|
Forums118
Topics9,224
Posts196,102
Members1,325
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
5 registered members (dedication, Karen Y, 3 invisible),
2,231
guests, and 8
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
Re: Lesson #13 - All the Rest Is COMMENTARY
[Re: Daryl]
#127640
09/19/10 03:49 PM
09/19/10 03:49 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
It won't be easy to explain what is said in these chapters. This is the common opinion, from a commentary: In this chapter Paul is dealing with what may have been a temporary and local problem in the Roman Church, but is also one continually confronting the Church and always demanding solution. In the Church at Rome there were apparently two lines of thought. There were some who believed that in Christian liberty the old tabus were gone; they believed that the old food laws were now irrelevant; they believed that Christianity did not consist in the special observance of any one day or days. Paul makes it clear that this in fact is the standpoint of real Christian faith. On the other hand, there were those who were full of scruples; they believed that it was wrong to eat meat; they believed in the rigid observance of the Sabbath tyranny. Paul calls the ultra-scrupulous man the man who is weak in the faith.
|
 Reply
 Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #13 - All the Rest Is COMMENTARY
[Re: Rosangela]
#127641
09/19/10 05:17 PM
09/19/10 05:17 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
If this passage had to do with OT clean/unclean laws, why were some abstaining completely from meat? This would not make any sense.
Besides, why does Paul mention "wine"? We know that there was no prohibition in the OT about wine, but just an instruction for a temporary abstention from it during the Nazarite vow (and the Nazarite vow was voluntary and optional, not obligatory). So this couldn't be the reason why the weak brethren were being offended.
OTOH, we know that wine was used in libations in pagan worship, so this makes things a little clearer.
Now let's examine a parallel passage in 1 Cor. 8:
"Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. ... However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse. But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble" (1 Cor. 8:4-13).
Parallels between Rom. 14 and 1 Cor. 8:
Rom. 14:1 We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak
1 Cor. 8:9 Only take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.
Rom. 14:21 It is right not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble.
1 Cor. 8:13 Therefore, if food is a cause of my brother's falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall.
Rom. 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not food and drink
1 Cor. 8:8 Food will not commend us to God.
Rom. 14:15 If your brother is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died.
1 Cor. 8:11 And so by your knowledge this weak man is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died.
So, this parallel passage makes a couple of things clear:
1) Paul definitely is not speaking of OT food laws, but of foods sacrificed to idols, and
2) The weak brother is the brother who is easily offended, or who can easily stumble (abandon the faith).
So the context of Paul's discussion is this: both meat and wine were commonly offered to idols in the Roman world, with portions of those offerings then sold in the marketplace. Some Christians wondered if it was morally right for Christians to partake of such meat and wine that had previously been sacrificed to pagan gods (Rom. 14:21). In view of the impossibility to know which meats had been sacrificed to idols, some were abstaining completely from meat (Rom. 14:2).
Paul explained that "an idol is nothing" (1 Corinthians 8:4) in clarifying that it was permissible to eat meats that had been sacrificed to an idol. Paul continued: "However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled" (v. 7).
When a believer bought meat in the market or was invited to a dinner at which meat was served, it was not necessary to determine whether it had been offered to an idol (1 Cor. 10:25-27). But Paul’s concern was that the brethren be considerate of others who believed differently. He taught that in such cases it was better not to eat meat than to risk causing offense (1 Corinthians 8:13; 10:28).
It is interesting to note that in Acts 14:13, the only passage in which the type of animal sacrificed to idols is mentioned, it was oxen -clean animals- that were about to be offered.
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
Re: Lesson #13 - All the Rest Is COMMENTARY
[Re: Rosangela]
#127644
09/20/10 07:38 AM
09/20/10 07:38 AM
|
Active Member 2011
3500+ Member
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,965
Sweden
|
|
It won't be easy to explain what is said in these chapters.
At least it wont be easy to explain from a standard adventist point of view.. This is the common opinion, from a commentary: In this chapter Paul is dealing with what may have been a temporary and local problem in the Roman Church, but is also one continually confronting the Church and always demanding solution. In the Church at Rome there were apparently two lines of thought. There were some who believed that in Christian liberty the old tabus were gone; they believed that the old food laws were now irrelevant; they believed that Christianity did not consist in the special observance of any one day or days. Paul makes it clear that this in fact is the standpoint of real Christian faith. On the other hand, there were those who were full of scruples; they believed that it was wrong to eat meat; they believed in the rigid observance of the Sabbath tyranny. Paul calls the ultra-scrupulous man the man who is weak in the faith.
Galatians 2
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
It is so hazardous to take here a little and there a little. If you put the right little's together you can make the bible teach anything you wish. //Graham Maxwell
|
|
Reply
Quote
|
|
|
|
|
