Debateable Matters: A Study in Romans 14 as applied in 1 Corinthians 8-10
Just prior to Romans 14, Paul says, “Let us behave decently, … not in dissension and jealousy. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature” (Rom. 13:13-14). It is not surprising, then, that much of Romans 14 and some of Romans 15 instructs believers in how to behave decently rather than in dissension and jealousy.
Paul tackles dissension in Romans 14:1. Rather than division, the command is acceptance. The person to be accepted is “him whose faith is weak.” Moule describes such a man as one who “lives; but he moves like a man chained, and in a prison.”[i] The way this acceptance works itself toward such a person is by not “passing judgment,” and the specific instances in which believers are not to pass judgment are in the case of “disputable matters.” So this command applies specifically to people of strong faith. The command is not a prohibition of all judgment. But it is a prohibition against receiving weak believers primarily to straighten them out. The disputable matters themselves are less important to resolve than the potential rift between fellow members of Christ’s church. “The one is ‘strong in faith,’ the other ‘weak in faith.’ But ‘the weak’ also has the place which God has assigned to him in the church.”[ii] So Paul gives a command intended to guard the place of the weak in the church; to be a part of Christ’s church does not necessarily mean to be strong in faith. Within the church it is more important that the weak-faith brothers know they are accepted among the strong-faith brothers than that the strong spend time correcting weak faith.
Paul does more, though, than merely give this command. He illuminates his meaning. Romans 14:2 sets up an example situation in which this principle may be applied. The example has to do with what a person eats. According to Paul, a person with strong faith eats “everything.” By contrast, a man whose faith is weak eats “only vegetables.” This example helps us to understand Paul’s definitions of “strong” and “weak” faith. It seems from this example that a strong faith allows a person to participate more broadly in the available opportunities and options, but that a weak faith restricts a person’s personal freedom to partake of certain aspects of life – in this case, food. The issue weak believers had with meat may have been related to a fear that they were eating food sacrificed to idols or prepared improperly;[iii] regardless, such people did not yet understand how to receive all things from God with thankfulness. Rather than seeing the Provider behind their provisions, they continued to see meats as potential snares that would lead to spiritual sin and downfall.
In the situation just described, the person with strong faith is not to regard his weaker-faith brother with contempt (Rom. 14:3a). Contempt should not enter a situation that involves such a disputable matter. Obviously, almost any matter is disputable in some sense. Any time two people disagree about how to behave, each believing she is right and the other is wrong, there is dispute. But some matters ought not to be disputable. Murder, for instance, ought to be clearly wrong in the minds of all. The fact that someone chooses to believe murder is sometimes right does not make this issue disputable; murder remains indisputably wrong. People might be expected to sustain a reasonable and legitimate contempt toward a person who continually argues against the truth that murder is wrong. But Paul writes that there is no place for a strong-faith believer to show contempt toward a weak-faith believer over such disputable matters as whether to eat everything or only vegetables. For a strong believer to show contempt for a weaker believer and go on living as a strong believer would be equivalent to an adult showing contempt for the presence of children by continuing to speak and act in such a way that they should not due to their lack of understanding and immaturity. Such contempt either excludes others too afraid to participate in “mature” life or encourages them to participate in things they do not yet understand how to handle with maturity. Both are harmful, and Paul calls on strong believers to understand that living among weaker believers involves accepting them rather than standing apart from them because of their immaturity in faith.
At the same time, Paul begins to address the weak-faith Christian’s proper response; he should not judge the person who eats everything (Rom. 14:3). This judgment is likely tied to the jealousy Paul wrote about in Romans 13:13. Jealousy is sometimes a desire to have what another has, or to do what another does. But this sense of jealousy derives from an even more tightly defined understanding of jealousy, an understanding which sees jealousy as that by which a person claims and guards the things that rightly belong to him. This sense of jealousy is seen, for instance, in Exodus 20:5, where God says, “You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God…” God is not jealous in the sense we usually think of; He does not want something that rightly belongs to another person. Instead, God is jealous when what is properly His is given to someone else. He claims and guards worship as an honor that should be given to Him alone because it is intended for Him alone. In this sense, a Christian whose faith convinced him that he should only eat vegetables might look at a fellow-believer with jealousy. This jealousy would come as a judgment against the fellow-believer, for it would declare that he was being unfaithful to God by eating “everything” rather than limiting himself to vegetables. Rather than allowing a weak-faith believer wrongly to sustain such a jealousy to uphold God’s honor against a fellow-believer, Paul commands those who are weak in faith not to judge those who live more freely than themselves.
Again, the analogy of the relationship between children and adults applies. A parent may teach a child never to say certain words such as “stupid” and “dumb” knowing that the child is too immature to use the words properly and without insulting others. That child, if she hears an adult using those words properly, may then judge that the adult has been naughty and jealously guard the proper conduct her parents taught her: “Don’t say ‘stupid’; it’s a bad word.” At such times, parents have to reaffirm to their children that they should not judge the adult, who has actually done nothing wrong: “For you, it’s bad to say ‘stupid’; for him, it’s ok.” Likewise, there are situations in which weaker believers should not yet feel free to participate because they do not understand how to participate righteously. At the same time, weaker believers should learn to recognize their own immaturity and humbly avoid judging stronger believers according to their weak understanding and faith.
How can believers know when to accept each other without contempt and judgment? Paul’s basis for such acceptance is simple: “God has accepted him.” When we understand that God has accepted a person, then contempt and judgment should end. To a believer with weak faith, passionately jealous for God to be appropriately obeyed and tempted to judge a brother who eats “everything,” the simple statement “God has accepted him” should be sufficient to halt his judgments. Just as a parent’s acceptance of a seemingly bad-mouthed person leads to a child’s acceptance, God’s acceptance of this person who eats foods that “should not be eaten” should lead to a weak believer’s acceptance. As Paul writes in verse 4, “Who are you to judge [God’s] servant?” Because the statement “God has accepted him” follows not only Paul’s command toward weak-faith believers but also toward strong-faith believers, it is almost certainly the basis also for the command that those who are strong not look down on those who are weak. Just as one adult’s example of speaking and acting at a level that children can participate in leads other adults to inclusive and age-appropriate behavior, so God’s example of stooping to fellowship with weak-faith brothers should lead strong believers to fellowship with them, too. Believers both of strong faith and of weak faith should therefore view each other first of all as people whom God accepts.
When believers look at each other with this amazing truth in mind, disagreements may not disappear, but judgments do. Rather than looking at each other’s disputable activities to figure out who is acceptable before God, their focus is to be on God, the one with the ultimate authority in these matters: “To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand” (Rom. 14:4). Essentially, believers are called to accept each other and treat each other in light of God’s acceptance. This is true whether or not we understand why God would accept other believers. They may seem immature or hedonistic, but what counts is God’s acceptance. As Stifler notes in light of God’s authority here, “The church has not a shred of authority in this matter; it may not say what diet a member shall or shall not eat.”[iv] Believers’ perceptions regarding disputable matters should be set aside out of humble submission to the judgments of the God in whose presence all His servants are able to stand.
Paul introduces another example of a disputable matter in Romans 14:5. Some believers regard one day as particularly sacred, while other believers live as though every day is equal. Presumably, those who regard one day as sacred would be the weaker-faith Christians because it was those with a more limited view of food who were regarded as having weaker faith in the first example. At this point, though, Paul incredibly states that “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5). Most people would try to solve disputes by entering their own positions into the fray, so we might expect Paul to tell us which belief is right and which is wrong. Paul, though, does not yet seem to be concerned with guiding believers into factual correctness. In disputable matters, Paul wants believers to hold a position, and to hold it firmly. He wants believers to have reasons for their disputable beliefs because they have studied the Scriptures for themselves,[v] and to live those beliefs with firm conviction. But he is not concerned that all Christians follow the same convictions! He is much more concerned with relational correctness.
Relational correctness is again tied to the Lord. Paul writes that each believer lives as he does to serve the Lord, whether he regards one day as special, eats meat, or abstains from meat (Rom. 13:6); whatever behavior the disputable matter leads toward, believers are able to pursue lives dedicated to God. Paul proves this more firmly by comparing the responses of those who eat meat and those who eat only vegetables: both give thanks to God for their provision (Rom. 13:6). “No man thanks God for that which he believes God has forbidden.”[vi] All believers, weak and strong, show by giving thanks to God that they seek God’s honor in what they do. Because all seek God’s honor, all are called to refrain from judging each other’s attempts to honor God.
This thought continues in Romans 13:7-8. When Paul writes in these verses about “us” and “we,” his words refer to all believers. In viewing believers collectively he makes a point not primarily about their relationship to each other, but to God:[vii] no believer lives only for himself or even dies only for himself; every believer lives and even dies for the Lord. The reason is simple: every believer belongs to the Lord (Rom. 14:8). This is another way of saying that each Christian is accepted by God. In disputes over issues that are not clearly matters of righteousness and unrighteousness, believers must keep hold of the truth that all who believe in Jesus belong to Him. Judging each other’s perceived flaws is, therefore, the same thing as judging Jesus’ choice of a particular believer to be His. When believers do not understand why or how Jesus would accept another person, and yet know that Jesus has accepted her, believers are bound to turn from accusations and judgments to harmonious mutual acceptance as they await the day they will finally and fully understand God’s gloriously inclusive acceptance of people with all kinds of “disputable” beliefs and behaviors. All of this is necessary because all believers belong to the Lord in all that they do. Jesus has laid claim to all believers despite all their imperfections.
Paul wants believers to understand how profoundly important it is that believers belong to the Lord. He writes that it was precisely so that Jesus could own all believers – so that He could be their Lord in life and in death – that Jesus died and rose again (Rom. 14:9). The one act in history that most profoundly demonstrates God’s love and power is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And the reason Jesus manifested so much power and love was precisely so that He could be Lord, the one to whom all authority in heaven and on earth is given. It is Christ’s judgment seat rather than ours, therefore, that counts (Rom. 14:10). This is the explicit testimony of the Scriptures, as Paul demonstrates with a quotation from Isaiah 45:23 (Rom. 14:11). Paul’s Scriptural citation demonstrates that all people, including believers, will be called to give an account of themselves to God (Rom. 14:12); it had always been God’s expressed aim. So believers should understand that this is precisely why they must not judge each other; the greatest judge will one day hold court, and in His presence all His people will stand uncondemned. In view of that day, what can believers say against each other when their disputes involve disputable matters, even now before that great day arrives? There is no basis for such divisions and judgments (Rom. 14:13).
Instead of judgments, Paul presses for an alternative way of living. This alternative way is to determine not to harm a brother (Rom. 14:13). To explain this more clearly, Paul becomes more explicit about his statements to this point. Before Paul had avoided taking sides in the debates over food and other matters; his focus had not been on resolving the debates, but on calling for unity. Now, however, Paul needs to give clear instructions on how to seek unity within a mixed body of believers, some having strong faith and some having weak faith. To do this, Paul has to be explicit about the truth in such situations. And the truth, he writes, is that “no food is unclean in itself” (Rom. 14:14). But before believers with strong faith rush to the conclusion that they ought not only to continue their eating habits, but also to urge weak-faith believers to join them (now with a loving, uncontemptuous attitude, of course), Paul quickly pens another truth: “But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean” (Rom. 14:14). In other words, Paul’s answer to the question, “Is it good to eat meat?” is, “Yes and no.” In reality, those who thank God for the meat they eat can and do eat freely, without fear of judgment. However, any person who ate meat thinking he was sinning and unable to thank God with a free conscience should fear judgment. For the one, eating meat is good. For the other, eating meat is bad. But this is merely at the personal level.
Paul’s alternative way of living takes the question, “Is it good to eat meat?” and all such disputable matters beyond the personal level. These matters are beyond the personal level because Paul calls believers to live in community without judging one another, not to avoid judging one another by keeping away from each other. In community, everything affects others. Paul has already said that in a community setting believers are to think about each other in a new way; both parties should see each other as “Accepted by God” and “Belonging to Christ,” and should therefore stop judging each other. It is entirely possible that believers might do this by Christ’s grace; they might see each other as Christ’s and set aside their differences enough to stop judging each other. But seeing each other as Christ’s accepted people is not the same thing as seeing each other’s activities as good. Stronger brothers only see weaker brothers’ limitations as foolishness, but weaker believers see stronger brothers’ behavior as sin. So Paul moves the discussion at this point beyond the question of how to regard believers who live differently; the question is now how to behave around believers who live differently.
For Paul, believers’ behaviors should be marked by love for one another as much as their thoughts about each other should be marked by love. This is why the first behavioral principle Paul pens describes a behavior without love: one believer distresses another by what he eats (Rom. 14:15). At this point, Paul’s instructions fall squarely on the shoulders of the strong-faith believer, not the believer with weak faith. It must be so; it cannot be the other way. The strong-faith believer is the only one who can distress a brother by what she eats, because the strong-faith Christian willingly eats anything that the weak-faith brother eats. It is when the strong believer eats food that another regards as sinful to eat that distress comes. It could be argued that it is distressing to the strong-faith believer to abstain from foods she enjoys. However, the distress is of a different nature: the weak-faith believer’s distress is bound up in the thought that a fellow-believer is sinning against the Lord; the strong-faith believer’s distress has nothing to do with sin, but only with missed pleasure and personal good. Paul is concerned here not with personal good, but with community good. So the behavioral responsibility Paul has begun to teach is and can only be for strong-faith believers to shoulder.
But so far Paul has not said what a strong believer is to do; he has only said that distressing a brother’s conscience by eating certain foods is unloving. He reinforces this point, commanding the strong not to destroy brothers for whom Christ died by eating things that are, in fact, good to eat, ironic as that possibility seems to be (Rom. 14:15). The word “destroy” is a very heavy term that often speaks of eternal destruction; although the certainty of eternal destruction is much greater when God is the destroying someone than when men destroy, it is still a severe enough term to prevent scholars from lightly assuming that Paul is only suggesting that men might hurt each other’s ministries or Christian growth.[viii] It is quite likely that Paul here issues a severe warning: a strong brother who insists on consuming foods that would be sinful for a weaker believer to eat not only destroys the weaker brother’s growth and future ministry; to the extent that men can, the stronger believer destroys his weaker brother’s life and salvation.[ix] Again, Paul writes, “Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil” (Rom. 14:16). This is precisely what would happen if one believer destroyed another by continuing to eat what he pleased; he might well win the battle for factual truth and personal freedom, but his unloving, destructive behavior would be spoken of as evil by all who knew the devastation it caused. As Loveless writes, “It may be bad to do good things.”[x]
These two commands against destroying fellow-Christians by eating certain foods are grounded again in God and His kingdom. God’s kingdom is not essentially about what people eat and drink; instead, its essence is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:17). Paul is charging strong believers with looking to the one they believe in and remembering their priorities. As servants in God’s kingdom, have they been charged primarily with getting people to eat and drink the right things, or with sustaining a kingdom in which all God’s servants live righteous, peaceful, and joyful lives that are united by the one Holy Spirit? The priority is clearly on living harmoniously, joyfully, and righteously in God’s kingdom with other believers. “Anyone who serves Christ in this way,” Paul writes, “is pleasing to God and approved by men” (Rom. 14:18). Such a person is pleasing to God because her priorities are straight; corporate kingdom benefit is more important than personal benefit. At the same time, she is approved by men because she does not live in such a way that they see her as sinful.
In light of this, Paul’s positive command is: “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (Rom. 14:19). This positive command is much more demanding than any of the negative commands he has expressed. To avoid one or two bad things requires only a little effort now and then; to obey this command requires effort around the clock. This command applies both to strong- and weak-faith Christians. But the context presupposes that weak-faith Christians are already making every effort to attain peace and mutual edification just by restraining themselves from making judgments against strong-faith Christians whose behavior they see as sinful. Just by obeying Paul’s command in Romans 14:1-13a to accept and not judge other believers over disputable matters, weak believers have begun to put more effort, ironically, towards peace and mutual edification than strong believers. They cannot adapt their behavior to that of stronger believers; to do so would violate their consciences. However, strong believers who do not adapt their behavior, but merely refrain from contempt toward weak believers, have not done everything they can do for the sake of peace; adapting their behavior would not violate their consciences, yet they have not adapted for the sake of peace. So when Paul commands every effort to be made toward peace and edification, the command is primarily addressed to strong believers.[xi]
What does it look like for a strong believer to make every effort toward peace and edification? First, it means not destroying a fellow-believer, God’s work, for the sake of food (Rom. 14:20). Paul reiterates that all food is clean, but that eating food that harms someone else spiritually is evil (Rom. 14:20). By contrast, good behavior is to avoid causing a brother to fall into sin, whether it means not eating meat, not drinking wine, or anything else (Rom. 14:21). For a strong-faith Christian to fully obey Paul’s command to make every effort toward peace and edification therefore means to abstain from enjoying something in his life that is spiritually clean and personally beneficial because of a priority to help a fellow-Christian benefit from righteous, peaceful, and joyful life in the Holy Spirit. It is to obey the Golden Rule, doing to others what a person would want done to himself in the same circumstances (Matt. 7:12). It is to love a brother. As Nygren says, “The strong must be strong enough to bear the burden of the weak.”[xii]
Paul’s next word likely applies to both weak- and strong-faith Christians, though it is most directly given to the strong: “So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God” (Rom. 14:22). This does not seem to be an absolute prohibition like the command not to destroy God’s work for the sake of food. Paul himself has just stated plainly what he believes about whether all food is clean to eat or not (Rom. 14:14, 20). When such disputable matters arise, therefore, it is at least somewhat important that a person who understands the truth should speak the truth. Still, the prohibition here has force. Paul is writing to believers who have already aired their opinions and knowledge, probably more than once. Both weak and strong believers know that to open their mouths and speak their minds will tempt someone else to argue or will reinforce a division that should not exist. In a situation like this where everyone knows which issues get debated hotly, Paul’s command of silence is another practical application by which both strong and weak believers can “make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (Rom. 14:19). Silence on these things is essentially a restatement of Paul’s first command, but with an emphasis on the behavior rather than on the attitude: “Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters” (Romans 14:1, emphasis mine). Both strong and weak believers can be content with silence, because neither of their opinions approves of actual sin; eating vegetables and eating meat with thanks to God are both within the bounds of righteousness. Both strong and weak believers are approved by God as they seek holiness through Christ and through obedience to Him, and therefore both receive God’s blessing (Rom. 14:22). Stifler writes as though Paul is issuing a warning when he says, “Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves,” as if to say that a person with strong faith should take heed lest he discover one day that he approved behaviors that actually were sinful.[xiii] But this does not match the tenor of the context; everywhere else in this passage, the person of strong faith is actually correct about what is acceptable to God. It is much better to see this as a comforting statement: the weak believers have certainly not transgressed the bounds of righteousness by limiting their consumption to vegetables, but the strong have also approved what is good by their thanks for meat; neither strong believer nor weak stands condemned by God. Especially for the strong, whom Paul urges not only to abstain from what they know to be good and personally beneficial for the sake of the weak, but even to abstain from proving that their position is correct, this message is satisfying: they still stand blessed by God, approved in their silent beliefs. God’s blessing is more than enough comfort to salve the wound of foregoing the taste of meat.
Paul also pens a stern message, a warning for weak believers and a reminder for strong believers: although none of them is condemned by his own opinion on the matter so long as he does not cause division, the man who inwardly condemns (not “doubts”[xiv]) eating meat will face judgment if he eats it (Rom. 14:23). This is not a warning for the strong because they cannot face this judgment; they both approve what is good and can personally partake of it with a clear conscience. But it is a reminder to them that enjoying something clean could lead to a brother’s downfall. On the other hand, this is more than just a reminder for the weak; it is a warning to him, because deliberately choosing to do what he condemns is sinful and worthy of judgment. It is worthy of judgment because such behavior by him does not come from faith (Rom. 14:23). Faith is first of all a belief that Jesus is the Lord (Rom. 10:9; cf. Acts 2:36), and for a believer to act in a way that he believes would displease the Lord is a behavior than denies Jesus’ sovereignty. It is an act of rebellion, which is why Paul can write, “Everything that does not come from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). So this is a warning for the weak. Weak though they may be, they should not violate what they believe to be Jesus’ will, even when they see other believers doing so. Such actions are rebellious and lead to judgment.
Paul has another message for strong believers, too: “We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves” (Rom. 15:1). This is just a repetition of what Paul has already said, but it has been stated in a new way that reinforces their call to active compassion for weaker brothers. Bearing with weaker brothers clearly means more than simply accepting them without contempt, because Paul writes that he and other stronger brothers are “not to please ourselves.” Paul issues a call to behavioral change that takes the form of self-restraint in terms of the choices made when selecting food or a drink or some other aspect of life. In addition to the self-restraint, Paul offers a goal: “Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up” (Rom. 15:2). This self-restraint has a higher purpose than mere lack of offense; that higher purpose is to build up fellow believers in the kingdom of God whose essence is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
To encourage the strong believers, Paul again appeals to Christ and to Scripture. Christ set the example of behavior that was not designed with His own pleasure in mind (Rom. 15:3). The Scriptures had said He would do just this, taking insults intended for other people on Himself (Rom. 15:3). Paul points the strong believers to this passage because it was written to teach them, and its purpose is to give them hope through its encouragement as they endure the pain of self-restraint (Rom. 15:4).
Paul concludes with a prayer that God would grant the Romans a spirit of unity to glorify Him together (Rom. 15:5-6), a repeated call to mutual acceptance (Rom. 15:7), a picture of Christ serving Jews for the sake of Gentiles confirmed by the Scriptures (Rom. 15:8-12), and a prayer that God would fill the Romans with joy, peace, and hope. Clearly, a united kingdom and family is important to God. And in Romans 14, Paul taught how God intends for such unity – such peace and mutual edification – to be accomplished on earth. The first step involves attitude: all parties involved in a disputable matter are to accept one another as people accepted by their mutual King. The second step involves self-controlled speech: all parties are to keep their mouths shut in situations where speech will cause unnecessary division. For strong believers, there is an additional behavioral step: they are called to abstain from some personal benefit for the sake of corporate benefit. For all, there is a King who has led the way, and He has left Scriptures behind to encourage His people. He promises a kingdom of righteousness, peace, and joy for those who endure and keep their hope in Him.
Although the earthly steps toward such a harmonious kingdom are simple and straightforward to understand on the surface, they are often confusing and painful to apply in daily life. It is worth a further exploration of Scripture to see how Paul himself applied these principles. 1 Corinthians 8-10 offers just such an example. After studying Paul’s example, the next move will be to draw out some inferences in a modern day case study, the disputable matter of drinking alcohol. The outline for both the study of 1 Corinthians 8-10 and the modern day inferences will follow the steps Paul urged in Romans 14: acceptance, self-controlled silence, and abstinence.
In 1 Corinthians 8-10, acceptance shows up primarily in Paul’s inclusive and unifying terminology: we, us, all and one. “We know that we all possess knowledge” (1 Cor. 8:1). “We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world” (1 Cor. 8:4). “Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live” (1 Cor. 8:6). Clearly, this inclusive terminology comes from a basic understanding that all believers are united to God through Jesus Christ, as in Romans. Even when Paul takes a moment to speak of others who do not understand the truth about idols, distinguishing between himself and them, he quickly returns to language and statements that include them: “But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do” (1 Cor. 8:8). Language like this continues throughout the whole section as often as Paul is able to use it. “Yes, this was written for us” (1 Cor. 9:10). “Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things…” (1 Cor. 10:6). “Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf” (1 Cor. 10:17). Clearly, Paul communicates his acceptance of others by the words he uses, words intended to draw people close rather than repel them. When he makes distinctions, it is for the purpose of teaching people who live and think differently how to live together as one, so even the differences Paul points out are used not to divide, but to unite.
Self-controlled silence is harder to discern in these chapters. This is largely because Paul is not being silent on the issues; he is addressing them. It is important to note Paul’s relational context, though. Paul is not a part of the division. He is speaking into the situation from outside specifically because God has given him the authority and responsibility to speak to them (1 Cor. 1:1-2), to unify a divided Corinthian church. So it should be worthwhile to consider Paul’s example of self-controlled speech; we will better live out this second application if we can understand the tension between self-controlled speech and silence, as well as when to apply either one.
The way that Paul addresses the divisive issues is instructive. He states basic facts plainly: “an idol is nothing at all in the world and there is no God but one” (1 Cor. 8:4); and “some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled” (1 Cor. 8:7). Also, Paul affirms that the very people who might expect to be judged for their “weak” beliefs are just as near to God as anyone else: “But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do” (1 Cor. 8:8). Paul then issues a warning not for those whose understanding of the issues is wrong, but for those who understanding is right: “When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ” (1 Cor. 8:12). The warning is not concerned with determining who is right and who is wrong; instead, the warning seeks to end divisive behavior even if it is justified before Christ on its own merits. Paul offers some examples to the Corinthians for their consideration, examples that flow from both his personal experiences and from the Scriptures (1 Cor. 9-10). In these examples, he does not condemn anyone; the weak find acceptance in their weakness even though Paul disagrees with them (1 Cor. 8:9-13; 9:22; 10:24), and the strong hear that adapting their behavior can be done beneficially without degrading their correct understanding and faith (1 Cor. 10:28-31). These are the kinds of self-controlled words Paul writes as someone speaking into a divisive situation between Christians: basic facts that gently correct the thoughts of the weak, affirmation and acceptance toward the weak, challenging and gentle warnings toward the strong, personal examples to lead the strong in the right path, and Scripture for even more emphatic examples.
Still, in the midst of Paul’s words as one who speaks from outside the division, we can see that self-controlled silence is better for those who are embroiled in the division. The first words after Paul begins to speak about food sacrificed to idols are enough to shame into silence everyone arguing that behavior should be based only on knowledge: “We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (1 Cor. 8:1). Paul then deals with the knowledge quickly and simply, making it clear that food sacrificed to idols is spiritually safe (1 Cor. 8:4-6), but quickly setting this knowledge aside because it is not the most important aspect in making behavioral decisions. Paul writes that our behaviors’ effects on other people are more important (1 Cor. 8:7-12). All of these truths combine to tell the dueling believers, both weak and strong, to close their knowledge-filled mouths. Paul’s final example also calls for silence on the disputable matters. Interestingly enough, the example deals not with a weak believer, but with an unbeliever. When Paul discusses how a strong believer should respond to an unbeliever’s comment on sacrificed food, the response that is visibly lacking is verbal correction (1 Cor. 10:27-30). One might think that this would be an ideal time to testify about God, letting the unbeliever know that the food is clean for believers because believers know God created and provided it. Rather than urge the Corinthians to take advantage of such an opportunity for witnessing, though, Paul says that believers in such circumstances are simply to refuse the food. Such a response strongly implies that a believer would not speak at that time about his willingness to eat sacrificed foods, and this leads to a helpful principle. Even with unbelievers, it is more important to protect a relationship than it is to prove such a minor point of truth. For Paul, picking one’s battles is a priority; if believers love people, whether weaker believers or unbelievers, they will put up with any limitations they righteously can in order to strengthen relationships to support more important and life-transforming truths. Concern for others produces self-control with regard to speech about divisive and disputable matters and sacrificially avoids unnecessary quarrels.
So it seems that Paul’s example among the Corinthians requires a modified understanding of the principle of self-controlled silence. The principle on how believers should talk during times of division emphasizes self-control more than silence. Self-controlled speech can be as beneficial as self-controlled silence, depending on the circumstances. Based on Paul’s example in 1 Corinthians 8-10, the most important circumstance to consider seems to be, “Am I in the middle of this conflict, or not?” Paul was not in the middle of the conflict; his self-controlled writing came from the position of a leader, an observer, and a moderator. Neither the weak nor the strong had been offended by Paul; they could both read Paul’s words feeling accepted and welcoming the instructions. But both the weak and the strong were in the middle of the conflict and had offended each other. Following Paul’s instructions, both should have been shamed into silence – the weak by Paul’s correction of their position, and the strong by Paul’s correction of their behavior. Neither should have brought the matter up again, and even if a weak brother happened to bring it up because of his conscience, a strong brother was to keep silent rather than create division. But again, the need for silence applied as much to the weak brother as to the strong; Paul did not make the weak in faith teachers by silencing only the strong in faith. For both weak and strong, self-control was meant to bring words or silence that led to unity.
Beyond attitudes and words, though, Paul set some behavioral guidelines for the Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 8, the overarching principle is to avoid leading weak brothers into sin and wounding their consciences (1 Cor. 8:9, 12). Transitioning to the example he set by his ministry, Paul defines the behavioral change in terms of unlimited abstinence: “If what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall” (1 Cor. 8:13, emphasis mine). The link between the purpose of keeping a brother on firmly righteous footing and abstaining from certain permissible behaviors is unmistakeable. Paul’s example for the strong believers is a willingness to abstain as long as it takes to avoid leading others into sin, even if that means a lifetime of abstention.
Kenneth Gentry, Jr., seeking to prove that Paul is not here and in Romans 14:21 issuing a command that the strong believer must abstain from disputable behaviors at all times, seems to weaken the force of Paul’s example. He argues 1) that those whose consciences do not allow them to drink are labeled “weak” by Paul; 2) that the social context for the suggestion of abstaining is limited to those times when the strong might possibly lure the weak into sin, that the aorist verb in Romans 14:21 makes this an occasional rather than a continuous effort, and that “we cannot think that everywhere Paul goes…, fragile Christians crowd around him ready to stumble over this issue”; 3) that Paul’s example in 1 Cor. 8:13 is not necessarily what Paul is actually doing, based on the conditional “if”; 4) that Paul avoids giving an apostolic command, rather giving a personal testimony along the lines of 1 Corinthians 7:7-8; and 5) that Paul’s goal is not only to avoid leading a weaker brother into sin, but also to assist the weaker brother in overcoming unnecessary scrupulosity along the lines of 1 Corinthians 9:20-23. His conclusion is intended to prove that “the strong one can happily eat meat and drink wine, because his conscience does not condemn him (and properly so) in approving what he eats and drinks” – a behavioral statement. But Gentry’s actual conclusion is this: “Clearly, Paul does not request the strong to relinquish their convictions. In fact, he could never do so.”[xv] There is quite a difference between proving that Paul does not ask strong believers to relinquish their convictions and that he does not ask them to relinquish their behaviors. Let us attempt a critique of his arguments.
With respect to the first argument that those whose consciences do not allow them to drink are the “weak,” that is absolutely correct. But Gentry’s argument temporarily ignores the idea that the question of behavior is not determined for the strong by whether their convictions are better than those of the weak; rather, the question of behavior hinges on whether the behavior of the strong will harm the weak. If behavior will harm the weak, the strong should avoid that behavior; doing otherwise is sin against Christ (1 Cor. 8:9-13). Labeling the weak as being weak does not impact the force of Paul’s words concerning abstention in 1 Corinthians 8:9-13.
Gentry’s second argument offered three major components: a definition of the social context within which 1 Corithians 8:13 might possibly apply, an analysis of the aorist verb as marking an occasion rather than a lifestyle, and a ridicule of the idea that Paul might constantly be among the weak and therefore always on his guard. Again, Gentry is partially right. Paul’s definition of the social context in which the strong behave like the weak is a context in which behaving according to their strong convictions would lead weak believers into sin. But Gentry is too eager to limit the temporal extent of a strong believer’s abstention. His arguments from the aorist ignore several important qualities of the aorist tense: 1) “The aorist tense ‘presents an occurrence in summary’,”[xvi] 2) “Outside the indicative and participle, time is not a feature of the aorist,”[xvii] and 3) “The aorist normally views the action as a whole, taking no interest in the internal workings of the action. It describes the action in summary fashion, without focusing on the beginning or end of the action specifically.”[xviii] The first and third points essentially say that the aorist does not communicate the duration of an activity, but only the fact that it happens. The activity could be instantaneous or it could continue for years. The second point applies specifically in Romans 14:21 where both aorist verbs are infinitives rather than indicatives or participles; in other words, aorist infinitives avoid limiting the timing of an activity even more than aorist indicatives and participles. So when Gentry says that it is the aorist verb in Romans 14:21 (and perhaps also in 1 Cor. 8:13) that makes it clear abstention is encouraged on occasion rather than continually, he misunderstands the grammatical implications of the aorist verb. The aorist verb communicates only that Paul wants strong believers to avoid disputable behaviors; it does not indicate how long they should do so. The duration of abstinence must come from the context. And in 1 Corinthians 8:13, the context indicates that the duration of avoiding disputable behaviors could be as long as “never… again.” As to Gentry’s ridicule of the idea that Paul might constantly be near enough to weak believers to sense the need for abstinence, his argument is inconclusive. If Paul is not in such a situation, that does not change the implications of his statement in 1 Corinthians 8:13. Also, Paul’s testimony throughout 1 Corinthians 9 and 10 indicates that Paul was constantly having to consider how to adapt his behavior for the sake of his audience; the audience may not always have been filled with weak believers, but it was constantly filled with unbelievers. Paul’s behavior adapted to save as many as possible from among the Jews, those under the law, those not having the law, and the weak (1 Cor. 9:20-22). As a strong believer, he was constantly adapting to those who were not strong believers for the sake of the gospel (1 Cor. 9:23), whether they were unbelievers or weak believers. Since weak believers (1 Cor. 8:9-13) and unbelievers (1 Cor. 10:27-29) are the two groups to whom Paul is urging strong believers to adapt their behavior, it is entirely likely that Paul was always in a situation where he would have had to adapt his behavior. Paul was not seeking only to prevent weak believers from stumbling; his concern was for everyone – Jews, Greeks, and the church of God (1 Cor. 10:32). The social context within which a strong believer had to guard against offending other people’s consciences was therefore very broad. So Gentry’s argument that the social context makes Paul’s command only apply occasionally is weak. Paul’s whole life was spent adapting his behavior for the sake of the gospel, and this is precisely what Paul urges strong believers to do.
Gentry’s third argument is based on Paul’s word, “if,” and suggests that Paul is not actually abstaining from anything himself. To analyze this argument will again require examining the grammar and the context of 1 Corinthians 8:13. The word “if” begins a conditional clause. There are five conditional classes in the Greek, and this particular construction makes it a first class condition, because the mood of the verb following eij in the protasis is indicative.[xix] The first class condition assumes the truth it asserts for the sake of argument.[xx] Just on grammatical features, therefore, Gentry’s critique is strange. Gentry analyzes the “if” in precisely the opposite way from what was intended: Gentry questions whether it what follows is true in order to advance his view that strong believers may freely though moderately drink wine; Paul assumes that it is true in order to advance his view that strong believers who could otherwise freely eat and drink should be quick to abstain around those whose consciences would be offended by participation. And the context is also against Gentry’s analysis. Over the next two chapters, Paul says such things as, “But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:12), “But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me” (1 Cor. 9:15), “Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone” (1 Cor. 9:19), “No, I beat my body and make it my slave” (1 Cor. 9:27), “‘Everything is permissible,’ but not everything is beneficial” (1 Cor. 10:23), “Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others” (1 Cor. 10:24), and “Do not cause anyone to stumble… even as I try to please everybody in every way” (1 Cor. 10:32-33). If these statements mean anything (and they do – I am making a first class conditional argument here), then Paul subjects his whole life to giving up his permissible rights for the benefit of others. When Paul writes 1 Corinthians 8:13, therefore, its implicit command (made explicit by 1 Corinthians 11:1 – “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ”) is something Paul himself is living out personally. Gentry’s argument, though, turns people away from hearing the force of Paul’s example.
In concluding my critique of Gentry’s third argument, I have begun my critique of his fourth argument, the notion that Paul avoids giving an apostolic command about abstention. As noted, the context of Paul’s statement, “I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall” (1 Cor. 8:13) culminates in this command: “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1). The command to abstain in order to avoid leading unbelievers and weak believers into sin is, therefore, explicit when the context is considered. Gentry, not noticing the context, avers that Paul is simply making a statement of what he would personally like people to do, along the lines of what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7:7-8 about marriage. But in the marriage discussion, Paul explicitly and repeatedly states that going against his personal preference and example is acceptable and keeps people from sinning (1 Cor. 7:2, 6, 9, 28, 36, 38). In the discussion on food sacrificed to idols, there are no such statements. There are acknowledgements that such food is spiritually safe and good for a strong believer who understands that it comes from God (1 Cor. 8:4-6, 8; 10:19, 25-27). But every command and example in this passage calls strong believers to abstain as soon as they know that the food they are about to eat could harm others; there is no exception (1 Cor. 8:9, 13; 9:12b, 15, 19-22, 27; 10:12, 14, 20-22, 24, 32-33; 11:1). This seems to be precisely because going against Paul’s preference in chapters 8 through 10, while factually permissible, carries such strongly unbeneficial and sin-inducing effects on others. So Gentry’s analogical argument comparing 1 Corinthians 7 to 1 Corinthians 8-11:1 is based on a faulty analogy: Paul’s instructions about marriage teach believers to avoid sin either by marrying or by staying single; Paul’s instructions about food sacrificed to idols teach believers, both strong and weak, to avoid sin by abstaining as soon as they know that such food has been set before them. Paul’s instructions teach that weak believers sin by violating their consciences, while strong believers sin by leading weak believers into sin. Still, both strong and weak are to avoid sin by abstention. Paul offers no approval for those who participate knowing that the food they eat has been offered to idols, even though the food itself is spiritually safe for strong believers.
Gentry’s fifth argument points to Paul’s goal in abstention; he says that the goal is to make the weak strong. He bases this understanding on 1 Corinthians 9:20-23, which says with regard to the weak, “To the weak I became weak, to win the weak.” Since Gentry does not say how it is that he has interpreted this to mean that Paul’s goal is to make the weak strong, I must make an assumption. It seems that Gentry has taken the word “win” to mean, “change” or “strengthen.” In other words, Paul wants the weak to change and be like he is – namely, to be strong like he is. Again, Gentry seems to have missed the entire point of the passage in his eagerness to prove that drinking is not sinful in itself. Paul defines the “win” he is seeking: “I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some” (1 Cor. 9:22). While I am sure that Paul would be thrilled to see the weak become strong, he is not trying to change them from weak believers to strong believers. He is trying to make sure of their salvation; that is his goal. This would apply to every category Paul discusses. His goal is not to turn the Jews into non-Jews, but saved Jews. His goal is not to turn those under the law into people without any law, but into saved people under Christ’s law. His goal is not to turn those not having the law into people under the law, but into saved people not having the law. Paul’s desire to “win” these people is not a desire to make them into their opposites; it is a desire to see them saved. Unlike the other categories, the weak are already saved. But leading them into defying their conscience is spiritually dangerous for them, as Paul has pointed out already (1 Cor. 8:7, 9-13). So Paul’s behavior conforms to theirs to “win” them; Paul’s desire is to keep the saved weak believers saved. Only a blatant misunderstanding of this passage or an arrogant declaration of “once saved, always saved” could lead a strong believer to ignore Paul’s example and command in 1 Corinthians 8:13.
Understanding 1 Corinthians 8:13 has been the focus for a while now, as Gentry’s comments required quite a bit of correction to put the verse in its proper light. Now that it is clear that Paul actually means by this verse that strong believers should abstain from things that lead weak believers into sin, examining 1 Corinthians 9 and 10 should help us to apply this behavioral principle with more understanding.
Paul turns away from the main issue of food sacrificed to idols and gives a related behavioral example from his own ministry in 1 Corinthians 9:1-27. Paul has given up many rights to serve as an apostle: food and drink (1 Cor. 9:4), a believing wife (1 Cor. 9:5), and material support from the gospel ministry (1 Cor. 9:11-12, 14). These are rights that other apostles have not given up (1 Cor. 9:5-6). By analogy, Paul is calling on strong believers to do the same thing, though probably not to the same extent. Paul has given up even his rights that would not lead people into sin for the sake of other people and their salvation, rights such as financial support and marriage (1 Cor. 9:12, 15, 18, 19-23, 27). He only calls on strong believers to give up the rights that could lead others into sin (1 Cor. 8:9-13, and looking forward, 1 Cor. 10:28, 32). Paul is sacrificing much more than he asks the strong believers to sacrifice, but he finds the sacrifice worthwhile; so should the strong believers.
Not only is the sacrifice worthwhile to Paul, but being unwilling to set aside one’s rights for the sake of Christ and others comes with a warning of being “disqualified for the prize” (1 Cor. 9:27), as Paul goes on to explain in chapter 10. He reminds the Corinthians of their spiritual forefathers who began to participate in God’s blessings, yet who did not please God and who died in the desert (1 Cor. 10:1-5). This history, Paul writes, is intended to keep believers from setting their hearts on “evil things” like their forefathers and perishing (1 Cor. 10:6-10). It is enlightening that the “evil things” Paul gives as examples are at least parallel to the situations Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians. Idolatry (1 Cor. 10:7) is parallel to food sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 8:1-13; 10:14-30); sexual immorality (1 Cor. 10:8) is also found among the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:1-13); testing the Lord (1 Cor. 10:9) likely runs in line with the way the Corinthians divided into camps based upon which of the Lord’s servants they most admired, their own desire to show God’s approval of them, or their view of gifts, all of which said God was more with some of them than with others (1 Cor. 1:10-4:21; 11:17-12:31; 14:1-40; cf. Num. 16:8-11; Ex. 17:1-7); and grumbling (1 Cor. 10:10) is also likely tied into Paul’s writings about the Corinthians’ divisions (1 Cor. 1:11; 2:14; 3:3-4, 18-21; 4:6; 6:1-8; 8:1; 11:19; 12:14-16, 21; 14:30-33; cf. Ex. 16:1-8; 17:1-7). So Paul’s examples from Scripture are not empty, unrelated warnings; Paul again emphasizes that the same punishments might come upon the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11-13). So saying, he turns to offer his final points on eating food sacrificed to idols.
What Paul concludes about such foods is sobering. Participation in the Lord’s Supper is participation with Christ, and participation in Old Testament sacrifices was participation in God’s altar (1 Cor. 10:15-18). So although Paul knows that neither food nor the idols it might be offered to are spiritually meaningful or harmful (1 Cor. 10:19), the demons associated with the idols and the food are real (1 Cor. 10:20). This means that even the strong should understand that participation in such food can legitimately be viewed as idolatrous participation with idols (1 Cor. 10:20-21), presumably by unbelievers (1 Cor. 10:27-28) and weak believers (1 Cor. 8:7). Such an appearance of idolatry should be avoided out of a preference for God’s honor in the eyes of all people (1 Cor. 10:14, 22).
Because Paul understands that foods and idols are spiritually harmless in themselves and that food offered to idols is therefore permissible to eat (1 Cor. 10:23), he states that Christians should exercise their Christian freedom by freely eating any meat they encounter in the marketplace or even in an unbeliever’s home (1 Cor. 10:25-27). This reflects their thankfulness to the Lord who created the earth and everything in it (1 Cor. 10:26). But Paul also understands that harmless things become harmful when other people believe they are associated with moral wrong and immoral creatures (1 Cor. 8:7, 10-12; 10:20-21). Therefore, understanding that it is more important to behave in ways that benefit others than to enjoy what is permissible (1 Cor. 10:23-24), Paul commands believers to abstain from permissible things that they know others think of as morally stained (1 Cor. 10:28). He clearly understands that eating such food would not be personally harmful (1 Cor. 10:28-30), but his aim is for believers to concern themselves with others before themselves(1 Cor. 10:31-33). Paul’s example, as we saw, included giving up rights and privileges that others would not even consider to be sinful; he calls the Corinthians to follow his, and Christ’s example (1 Cor. 11:1)
Paul’s example in 1 Corinthians 8-10 clarifies what believers are to do in situations involving disputable matters with regard to acceptance, self-controlled speech, and abstention. Believers express acceptance toward each other by speaking and behaving inclusively because they base their unity in Jesus Christ. This is why Paul addresses both self-controlled silence/speech and behavioral abstention; they become the audible and visible evidence of acceptance. Believers modify their speech toward one another in one of two ways: those who have been debating each other stop talking about what they know whether they are weak or strong believers because their love for one another is more important than their divisive knowledge; on the other hand, those who have not been involved in the debate may serve as moderators and gently correct both the weak and strong in their beliefs and behaviors in order to urge them toward unity in Christ. As to behavior, believers may only adapt to weaker positions; they are never to do more than their conscience permits. Not only this, but stronger believers are called to adapt to avoid offending not only weaker believers’ consciences, but also to avoid confusing unbelievers’ consciences, and Paul says that knowingly doing otherwise is sinful.
How might these principles apply today? As my pastor noted in a recent sermon,[xxi] today’s disputable matters range from alcohol and tobacco to modesty, tattoos, and cosmetic surgery. Alcohol is such a commonly debated matter in America[xxii] that it should serve well for an exploration of how to apply these principles of acceptance, self-controlled speech/silence, and abstinence.
Acceptance is the simplest to talk about, but probably the most difficult to apply. Essentially, those who cannot drink alcohol because of their consciences should regard fellow believers who drink alcohol not as “sinners,” but as brothers. They should rejoice that the Lord has saved these brothers who drink, and they should want to spend time with them. Also, those whose consciences allow them to drink alcohol should not contemptuously regard fellow believers who cannot drink alcohol as pains in the neck, but as beloved brothers. They should join their brothers in rejoicing for each other’s salvation, and they also should want to spend time with their non-drinking brothers. They should all learn to love each other and value each other as family because of Jesus Christ, eagerly desiring each other’s fellowship.
As they seek each other’s fellowship, they are to control their speech so that they do not aggravate each other and create division. Based on Jesus’ acceptance of them all, weak brothers should not tell strong believers to stop drinking alcohol, but should keep silent, praying instead that God would both help them to continue accepting their drinking brothers and that He would give them strength to continue abstaining from alcohol without condemning the others. For the same reasons, strong brothers should gladly fellowship with people they know to be non-drinkers without making comments about how they would be drinking alcohol if it were not for their teetotaler brothers. This whole discussion assumes that both strong and weak brothers know that a particular matter is debatable, most likely because they have already debated over it. In such a context, neither of them should bring the matter up any time that doing so might create an argument and divide them. The safest context for any discussion of alcohol between weak and strong believers would probably be like the context in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8-10: neither strong believers nor weak believers are speaking, but are instead listening to a respected strong believer who is outside of the debate and who can guide both strong and weak into united and righteous living. Pastors should be able to speak into disputes in this way, for instance, provided that the pastoral staff itself is not divided; if it were divided, then even the pastors should stay silent, inviting other preachers to speak to them and the rest of the congregation about alcohol. Other than that, probably the only instance in which either should bring up a disputable matter such as alcohol consumption after they realize they strongly disagree would be when a weak believer grows enough in understanding to tell a strong believer with whom he has formerly argued something like, “I may or may not want to drink alcohol myself, but I now see that you can drink alcohol righteously and that it is a good gift from God.” But in general, after believers realize that they have a deep difference of opinion, both strong and weak should avoid talking about alcohol – either its evils or its benefits – out of love for one another and a commitment to their acceptance for each other. Any speaking should have the same goals of expressing love and acceptance.
But love and acceptance need to be expressed by more than words. After all, the convictional differences result in behavioral differences. Some believers feel free to drink alcohol, while others’ consciences absolutely prohibit alcohol. And despite the truth that people are neither better nor worse off with God if they drink, believers who do not drink and those who do are certainly worse off in terms of their ability to fellowship with each other. Unless someone’s behavior changes, attempts at fellowship will constantly be disrupted when strong believers drink alcohol, making weak believers who cannot drink alcohol choose repeatedly between feeling excluded and violating their consciences. Weak believers should not violate their consciences to make fellowship possible. The only option available is for strong believers to relinquish their freedom to drink alcohol. For those who have come close to dividing over alcohol, there is no alternative. Strong believers must relinquish their freedom at least when they know they are with weak believers. This means more than not offering alcohol to weak believers; it means not drinking alcohol in their presence. Even if weak believers keep their silence, for the sake of unity and love strong believers may (not must) want to assure weak believers that they are not drinking at all – that there will never be an awkward moment when they are talking about a party, but then have to stop talking because they drank alcohol at the party, or a time when weak believers dropping by for a visit will find strong believers hurriedly hiding their wine bottles and glasses. Whatever they do, strong believers should not attempt to teach weak believers by their example that drinking is safe for Christians when done in moderation; their very example is divisive. Strong believers can better teach weak believers by inoffensively discussing God’s Word and from it defending the moderate alcohol consumption seen among other believers not involved in the dispute and among unbelievers than by offensively behaving in a way that creates division. Until weak believers’ consciences change and allow them to think of drinking alcohol as good, strong believers should “make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (Rom. 4:19). If this seems restrictive, believers should remember that Paul’s instructions on disputable matters, like his advice about marriage, were said “not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:35). Paul acknowledges that such a life is difficult: “If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men” (1 Cor. 15:19). But believers’ encouragement, hope, and strength to live such a life of abstention as long as needed comes from the truth that “Christ has indeed been raised from the dead” (1 Cor. 15:20) and “in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22). Because of this, Paul could “die every day” (1 Cor. 15:31). May all believers find that their hope in Christ allows them to imitate Paul as he imitated Christ (1 Cor. 11:1).
Posts
