided a golden opportunity to expound on the need to abstain from intoxicating beverage (that which caused their drunkenness), said …
- “eat and drink” at home (1 Corinthians 11:22)
- It would seem that the immediate context would equate “drink” in vs 22 with the drink that caused their drunkenness in vs 21.
There is a plethora of advice in the Scripture about
- Drunkenness being sin
- Habitual drunks not entering the kingdom
- The dangers of abuse of intoxicants
- The love rule of not offending
- Et cetera
I find the above sufficient without mandating a ban that the Scriptures do not.
Further … there are many good things (moral advice or safety advice) to take positions on. Like:
- Save to have an emergency fund
- Or prepare for retirement by having a lifetime of savings
- Or wearing a seatbelt
- Or not speeding
- Or voting conservatively (which would generally mean for a Republican)
Yet somehow drink has become the focus. I think that fundamentalism married itself to the temperance movement in a way that dilutes the gospel by taking the focus off what is truly important.
[Jim]What I find compelling: The Corinthians, among their many problems, had an issue with people getting drunk at communion (I Corinthians 11:21):
- Yet Paul, provided a golden opportunity to expound on the need to abstain from intoxicating beverage (that which caused their drunkenness), said …
- “eat and drink” at home (1 Corinthians 11:22)
Interesting point. However, the issue then and the issue today are different. I don’t think that you can argue strict abstinence from the passages of Scripture or deny that Christians in Bible times actually drank fermented beverages. However, I think you can argue from the Scripture based on the nature of fermented beverages we have today. The substance and the culture is vastly different and there are sufficient Scriptural reasons for prohibition of today’s beverage/culture that we don’t need an explicit Scriptural prohibition to make the argument.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I just don’t get it. Everyone knows that the church has historically not a problem with drinking in moderation. Israel clearly drank in moderation. We all know that prohibition is a very new thing in history. A completely abstinent position is just a blip on the radar of history. Are the total abstinence people saying that it took the church this long to get it right? Thank goodness for America in the 1800s because we finally figured out what God really meant about alcohol.
FWIW, I have no problems at all with a total abstinence position out of preference or conviction. I think it is wise in probably many cases. I am a non-drinker myself. But a mandate for all Christianity? That is just indefensible.
One may join. Details here:
Take the pledge:
I hereby solemnly promise, God helping me, to abstain from all distilled, fermented and malt liquors, including wine, beer and hard cider, and to employ all proper means to discourage the use of and traffic in the same.
And pay dues:
We invite you to send your $10 enrollment dues to:
Mrs. Dorothy Russell, National Treasurer
PO Box 3140
Salem, OR 97302-3831
Ph 503-589-1046
Fax 503-370-7365
email: [email protected].
For those who insist the Corinthians used alcoholic wine for the Lord’s Supper:
(1) It never says they did.
(2) “Drunk” is contrasted with not having enough to eat, and the passage is only speaking of eating, not wine.
(3) The word “drunk” can obviously mean intoxicated, but it can also simply mean filled or satiated. Notice it contrasts being drunk (or filled with food), with others being hungry (1 Corinthians 11:21); not with others having no wine.
(4) Even if the Corinthians were using alcoholic wine for the Lord’s Supper, Paul is not complimenting them but reproving them.
(5) Should we use what may be the most immature church in the New Testament as our example in this regard?
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-we-dont-use-alcohol-for…
David R. Brumbelow
[Don Johnson] However, the issue then and the issue today are different
The “That was then and this is now” argument: Goes like this:
- Wine then is not wine now
- Because wine now is different, the Scriptures cited do not apply
The “That was then and this is now” argument:
- The argument invalidates and eviscerates the Scriptures!
- And … whatever they were drinking in 1 Cor 11 was enough to get them drunk!
That PBS special about the prohibition movement is well worth watching. It is fascinating how we have been groomed to think the way we do about alcohol.
The overseer is to “not given to wine” (1 Tim 3:3) while the deacon is to be “not given to much wine” (1 Tim 3:8)
What I deduce from this:
- The wine is most certainly intoxicating else why would the overseer need to eschew?!
- I see a higher standard for the higher office (the teaching office)
- For the overseer (and I would see this as the pastor-elder-bishop): Abstain
- For the deacon: OK in moderation.
Of course the “that was then .. this is now” would again invalidate this text. It would have no relevance to the current discussion.
“Should we use what may be the most immature church in the New Testament as our example in this regard?”
Actually I am not using them as an example but rather making the very cogent and unanswered point that Paul in that case did not call them the abstain.
To make “drunk” = to “satiated with food” is laughable! Find another place where μεθύω = “satiated with food”. Next you will be equating it with sleeplessness (1Th 5:7)
[Don Johnson]Jim wrote:
What I find compelling: The Corinthians, among their many problems, had an issue with people getting drunk at communion (I Corinthians 11:21):
- Yet Paul, provided a golden opportunity to expound on the need to abstain from intoxicating beverage (that which caused their drunkenness), said …
- “eat and drink” at home (1 Corinthians 11:22)
Interesting point. However, the issue then and the issue today are different. I don’t think that you can argue strict abstinence from the passages of Scripture or deny that Christians in Bible times actually drank fermented beverages. However, I think you can argue from the Scripture based on the nature of fermented beverages we have today. The substance and the culture is vastly different and there are sufficient Scriptural reasons for prohibition of today’s beverage/culture that we don’t need an explicit Scriptural prohibition to make the argument.
Actually, apart from distilled liquors—whiskey, brandy, vodka, fortified wines— the beverages we have today, and the processes used to make them, would be recognizable to Pharaoh and Jacob. Beer is limited in strength by the amount of maltose that can be coaxed from the barley (same stuff you use for a chocolate malt, BTW), and wine is limited in strength by the fact that yeast dies at about 20% alcohol. That hasn’t changed since Noah become the world’s first vintner.
And the culture? Same as it ever was, really. I looked up the U.S. data back to 1850, and it’s about two gallons of pure ethanol per capita ever since then. 50% beer, 40% distilled spirits, 10% wine, more or less.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Sean Fericks]Music, wine, dance, sex, food, wealth, and power are all celebrated in the Bible.
You may want to throw violence/war into that list, too.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
[GregH]I just don’t get it. Everyone knows that the church has historically not a problem with drinking in moderation. Israel clearly drank in moderation. We all know that prohibition is a very new thing in history. A completely abstinent position is just a blip on the radar of history. Are the total abstinence people saying that it took the church this long to get it right? Thank goodness for America in the 1800s because we finally figured out what God really meant about alcohol.
FWIW, I have no problems at all with a total abstinence position out of preference or conviction. I think it is wise in probably many cases. I am a non-drinker myself. But a mandate for all Christianity? That is just indefensible.
But, there’s an awful lot of caution in the Bible about alcoholic beverages. So it isn’t prohibited, but it is very strongly cautioned, more so than Music, Dance, Sex, and Food. Could it be that all of those cautions are there to warn of something dangerous enough that one would be foolish not to abstain when we live in a time that the preservative nature is irrelevant?
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
A blessing from God that is so dangerous that we should not partake of that blessing from God?
I recommend that you read Jaeggli’s book on the subject. I’m not going to attempt to convince you here beyond what I have said already. When I first addressed the issue for our people, I went to secular sources rather than Christian ones on the history of alcohol. They were unanimous in agreement on the difference between general alcohol consumption and production in ancient times vs. consumption and production now. Yes, people in ancient times could and did get drunk. Some of them drank for the purpose of drunkenness. However, for daily consumption as a beverage, they mixed their alcohol in such a way that it was far less potent than drinking it straight - this included Greek and Roman practices, not just Jewish practice. The alcohol they had available was in fact less potent than the alcohol available today. These factors contribute to our application of the Scriptures.
If you want to insist that it is simply a matter of liberty, then you have to resort to the same argument as marijuana is legalized. Christianity Today came out with an editorial just a week or so ago trying to argue (weakly) against marijuana use on a wisdom basis. Its basically all you are left with if you don’t think the Bible can prohibit things it doesn’t expressly prohibit. And it will result in the same problem: Christians drinking in the “liberty” churches and Christians toking up as well.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson]Bert Perry wrote:
Bert Perry wrote:
The exegesis of difficult passages is always supposed to occur in light of other passages on the topic, and with an understanding of the culture to whom those passages were written. For example, let’s try to parse out 1 Tim. 2:15 without appealing to our knowledge of history and that culture. Do we conclude that we need to keep our wives barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, or else they be damned?If we exclude parallel passages and a reference to their culture, that is exactly what we ought to conclude.
1 Tim 2.15 is irrelevant to this discussion.
Romans 14 is not difficult. Paul is very specific about the kinds of things he is talking about. He is not talking about idolatry. Do you think that someone who spent three chapters dealing with idolatry amongst the Corinthians would not specifically mention it if he was dealing with the same issue with the Romans? Especially seeing as where he is writing from?
My point in this is not to take up the wider point of this thread, but to address the errant interpretation of Romans 14 that many people accept without dealing with the text. There is no way you can read Rm 14 as dealing with idolatry without reading that into the text. You have to leave your presuppositions aside and let the Bible speak.
No, 1 Tim. 2:15 is entirely relevant to this discussion, because it’s a simple test of your exegetical methods, Don. What happens when we ignore other similar passages and narrowly apply just that one? Reductio ad absurdem, dear brother.
Same basic thing with Romans 14—I would argue that you’re actually reading things out of the text by drawing a line between Romans and Corinthians. The big difference in the temple markets would more or less be which deity of the Greco-Roman pantheon was being honored. In Corinth, Aphrodite, and in Rome, a bunch of them. The thigh bone and amphora was raised to Zeus and Aphrodite alike.
Now we can ignore the cultural milieu and parallel texts if we want, but we are almost guaranteed to come to erroneous conslusions.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Methuo, Drunk, Filled (John 2; 1 Corinthians 11:21)
Methe / Methuo - “In most cases this word would refer to the consumption of intoxicants. But it also may be used to refer to the profuse drinking of a non-intoxicant.” -Dr. Jim Anderson, Th.D., A Biblical Study on Wine, 1980, Belton, MO. Dr. Anderson is a professor at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Kansas City, MO and Chancellor of Midwestern Baptist College.
Note on John 2:10 well drunk. “This word does not of necessity mean that they were intoxicated, though it is usually employed in that sense. It may mean when they have drunk sufficient, or to satiety..” -Albert Barnes.
“Clement of Alexandria, c. AD 200, said intoxicating wine was not present at the Corinthian abuse of the Lord’s Supper because: first, women were present, and according to Greek sentiment, wine was prohibited to them; second, their eagerness in eating is the fault reproved, not their drinking; third, the contrast made is between those hungry and those filled.” -Dr. G. W. Samson, The Divine Law As To Wines.
Methuo is used in the Septuagint (LXX; Greek translation of the Old Testament, c. 200 BC) in the sense of being filled, not intoxicated (Psalm 23:7; 36:8; 65:10; Jeremiah 31:14).
David R. Brumbelow
[Don Johnson]I recommend that you read Jaeggli’s book on the subject. I’m not going to attempt to convince you here beyond what I have said already. When I first addressed the issue for our people, I went to secular sources rather than Christian ones on the history of alcohol. They were unanimous in agreement on the difference between general alcohol consumption and production in ancient times vs. consumption and production now. Yes, people in ancient times could and did get drunk. Some of them drank for the purpose of drunkenness. However, for daily consumption as a beverage, they mixed their alcohol in such a way that it was far less potent than drinking it straight - this included Greek and Roman practices, not just Jewish practice. The alcohol they had available was in fact less potent than the alcohol available today. These factors contribute to our application of the Scriptures.
If you want to insist that it is simply a matter of liberty, then you have to resort to the same argument as marijuana is legalized. Christianity Today came out with an editorial just a week or so ago trying to argue (weakly) against marijuana use on a wisdom basis. Its basically all you are left with if you don’t think the Bible can prohibit things it doesn’t expressly prohibit. And it will result in the same problem: Christians drinking in the “liberty” churches and Christians toking up as well.
OK, first of all, mixing wine is today called a “wine cooler”, “malt beverage”, or “Mike’s Hard Lemonade.” So we have that today, too, and any number of college coeds, especially in sororities, can tell you quite emphatically that it does not prevent a person from getting drunk. In general the opposite is true—people guzzle them just like a Super Big Gulp. The Biblical example indicates the same was operative in ancient times, as the ancients did not seem to have difficulty getting intoxicated.
And drinking leading to smoking dope? OK, that’s the “slippery slope” fallacy combined with a heavy dose of the “guilt by association” fallacy. Let’s try a real argument instead. Wine differs from marijuana in that it has specific Biblical sanction and support. It is a gift of God that can be used in moderation to make the heart merry (Ruth 3:7) without being sinful, used in worship, festivals, and in relieving the pain of the sick. At the same time, we don’t want someone driving or operating heavy machinery if their blood alcohol exceeds a certain percentage, and drunkenness is a sin.
OK, what of cannabis? Well, let’s apply the same logic, no? Not specifically authorized (like coffee), but also not addictive, and it’s been used as a therapy for cancers (the “munchies” are wonderful for chemo patients), and it may have some efficacy for concussions and other maladies. Again, I don’t want you operating heavy equipment while stoned, and I’d argue intoxication is a sin, but….it’s really a lot less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, both of which can actually be addictive.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Don Johnson]I recommend that you read Jaeggli’s book on the subject. I’m not going to attempt to convince you here beyond what I have said already. When I first addressed the issue for our people, I went to secular sources rather than Christian ones on the history of alcohol. They were unanimous in agreement on the difference between general alcohol consumption and production in ancient times vs. consumption and production now. Yes, people in ancient times could and did get drunk. Some of them drank for the purpose of drunkenness. However, for daily consumption as a beverage, they mixed their alcohol in such a way that it was far less potent than drinking it straight - this included Greek and Roman practices, not just Jewish practice. The alcohol they had available was in fact less potent than the alcohol available today. These factors contribute to our application of the Scriptures.
If you want to insist that it is simply a matter of liberty, then you have to resort to the same argument as marijuana is legalized. Christianity Today came out with an editorial just a week or so ago trying to argue (weakly) against marijuana use on a wisdom basis. Its basically all you are left with if you don’t think the Bible can prohibit things it doesn’t expressly prohibit. And it will result in the same problem: Christians drinking in the “liberty” churches and Christians toking up as well.
Don, even if it was watered down, it was still alcohol. I don’t hold to the watered down method as an absolute. Some alcohol was just as strong and the Bible doesn’t distinguish it. Either way, it had alcohol and it could make someone drunk. The Bible says both positive and negative things about this alcohol. We know Christians drank it,many Christ created it. Therefore it is a liberty Don. I just don’t see anywhere where Scripture makes it an absolute prohibition, I personally abstain, and I would recommend others to abstain, but I will not tell someone who drinks it within the confines of Scriptural direction as someone who is living openly in sin.
[article] Indeed, it is hard to imagine how someone could stumble over using grape juice (if that is what “wine” meant, as some claim) in Romans 14:21.Ed,
Acts 18:1 After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. 2 And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome.
While there, Paul is reassured that he will not be harmed at Corinth:
Acts 18:9 And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, “Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, 10 for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people.” 11 And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.
Paul writes to the Romans:
Romans 16:3 Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus…
Therefore, Paul wrote Romans during his year and a half at Corinth.
AD ~52:
Acts 18:18 After this, Paul stayed [in Corinth] many days longer and then took leave of the brothers and set sail for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchreae he had cut his hair, for he was under a vow.
FF Bruce in his Paul biography says that Paul probably took the vow in personal thanks for the promise God made to him that he would not be harmed in Corinth.
If all that’s right, then as Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, he himself was under a Nazarite vow. He had a Biblically founded conviction to avoid the fruit of the vine altogether - whether wine or grape juice.
I’ve actually been meaning to ask you about this for a while - your article reminded me.
[Bert Perry] Which means that, absent evidence to the contrary, our initial estimate ought to be that Romans 14 is talking about food offered to idols. Sorry, Don, this is really, really basic exegetical method here.Bert, you might want to check into that evidence and perhaps not be so quick to sigh and dismiss Don out of hand. A quick check of Moo, Schreiner, Cranfield, Murray, and Boice (just to pick several of my available Romans commentaries) shows that while there are similarities in the passages, Paul is dealing with a different situation specific to the church in Rome. It’s not just food offered to idols. If you have a chance, you should see what they have to say.
Again, I have to simply reiterate, if you think Romans 14 scruples have to do with eating meat offered to idols, you have to prove it from Romans 14 itself. There is not ONE word in the chapter that indicates this interpretation is correct. I certainly concede that it could be a possibility given the culture, but there is no direct link in any word of the text. Paul uses such a word clearly in 1 Cor 8ff. It’s not like he forgot the word in the dozen or so years since he wrote 1 Cor, and he hadn’t been transported to some alien culture. In addition, he provides another example in Rm 14.6 of the kinds of scruples he is talking about, i.e., the illustration of respecting one day above another or not.
It would be more likely that he is addressing scruples arising out of the OT law than out of idolatry, but even that I don’t agree with, since OT dietary law scruple between meats, not against meat altogether.
Anyway, the misinterpretation of Romans 14 has perpetuated a huge misunderstanding of Christian liberty amongst many believers. It hasn’t improved the life of the church at all.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson]…Don, very interesting statement. There are a bunch of good reasons to see the issue as a Jew-gentile one. e.g.,It would be more likely that he is addressing scruples arising out of the OT law than out of idolatry, but even that I don’t agree with, since OT dietary law scruple between meats, not against meat altogether.
…
- “Common,” Rom 14:14, is a term in Jewish culture for things forbidden, not Helenism.
- The whole of Romans deals with Jew-Gentile relations and how various theological ideas apply to the Jew first and also the Greek.
- Rom 15:1-13, where Paul is describing the fruit of unity he expects to come from ch. 14 is clearly talking about Jew-gentile unity.
Don says, “more likely … scruples arising out of the OT law than out of idolatry,” but there’s no reason it isn’t both. The OT Law certainly dealt with idolatry. That is the reason that Daniel is honored for refusing to eat the king’s meat.
I do see the text of Romans 14-15 as being primarily about Jewish Scruples. Certainly days is an obvious one for Jews. Meat I’ve dealt with here. Wine in another post above (it’s a Jewish issue if one is under a vow).
Given that it’s about Jewish scruples, it makes the most sense if it deals with idol-meat. Because idolatry is the Jewish issue that leads to vegetarianism.
That said, Romans 14-15 still probably deals with the meat of 1 Cor 10:25-30, but not the meat of 1 Cor 8-10:22.
[Dan Miller]Don Johnson wrote:
…It would be more likely that he is addressing scruples arising out of the OT law than out of idolatry, but even that I don’t agree with, since OT dietary law scruple between meats, not against meat altogether.
…
Don, very interesting statement. There are a bunch of good reasons to see the issue as a Jew-gentile one. e.g.,
- “Common,” Rom 14:14, is a term in Jewish culture for things forbidden, not Helenism.
- The whole of Romans deals with Jew-Gentile relations and how various theological ideas apply to the Jew first and also the Greek.
- Rom 15:1-13, where Paul is describing the fruit of unity he expects to come from ch. 14 is clearly talking about Jew-gentile unity.
Don says, “more likely … scruples arising out of the OT law than out of idolatry,” but there’s no reason it isn’t both. The OT Law certainly dealt with idolatry. That is the reason that Daniel is honored for refusing to eat the king’s meat.
I would agree that the Jewish connection holds more weight. And I think that there may be a connection to idolatry, but that the text doesn’t state it (when it could) and because Paul clearly forbids the practice when there is a connection to idolatry (1 Cor 8-10). Here, there is no prohibition, but tolerance. Hard to believe he would suggest tolerance in light of 1 Cor 8-10.
[Dan Miller] I certainly do see the text of Romans 14-15 as being primarily about Jewish Scruples. Certainly days is an obvious one for Jews. Meat I’ve dealt with here. Wine in another post above (Jewish if one is under a vow).Given that it’s about Jewish scruples, it makes the most sense if it deals with idol-meat. Because idolatry is the Jewish issue that leads to vegetarianism.
That said, Romans 14-15 still probably deals with the meat of 1 Cor 10:25-30, but not the meat of 1 Cor 8-10:22.
If Rm 14 deals with idol meat at all, I would agree that it would be in the sense of 1 Cor 10:25-30, but not the meat of 1 Cor 8-10:22. But even in 1 Cor 10.25-30, he forbids the practice if the source is known. As noted above, Paul is here tolerating the practice. Would Paul tolerate in Romans what he would forbid in 1 Cor? I doubt it. I think we would have a serious problem with his authority if he did.
Consequently, I believe Rm 14 and 1 Cor 8-10 are talking about two different things, although there are some similar arguments for the attitude of those with a strong conscience.
I’ve been thinking about writing on this subject extensively, but… so many ideas, so little time.
Thanks for the comments, though, I appreciate the interaction
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson]…I would agree that the Jewish connection holds more weight. And I think that there may be a connection to idolatry, but that the text doesn’t state it (when it could) and because Paul clearly forbids the practice when there is a connection to idolatry (1 Cor 8-10). Here, there is no prohibition, but tolerance. Hard to believe he would suggest tolerance in light of 1 Cor 8-10…The phrase “connection to idolatry” is too unclear. 1 Cor 8-10 speaks of two different sorts of “idol-tainted” meat.
εἰδωλοθύτων - “idol-meat” - is meat that has been sacrificed to idols in the presence of the eater and eaten there, in the idol’s temple. That’s the stuff of 1 Cor 8-10:22.
1 Cor 10:25-30, though, is about meat from the market - much of which was leftover εἰδωλοθύτων - “idol-meat.”
[Don Johnson] …If Rm 14 deals with idol meat at all, I would agree that it would be in the sense of 1 Cor 10:25-30, but not the meat of 1 Cor 8-10:22. But even in 1 Cor 10.25-30, he forbids the practice if the source is known. As noted above, Paul is here tolerating the practice. Would Paul tolerate in Romans what he would forbid in 1 Cor? I doubt it. I think we would have a serious problem with his authority if he did.But Don, look at 1 for 10: 25-29
…
25 - go ahead and eat what is sold in the market
27 - If an unbeliever serves you meat, go ahead and eat it.
28 - BUT - if someone tells you, “This is idol-meat,” then don’t eat it for his sake.
29 - NOT for your sake. Only for the sake of the one who served it and ID’d it as idol-meat.
The fact that you know it’s idol-meat doesn’t mean you can’t eat it. It’s the fact that the other guy knows that it’s idol-meat and cares enough to say so. And it’s only for his sake that you abstain. The unbeliever is respecting the idol by telling you that the meat is idol-meat.
So, no, the issue isn’t precicely whether the source is known. This issue is always whether you or those you influence care and eat with respect to the idol.
For the Jew in the old covenant, being unsure about a particular piece of meat while knowing that most of it was tainted by idolatry would have made eating intolerable. They would all have known (as Josephus recounts) that if you believe idolatry is forbidden, you must know your meat is kosher. Unsure wasn’t enough.
Paul “tolerates” market-meat in both if your conscience allows. But the watchers always matter, too.
[Bert Perry]So new wine is not completely fermented—that’s why it’s also called “sweet wine”—but it definitely contained alcohol. And which was better? Well, look at Luke 5:39. The ancients preferred fully fermented (“drier”) wines, according to our Savior. Part of the attraction for old wines was also that it was pretty completely fermented and would not become vinegar if exposed to air.
So is God contradicting himself? How does that passage compare with the obvious preference by all for the new wine?
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
I appreciate all the fine discussion going on, but there are a few points I want to add or fortify.
First, if you look at Arndt and Gingrich, p. 564 (which deals with the Greek of both the Bible and other current literature, not just the vocabulary of the NT) article on oinos, you will find trux is a word for unfermented grape juice. Trugia is another form. The New Testament authors had that word available, but chose NOT to use it. They could have SPECIFIED unfermented grape juice if they wanted to do so. The only word for fermented grape juice is oinos. So a possible inference is that they chose oinos either because they meant fermented wine, or they chose it because it did not matter. It is also possible they were weak in Greek, but that does not seem likely.
Second, it takes a lot of self-confidence, IMO, to contradict every single translation of the Bible into English. To disagree with almost all the scholars of even the most conservative versions is not something I would feel comfortable doing.
Third, I do agree that there were differences in wine quality, mixing wine with water, etc., but we know at the Corinthian church, people were getting drunk during the love feast (I Corinthians 11:21), and Paul’s solution is to wait for everyone to arrive. He does NOT say, “No more wine.”
Fourth, on the other side of the equation, I think we have a bit of insensitivity. It is true that legalists have an agenda to follow man-made rules they have embraced without objectively and fairly re-visiting them in light of Scripture, and so they make the Scriptures fit their agendas, and thus want to impose these rules upon others in the name of the weaker brother. I think we are foolish to be enslaved in this manner; that law was the issue in Paul’s day, but the principle applies. (Galatians 5:1), You can usually detect such people because they have a host of rules and are into control, security, and sameness.
But there are many people who have been deeply hurt and scarred because of alcohol abuse. My dad was an alcoholic (whom I would have known better if he were not), but he was not a mean one; I was never physically or sexually abused, nor did he abuse my mom in this way. But, in many (perhaps most) cases of physical/sexual abuse, alcohol or another drug is involved. In addition, over half of all traffic deaths involved alcohol or drugs. Some people are really HURT to see believers drinking because they have been hurt by people under the influence. This was the impetus for the Prohibition movement. And they want to fight back, perhaps vowing to themselves as abused children that they would never have anything to do with alcohol.
I don’t think we weigh these deep hurts enough. I appreciate when lost people avoid swearing around me because I am a believer, although they will go back swearing when I am gone. Part of this comes under the simple of idea of being considerate.
"The Midrash Detective"
“Individual Soul Liberty” defined: Every individual, whether a believer or an unbeliever, has the liberty to choose what their conscience or soul decides is right in the religious realm. This also involves the personal and individual accountability of each person before God.
Now it seems they are BaptXsts. (By the way … when was the last time you heard anything about “Individual Soul Liberty”?! Anymore it seems it is My Way or the Highway!)
View A is anti-liberty.
Click above for larger
It seems that under View A pastors often believe that they have soul liberty, but that their congregations ought to follow their convictions.
Dave Barnhart
[JNoël]Bert Perry wrote:
So new wine is not completely fermented—that’s why it’s also called “sweet wine”—but it definitely contained alcohol. And which was better? Well, look at Luke 5:39. The ancients preferred fully fermented (“drier”) wines, according to our Savior. Part of the attraction for old wines was also that it was pretty completely fermented and would not become vinegar if exposed to air.
So is God contradicting himself? How does that passage compare with the obvious preference by all for the new wine?
Preference by whom for sweet wines? Yes, wine is an acquired taste, much like coffee or Tabasco sauce. But that said, those who have acquired the taste have a general disdain for excessively sweet wines, even as a dessert wine. And even dessert wines (most whites, a few reds) that are “sweet” are not “sweet” like juice or pop, but rather have a hint of the sugar that existed in the original juice before it fermented. One analogy is that those who learn to ditch the Super Big Gulp find after a few weeks that a carrot tastes sweet. It’s all about appreciating subtlety, really.
It’s also worth noting, per Ed’s comments, that alcoholism and the consequences of it (e.g. cirrhosis of the liver) correlate really well to the drinking of hard (distilled) liquors, but really poorly to the drinking of wine. This is because it is (a) difficult and (b) expensive to get drunk on decent wine, plus wine culture discourages people from drinking that much that quickly. Beer is in between—it’s difficult to drink enough to get drunk (I’d have to drink a 2 liter to get to .08, and the Bible describes drunk at around .2% BAC), but there is a culture of drinking (cheap) beer to excess.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Since this thread has degenerated into a discussion of Rom. 14 (Is the meat idolatrous?) vs. I Cor. 8-10 (“I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils…”) let me put in my 2 cents worth.
In a matter of dispute of interpretation always fall back on what you absolutely know. What we KNOW about the matter of meat (or other things tainted by the idolatry of the culture generally referenced as “pollutions of idols”) is that refraining from them as an obedient believer was an ABSOLUTE—it was not a liberty issue at all but a rightly defined conscience matter. This is discerned by a chronological walk through the presentation of this abstinence injunction beginning with Acts 15, I Cor. 6-10, Acts 21, with the concluding summation given by the post-incarnate Christ Himself in Rev. 2.
Don has done an admirable job pointing out that Rom. 14 does not reference idolatry in any way (idolatry hasn’t been referenced in this epistle since chap. 2). Furthermore, since Rom. 14 chronologically follows I Cor. and is also written under inspiration, if Rom. 14 references the meat of idols Paul is either qualifying his previous statements (which would contradict the absolute of Christ in Rev. 2) or he is contradicting his previous inspired instructions. Neither is legitimate for consideration.
Maybe this whole debate about beverage alcohol should center on determining whether alcohol is a 21st century equivalent to the meat of 1st century Corinth. IOW, is beverage alcohol an integral part of the predominant cultural idolatry that has been incorporated into the commerce and/or customs of society as was the meat of Corinth? If so, then abstinence is the absolute.
Lee
When the Pilgrims came to North America the Mayflower was stocked with 50 barrels of beer. Many say that they drank beer because the water was bad in Europe. Some water in the cities may have been tainted, but the English and Europeans did not like drinking water. There was plenty of pure water from springs and creeks and wells. They felt because water was free, it wasn’t as good and it didn’t nourish like the ale.
The temperance movement was really kicked off by many of the industrialists in Europe and US because they didn’t like the workers drinking on the job (and rightly so).
John Kellogg the originator of the breakfast cereal was a staunch advocate of the temperance movement. He was a brilliant doctor. Kellogg a Seventh Day Adventist also advocated not eating meat, avoiding sex because it was unhealthy (boy he got that wrong). He also had a strange fascination with stopping people from self stimulating to the point of advocating mutilation.
I only mention Pilgrims because they were true conservatives. They walked the talk- practiced what they preached and were true lovers of God’s Word. Luther was also known to have his ale as a good German. Did not these men know the Scriptures?
As an amateur (heavy emphasis on that word) church history hobbyist, I have found no evidence of tee totaling as part of a church culture before the 1800s.
Regarding Don’s exegesis, he’s more or less arguing that since Romans 14 doesn’t flat out state that the issue with meats and wines is idolatry, that we cannot assume that.
Now on one hand, there is the objection which Dan raises; that since the same person (Paul) is writing to similar populations (churches with mixed Jewish/Gentile converts with Oral Torah/idolatry issues), we would have to assume that Romans 14 is at least in part dealing with this. In fact, we must infer some level of spiritual issues because Paul describes it as a matter of faith—again, personal preference does not suffice to make this argument.
At a more basic level, arguing that something was not a concern of a person because it was not directly mentioned in the text is a basic fallacy of arguing from silence. Let’s draw a picture; you are talking with your wife. Now just because she does not mention something is important to her, is it safe to assume that it really isn’t important to her?
The wise husband says “no way” and understands that in every conversation, there is a subtext; unspoken assumptions are instinctively assumed by one culture, but another culture must have them stated openly. An example from the Odyssey is that when Homer wants to describe pagan sacrifices, he rarely says as much. The phrase used is some form of “waving the thigh bone” to the deity being sacrificed to. The original readers/hearers would have understood this automatically; we have to have it explained to us.
In the same way, the meat & wine portions of Romans 14 have a subtext, just like any other literature. Notice that Paul does not explicitly say why one might object to eating meat or drinking wine; he simply notes that some have a scruple in this regard. This is—just like the conversation with your wife—not the place to assume that there is no subtext. It is the place to make a good analysis to figure out that that subtext might be.
And in 1 Corinthians 8-10, we have the same author writing to people from pretty much the same culture, and in this case, he mentions that temple markets are the issue for meat and wine. Now we can posit that the Romans may have had yet other reasons for disdaining meat and wine—reasons that we might deduce from a good understanding of other passages and Roman history—but that does not change the fact that there is a subtext in Roman culture that we will do well to heed.
Now what is at stake? Simple; if indeed Romans 14:1 ‘s comment about receiving those who are weak in faith suggests that there is something bigger than mere preference/offense involved, as the 1 Corinthians parallel would suggest, then Romans 14 does not constitute permission for a believer to say that he has a problem with “behavior A” and infringe on the liberty of others. To use a picture Don used in a sermon, Romans 14 does not require the pastor to switch to a KJV to preach when he notices people he suspects are KJVO in the congregation.
Or, to use the more direct picture, if someone tells me (cue Jim’s graph) that they have a conviction against the use of alcohol, there is nothing wrong with asking them how this impacts their faith. In fact, just as most KJVO activists really need someone to ask them “what real evidence to you have that non-TR manuscripts are corrupted?”, most “Group A” people in Jim’s taxonomy of liquor need to be asked “how does the drinking of liquor affect your faith?”
As I noted before, and as Jim noted, Romans 14 serves all too often as a means for legalists to hold their brothers in Christ hostage and abridge individual soul liberty. If we take a good look at the subtext, however, we get rid of this.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[BrianW]I only mention Pilgrims because they were true conservatives. They walked the talk- practiced what they preached and were true lovers of God’s Word. Luther was also known to have his ale as a good German. Did not these men know the Scriptures?
Devil’s advocate: David was a bigamist.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Discussion