Romans 14:21 and drinking wine

I am fairly certain I don't have to tell you that this is a favorite proof text of teetotallers and legalists who want to make sure no Christian drinks a drop of alcohol. It is sort of an end run argument in the sense that the passage does not condemn the use of alcohol, rather it seems to prohibit use of alcohol out of a brotherly interest not to lead a fellow Christian to stumble by seeing you drink it. That last point though, must be defined clearly by the passage itself, and not by ideas that we import back into it.

Two questions need to be answered in order to get a handle on the meaning and application of this passage:
1) who is the "weaker brother"?
2) what does it mean to cause them to "stumble"?

Well, in order to handle this passage accurately, we need to understand this verse in relationship to the rest of the passage. In context Paul is exhorting the weak and strong not to engage in hostility and judging one another on account of how they either restrain or exercise (in the case of the strong) their freedom. So we need to answer the question, who are the weak and the strong? Well, the strong are converted Gentiles, who really don't have any scruples about diets or drinks. The weak are Jewish converts who living in an urban, metropolitan context, are unsure about where the meat sold in the market has come from. Because they are not sure if the meat was actually offered in sacrifice to a pagan god, they won't eat, thinking it could be defiled. Instead of eating meat, they eat vegetables according to the example of Daniel when he was in exile in Babylon (Daniel 1:8). So the weak are converted Jews and the strong are converted Gentiles.

So let's address the 2nd question now, what is it to stumble? Well, vv13-14 seem to help clarify that. Paul admonishes believers in v13 to not put stumbling-blocks in the way of a brother, and then clarifies the matter by saying in v14 that the issue is what a person thinks in his mind. If a brother thinks meat is unclean, then to him, it is unclean. In other words, he thinks that if he partakes of the meat, he is worshiping idols and thereby violating the 1st commandment, because of the strong association with meat and pagan worship in this gentile, pagan context. To cause that brother to stumble means that by eating meat in front of him, he may be led to eat meat, and by doing that, violate his conscience and sin against God for doing what he thinks is idolatrous. Just to be clear, he is not sinning because meat is intrinsically evil, he is sinning because he thinks eating meat is a form of participating in the worship of the god to whom the meat was offered to.

Let's take that information and plug it into the prohibition against wine. Douglass Moo in his outstanding commentary on Romans argues convincingly that the "wine issue" in this passage is not about scruples of conscience over whether it is permissible to consume alcoholic beverages, it is about whether the wine has been offered as a libation in a temple sacrifice to a pagan god. Just as the weak refused to eat meat because they thought it was defiled on account of it being part of a sacrifice, so they refused to drink wine because they believed it to be defiled through an act of pagan worship. So again, causing a brother to "stumble" in the matter of wine is to coerce him to violate his conscience about wine by following the strong believers example of drinking a glass of wine. The sin is not drinking wine per se, any more than it would be a sin to eat meat; the sin is drinking wine thinking that it is defiled, and thinking that by drinking it one is participating in the worship of a false god.

What does all this mean for drinking alcohol then? Well, it means several things:
1) the issue in this passage is not about the principle of whether alcohol is permissible to drink, the issue is, has the wine been defiled because it formed part of pagan offering.

2) just because this passage does not forbid drinking alcohol does not mean then that believers are commanded to drink alcohol, or are better Christians if they do. If you choose, out of Christian liberty, not to drink, that is ok. However, it does not mean you are in any way morally superior to or on better terms with God than the guy who drinks in moderation.

3) legalists who insist on abstinence from alcohol have no proof-text here in this passage. Romans 14:21 simply cannot be forced to support the typical reasons given for why Christians should not drink. If you make your argument for total abstinence from this passage you are just not being faithful to the text. That is a mishandling of the word of God to squeeze a legalistic ideology into this passage.

4) "causing a brother or sister to stumble" by drinking wine does not mean that they will be morally offended by you drinking it and think they are better Christians than you. No Christian, has any right to be morally offended by seeing another believer drink. If they are morally offended by that, they are in sin; that is Paul's whole point in 14:3.

5) I am open to the application that if a person is weak in conscience and believes they must abstain from alcohol because they have no self-control due to sinful patterns of behavior in the past, then a strong believer should avoid drinking alcohol around that "weaker" brother. But then again, I don't think you need this passage to tell you that, because the law of love and common sense should tell you that!

Calvin on the Sabbath: an outline of the Institutes 2.8.28-34

Out of a concern that too many people who claim to be confessionally Reformed, that is, those who officially subscribe to the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dort, are making the argument that the Reformed confessions maintain the same view on the 4th commandment as confessional Presbyterians, those who officially subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, I am presenting this brief outline of Calvin's view of the 4th commandment, where he makes it abundantly clear that he is not "sabbatarian" as are the Presyterians.

One reason I believe this is necessary is that many members of confessionally Reformed churches have had to live with a bound conscience when it came to the 4th commandment, because their teachers told them that the Reformed faith requires a strict observance of the Sabbath as taught in the Westminster Confession. I also post this up as a refutation of those teachers who want to claim that they stand with Calvin in binding and compelling consciences with respect to the 4th commandment. Many teachers who hold that point of view, will not be persuaded that based on this portion of Calvin's writings that they are wrong. That is fine with me, but at least the average person with little access to the broader arguments about this dispute, will have the proof before them, that Calvin's view of the 4th commandment is not Westminster's and it is not "sabbatarian." Calvin's own words are quite sufficient by themselves to refute the sophistries of those who make the false claim that they stand with him on the 4th commandment and impose a rigorous form of sabbath observance that savors of Judaism rather than Christ.

For all you then who are weak and heavy laiden in conscience due to being compelled to conform to the Westminster view of the 4th commandment, I hope Calvin's christo-centric and biblical-theological interpretation of the 4th commandment gives you considerable rest.


1. 2.8.28
a. the purpose of the commandment: The purpose of this commandment is that, being dead to our own inclinations and works, we should meditate on the Kingdom of God, and that we should practice that meditation in the ways established by him.
b. The 4th commandment and the interpretation by the Fathers
c. 3 reasons for the Sabbath
1) 7th day observance as sign of resting from sinful works
2) provide for a day for worship
3) give servants rest from labor

2. 2.8.29
a. fore-shadowing of spiritual rest occupied the chief place in the Sabbath.
b. the Sabbath is a sign whereby Israel may recognize that God is their sanctifier
c. a very close correspondence appears between the outward sign and the inward reality. We must be wholly at rest that God may work in us; we must yield our will; we must resign our heart.

3. 2.8.30
a. For the Jews the observance of one day in seven customarily represented this eternal cessation. The Lord commended it by his example that they might observe it with greater piety. To know that he is trying to imitate the Creator has no little value in arousing man’s zeal.
b. The number 7 indicates perpetuity
c. The Sabbath will not be consummated until the last day
d. the Lord through the seventh day has sketched for his people the coming perfection of his Sabbath in the Last Day, to make them aspire to this perfection by unceasing meditation upon the Sabbath throughout life.

4. 2.8.31
a. an alternative way of interpreting the number 7: he assigned the seventh day, either because he foresaw that it would be sufficient; or that, by providing a model in his own example, he might better arouse the people; or at least point out to them that the Sabbath had no other purpose than to render them conformable to their Creator’s example.
b. The principal meaning of the 7th day: perpetual repose from our labors.
c. by the Lord Christ’s coming the ceremonial part of this commandment was abolished
d. Jesus Christ is the true fulfillment of the Sabbath
1) For this: reason the apostle elsewhere writes that the Sabbath [Colossians 2:16] was “a shadow of what is to come; but the body belongs to Christ” [Colossians 2:17.
2) This is not confined within a single day but extends through the whole course of our life, until, completely dead to ourselves, we are filled with the life of God. Christians ought therefore to shun completely the superstitious observance of days.

5. 2.8.32
a. 2 aspects in which the 4th commandment is still binding under the New Covenant
1) Although the Sabbath has been abrogated, there is still occasion for us: to assemble on stated days for the hearing of the Word, the breaking of the mystical bread, and for public prayers [cf. Acts 2:42];
2) to give surcease from labor to servants and workmen. There is no doubt that in enjoining the Sabbath the Lord was concerned with both.
b. Support for the 1st aspect: Meetings of the church are enjoined upon us by God’s Word; and from our everyday experience we well know how we need them. But how can such meetings be held unless they have been established and have their stated days
c. We could meet every day: Why do we not assemble daily, you ask, so as to remove all distinction of days? If only this had been given us! Spiritual wisdom truly deserved to have some portion of time set apart for it each day. But if the weakness of many made it impossible for daily meetings to be held, and the rule of love does not allow more to be required of them, why should we not obey the order we see laid upon us by God’s will?

6. 2.8.33
a. its not Judaistic to regularly meet on the 1st day of the week: because at present some restless spirits are stirring up tumult over the Lord’s Day. They complain that the Christian people are nourished in Judaism because they keep some observance of days.
b. The difference between Judaistic observance and Christian observance of the 4th commandment: we transcend Judaism in observing these days because we are far different from the Jews in this respect. For we are not celebrating it as a ceremony with the most rigid scrupulousness, supposing a spiritual mystery to be figured thereby. Rather, we are using it as a remedy needed to keep order in the church.
c. Proper motive for abstaining from labor on the 1st day: they therefore abstained from manual tasks not because these are a diversion from sacred studies and meditations, but with a certain scrupulousness they imagined that by celebrating the day they were honoring mysteries once commended.
d. The change of day from last to 1st explained: because it was expedient to overthrow superstition, the day sacred to the Jews was set aside; because it was necessary to maintain decorum, order, and peace in the church, another was appointed for that purpose.

7. 2.8.34
a. resurrection is the reason for 1st day observance
b. It is permissible to gather for worship on other days: I shall not condemn Churches that have other solemn days for their meetings, provided there be no superstition
c. 3 applications of the 4th commandment:
1) we are to meditate throughout life upon an everlasting Sabbath rest from all our works, that the Lord may work in us through his Spirit.
2) each one of us privately, whenever he has leisure, is to exercise himself diligently in pious meditation upon God’s works. Also, we should all observe together the lawful order set by the church for the hearing of the Word, the administration of the sacraments, and for public prayers.
3) we should not inhumanly oppress those subject to us. f289 Thus vanish the trifles of the false
d. Calvin rebukes those who treat the 4th commandment like a Jew:
1) They asserted that nothing but the ceremonial part of this commandment has been abrogated (in their phraseology the “appointing” of the seventh day), but the moral part remains — namely, the fixing of one day in seven.
2) Yet this is merely changing the day as a reproach to the Jews, while keeping in mind the same sanctity of the day. For we still retain the same significance in the mystery of the days as pertained among the Jews. And we really see how they profit by such teaching.
3) For those of them who cling to their constitutions surpass the Jews three times over in crass and carnal Sabbatarian superstition.

Romans 14:5-6 and observing holy days and diets

I have been thinking about these verses since I taught on them at my men's study group and I ran my interpretation by them, and now I throw it out to a broader audience to see if I can get more feedback. My concern in this passage is with Paul's admonition to not judge a brother who observes Old Testament holy days and a kosher diet out of conviction, and further, his admonition for each person to be fully convinced in his own thinking about these things(as if it were an option available to all Christians to be conscience bound by such practices). What I am thinking is that Paul has in view a temporary patience with those who are bound in conscience by the law's teaching on these things. Further, I don't believe that Paul envisions that the church will have to long deal with this kind of a division in piety and practice.

My argument is twofold:

First, Paul is dealing with people he calls "weak" who were brought up in Judaism and taught the scrupulous observance of holy days and diets as a form of piety before the Lord. Now a contemporary Jew, brought up within a strict orthodox setting, might have the same struggles and make the same claim. Though I am sympathetic to that claim, and am open to making a concession in this kind of a situation, I still believe there is a vast difference between the person Paul is talking about in Romans 14 and the contemporary person brought up in strict Judaism. The person Paul is addressing as the "weak" was brought up under Judaism when the Mosaic covenant was yet in force, and was the only covenantally sanctioned relationship between God and any people on earth. Mosaic legislation, along with the rest of the canonical Old Testament scripture was the most up-to-date revelation from God which instructed people in covenant piety and duties. Further, the temple was still in standing in Paul's day and the sacrifices were still being offered. In other words, this was a unique redemptive-historical period in a time where there was real covenantal overlap. That is not true today, and therefore I argue that Paul's advice in dealing with the struggle between the weak and the strong on holy days and diets, is historically and contextually conditioned and limited to the apostolic era.

Second, we must also bear in mind, that one reason this struggle between the "weak" and the "strong" was able to percolate as it did, was because of a lack of thorough and sustained apostolic teaching to help clarify what New Covenant piety and obligations were. The church at Rome was not founded by an apostle; it was most likely founded by Jews converted at Pentecost who took the gospel back home to Rome when the feast was over. There is no indication by the time of the writing of the letter to the Romans that any of the apostles had spent much time there teaching these Christians the distinctives of the New Covenant. So, bearing that in mind, Paul admonishes the "strong" to bear patiently with the "weak" and he admonishes the "weak" to not be haughty and sit in judgment on the "strong" who were simply acting in accordance with their conscience. However, once they did receive in-depth apostolic instruction in these matters, explaining how holy days and diets were covenantally conditioned duties prescribed for "the church under age" until Christ came and fulfilled their meaning and set them aside.

The bottom line is, Paul would admonish us to be sensitive to people who come to church who have a lot of spiritual baggage, whether that be temptations to engage in old sins which were technically speaking "matters of Christian liberty" but were used to the point of abuse and led to enslavement to sin, and people who grew up in various sects and cults and false religions. He would advise the "strong" not to use their Christian liberty in such a way that would lead these new converts to do things their conscience was not ready for. However, I firmly believe, he would advise the church to thoroughly instruct these new believers, and lead them into maturity. Beyond that, I do not believe he would have us allow people to entertain for a second that they are being pious by observing Old Covenant holy days or diets. In other words, we he would not tell contemporary Christians that they are free to get an opinion on these matters and be bound in conscience by the opinion that they must observe holy days and diets.

Well, those are my thoughts, please give this some thought and offer me some feedback.