The Mocker and the Brawler

5623 reads

There are 36 Comments

David R. Brumbelow's picture

Mike Harding,

Thanks.  I really appreciate your comments.

I looked up your sermon on alcohol.  Great message and information.    Wish everyone would read it. 

David R. Brumbelow

Lee's picture

alex o. wrote:

...

when Paul speaks of drinking no wine in Rom. 14 to not cause stumbling, he is speaking of wine offered to Dionysus, the god of the grape harvest. some cities during Paul's day had temples to both the Roman and Greek gods of wine. all the wine produced had to be offered in some sense to these pagan gods.

[when Paul mentioned "abominable drinking parties" elsewhere, he is referring to the symposium, convivium, or other assemblies of Bacchus.]

so the issue is not about the alcohol in wine in Romans, but about things sacrificed to idols. historically and textually I find this exegesis undeniable. 

Pardon my cynicism, but that sounds more like something you brought into Rom. 14 than what you got out of Rom. 14.  Since Romans is relatively silent on the issue of idols--dare I say completely silent by the end of chap. 2 ??--to find the matter of meat/drink offered to idols just randomly dropped into chap 14 is beyond a stretch.

Unless Paul, under inspiration, did a complete about-face in the 3 short years between 1st Corinthians and Romans, then the issue addressed in Rom. 14 is completely different from the issue addressed in I Cor. 8-10, because his conclusions are distinctly different. 

For the record, I Cor. 8-10 addresses the prohibitions of Acts 15; Rom. 14 addresses the change in meat/days introduced in Acts 10.

 

Lee

Mike Harding's picture

Lee, you are correct that Romans 14 ad I Cor 8--10 are dealing with very different issues.  Nevertheless, Moo and Cranfield who would both agree you on this also comment that the wine comment by Paul has more to do with it being connected to the pagan temple.  Moo has a good explanation of this. 

Pastor Mike Harding

alex o.'s picture

Lee wrote:

 

Pardon my cynicism, but that sounds more like something you brought into Rom. 14 than what you got out of Rom. 14.  Since Romans is relatively silent on the issue of idols--dare I say completely silent by the end of chap. 2 ??--to find the matter of meat/drink offered to idols just randomly dropped into chap 14 is beyond a stretch.

Unless Paul, under inspiration, did a complete about-face in the 3 short years between 1st Corinthians and Romans, then the issue addressed in Rom. 14 is completely different from the issue addressed in I Cor. 8-10, because his conclusions are distinctly different. 

For the record, I Cor. 8-10 addresses the prohibitions of Acts 15; Rom. 14 addresses the change in meat/days introduced in Acts 10.

 

 

The change in Acts 10 is not about meat/days despite the vision. God used this vision to teach something else: cleansing of the Gentiles by faith. Jesus had already "cleansed all foods" during His earthly ministry. Peter had the freedom to continue his careful observance of Mosaic dietary restrictions and God used this in a poignant way and applied it to associating with Gentiles and accepting them on an equal level. It was a revelation that when Jesus was with them that they could not bear (see the section in John). Now the Spirit was leading them to accept "other sheep not of their fold" which Jesus had alluded to elsewhere.

Why were some only eating vegetables in Rom. 14? There were plenty of clean animals available to them: oxen, sheep, goats, chicken, ducks, etc.

The wine aspect was clearly related to idols since there was a plethora of temples to Dionysus, the god of the wine harvest.

 

 

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord.  B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

Lee's picture

alex o. wrote:

 

The change in Acts 10 is not about meat/days despite the vision. God used this vision to teach something else: cleansing of the Gentiles by faith. Jesus had already "cleansed all foods" during His earthly ministry. Peter had the freedom to continue his careful observance of Mosaic dietary restrictions and God used this in a poignant way and applied it to associating with Gentiles and accepting them on an equal level. It was a revelation that when Jesus was with them that they could not bear (see the section in John). Now the Spirit was leading them to accept "other sheep not of their fold" which Jesus had alluded to elsewhere.

Why were some only eating vegetables in Rom. 14? There were plenty of clean animals available to them: oxen, sheep, goats, chicken, ducks, etc.

The wine aspect was clearly related to idols since there was a plethora of temples to Dionysus, the god of the wine harvest.

Two sides to the clean coin--clean items; clean preparation.  Both of equal importance to the law-conscious Jew, believer and unbeliever alike.  Irrelevant that clean items were available when the expectation in a predominantly Gentile culture, even for clean meats, is for the preparation to be "unclean" in some form or other (and, yes, that would include temple offerings).  The crux of the message is this--there has been a change of application and some of you are having a hard time believing it ("Him that is weak in the faith [believing something to be true; conviction] receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs....").  The overly cautious, law-abiding, tender-conscienced believer would logically play it safe and eat only veggies (just like super-conscientious orthodox Jews today won't eat a cheeseburger on the off chance it may be a calf "seethed in its mothers' milk") because they haven't come to grips with the notion that eating unclean in the OT sense doesn't matter anymore. And that is not to be unexpected.  After all, Peter argued with God repeatedly about the matter and he was getting the change order first hand. Even he had a hard time believing it! 

While there may be some peripheral application to temple offerings it is not the main communication of the passage.  OTOH, the crux of the message in I Cor. 8-10 is once you know the meat has been offered to idols don't eat it for any of a litany of reasons. These passages do not contradict each other.  If you want to justify wine on the temple offering argument, go to the passages that reference temple offerings--Acts 15; Acts 20; I Cor. 8-10; Rev. 2.

 

 

 

 

Lee

Lee's picture

Mike Harding wrote:

Lee, you are correct that Romans 14 ad I Cor 8--10 are dealing with very different issues.  Nevertheless, Moo and Cranfield who would both agree you on this also comment that the wine comment by Paul has more to do with it being connected to the pagan temple.  Moo has a good explanation of this. 

I don't have any problem that the wine mentioned in vs. 21 may reference temple sacrifice--its inclusion in a list of "meat," and "anything" could easily be broadening the discussion, especially since there is no context for its inclusion in any part of the discussion up to or after vs. 21. At best the temple connection is vague and peripheral. 

However, that doesn't change the discussion--it is not about items offered to idols.  The point of the discussion is, those who have belief issues with the change given to items forbidden under the law but which are now okayed (through revelation) for consumption  are to be received under no diminished circumstances--they are not second-class believers. Same with those who haven't bought into Lord's Day gatherings in lieu of the traditional Sabbath (vs. 5-6), or those who continue to celebrate feast days, new moons, etc. 

On the other hand, this leeway is not granted the believing pagans--"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils (I Cor. 10:16 FF)."

 

 

 

Lee

Pages