this is an excerpt from a pdf online entitled Wine in the Bible and in the Church, by G.I. Williamson
Chapter Four - The Weaker Brother
"It is good" says the Apostle Paul "not to eat meat or to drink wine, or do anything
by which your brother stumbles" (Rom. 14:21). This statement is often quoted
by those who would make total abstinence a requirement for the Christian. They
argue that it is the duty of the strong to abstain out of deference to the weak. They
say, in other words, that even a careful and temperate use of wine contradicts this
apostolic principle. It is to this argument that we now direct our attention. We do so
by asking two important questions.
What does Paul mean by the weaker brother in this passage?
And what does he mean when he talks about causing this brother to stumble?
The fact is that Paul means something very different in this phrase "weaker
brother" from what the proponents of total abstinence mean. When they speak of a
weaker brother they mean someone who has a tendency to drink too much. A man
who has been an alcoholic, for example, and is now seeking to remain sober, by
practicing complete abstinence, would be a weaker brother as they use this phrase.
But the weaker brother in Paul's terminology is not a man who tends to drink too
much. To the contrary, he is a man who feels that it would be wrong to drink any
wine at all. He is a man who has a certain scruple of conscience. If certain kinds of
meat and wine were really evil per se, then it would not be necessary to speak of
such people as weaker brothers. But the fact is that there is no meat or wine that is
evil in itself. So the stronger brother is the one who recognizes that this is true. The
weaker brother is weaker because he is mistaken in his conviction. If he eats, or
drinks, he sins. The sin does not lie in the mere physical act of eating or drinking as
such. It lies in the fact that the weaker brother in eating or drinking has violated his
own conscience. For, as Paul says, "whatever is not from faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23).
Paul's definition of the weaker brother is therefore the exact opposite of that which
is propounded by the advocates of the total abstinence position. To put it precisely:
the weaker brother, in Paul's terminology, is someone who holds the total abstinence
position. His weakness is that he erroneously believes that drinking wine is a sin.
From this it can readily be seen that when Paul speaks of causing a brother to
stumble, he doesn't mean anything like the proponents of total abstinence. When
they say that we must not cause our brother to stumble, they simply mean that we
must not do anything that they do not like. We must not engage in any behavior
that is offensive to other believers. Or in other words we must never do anything
that other believers consider to be sin. Now this is not at all what Paul meant.
When he spoke of causing a brother to stumble, he meant an act on our part which
induces our brother to sin—encourages him to act against this scruple that he has
in his conscience. It may well be, of course, that what Paul is saying may—in certain
circumstances— dictate that we must not do something that is intrinsically
lawful. If a certain Christian has been an alcoholic, and now believes that any use
of wine for him would be the path of ruin, then other Christians must certainly
make this their concern. They must be careful that they do not act in such a way as
to encourage him to go against conscience. This does not mean that they must adopt
the rule of his conscience as law.
We can easily see this if we simply notice that Paul also speaks of the religious
observance of days (Rom. 14:6). It is a well-known fact that no day was observed in
the Apostolic Church, by divine commandment, except the Lord's Day (I Cor. 16:1,2;
Gal. 4:9-11). When the Judaizers attempted to impose the observance of other (additional)
days the Apostle strenuously objected (Gal. 4:9-11). Yet in this matter too
Paul had compassion for those who were weaker brothers. The weaker brother in
this instance was someone who felt obligated to observe these other days. (Think
of the Jew who still felt bound by conscience to observe the traditional Jewish feast
days!) The problem, again, was a misinformed conscience that went beyond the
law of the Lord. Does anyone think that Paul demanded that the strong conform to
the weak? No, the plain fact is that when the attempt was made to force such conformity
the Apostle severely denounced them. For it is one thing to receive the
weaker brother (Rom 14:1) and quite another to allow his weakness to be imposed
upon others as law (v. 4).
It was exactly the same with food. In Paul's day—as in ours - some people had
scruples of conscience against eating certain kinds of meat (pork, for example).
Wrong as they were in having this scruple, they were still to be received as brothers
(v. 3). The strong were not to try to induce them to eat against conviction of conscience.
Who would argue that it was the duty of the strong to conform to the
weak? Do the proponents of total abstinence themselves submit to such scruples?
No, the fact is that the very people who attempt to use this argument to force other
people to practice total abstinence, when it comes to wine, do not themselves practice
it when it comes to pork. It is small wonder! If Christians were obliged to abstain—
completely —from any food or drink that weaker brothers have, at one time
or another, and at one place or another, considered to be sinful, they would have
little to eat and drink. Why then should this passage be taken in this way with
respect to wine? The passage, after all, does not say that it is evil to eat meat or to
drink wine. It is only said that it is good not to eat meat or drink wine if it causes a
brother to stumble. The one concern of the entire passage is to teach us to avoid
anything that would induce a weaker brother to act against his own conscience.
When Paul says "it is good for a man not to touch a woman" (I Cor. 7:1) he
does not mean that sexual intercourse is inherently wrong. To the contrary, in
order to avoid sexual immorality he recommends it—by telling us that each
man is to have his own wife and each woman her own husband, if they do not
have the gift of continency. The opposite of sexual immorality is not necessarily
celibacy. To say that total (sexual) abstinence is good, is not at all the same as to
say that lawful indulgence is evil. Quite the contrary: while complete abstinence
may be best for some, a proper indulgence is better for others. Indeed, for
most people the expedient thing is not abstinence but lawful use. Yet this is the
distinction that the proponents of prohibition ignore. They condemn the use of
wine, even in moderation, on the grounds that it could cause another person to
stumble. It is interesting to observe that some people in the ancient Church did
exactly the same thing with respect to marriage. Because the Scripture says "it is
good for a man not to touch a woman" they began to require people to practice
celibacy (I Tim. 4:3). Like present-day advocates of total abstinence, they sought
to make a scruple of their own conscience binding on everyone else. But Paul,
speaking prophetically, brands their teaching as coming from deceitful spirits,
and as the devil's doctrine, not Christ's (v. 1). He does not praise their conviction
of conscience, but rather describes their consciences as having been seared
with a branding iron (v. 2). In forbidding marriage, and commanding abstinence
from certain foods, they really impugned the handiwork of God (v. 3,4).
For God has created all these things to be received with thanksgiving, by those
who believe and know the truth.
It is the same with wine. Those who seek to impose their scruple of conscience
on others usurp the authority of Christ. Paul teaches us to resist them.
"The faith which you have" he says "have as your own conviction before God"
(Rom. 14:22).
No comments:
Post a Comment