Convictions and Complexities about Drinking

WEAKNESS OR WISDOM? FUNDAMENTALISTS AND ROMANS 14.1–15.13

Detroit Seminary Journal, Mark Snoeberger

I haven’t read it yet, but it’s high on the list.

[Dan Miller]

…

Acts 15 prohibits idol-meat. Some say that was a temporary command and is no longer in effect by the time Romans and 1 Cor are written. (An attempt to understand Scripture by Scripture). But then what of Rev 2, which also condemns idol-meat?

…

Emphasis note: Impossible. Acts 21, where Paul and James are clearly in agreement with the imperative of Acts 15, chronologically follows the writing of both I Cor. and Romans. Rev. 2, given by a post-incarnate Christ somewhere around AD 90 in the context of correction to actual churches, only confirms that abstinence from pollutions of idols continues to be the biblical expectation. There is no countermanding to be found.

But, Lee, don’t you find that you have to dispel this a lot?

Do you find it to be a common understanding of Acts 15 and Rom 14?

[Don Johnson]

WEAKNESS OR WISDOM? FUNDAMENTALISTS AND ROMANS 14.1–15.13

Detroit Seminary Journal, Mark Snoeberger

I haven’t read it yet, but it’s high on the list.

[Dan Miller]

But, Lee, don’t you find that you have to dispel this a lot?

Do you find it to be a common understanding of Acts 15 and Rom 14?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do, and no, I don’t (in that order). And, quite frankly, I came to this position quite by surprise because I had been taught (and firmly believed) all my life that Acts 15, etc., was a bone being thrown by the church fathers to a bunch of whiny Jewish believers to burden Gentile converts with something since the sacred cow of circumcision had been discarded as necessary to salvation. IOW, the conclusions of Acts 15 were meant to unify the Jewish and Gentile church under a common burden. In actuality, the provisions of Acts 15 were to protect the church from the ravages of legalism (rightly defined) and from idolatry (the primary external enemy of the church in every generation). Both emphases were/are necessary.

Here is the synopsis of how I got there: In the providence of God He led me on a random reading schedule that included, practically simultaneously, readings in the mid-portion of the Book of Acts (15-21) the mid-portion of I Cor. (6-10), and the church chapters of Rev. (1-3). Somewhere it clicked that these might all be referencing the same thing, so I undertook a study determined to let the Bible speak for itself.

And what the Bible spoke to is that:

a) idolatry is the issue of at hand (immorality and barbarity [the complete disrespect for life and animalization of humanity represented in eating blood/things alive] being the conjoined siblings of that idolatry)

b) the parameters are not burdens but protections, steps to effectively “flee[ing] fornication” and “flee[ing] from idolatry” (I Cor. 6 & 10)

c) the narrative of Balaam and the matter of Peor is very closely associated with the parameters laid out in Acts 15 not only by Paul (I Cor. 10) but also by Peter, Jude, and Jesus Christ Himself via the Apostle John (IOW, all the major players of the New Testament—Luke, John, Peter, James, Jude, and the Savior—weighed in on “these necessary things…[Acts 15:28] ”.)

d) idolatry, immorality, and inhumanity (for those who like alliterations) are still issues that face the believing church today and are to be resisted at the very periphery in order to flee, very aptly illustrated through the progression in the matter of Peor—“While Israel lived in Shittim, the people began to whore with the daughters of Moab. These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor (Num. 25:1-3 ESV).”

e) idolatry, immorality, and inhumanity, even at the periphery (i.e., a conscientious effort to “flee”) are not liberty issues but absolutes

At the end of the day, when Scripture was allowed to speak for itself, regardless of the reasoning the conclusion was always the same—with knowledge don’t eat. Don’t eat in the temple; don’t eat from the market; don’t eat at your neighbors.

Which again, brings us back to the topic at hand—modern beverage alcohol. Is it a “pollution” of a predominant American/western idolatry? If we need a follow-up question, does the use of modern beverage alcohol accommodate the command to “flee fornication”, the conjoined sibling of idolatry in every culture?

[Lee]…

Here is the synopsis of how I got there: In the providence of God He led me on a random reading schedule that included, practically simultaneously, readings in the mid-portion of the Book of Acts (15-21) the mid-portion of I Cor. (6-10), and the church chapters of Rev. (1-3). Somewhere it clicked that these might all be referencing the same thing, so I undertook a study determined to let the Bible speak for itself.

…

At the end of the day, when Scripture was allowed to speak for itself, regardless of the reasoning the conclusion was always the same—with knowledge don’t eat. Don’t eat in the temple; don’t eat from the market; don’t eat at your neighbors.

I do agree that the conventional understanding of these passages makes it tough to incorporate Acts 15, 21, and Rev 2. Therefore, some solution is necessary. Because of this, there are almost as many ways to understand these passages as there are commentators. Reimers thinks that Paul used “Days” and “Meat” differently, with different ethical schemes for each one. There’s another guy (can’t remember his name, who holds that there are actually four groups (two different weak brothers and two different strong brothers). Then there’s Nanos, who holds that the weak are Jews who have not yet excepted the Gospel.

I think you’ve come up with a pretty reasonable way of making it work better. But I don’t think it explains everything odd in these passages.

[Lee]

Dan Miller wrote:

But, Lee, don’t you find that you have to dispel this a lot?

Do you find it to be a common understanding of Acts 15 and Rom 14?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do, and no, I don’t (in that order). And, quite frankly, I came to this position quite by surprise because I had been taught (and firmly believed) all my life that Acts 15, etc., was a bone being thrown by the church fathers to a bunch of whiny Jewish believers to burden Gentile converts with something since the sacred cow of circumcision had been discarded as necessary to salvation. IOW, the conclusions of Acts 15 were meant to unify the Jewish and Gentile church under a common burden. In actuality, the provisions of Acts 15 were to protect the church from the ravages of legalism (rightly defined) and from idolatry (the primary external enemy of the church in every generation). Both emphases were/are necessary.

Here is the synopsis of how I got there: In the providence of God He led me on a random reading schedule that included, practically simultaneously, readings in the mid-portion of the Book of Acts (15-21) the mid-portion of I Cor. (6-10), and the church chapters of Rev. (1-3). Somewhere it clicked that these might all be referencing the same thing, so I undertook a study determined to let the Bible speak for itself.

And what the Bible spoke to is that:

a) idolatry is the issue of at hand (immorality and barbarity [the complete disrespect for life and animalization of humanity represented in eating blood/things alive] being the conjoined siblings of that idolatry)

b) the parameters are not burdens but protections, steps to effectively “flee[ing] fornication” and “flee[ing] from idolatry” (I Cor. 6 & 10)

c) the narrative of Balaam and the matter of Peor is very closely associated with the parameters laid out in Acts 15 not only by Paul (I Cor. 10) but also by Peter, Jude, and Jesus Christ Himself via the Apostle John (IOW, all the major players of the New Testament—Luke, John, Peter, James, Jude, and the Savior—weighed in on “these necessary things…[Acts 15:28] ”.)

d) idolatry, immorality, and inhumanity (for those who like alliterations) are still issues that face the believing church today and are to be resisted at the very periphery in order to flee, very aptly illustrated through the progression in the matter of Peor—“While Israel lived in Shittim, the people began to whore with the daughters of Moab. These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor (Num. 25:1-3 ESV).”

e) idolatry, immorality, and inhumanity, even at the periphery (i.e., a conscientious effort to “flee”) are not liberty issues but absolutes

At the end of the day, when Scripture was allowed to speak for itself, regardless of the reasoning the conclusion was always the same—with knowledge don’t eat. Don’t eat in the temple; don’t eat from the market; don’t eat at your neighbors.

Which again, brings us back to the topic at hand—modern beverage alcohol. Is it a “pollution” of a predominant American/western idolatry? If we need a follow-up question, does the use of modern beverage alcohol accommodate the command to “flee fornication”, the conjoined sibling of idolatry in every culture?

Good question; my take is that sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. There is one pattern of singles and gay bars; there is another where fornication is as far from it as east is from west—like the Guinness commercials featuring able-bodied guys playing wheelchair basketball, or a corner pub where a glass is always waiting for the soldier. And we part ways from the sin, not the object used by the sinners. I do not think that any of us respond to the fornication that accompanies idolatry by reducing our affections to our wives!

And along the same lines, it would be interesting to see if we’re willing to consistently apply the hermeneutic. Will we part ways with advertisers, for example, that seem to draw more attention to decolletage than to the product? Mountain Dew used to be infamous for this, for example. What about the models in body paint advertising the Chrysler 300 a while back? (it may surprise some that yes, I have avoided Mountain Dew and Coors for this very reason, and I am praying that Caribou and Starbucks do not start to advertise their product with sex!)

[Lee] Which again, brings us back to the topic at hand—modern beverage alcohol. Is it a “pollution” of a predominant American/western idolatry? If we need a follow-up question, does the use of modern beverage alcohol accommodate the command to “flee fornication”, the conjoined sibling of idolatry in every culture?

You went totally allegorical here which is what you leaned toward in previous posts in this thread.

This sounds, oh so spiritual, but is deceptive.

I’m out.

[alex o.]

Lee wrote:

Which again, brings us back to the topic at hand—modern beverage alcohol. Is it a “pollution” of a predominant American/western idolatry? If we need a follow-up question, does the use of modern beverage alcohol accommodate the command to “flee fornication”, the conjoined sibling of idolatry in every culture?

You went totally allegorical here which is what you leaned toward in previous posts in this thread.

This sounds, oh so spiritual, but is deceptive.

I’m out.

OK, I’ll bite.

You say allegory; I say a specific precedent that applies a specific principle, not unlike that which influences modern jurisprudence to a significant degree.

Or Acts 15, I Cor. 8-10, etc. are moot now that the worship of Aphrodite, Diana, Zeus, etc., is no longer a dominant idolatry and the practice of eating meat offered to them or within their temples is no longer widely practiced.

You say you’re out, and that’s fine. Personally, I’ll fall on the side Paul takes, that idolatry gives meaning to objects and actions—“What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything…? No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons,…and I do not want you to become sharers in demons (I Cor. 10:19-20 NASB).”

I found this in Sanday & Headlam as they come to the end of the section in their commentary on Rm 14.1-15.13:

“All these theories have this in common, that they suppose St. Paul to be dealing with a definite sect or body in the Roman Church. But as our examination of the Epistle has proceeded, it has become more and more clear that there is little or no special reference in the arguments. Both in the controversial portion and in the admonitory portion, we find constant reminiscences of earlier situations, but always with the sting of controversy gone. St. Paul writes throughout with the remembrance of his own former experience, and not with a view to special difficulties in the Roman community. He writes on all these vexed questions, not because they have arisen there, but because they may arise. The Church of Rome consists, as he knows, of both Jewish and heathen Christians. These discordant elements may, he fears, unless wise counsels prevail produce the same dissensions as have occurred in Galatia or Corinth. …

“If this theory be correct, then our interpretation of the passage is somewhat different from that which has usually been accepted, and is, we venture to think, more natural. When St. Paul says in ver. 2 ‘the weak man eateth vegetables,’ he does not mean that there is a special sect of vegetarians in Rome; but he takes a typical instance of excessive scrupulousness. When again he says one man considers one day better than another,’ he does not mean that this sect of vegetarians were also strict sabbatarians, but that the same scrupulousness may prevail in other matters. When he speaks of ο φρονων την ημεραν, ο μη εσθιων he is not thinking of any special body of people but rather of special types. When again in ver. 21 he says: ‘It is good not to eat flesh, or drink wine, or do anything in which thy brother is offended,’ he does not mean that these vegetarians and sabbatarians are also total abstainers; he merely means even the most extreme act of self-denial is better than injuring the conscience of a brother.’ He had spoken very similarly in writing to the Corinthians: Wherefore, if meat maketh my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for evermore, that I make not my brother to stumble’ (1 Cor. 8.13). It is not considered necessary to argue from these words that abstinence from flesh was one of the characteristics of the Corinthian sectaries; nor is it necessary to argue in a similar manner here. …

“And he lays down certain great principles. There is, first of all, the fundamental fact, that all these scruples are in matters quite indifferent in themselves. Man is justified by ‘faith’; that is sufficient. But then all have not strong, clear-sighted faith: they do not really think such actions indifferent, and if they act against their conscience their conscience is injured. Each man must act as he would do with the full consciousness that he is to appear before God’s judgement-seat. But there is another side to the question. By indifference to external observances we may injure another man’s conscience. To ourselves it is perfectly indifferent whether we conform to such an observance or not. Then we must conform for the sake of our weak brother. We are the strong. We are conscious of our strength. Therefore we must yield to others: not perhaps always, not in all circumstances, but certainly in many cases. Above all, the salvation of the individual soul and the peace and unity of the community must be preserved. Both alike, weak and strong, must lay aside differences on such unimportant matters for the sake of that church for which Christ died.”[1]

[1] Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 401–403.

Basically, they argue that Paul has no specific event in view but is using a hypothetical example (but not inconceivable) in order to teach the principles of active love and ministry of believers to one another. If you don’t find S&H, a pdf version is available somewhere online. It is a thought that occurred to me as I studied the passage. Paul does seem to use very generic language. To me, it seems at least that the specific situation is less important than the concept.

Lets see how consistent we can be. Can we imagine our spiritual ancestors saying this:

I pledge allegiance to the Emperor

of the united territories of Rome

and to the republic for which it stands

one nation under gods

indivisible, with peace and justice for all.

I’m thinking an emphatic “no” on this one. You want to point out examples of idolatry today, let’s take a look at our relationship with human government.

[Bert Perry]

Lets see how consistent we can be. Can we imagine our spiritual ancestors saying this:

I pledge allegiance to the Emperor

of the united territories of Rome

and to the republic for which it stands

one nation under gods

indivisible, with peace and justice for all.

I’m thinking an emphatic “no” on this one. You want to point out examples of idolatry today, let’s take a look at our relationship with human government.

Not sure how we got here from an article about beverage alcohol that took a strong turn down the Romans 14 road, but you’ve peaked my interest. Write an article tracing the biblical formula for legit patriotism as compared with idolatrous “emperor worship” and I promise I’ll read it.

When Rom. 14 says: “It is good not to drink wine” it refers to ‘idol wine’. Alcohol is not in view at all.

Never in church history did the responsible use of alcoholic beverages come into question until about 200 years ago. To try to prohibit alcohol by using passages in the bible is erroneous and anachronistic.

For some reason points get obscured in discussions on this board.

I don’t own it. I had to go to the Moody Library to read it a few years ago. I have photos of Romans 4, but not 14.

“… clear that there is little or no special reference in the arguments…”

Yes. Compare with the text of 1 Cor 7-10, where Paul is apparently quoting the arguments of the Corinthians as questions and then responding to them. And some think that all the questions to the Corinthians is evidence that Paul knows they are mixed in their respect for him as a teacher (Paul…Apollos…Cephus…). It is a more adversarial style.

“… not with a view to special difficulties in the Roman community. He writes on all these vexed questions, not because they have arisen there, but because they may arise. The Church of Rome consists, as he knows, of both Jewish and heathen Christians…”

Paul’s relationship with the Jews Priscilla and Aquilla during their exile from Rome (Acts 18) would have given him a pretty good idea of what had been going on in Rome. Paul would have anticipated certain things would happen when the Jews returned to Rome after Claudius died.

“If this theory be correct, then our interpretation of the passage is somewhat different from that which has usually been accepted, and is, we venture to think, more natural. When St. Paul says in ver. 2 ‘the weak man eateth vegetables,’ he does not mean that there is a special sect of vegetarians in Rome; but he takes a typical instance of excessive scrupulousness. …”

Now I can’t agree. I think Paul’s contact with Priscilla and Aquilla gave him enough to accurately depict the convictions of groups in Rome. Not enough, perhaps to quote the arguments of the Romans, though.

“…
…There is, first of all, the fundamental fact, that all these scruples are in matters quite indifferent in themselves. Man is justified by ‘faith’; that is sufficient. But then all have not strong, clear-sighted faith: they do not really think such actions indifferent, and if they act against their conscience their conscience is injured. Each man must act as he would do with the full consciousness that he is to appear before God’s judgement-seat. But there is another side to the question. By indifference to external observances we may injure another man’s conscience. To ourselves it is perfectly indifferent whether we conform to such an observance or not. Then we must conform for the sake of our weak brother. We are the strong. We are conscious of our strength. Therefore we must yield to others: not perhaps always, not in all circumstances, but certainly in many cases. Above all, the salvation of the individual soul and the peace and unity of the community must be preserved. Both alike, weak and strong, must lay aside differences on such unimportant matters for the sake of that church for which Christ died.”[1] ” [1] Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 401–403.

This is classic Romans 14 interp:
1. R14 issues are “matters quite indifferent.” (“adiaphora,” to the Reformers)
2. Mature Christians are the strong ones.
3. The strong “must yield” so as to not injure their weak brothers.

I don’t agree. One-by-one:
1. No, I think these issues are ones of diaphero, not adiaphora (explained above).
2. No, I think that the “weak” should get more credit. I think they have as much claim to being right, knowledgeable, and faithful as the “strong.” That, I think, goes for R-14 and even more so for 1-C-8-10.
3. Yes, I agree him there.

[Dan Miller]

This is classic Romans 14 interp:
1. R14 issues are “matters quite indifferent.” (“adiaphora,” to the Reformers)
2. Mature Christians are the strong ones.
3. The strong “must yield” so as to not injure their weak brothers.

I don’t agree. One-by-one:
1. No, I think these issues are ones of diaphero, not adiaphora (explained above).
2. No, I think that the “weak” should get more credit. I think they have as much claim to being right, knowledgeable, and faithful as the “strong.” That, I think, goes for R-14 and even more so for 1-C-8-10.
3. Yes, I agree him there.

If anyone is interested in Sanday & Headlam commentary, it is available in various formats here.

I think I’ll have to think about this one point, diaphero vs. adiaphora, a bit more. This may be the point where we would have some disagreement. I agree that the weak are not spiritually weak, a more modern term might be “sensitive” in the sense of a sensitive conscience towards whatever the issue is. The strong conscience believer must yield to the sensitive conscience believer with a view to being a help to him spiritually (not to convince him to change, but to build him up in the faith).