Romans: Christian Duty, Authority, and Brotherly Peace

The Lord's Supper - Part 9

Transcript: AI Transcript

Professor: John Weaver

Subject: New Testament Studies

Genre: Sermon

Dictation Name:

Date: 2006-03-26

Synopsis: In this ninth sermon on the Lord's Supper, John Weaver addresses objections to using real wine in communion. He argues that sin does not reside in matter (like alcohol) but in the human heart, refuting Greek dualism. He clarifies the biblical concept of the 'weaker brother' from Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8, showing it refers to those with an uninformed conscience who abstain, not former drunkards. He also examines the Rechabites in Jeremiah 35, demonstrating that their abstinence was not a universal command. Finally, he traces the historical shift from wine to grape juice in churches to Dr. Thomas Welch and the temperance movement, asserting that the original institution by Christ should be maintained.

[John Weaver] The message you are about to hear was produced by Dominion Ministry. If you would like to support this ministry by becoming a sermon partner or obtain additional high-resolution CDs, DVDs, or MP3s featuring the teaching of Pastor John Weaver, please visit the Dominion Ministry website at www.dominion.org. www.dominionministry.com. This ministry is completely supported by donations and it is through those donations that we are able to provide sermons for sermonaudio.com. Please visit our website at www.dominionministry.com to subscribe or make your donation today. Thank you.

[John Weaver] 1 Corinthians chapter 11, let's begin reading with verse 20, and we'll read just several verses and then begin. When you are come together, therefore, to one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper, for in eating every one taketh before others his own supper, and one is hungry and another is drunken. What have you not houses to eat and drink in, or despise you the church of God, and shame them that have not?

[John Weaver] What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. And when he had given thanks, he breaketh and said, Take ye, this is my body, which is broken for you, this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had stopped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood. This do you as often as you drink it in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do show the Lord's Especially for those who are visiting with us today, let me just simply say that I have been preaching on the series on the Lord's Supper, and this will be the ninth week in a row, and hopefully, Lord willing, next week will be the final week on this subject, and then we'll be moving on to several other things.

[John Weaver] But I want to take just a moment and review, and especially for those who are visiting today, We've looked at the names of the Lord's Supper in the Bible. We've looked at its significance under the heading of the different kinds of meals that are mentioned in the Bible. And, of course, then we looked at the partakers of it, which was two particular messages in itself. Then we looked at the reproof that the Apostle Paul gave. And then, of course, we began to look at the elements.

[John Weaver] Now, I've been dealing with this subject on the elements for the last several weeks because I told you it was probably one of the most controversial parts of this series. We understood, of course, from the Bible that the bread was unleavened bread. That's no problem. But then I tried to share with you and showed you from the Bible that I believe that the liquid in the cup was not grape juice, but it was wine. And, of course, that was what they drank at the Passover.

[John Weaver] That is what our Lord instituted the Lord's Supper with. So then we began to look at the usage of wine in the Bible. And I pointed out, and I want to do that again today, there's a vast difference between a social use of alcohol and the religious use of alcohol. And when you get to the social use of alcohol, that falls in the area of Christian liberty. And as long as you do not misuse or abuse it, you may be free to have a glass of wine, but you're also free not to have a glass of wine as well.

[John Weaver] But when it came to the offerings, for instance in Leviticus 23 verse 13 and Numbers chapter 15 verses 5 and 10, where God demanded a fourth or a half of a henna wine with the offerings, the priest could not substitute. In other words, here was a religious use of wine.

[John Weaver] Now, I'm going to be dealing with this phrase next week because I'm going to be dealing with the vow of the Nazarite. and the abstinence of the priest when he was in the tabernacle and in the temple. But let me point out the fact when our Lord said in Luke chapter 22 and verse 18, I will drink no more the fruit of the vine until I drink it anew with you in the kingdom of my Father.

[John Weaver] And that is an autonomy. That is where the substance of a matter is put for the thing itself. We looked at that in Genesis 49 and other passages of the Bible. We saw even where fir trees was a metonymy for lances. The fruit of the body or the fruit of the womb, of course, is a metonymy for the child or the children or an heir. So it is indeed a metonymy. Now, last week we looked very closely at the Bible under this heading, why its condemnation and its commendation. We went through the Bible and showed you where any and every abuse and misuse of alcohol was condemned over and over. And it's not just drunkenness that is condemned. It is indeed the misuse and abuse of it.

[John Weaver] You can misuse it by making other people drunk for immoral and wicked purposes as Habakkuk chapter 2 points out and for Joel chapter 3 where they were selling a boy for a harlot and a girl for a glass of wine. All of this is condemned in the Bible. But then we look at its commendation, and there are many passages in the Bible that commend wine, and I showed you the way in which that wine was commended.

[John Weaver] Now, the interesting thing is this. The same Hebrew words that are used concerning wine or alcohol, like kimer, tirash, yagin, whatever, When it is dealing with the condemnation of alcohol, the same words are used in the commendation of alcohol, so we're talking about the same substance.

[John Weaver] Now, let me just simply say this, that my position in all of this is I want to be exceedingly biblical. I want to condemn that which God condemns, and I want to commend that which God commends. I cannot condemn that which God commends, nor can I commend that which God condemns. So I pointed out that the biblical position is simply this. We must view wine, or alcohol if you want to use it as that, as a gift and blessing from God only as it is used the way that he commands and the way that he commends. and any abuse and misuse of wine must be despised and detested and these two positions must be held simultaneously. And then of course last week I pointed out in 1 Corinthians 3 and in 1 Timothy chapter 6 how that only God's people can in reality use anything biblically and scripturally anyhow because of the grace of God that is in us.

[John Weaver] Now today what I want to do is this, I still want to deal with some objections and some questions in regard to this matter of using wine, real alcoholic wine, in the Lord's Supper. I'm not talking about going out to a bar, I'm not talking about having a bottle of wine in your home, I'm talking about using wine in the Lord's Supper.

[John Weaver] Now, let me begin by emphasizing the first point. I hinted upon this last week, I hinted at it, but today I want to develop it. I want you to understand that sin does not exist in matter. Let me say that again. Sin does not exist in matter. People have referred to alcohol as the devil's juice. They say it's wicked, it's wrong, it's ungodly. Certainly it has been abused and misused many times, and the people who do misuse and abuse it are wicked and ungodly. But whenever you locate evil or sin in anything material, then you've fallen into Greek philosophy.

[John Weaver] You're not following the Bible teaching. The Greeks taught a system of dualism. In Greek philosophy, they had a dichotomy, they had a distinction between matter and spirit, or soul and body. And so they viewed matter then as inherently wicked, inherently evil, and only the mind or the soul then was exceedingly pure. Thus you have, because of this false Greek philosophy, you have the rise in Christendom of all these sects and cults. You have the rise of the Gnostics, the Pietists, the Ascetics, the Monasteries, the nunneries, all of these were based upon Greek dualism, not upon the Word of God. Do you remember why those monks many times in those monasteries would beat themselves with whips and cut themselves and make their body to suffer? Because they thought their body was inherently evil. And they were trying to drive the evil out of their bodies so that they could be cured in body and in soul as well. So, if the body, or if the earth, or any kind of matter is inherently evil, then according to Greek philosophy, it must be purged, it must be avoided, it must be despised.

[John Weaver] Now, let me just tell you something that may not interest you, but I hope that it will interest you. I remember when I was in college, I had a class in philosophy. And especially when we've got to talk about Plato and Socrates and Diogenes and all these men. And I sat in that class and I thought, this is the dumbest stuff I've ever heard in my life. Why do I need to know anything about Greek philosophy? Why do I need to know anything about Roman philosophy? And I had a little agenda when I was in college.

[John Weaver] Those courses that I loved. I made A's in. Those courses that I hated, I made sure that I made an A in because I didn't want to have to repeat it. Well, I hated philosophy until I got out of college and I started reading the scripture and I found out that there is indeed a biblical philosophy. By the way, Phileo is the Greek word for love. Philosophy. Sophia is the Greek word for wisdom. The word philosophy just means a lover of wisdom. God is wisdom incarnate, so therefore he is the chief philosopher. So if you despise philosophy, you despise God. But once you begin to see how heathenistic or humanistic philosophy has intertwined itself in Christianity. You can see the perversion in Christianity and how there has been changes all down through the centuries.

[John Weaver] Now, when I understood that, I then saw the importance of understanding philosophy. Neoplatonism, the word neo means new, and it's from Plato. Platonism, it just simply means the new teaching of Platonism. And that is very prevalent and very prominent today, and it is the mixture then of this Greek dialectical dualism which pits the spirit against the flesh and the body, and the soul against mind and matter.

[John Weaver] Now, it crept into the church in the 2nd century AD through the root of Gnosticism. Now let me just tell you a little bit about Gnosticism. It's based on the Greek word gnosis, which means to know. The Gnostics basically taught salvation through a secret knowledge. That's why you have all these secret cults today. They're nothing but Gnostic cults, is what it amounts to. But the Gnostics were a heretical group, and they viewed matter as inherently evil.

[John Weaver] Well, they had a real problem. If God created the world, and the world is made out of matter, then the world must be evil. And if God created the body, and the body is made out of matter, then the body must be evil. Well, their problem was this, how could a holy God create that which was evil? And so some of the Gnostics then developed a system of demiurges, or what you and I would call semi-creators. So they say, that the one true and the living God created a demiurge under him who was not pure spirit like himself, had some matter in him, and the second demiurge created a third, the third created a fourth, the fourth created the fifth, the fifth created the sixth, the sixth created the seventh, and the seventh happened to be Jesus Christ, and the seventh then created the world. So, they're removing God, then, from his creation because they believe that matter is inherently evil.

[John Weaver] Now, I want you to understand something. This led to a number of very vile and wicked applications. For instance, those Gnostics who were known as Docetics, and it's from the Greek word doceo, which means to appear, or I appear, the Dochetic Gnostics said that Jesus Christ was not real. That he was merely a divine apparition. Why would they say that Jesus Christ was not real? Because matter is inherently evil. So he could not have a real body.

[John Weaver] That's why John wrote 1 John 1, and when he said, we have seen him, we've handled him, and we've touched him. In other words, he is real, he is genuine, he does have a body. So that was the docetics. So the docetics, they got around it by saying that Christ was not even a real human being. And you'll find the book of Colossians, as well as the book of 1 John, is written directly against Gnosticism. But then there were the Corinthians as well. And the Corinthians were the individuals who took this then. They said, well, look, if matter is inherently evil, and it is, and the mind and the spirit is that which is pure, well, we can't get rid of the body, so we might as well eat, drink, and be married, for tomorrow we die.

[John Weaver] We'll just indulge the flesh and get into everything known to man. You see, you had all these divergent philosophies. You had people in the second century who claimed to be Christians, who abused and misused their bodies on down through there. I could give you illustration after illustration. There was a man by the name of Simon Stilide who climbed up on a pillow and stayed there for about 20 years. Just up on the rock.

[John Weaver] He was purging his body. Let me give you one illustration. Rush Dooney, in his book, Flight from Humanity, gives an excellent illustration. And by the way, it's not a very thick book, it's a little paperback. R.J. Rush Dooney's Flight from Humanity. If you want to understand Neoplatonism, you need to read that book. Here is an account that he gives of how biblical Christianity got mixed up with Platonism, Greek philosophy, and you can see the horrible consequences.

[John Weaver] I'm going to just quote two paragraphs. He says, for a Christian, the lives of the saints are sometimes painful reading. Intelligence and faith are sometimes wedded to the most ludicrous practices and to ideas alien to biblical religion. And here's the example he gives. When after a very hot journey, Jovenus washed his tired feet and hands in very cold water, and then stretched out to rest, the holy Melania rebuked him. Melania approached him as a wise mother approaching her own son, and she scoffed at his weakness, saying, How can a warm-blooded young man like you dare to pamper your flesh that way?

[John Weaver] Do you not know that this is a source of much harm? Look, I am sixty years old, and neither have my feet, nor my face, nor any of my members except for the tips of my fingers have touched water, although I am afflicted with many ailments and my doctors urge me. I have not yet made concessions to my bodily desires, nor have I used accounts for resting, nor have I ever made a journey on a litter." Sixty years old and never took a bath.

[John Weaver] Rush Duny's got one more sentence. He says, we learn nothing about biblical holiness from millennia, although we do begin to realize what the odor of sanctity might mean. Well, why would a 60-year-old woman not take a bath? Why would she not rest her body? Because she thought that that body was inherently evil, and she was not going to do anything that would pamper the evil. Now listen to me folks, matter is not inherently evil. What does that mean? That means alcohol is not inherently evil. There is nothing evil in and of itself.

[John Weaver] Look in your Bibles to Matthew 15 and I want you to see the clear teaching of our Lord. Look what he said in Matthew chapter 15. Matthew 15 beginning with verse 15. Then answered Peter, and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable." Matthew 15 verse 16, Jesus said, Are you also yet without understanding?

[John Weaver] Now look what he says, Do you not yet understand that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the drunk? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart, and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed what? Evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands defiles not a man. So when our Lord says, do you not understand that which enters into the mouth and goeth into the body? That's not what defiles a man. It's that which comes out of the heart. In other words, it is the heart that is sinful and wicked and ungodly.

[John Weaver] You see, if you say that alcohol is evil in and of itself, then you have to throw out all of our medicines because they're alcohol based. You'd have to throw out all your herbal tinctures because you have to have alcohol to make an herbal tincture. You'd have to throw out all of your homoeopathic medicine because you have to have alcohol for that. You see what I'm saying? If you postulate that alcohol is evil in and of itself, then you could not taste it, touch it, or take it in any shape, form, or fashion without taking sin into your body. Which is absolutely ridiculous. Now listen to this. Alcohol does not make drunkards. Let me say it again. Alcohol does not make drunkards any more than guns make murderers and spoons make obesity. You follow me? The sin is in man.

[John Weaver] It's not in that which is material. It is not that which is matter. Sin is in the heart of man. It's man's rebellious, wicked, ungodly heart that always abuses and misuses everything. It is man and his rebellion against God. The answer is not prohibition, but regeneration and conversion. Did Prohibition stop drunkenness in 1919, 1920? No. The 18th Amendment never stopped drunkenness. There were more drunks and more alcohol sold then than ever before.

[John Weaver] One of my dear friends was a godly Christian woman and she had a husband who was unsaved. You can't cut it any other way. He was a drunk.

[John Weaver] Now, when I say he was a drunk, that doesn't mean that he stayed drunk all the time. He did not. But about once a month, he had to pitch himself a good drunk. Other than that, he was a wonderful provider. He was a lovable, likable, amiable individual. He would give you the shirt off his back. You enjoyed being around him, except, of course, when he was drunk.

[John Weaver] And one day I was talking with his wife trying to encourage her. And she knew better, but she said, Pastor. He is such a good man. If he would just quit drinking, everything would be all right. I looked at her and I said, how can you say that? The problem is not his drinking. The problem is his wicked heart. If he quit drinking today, his wicked heart would find another avenue to abuse and misuse and pervert something. You follow me? You get the heart right and everything else turns out right as well.

[John Weaver] So sin does not exist in anything material. It does not exist in anything that is made of the matter. Sin is in the heart of man. It's our rebellion Our wickedness, our ungodliness. The second thing I want to cover today is this. Alcohol and the weaker brother. I want you to turn in your Bibles to Romans chapter 14. Romans 14. And we're going to look at this passage and you might want to go ahead and find 1 Corinthians chapter 8.

[John Weaver] Because we'll be turning there as well. Romans 14. Now, there is a passage that most people really take out of context, and that is Romans 14 and verse 21. When the Apostle Paul said, It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made Now look at that, it is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything where thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

[John Weaver] Now this passage is often quoted by individuals who say, well the Bible demands total abstinence. Well, I've pointed out before, the Bible does not demand total abstinence. The Bible demands, let your moderation be known unto all men. And there is certainly a religious use of wine in the Bible. But this statement is usually quoted by those who are trying to make total abstinence a requirement for every Christian.

[John Weaver] They argue that it is the duty of the strong to abstain out of deference to the weak. In other words, they are saying that even a very careful and a temperate use of wine contradicts the apostolic principle in Romans 14 and verse 21. Well, you've got to ask yourself two questions. The first one, look at it. He said, it is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Now, the first thing you've got to ask is what is the weaker brother or who is the weaker brother?

[John Weaver] And what does it mean to cause him to stumble or to cause him to offend? Now, I want you to note something, and I'm going to show it to you in this passage, but I would encourage you to read all of this chapter when you get home. You see, in Romans 14 and in 1 Corinthians chapter 8, Paul means something entirely different when he talks about the weaker brother than those who are teaching total abstinence what they mean by the weaker brother. Now, what they mean is this.

[John Weaver] Here's someone, say, just been recently converted. I'm going to use Doc. He's sitting close to me. Let's suppose that Doc used to be a drunkard. Thankfully, he never has been, but let's suppose he used to be a drunkard. Now God saves him. And now they say, we cannot use wine in the Lord's Supper, period, because it's going to set him off and he's trying to stay free. And he's trying to totally abstain from alcohol, and if we give him any, then boy, it's going to set him off again and he'll end up being a drunkard.

[John Weaver] That is their understanding of a weaker brother. The weaker brother in Romans chapter 14 and 1 Corinthians chapter 8 is not the man who tends to drink too much. The weaker brother in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians chapter 8 is the one who will not drink at all. He's the total abstainer. Look at it. Verse 1, him that is weak in the faith receive you, but not the doubtful disputations. For one believer that he may eat all things, help me out now, another who is weak eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not, let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth, for God hath received him."

[John Weaver] Now, I want you to note something. The man in Romans 14, and the man in 1 Corinthians chapter 8, the weaker brother is an individual who has a scruple of conscience. And his scruple of conscience is that meats and wines are evil in and of themselves. So therefore he is not going to eat any of it or drink any of it because he believes that it is inherently evil in and of itself. It is the stronger brother that recognizes that this is not true. The weaker brother is the weaker brother because of his unscriptural convictions and his unbiblical thinking. He believes that if he eats or if he drinks, then it is sin. Now, I want you to listen to this. I'm going to show it to you from the Bible in just a moment.

[John Weaver] It is not the act of eating or drinking that is sin that Paul is dealing with right here. But the sin comes in that he eats and drinks against his conscience without faith. Look at Romans 14 in verse 23. And he that doubteth is damned, or condemned if he eat. Why? Because he eateth not of faith, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

[John Weaver] Now, the point I'm trying to make is this. In this passage, the weaker brother is the one who will not drink at all. He will not eat meat at all. Look in verse 2 again. For one believeth that he may eat all things. That's the strong brother. Another who is weak eateth only herbs. He's the vegetarian. But I want you to note something. It is not a health issue. It is a religious issue. Skip down, if you would please, to verse 14. Look what the Apostle Paul says, Romans 14, verse 14.

[John Weaver] I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself. Is there anything unclean of itself? No. Is anything sinful in and of itself? No. But look what he says. But to him that esteemed anything to be unclean, him it is unclean. In other words, if he's got a scruple of conscience that is sinful, for him to go against that conscience, of course, would be wrong.

[John Weaver] But he is classified here as the weaker brother. Look in verse 20. He says, for meat destroy not the work of God, Help me out now. All things indeed are what? Pure. But it is evil for that man who eateth with offense.

[John Weaver] Now, is the eating and drinking wrong? No. Is having a glass of wine wrong? Is it sinful in and of itself? No. But if I have a scruple of conscience and I say that wine is evil and I believe that wine is evil and then I take it that I've sinned. And when I say that, I'm the weaker brother in this passage. The weaker brother here is the one who abstains from everything.

[John Weaver] That's why the Bible says, Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Now, notice if you would, he said in verse 22, Hast thou faith? Lord, you know better. Have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he allows.

[John Weaver] Now, please, please, don't take what I'm saying out of context. I'm not talking about the social use of wine right now, okay? But I am talking about the religious use of wine, and the Bible says, happy is the man that condemneth not himself, and that thing which he loveth. In other words, if he understands, if he knows the truth, his conscience is not going to condemn him, period. Now, the point I'm trying to make is this.

[John Weaver] The weaker brother in this passage, and in 1 Corinthians chapter 8, is the one who that believes eating certain meats and drinking wine is a sin in and of itself. It's not that this man has a propensity to drink. It's not that he fears in turning into a drunkard. No, no, no. He just believes it's wicked and wrong in and of himself. So he says that wine is sin in and of itself, and therefore he's classified as the weaker brother.

[John Weaver] Notice if you would in verse 21. Paul said, it is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or made weak. Now, verse 21 does not advocate abstaining from meat or abstaining from drinking wine. He just simply says it's good not to do either one of these things. if it's going to cause your brother to stumble, or offend, or to be made weak. In other words, according to verse 22, if you look at verse 22, if you want to exercise your liberty, when you're not around the weaker brother, have at it, he said, hast thou faith, have it thyself before God, happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. Now, let's go back to verse 21, because he said, It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or made weak." First of all, the word stumble. The word stumble is from the Greek word proskopto.

[John Weaver] Pros means to or toward, and kopto means to strike or to hit the foot. So when you strike or hit the foot, it causes you to stumble. That is, you are impeded in your journey. You're not walking uprightly. And so the Apostle Paul is using this word as anything that would hinder someone, so to speak, in their divine life. Anything that causes him to halt or to stumble or to slow him down. So that's the word in there for stumble. Then he said the word or offend. Now the word offend here is from the Greek word skandalon. It's where we get our English word scandal.

[John Weaver] Now a skandalon was the wooden stake on a trap that the animal triggered when he went into the trap and he got caught. So to scandalize someone means that they are ensnared, they are entrapped, so to speak. And so Paul says, you better not ensnare someone or cause them to be entrapped, so to speak. And then he says, or is made weak. And the Greek word here is astene, which means without strength or mental vigor, unable to distinguish between right and wrong and clean and unclean. In other words, it talks about someone who has an erroneous judgment or an erroneous conscience. Now, I gave you all those words to tell you this, that the word offend is grossly misunderstood and misapplied today. Usually we interpret the word offend and make it to mean something that upsets someone or something that makes them mad. When someone comes up to you and says, that offends me.

[John Weaver] Let me translate what they're saying. I don't like what you're doing. Stop it. That's what they mean. I had a woman come to me one time, this was years ago, and I grew my beard because of what the Bible teaches concerning a beard, and I've had this beard. Did you ever see me without a beard? And she's more than 21. No, I've probably had this beard 35 years or longer. But I had a woman come up to me one time and tell me, Brother Weaver, your beard offends me.

[John Weaver] I just smiled and then broke out laughing. I said, ma'am, there's no way in the world my beard can offend you because you couldn't do what I'm doing even if you had my knowledge. You see, I just gave a biblical explanation of the word offend. The word offend means basically to encourage a weak brother to do what you're doing without his having your knowledge. Look in your Bibles to 1 Corinthians chapter 8. And by the way, once again, this passage deals with the weak and the strong.

[John Weaver] In verse 4, he says, as concerning, therefore, the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, We know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is none other God but one. Now, let me just stop there. Let me tell you what some Christians were doing in the Corinthian church. They would get invited to a feast in an idol's temple. And they'd go in and eat and drink the wine and eat the steak. Because they ate and drank it as unto God and not unto the idol. And they understood that that idol had absolutely no influence whatsoever on that meat. But there were some who used to worship that idol. And they thought that somehow that meat was influenced by that idol.

[John Weaver] Now, those are the ones that are weak brethren here in this chapter. Now, wait a minute. When you get to 1 Corinthians 9, he talks about that which is sold in the shambles that eat. What was the shambles? The shambles was the discount meat market. It was right by the idol's temple. In other words, they couldn't use all the meat. The priest couldn't use all the meat and so they would sell it at a discount.

[John Weaver] So instead of you paying $4 a pound for T-bone steaks. You can go to the shambles and get a good wonderful steak for about $50 a pound. And some of these young or weaker Christians are like, how can you do that? How can you eat that meat? That meat has been offered to idols.

[John Weaver] Now, watch what he says. 1 Corinthians 8, verse 4. As concerning, therefore, the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, look what Paul says.

[John Weaver] Now, he's a strong brother. We know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is none other God but one. What's a strong man have? He has knowledge. Watch. Verse 5, For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or earth, as there be gods many and lords many, but to us, that is to those who know the truth, but to us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him.

[John Weaver] Now look what he says, this will take some explanation. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge. When he says, how be it there is not in every man or in every Christian that knowledge, he is not saying that there are some Christians who do not know that there's only one God and one Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. What he's saying is there's not in every Christian the knowledge that that idol has absolutely no influence on that knee whatsoever.

[John Weaver] Here's how I get that. Watch in verse 7. For some with conscience, and the word there is literally synatheia, for some with habit or custom of the idol under this hour, eat it as a thing offered unto idol, watch, and their conscience being what? Weak, is defended. Or is it vile?

[John Weaver] Now, what am I saying? So here's the weak man, who may be in times past, before he was convergent, he worshipped at that idol's temple. And he thought that that idol had some influence on that meat. And now, if he goes against his conscience and eats that meat, he says, hmm, I'm sinning against God because that idol has some kind of influence on this meat. Well, Look in verse 10, here's what he's saying. In fact, let's read verse 8. But meek commended us not to God, for neither if we eat are we the better, neither if we eat not are we the worse. But take heed, lest by any means this liberty of yours, notice it's a liberty, become a stumbling block to them that are weak. For if any man, we're talking about the weak brother now, not just any man, for if any weak brother see thee which hast knowledge, you're the strong brother, sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to

[John Weaver] idols." Ah. In other words, it is the strong who has the knowledge, it is the weak who are ignorant, and the weak will see the strong man doing something and he says, oh, well if he can do it, I can do it. But the problem is, he does not have the knowledge that the strong man has. And he goes ahead and does it. And therefore he wounds his conscience.

[John Weaver] Now, let me ask this question. How can I not cause a weak brother to stumble? How can I not cause a weak brother to stumble? First, I could show him and teach him the truth according to the Word of God. If he understood the truth, he would no longer be a weak brother, would he? He would have my knowledge, or he would have the knowledge of the word of God. If he refused the truth, he's not just a weak brother, he's a rebellious brother. You got it? Secondly, I am not causing a weak brother to stumble if I do not encourage him to go contrary to his conscience, even though his conscience may be misinformed. In other words, if Doc is my weak brother, and I know what that weakness is, and I don't encourage him to go contrary to that weakness, then I haven't caused him to stumble. I haven't offended him. I haven't made him weak.

[John Weaver] Now if I exercise my liberty somewhere else, hey, that's my business. That's not his business. But I have not offended him. I have not made him to stumble. You see that?

[John Weaver] Now remember what I told you last week. I can never surrender the principle of liberty. But I gave you three reasons in the Bible why we could forego the lawful exercise of our liberty. I don't have to eat meat. That's what Paul said. Meat doesn't make me a better Christian. It doesn't make me any less of a Christian. I don't have to eat meat. I don't have to drink wine. That's what he's saying.

[John Weaver] Why would you upset someone? Why would you tear something up over something so simple? So, as long as I'm not encouraging him to go contrary to his weak conscience, it doesn't matter what I do, I'm not offending him. I'm not causing him to stumble. Look in Romans 14 in verse 3. Go back there very quickly. I'm still dealing with 1 Corinthians 8. But look in Romans 14 in verse 3. He says this. Romans 14 verse 3.

[John Weaver] Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not. And let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth, for God hath received him.

[John Weaver] Now let me show you the problem that we have. You see, God gives obligations to the weak brother and obligations to the strong brother. It is the tendency of the strong to despise the weak. For the strong to look down at Doc and say, Oh Doc, come on, don't be a baby. Come on, grow up. What is that? That's an attitude of despising where he is. But if he looked at me and said, I don't see how you can do that and be a Christian.

[John Weaver] You must not be saved. Now what's he doing? He's judging me. So God says let not the strong despise the weak and let not the weak judge the strong. So if I exercise my liberty when he's not around, he has no right to judge me because I'm not encouraging him to go contrary to his conscience. Thirdly, If I continue to exercise my liberty and warn him not to violate his conscience, I still have not caused him to stumble. I've still not offended him.

[John Weaver] How can I say that? Well, if he goes contrary to his conscience with me encouraging him not to, that's his sin, not mine. I'm responsible for my actions, not his. Do you follow me? The word offend in the context of Romans 14 and in the context of 1 Corinthians chapter 8 means that you encourage someone to do what you're doing without them having your knowledge. And they think that what you're doing is somehow sinful and wrong and wicked.

[John Weaver] When in reality, it is not. their conscience is just misinformed. Okay?

[John Weaver] Now, before I proceed any further, I want to deal with one of the main objections, I've already ended at it, of using wine in the Lord's Supper. So many people take this weak brother argument to the absolute extreme. They don't only take it to the extreme, they take it to an unbiblical extreme. For example, they would say that the weak brother is a former drunkard and that they're afraid that if he tastes wine in the Lord's Supper that it's going to set him off and drive him back into being a drunkard. First of all, I want you to see in that position they're viewing wine as evil in and of itself when it is not. It is not the wine, it is the wicked heart. Okay? Matter is not inherently evil. Sin is not in matter, sin is in the heart.

[John Weaver] Secondly, stop and think about it. That position teaches that sin is greater, stronger, and more powerful than the grace of God. If the grace of God was great enough and sufficient enough to bring him out of his sin, is not the grace of God sufficient enough to keep him from returning to his sin? If there has been genuine and true repentance, there could not possibly be a turning back.

[John Weaver] Third, inherent in that position is a denial of the power of the Holy Spirit. If we have been sealed under the day of our redemption, as the Word of God says in the book of Ephesians, can the Holy Spirit not keep those who are committed to his trust? What about 1 John 4.4? Is it not true? Greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world. Is not 1 John 3 and verse 9 true? Whosoever is born of God cannot sin, that is, he does not continually commit sin. Why? For his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, that is, he cannot continually sin. Why? Because he has been begotten of God.

[John Weaver] It's the grace and the mercy of God that keeps us from going back. You say, ah, but Pastor, and I want you to turn to 1 John 2, I can quote it, but I want you to see it. Turn to verse John 2. You say, oh, but pastor, I know of someone who was a professing Christian. And boy, he went back and boy, one taste set him off and today he's just a drunkard. Well, if that is so, you need to read first John 2 and verse 19. Look what John said. They went out from us. They left us. Why?

[John Weaver] But they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us. But they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. What did John say? If you left us, you never was one of us to begin with. The Lord's salvation was not there. The grace of God was never there. You've got to remember, folks, there are people who reform themselves.

[John Weaver] Our Lord spoke about that. The man who cast the demon out of himself, so to speak, and the demon left. And what happened? He came back and found his house swept and garnished, and he took seven spirits more wicked than himself with him when he went back in. No. You see, the truth of the matter is those who have been saved, according to Jude 1 and verse 1, are preserved in Jesus Christ.

[John Weaver] There's no such thing as a Christian drunkard. There's no such thing as a Christian Prostitute. You follow me? If the grace of God is in you and the power of the Holy Spirit has sealed you, you are not going to return to your sin and your wickedness. That's all there is to it.

[John Weaver] Now, let me cover one other thing before I close today, and that is the case of the Rechabites. And I can deal with this very quickly. Look in your Bibles to Jeremiah 35. Jeremiah 35. Because the Rechabites are mentioned many times by the prohibitionists in saying that, boy, here are our examples. Well, look in verses six and seven. In fact, let's read verse five. Jeremiah 35, verse five, And I said before the sons of the house of the Rechabites, pots full of wine and cups, And I said to them, drink ye wine. But they said, we will drink no wine. For Jonadab, the son of Rechab, our father, commanded us, saying, You shall drink no wine, neither ye nor your sons, for ever. Neither shall you build houses, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any.

[John Weaver] But all your days you shall dwell in tents, that you may live many days in the land wherein you are strangers. Thus have we obeyed the voice of Jonadab, the son of Rechab, our father, and all that he has charged us to drink no wine all our days, we, our wives, our sons, and our daughters, nor to build houses, etc." You go on and read that yourself. Now, the case of the Rechabites is frequently brought up and said that we should emulate them in the fact that they drink no wine. Well, if you apply the rule of Jonadab and the commandment of Jonadab to us, we are in a great deal of trouble. First of all, Jonadab had nothing to do with us. But he did tell them, you shall drink no wine, you shall not live in houses, you shall plant no vineyards, you shall not live in tents, you shall be nomads. Now, if we are obligated to keep Jonadab's commandments, as some would say, Do those who teach that you should totally abstain from wine, do they not live in houses?

[John Weaver] Do they not plant gardens? Do they not plow fields?

[John Weaver] Now, the point I'm trying to make is very simple. If you're going to take one of Jonadab's commandments and say this applies to everybody, what about the rest of the commandments that Jonadab gave? Well, Jonadab has nothing to do with us. Now, you and I cannot say that Christians today are obligated to keep the commandments of Jonadab. Why did God give us this example? Let me show you. Would you say that it was reasonable to tell your descendants to have it as a law that they could never have a garden, they could never have a vineyard, They could never have a house. They had to live in tents, they had to be nomads, and they could never drink any wine. Does that sound reasonable to you? Not really.

[John Weaver] But here's what our Lord is showing. The Lord is showing the faithfulness of the Rechabites to the unreasonable commands of Jonadab. And he is showing the unfaithfulness of the Israelites to God's reasonable commands. Look at it in verse 15. Jeremiah 35 verse 15, I have sent also unto you all my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them, saying, Return ye now every man from his evil way, and amend your doings, and go not after other gods to serve them.

[John Weaver] And you shall dwell in the land which I have given you unto your fathers. But you have not inclined your ear, nor hearkened unto me, because the sons of Jonadab, the son of Rechab, have performed the commandments of their father, which he commanded them. But this people hath not hearkened unto me. Therefore, thus saith the Lord God of the host, the God of Israel, behold, I will bring upon Judah and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the evil that I have pronounced against them, because I have spoken to them, and they have not heard, and I have called on them, but they have not answered." Now what did God do? God said, look at the Rechabites. Look at them. Jonadab gave them these unreasonable commands, and they obeyed. Look at you. I've given you reasonable, logical, godly commands, and you disobeyed.

[John Weaver] By the way, if you'll go back to Jeremiah chapter 35, let me point something out for you. If wine is sinful, or if alcohol is sinful in and of itself, if it is, and it's not, but some say that it is, If wine is sinful in and of itself, and if it's wrong to offer wine to anybody under any circumstances, which some say, you've got a real problem in Jeremiah 35. Why? Look in verse 1. the word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord in the days of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah, king of Judah, saying, Go into the house of the Rechabites, and speak unto them, and bring them into the house of the Lord, the temple, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink. Then I took Jazaniah, the son of Jeremiah, the son of Habas-Zeniah, and his brethren, all the sons of the whole house of the Rechabites, and I brought them into the house of the Lord, into the chamber of the sons of Hanun, the son of Igdaliah, the man of God, which was by the

[John Weaver] chamber of the princes, which was above the chamber of Massadiah, the son of Shalom, the keeper of the door. And I sat before the sons of the house of the Rechabites, pots full of wine and cuffs, and I said to them, Drink ye. said that this wine was to be offered to the Rechabites, God himself. You see what I'm saying? When you take the position that alcohol is inherently sinful in and of itself, then you've got problems.

[John Weaver] What does the Bible say in James 1? Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God. For God cannot be tempted of evil, neither tempteth he any man. And if alcohol was wrong, and sinful, James 1.13 could not possibly be true, because God would be tempting these people. You follow me?

[John Weaver] Now, some have suggested, and by the way, I've never in my life, I've told you repeatedly, I don't drink. I don't encourage people to drink. Never in my entire life have I done that. I'm just trying to be honest with scripture and honest with the word of God. But when people try to say, well, if you and by the way, Trip is here, he can tell you. I've spoken about all my grandchildren and I tell them this, if you don't ever start, you don't have to stop. OK, you follow me? When God saved me, I was a sinner. I can tell you that right now. But I'll tell you this. When God saved me, I never had to stop drinking. I never had to stop smoking. I never had to stop cussing. Why? Because I didn't do those things before God saved me. If you don't ever start, you don't ever have to stop. Understand that. But if you say, well, the absence of wine, boy, that's going to prove that you're godly. Or the absence of alcohol.

[John Weaver] No, the absence of alcohol does not necessarily prove godliness. Because if the strict abstainers are supposedly the Ghandi's people of all, and I want you to look in your Bibles to Deuteronomy 29. Turn there. Deuteronomy 29, if the strict abstainers are supposed to be the Ghandi's people of all. Are you there yet? Deuteronomy 29. If strict abstainers are supposed to be more godly than anyone else, then that generation of the children of Israel who wandered in the desert should have been the godliest of all. Deuteronomy 29, verse 5, God said, I have led you 40 years in the wilderness.

[John Weaver] Your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and my shoes is not waxen old upon my foot. You've not eaten bread, neither have you drunk wine or strong drink, that you might know that I am the Lord your God. And what did God end up doing with that generation? He killed them. If you were to look in Hebrews chapter 4, God said they could not enter into His rest. Why?

[John Weaver] Because they were children of no faith. And of that original group that came out of Egypt, how many got in? Two. Joshua and Caleb.

[John Weaver] Now, let me just make some applications in closing. First, I want to remind you once again there is a difference between the social and religious use of wine. None are compelled to drink socially, but yet on the other hand, those priests had no choice in the use of wine in those offerings. God demanded it. I don't believe we have any choice in the use of wine in the Lord's Supper in the sense that I believe that's the way that it was established.

[John Weaver] And I'm still going to show you even more next week. The second application is this. The weaker brother objection is quickly and easily overcome, not only by common sense and reason, but above all by Scripture. My liberty in Christ and my life in Christ is not and cannot be controlled by people who are ignorant, weak, and sometimes unwilling to learn. You follow me? I can't order my life based upon your desires, or your understanding, or your misunderstanding. I must order my life based upon the Word of God. You must order your life based upon the Word of God. We are not to be controlled by the weak brethren, although we must consider them.

[John Weaver] Now let me just answer one other question. How did the church ever get to using grape juice? It may surprise you. Grape juice did not really come into the use of the church basically until around the time of Prohibition. There was a man, and I'll give you his name just a little bit later, who was born in England in 1825. He moved to this country. He lived in New Jersey. And in 1869, he decided that he would develop a non-alcoholic wine for the use of churches in communion. And the reason he decided this was because he believed that alcohol was inherently sinful in and of itself. His father, who was a merchant, kept a jug of whiskey down in the basement of their home and his father would go down and drink the whiskey and come up and then he and his wife would get into a fight and the mother always referred to the alcohol as the devil's juice and consequently this young man grew up hating it.

[John Weaver] He also was a Methodist. In fact, he preached as a Methodist pastor for a couple of years. He was also a dentist. And that's where he made his money, in dentistry, by the way. And so he did develop, he found out, based upon Louis Pasteur's pasteurization process, that if he could kill the yeast particle, then he could have unfermented wine, as he called it. But when he tried to introduce it to the churches, it was met with great resistance.

[John Weaver] He was a leader in the temperance movement, which of course does not really mean temperance. Literally, it should be the abstinence movement, because that's what they were saying. That's when they were going around this country using hatchets and axes in the saloons, etc., you remember, which led, of course, to prohibition. This man had a son who also was a dentist. And after a while, he decided to rename it.

[John Weaver] And then he took it to the World's Fair in Chicago and became an instant hit. And then it went into a lot of the restaurants right around with Sarsaparilla and the other drinks. And you know what it was called. Welch's grape juice. The dentist was Dr. Thomas Welch. His son Charles began the manufacture of the grape juice. He's the one that changed the name of it. And thus, after the time of Prohibition then, that's when basically churches began to swap into grape juice. So the truth of the matter is, all churches up until the early 1900s, only used wine. And many of them believed it was wrong to change to grape juice and fought. And there are plenty of churches today that still only use wine. But the grape juice came in through Dr. Thomas Welch, who believed that wine was inherently evil in and of itself.

[John Weaver] Sin did not reside in the heart of man, but in the alcohol. Thus you have, in this day and time, the average church using grape juice instead of wine. And I would ask this question, and I've asked it earlier. If our Lord instituted the Lord's Supper with wine and unleavened bread, by whose authority and by what right can we change it? And if you can change the wine to grape juice, I can change the unleavened bread to donuts. You follow me?

[John Weaver] In fact, why don't we just use coffee and cookies? You follow me? If our Lord instituted it one way, that's the way that it should be kept. And observe. And you're going to find out next week there's a reason for it. Let's pray. Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, we ask that you help us and teach us, Lord. May we be biblical in every area of our life and thinking. And may we always follow your word. We ask that you would speak to our hearts. In the name of Jesus Christ, we pray. Amen.

The Lord's Supper - Part 9

John Weaver | SermonAudio

Lecture Metadata	Details
Speaker	John Weaver
Source	SermonAudio
Media ID	730611443
Subject	New Testament Studies
Course	Romans: Christian Duty, Authority, and Brotherly Peace
Genre	Sermon
Date	2006-03-26
Dictation Name
Book	Book 041: The Lord's Supper — Chapter 9
Source Timed Segments	101

Formatted Transcript

Opening

The message you are about to hear was produced by Dominion Ministry. If you would like to support this ministry by becoming a sermon partner or obtain additional high-resolution CDs, DVDs, or MP3s featuring the teaching of Pastor John Weaver, please visit the Dominion Ministry website at www.dominion.org. www.dominionministry.com. This ministry is completely supported by donations and it is through those donations that we are able to provide sermons for sermonaudio.com. Please visit our website at www.dominionministry.com to subscribe or make your donation today. Thank you. 1 Corinthians chapter 11, let's begin reading with verse 20, and we'll read just several verses and then begin. "When you are come together, therefore, to one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper, for in eating every one taketh before others his own supper, and one is hungry and another is drunken. What have you not houses to eat and drink in, or despise you the church of God, and shame them that have not?"

"What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. And when he had given thanks, he breaketh and said, Take ye, this is my body, which is broken for you, this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had stopped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood. This do you as often as you drink it in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do show the Lord's..." Especially for those who are visiting with us today, let me just simply say that I have been preaching on the series on the Lord's Supper, and this will be the ninth week in a row, and hopefully, Lord willing, next week will be the final week on this subject, and then we'll be moving on to several other things.

Introduction and Review

Weaver reviews the series on the Lord's Supper, covering names, significance, partakers, reproof, and elements, emphasizing the controversial topic of wine versus grape juice.

But I want to take just a moment and review, and especially for those who are visiting today. We've looked at the names of the Lord's Supper in the Bible. We've looked at its significance under the heading of the different kinds of meals that are mentioned in the Bible. And, of course, then we looked at the partakers of it, which was two particular messages in itself. Then we looked at the reproof that the Apostle Paul gave. And then, of course, we began to look at the elements.

Now, I've been dealing with this subject on the elements for the last several weeks because I told you it was probably one of the most controversial parts of this series. We understood, of course, from the Bible that the bread was unleavened bread. That's no problem. But then I tried to share with you and showed you from the Bible that I believe that the liquid in the cup was not grape juice, but it was wine. And, of course, that was what they drank at the Passover.

Sin Does Not Exist in Matter

Weaver argues that sin is not inherent in material things like alcohol, but in the human heart, countering Greek dualism and Gnostic influences that view matter as evil.

Now, let me begin by emphasizing the first point. I hinted upon this last week, I hinted at it, but today I want to develop it. I want you to understand that sin does not exist in matter. Let me say that again. Sin does not exist in matter. People have referred to alcohol as the devil's juice. They say it's wicked, it's wrong, it's ungodly. Certainly it has been abused and misused many times, and the people who do misuse and abuse it are wicked and ungodly. But whenever you locate evil or sin in anything material, then you've fallen into Greek philosophy.

You're not following the Bible teaching. The Greeks taught a system of dualism. In Greek philosophy, they had a dichotomy, they had a distinction between matter and spirit, or soul and body. And so they viewed matter then as inherently wicked, inherently evil, and only the mind or the soul then was exceedingly pure. Thus you have, because of this false Greek philosophy, you have the rise in Christendom of all these sects and cults. You have the rise of the Gnostics, the Pietists, the Ascetics, the Monasteries, the nunneries, all of these were based upon Greek dualism, not upon the Word of God. Do you remember why those monks many times in those monasteries would beat themselves with whips and cut themselves and make their body to suffer? Because they thought their body was inherently evil. And they were trying to drive the evil out of their bodies so that they could be cured in body and in soul as well. So, if the body, or if the earth, or any kind of matter is inherently evil, then according to Greek philosophy, it must be purged, it must be avoided, it must be despised.

Now, let me just tell you something that may not interest you, but I hope that it will interest you. I remember when I was in college, I had a class in philosophy. And especially when we've got to talk about Plato and Socrates and Diogenes and all these men. And I sat in that class and I thought, this is the dumbest stuff I've ever heard in my life. Why do I need to know anything about Greek philosophy? Why do I need to know anything about Roman philosophy? And I had a little agenda when I was in college.

Those courses that I loved, I made A's in. Those courses that I hated, I made sure that I made an A in because I didn't want to have to repeat it. Well, I hated philosophy until I got out of college and I started reading the scripture and I found out that there is indeed a biblical philosophy. By the way, Phileo is the Greek word for love. Philosophy. Sophia is the Greek word for wisdom. The word philosophy just means a lover of wisdom. God is wisdom incarnate, so therefore he is the chief philosopher. So if you despise philosophy, you despise God. But once you begin to see how heathenistic or humanistic philosophy has intertwined itself in Christianity, you can see the perversion in Christianity and how there has been changes all down through the centuries.

Now, when I understood that, I then saw the importance of understanding philosophy. Neoplatonism, the word neo means new, and it's from Plato. Platonism, it just simply means the new teaching of Platonism. And that is very prevalent and very prominent today, and it is the mixture then of this Greek dialectical dualism which pits the spirit against the flesh and the body, and the soul against mind and matter.

Now, it crept into the church in the 2nd century AD through the root of Gnosticism. Now let me just tell you a little bit about Gnosticism. It's based on the Greek word gnosis, which means to know. The Gnostics basically taught salvation through a secret knowledge. That's why you have all these secret cults today. They're nothing but Gnostic cults, is what it amounts to. But the Gnostics were a heretical group, and they viewed matter as inherently evil.

Well, they had a real problem. If God created the world, and the world is made out of matter, then the world must be evil. And if God created the body, and the body is made out of matter, then the body must be evil. Well, their problem was this, how could a holy God create that which was evil? And so some of the Gnostics then developed a system of demiurges, or what you and I would call semi-creators. So they say, that the one true and the living God created a demiurge under him who was not pure spirit like himself, had some matter in him, and the second demiurge created a third, the third created a fourth, the fourth created the fifth, the fifth created the sixth, the sixth created the seventh, and the seventh happened to be Jesus Christ, and the seventh then created the world. So, they're removing God, then, from his creation because they believe that matter is inherently evil.

Now, I want you to understand something. This led to a number of very vile and wicked applications. For instance, those Gnostics who were known as Docetics, and it's from the Greek word dokeo, which means to appear, or I appear, the Dochetic Gnostics said that Jesus Christ was not real. That he was merely a divine apparition. Why would they say that Jesus Christ was not real? Because matter is inherently evil. So he could not have a real body.

That's why John wrote 1 John 1, and when he said, we have seen him, we've handled him, and we've touched him. In other words, he is real, he is genuine, he does have a body. So that was the docetics. So the docetics, they got around it by saying that Christ was not even a real human being. And you'll find the book of Colossians, as well as the book of 1 John, is written directly against Gnosticism. But then there were the Corinthians as well. And the Corinthians were the individuals who took this then. They said, well, look, if matter is inherently evil, and it is, and the mind and the spirit is that which is pure, well, we can't get rid of the body, so we might as well eat, drink, and be married, for tomorrow we die.

We'll just indulge the flesh and get into everything known to man. You see, you had all these divergent philosophies. You had people in the second century who claimed to be Christians, who abused and misused their bodies on down through there. I could give you illustration after illustration. There was a man by the name of Simeon Stylites who climbed up on a pillar and stayed there for about 20 years. Just up on the rock. He was purging his body. Let me give you one illustration. Rushdoony, in his book, Flight from Humanity, gives an excellent illustration. And by the way, it's not a very thick book, it's a little paperback. R.J. Rushdoony's Flight from Humanity. If you want to understand Neoplatonism, you need to read that book. Here is an account that he gives of how biblical Christianity got mixed up with Platonism, Greek philosophy, and you can see the horrible consequences.

I'm going to just quote two paragraphs. He says, "For a Christian, the lives of the saints are sometimes painful reading. Intelligence and faith are sometimes wedded to the most ludicrous practices and to ideas alien to biblical religion." And here's the example he gives. "When after a very hot journey, Jovinus washed his tired feet and hands in very cold water, and then stretched out to rest, the holy Melania rebuked him. Melania approached him as a wise mother approaching her own son, and she scoffed at his weakness, saying, 'How can a warm-blooded young man like you dare to pamper your flesh that way?' "Do you not know that this is a source of much harm? Look, I am sixty years old, and neither have my feet, nor my face, nor any of my members except for the tips of my fingers have touched water, although I am afflicted with many ailments and my doctors urge me. I have not yet made concessions to my bodily desires, nor have I used accounts for resting, nor have I ever made a journey on a litter." Sixty years old and never took a bath.

Rushdoony's got one more sentence. He says, "We learn nothing about biblical holiness from Melania, although we do begin to realize what the odor of sanctity might mean." Well, why would a 60-year-old woman not take a bath? Why would she not rest her body? Because she thought that that body was inherently evil, and she was not going to do anything that would pamper the evil. Now listen to me folks, matter is not inherently evil. What does that mean? That means alcohol is not inherently evil. There is nothing evil in and of itself.

Look in your Bibles to Matthew 15 and I want you to see the clear teaching of our Lord. Look what he said in Matthew chapter 15. Matthew 15 beginning with verse 15. "Then answered Peter, and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable." Matthew 15 verse 16, "Jesus said, Are you also yet without understanding?"

Now look what he says, "Do you not yet understand that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart, and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed what? Evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands defiles not a man." So when our Lord says, do you not understand that which enters into the mouth and goeth into the body? That's not what defiles a man. It's that which comes out of the heart. In other words, it is the heart that is sinful and wicked and ungodly.

Alcohol and the Weaker Brother

Weaver exegetes Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 to show that the 'weaker brother' is one who abstains due to an uninformed conscience, not a former drunkard, and that causing offense means encouraging them to act against their conscience.

So sin does not exist in anything material. It does not exist in anything that is made of the matter. Sin is in the heart of man. It's our rebellion, our wickedness, our ungodliness. The second thing I want to cover today is this. Alcohol and the weaker brother. I want you to turn in your Bibles to Romans chapter 14. Romans 14. And we're going to look at this passage and you might want to go ahead and find 1 Corinthians chapter 8.

Scripture Reading — Romans 14:1-3,14,20-23

Because we'll be turning there as well. Romans 14. Now, there is a passage that most people really take out of context, and that is Romans 14 and verse 21. When the Apostle Paul said, "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." Now look at that, it is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything where thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Now this passage is often quoted by individuals who say, well the Bible demands total abstinence. Well, I've pointed out before, the Bible does not demand total abstinence. The Bible demands, let your moderation be known unto all men. And there is certainly a religious use of wine in the Bible. But this statement is usually quoted by those who are trying to make total abstinence a requirement for every Christian. They argue that it is the duty of the strong to abstain out of deference to the weak. In other words, they are saying that even a very careful and a temperate use of wine contradicts the apostolic principle in Romans 14 and verse 21. Well, you've got to ask yourself two questions. The first one, look at it. He said, "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." Now, the first thing you've got to ask is what is the weaker brother or who is the weaker brother?

And what does it mean to cause him to stumble or to cause him to offend? Now, I want you to note something, and I'm going to show it to you in this passage, but I would encourage you to read all of this chapter when you get home. You see, in Romans 14 and in 1 Corinthians chapter 8, Paul means something entirely different when he talks about the weaker brother than those who are teaching total abstinence what they mean by the weaker brother. Now, what they mean is this. Here's someone, say, just been recently converted. I'm going to use Doc. He's sitting close to me. Let's suppose that Doc used to be a drunkard. Thankfully, he never has been, but let's suppose he used to be a drunkard. Now God saves him. And now they say, we cannot use wine in the Lord's Supper, period, because it's going to set him off and he's trying to stay free. And he's trying to totally abstain from alcohol, and if we give him any, then boy, it's going to set him off again and he'll end up being a drunkard.

That is their understanding of a weaker brother. The weaker brother in Romans chapter 14 and 1 Corinthians chapter 8 is not the man who tends to drink too much. The weaker brother in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians chapter 8 is the one who will not drink at all. He's the total abstainer. Look at it. Verse 1,

Scripture Reading — Romans 14:1-3,14,20-23

"Him that is weak in the faith receive you, but not the doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things, help me out now, another who is weak eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not, let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth, for God hath received him."

Now, I want you to note something. The man in Romans 14, and the man in 1 Corinthians chapter 8, the weaker brother is an individual who has a scruple of conscience. And his scruple of conscience is that meats and wines are evil in and of themselves. So therefore he is not going to eat any of it or drink any of it because he believes that it is inherently evil in and of itself. It is the stronger brother that recognizes that this is not true. The weaker brother is the weaker brother because of his unscriptural convictions and his unbiblical thinking. He believes that if he eats or if he drinks, then it is sin. Now, I want you to listen to this. I'm going to show it to you from the Bible in just a moment.

It is not the act of eating or drinking that is sin that Paul is dealing with right here. But the sin comes in that he eats and drinks against his conscience without faith. Look at Romans 14 in verse 23. "And he that doubteth is damned, or condemned if he eat. Why? Because he eateth not of faith, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Now, the point I'm trying to make is this. In this passage, the weaker brother is the one who will not drink at all. He will not eat meat at all. Look in verse 2 again.

Scripture Reading — Romans 14:1-3,14,20-23

"For one believeth that he may eat all things."

That's the strong brother.

Scripture Reading — Romans 14:1-3,14,20-23

"Another who is weak eateth only herbs."

He's the vegetarian. But I want you to note something. It is not a health issue. It is a religious issue. Skip down, if you would please, to verse 14. Look what the Apostle Paul says, Romans 14, verse 14.

"I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself." Is there anything unclean of itself? No. Is anything sinful in and of itself? No. But look what he says. "But to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." In other words, if he's got a scruple of conscience that is sinful, for him to go against that conscience, of course, would be wrong.

But he is classified here as the weaker brother. Look in verse 20. He says, "For meat destroy not the work of God, help me out now. All things indeed are what? Pure. But it is evil for that man who eateth with offense."

Now, is the eating and drinking wrong? No. Is having a glass of wine wrong? Is it sinful in and of itself? No. But if I have a scruple of conscience and I say that wine is evil and I believe that wine is evil and then I take it that I've sinned. And when I say that, I'm the weaker brother in this passage. The weaker brother here is the one who abstains from everything.

That's why the Bible says, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Now, notice if you would, he said in verse 22, "Hast thou faith? Lord, you know better. Have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth."

Now, please, please, don't take what I'm saying out of context. I'm not talking about the social use of wine right now, okay? But I am talking about the religious use of wine, and the Bible says, happy is the man that condemneth not himself, and that thing which he alloweth. In other words, if he understands, if he knows the truth, his conscience is not going to condemn him, period. Now, the point I'm trying to make is this. The weaker brother in this passage, and in 1 Corinthians chapter 8, is the one who that believes eating certain meats and drinking wine is a sin in and of itself. It's not that this man has a propensity to drink. It's not that he fears in turning into a drunkard. No, no, no. He just believes it's wicked and wrong in and of himself. So he says that wine is sin in and of itself, and therefore he's classified as the weaker brother.

Notice if you would in verse 21. Paul said, "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or made weak." Now, verse 21 does not advocate abstaining from meat or abstaining from drinking wine. He just simply says it's good not to do either one of these things if it's going to cause your brother to stumble, or offend, or to be made weak. In other words, according to verse 22, if you look at verse 22, if you want to exercise your liberty, when you're not around the weaker brother, have at it, he said, "Hast thou faith, have it thyself before God, happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth." Now, let's go back to verse 21, because he said, "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or made weak." First of all, the word stumble. The word stumble is from the Greek word proskopto.

Pros means to or toward, and kopto means to strike or to hit the foot. So when you strike or hit the foot, it causes you to stumble. That is, you are impeded in your journey. You're not walking uprightly. And so the Apostle Paul is using this word as anything that would hinder someone, so to speak, in their divine life. Anything that causes him to halt or to stumble or to slow him down. So that's the word in there for stumble. Then he said the word or offend. Now the word offend here is from the Greek word skandalon. It's where we get our English word scandal.

Now a skandalon was the wooden stake on a trap that the animal triggered when he went into the trap and he got caught. So to scandalize someone means that they are ensnared, they are entrapped, so to speak. And so Paul says, you better not ensnare someone or cause them to be entrapped, so to speak. And then he says, or is made weak. And the Greek word here is asthene, which means without strength or mental vigor, unable to distinguish between right and wrong and clean and unclean. In other words, it talks about someone who has an erroneous judgment or an erroneous conscience. Now, I gave you all those words to tell you this, that the word offend is grossly misunderstood and misapplied today. Usually we interpret the word offend and make it to mean something that upsets someone or something that makes them mad. When someone comes up to you and says, "That offends me."

Let me translate what they're saying. "I don't like what you're doing. Stop it." That's what they mean. I had a woman come to me one time, this was years ago, and I grew my beard because of what the Bible teaches concerning a beard, and I've had this beard. Did you ever see me without a beard? And she's more than 21. No, I've probably had this beard 35 years or longer. But I had a woman come up to me one time and tell me, "Brother Weaver, your beard offends me."

I just smiled and then broke out laughing. I said, "Ma'am, there's no way in the world my beard can offend you because you couldn't do what I'm doing even if you had my knowledge." You see, I just gave a biblical explanation of the word offend. The word offend means basically to encourage a weak brother to do what you're doing without his having your knowledge. Look in your Bibles to 1 Corinthians chapter 8. And by the way, once again, this passage deals with the weak and the strong. In verse 4, he says,

Scripture Reading — 1 Corinthians 8:4-10

"As concerning, therefore, the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is none other God but one."

Now, let me just stop there. Let me tell you what some Christians were doing in the Corinthian church. They would get invited to a feast in an idol's temple. And they'd go in and eat and drink the wine and eat the steak. Because they ate and drank it as unto God and not unto the idol. And they understood that that idol had absolutely no influence whatsoever on that meat. But there were some who used to worship that idol. And they thought that somehow that meat was influenced by that idol.

Now, those are the ones that are weak brethren here in this chapter. Now, wait a minute. When you get to 1 Corinthians 9, he talks about that which is sold in the shambles that eat. What was the shambles? The shambles was the discount meat market. It was right by the idol's temple. In other words, they couldn't use all the meat. The priest couldn't use all the meat and so they would sell it at a discount.

So instead of you paying $4 a pound for T-bone steaks, you can go to the shambles and get a good wonderful steak for about 50 cents a pound. And some of these young or weaker Christians are like, "How can you do that? How can you eat that meat? That meat has been offered to idols."

Now, watch what he says. 1 Corinthians 8, verse 4.

Scripture Reading — 1 Corinthians 8:4-10

"As concerning, therefore, the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols,"

look what Paul says. Now, he's a strong brother.

Scripture Reading — 1 Corinthians 8:4-10

"We know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is none other God but one."

What's a strong man have? He has knowledge. Watch. Verse 5,

Scripture Reading — 1 Corinthians 8:4-10

"For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or earth, as there be gods many and lords many, but to us,"

that is to those who know the truth,

Scripture Reading — 1 Corinthians 8:4-10

"but to us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him."

Now look what he says, this will take some explanation. "Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge." When he says, "howbeit there is not in every man" or in every Christian that knowledge, he is not saying that there are some Christians who do not know that there's only one God and one Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. What he's saying is there's not in every Christian the knowledge that that idol has absolutely no influence on that meat whatsoever. Here's how I get that. Watch in verse 7. "For some with conscience," and the word there is literally syneidesis, "for some with habit or custom of the idol unto this hour, eat it as a thing offered unto idol, watch, and their conscience being what? Weak, is defiled." Or is it vile?

Now, what am I saying? So here's the weak man, who may be in times past, before he was converted, he worshipped at that idol's temple. And he thought that that idol had some influence on that meat. And now, if he goes against his conscience and eats that meat, he says, "Hmm, I'm sinning against God because that idol has some kind of influence on this meat." Well, look in verse 10, here's what he's saying. In fact, let's read verse 8. "But meat commendeth us not to God, for neither if we eat are we the better, neither if we eat not are we the worse. But take heed, lest by any means this liberty of yours," notice it's a liberty, "become a stumbling block to them that are weak. For if any man," we're talking about the weak brother now, not just any man, "for if any weak brother see thee which hast knowledge," you're the strong brother, "sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols." Ah. In other words, it is the strong who has the knowledge, it is the weak who are ignorant, and the weak will see the strong man doing something and he says, "Oh, well if he can do it, I can do it." But the problem is, he does not have the knowledge that the strong man has. And he goes ahead and does it. And therefore he wounds his conscience.

Now, let me ask this question. How can I not cause a weak brother to stumble? How can I not cause a weak brother to stumble? First, I could show him and teach him the truth according to the Word of God. If he understood the truth, he would no longer be a weak brother, would he? He would have my knowledge, or he would have the knowledge of the word of God. If he refused the truth, he's not just a weak brother, he's a rebellious brother. You got it? Secondly, I am not causing a weak brother to stumble if I do not encourage him to go contrary to his conscience, even though his conscience may be misinformed. In other words, if Doc is my weak brother, and I know what that weakness is, and I don't encourage him to go contrary to that weakness, then I haven't caused him to stumble. I haven't offended him. I haven't made him weak.

Now if I exercise my liberty somewhere else, hey, that's my business. That's not his business. But I have not offended him. I have not made him to stumble. You see that?

Now remember what I told you last week. I can never surrender the principle of liberty. But I gave you three reasons in the Bible why we could forego the lawful exercise of our liberty. I don't have to eat meat. That's what Paul said. Meat doesn't make me a better Christian. It doesn't make me any less of a Christian. I don't have to eat meat. I don't have to drink wine. That's what he's saying.

Why would you upset someone? Why would you tear something up over something so simple? So, as long as I'm not encouraging him to go contrary to his weak conscience, it doesn't matter what I do, I'm not offending him. I'm not causing him to stumble. Look in Romans 14 in verse 3. Go back there very quickly. I'm still dealing with 1 Corinthians 8. But look in Romans 14 in verse 3. He says this. Romans 14 verse 3.

"Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not. And let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth, for God hath received him." Now let me show you the problem that we have. You see, God gives obligations to the weak brother and obligations to the strong brother. It is the tendency of the strong to despise the weak. For the strong to look down at Doc and say, "Oh Doc, come on, don't be a baby. Come on, grow up." What is that? That's an attitude of despising where he is. But if he looked at me and said, "I don't see how you can do that and be a Christian."

"You must not be saved." Now what's he doing? He's judging me. So God says let not the strong despise the weak and let not the weak judge the strong. So if I exercise my liberty when he's not around, he has no right to judge me because I'm not encouraging him to go contrary to his conscience. Thirdly, if I continue to exercise my liberty and warn him not to violate his conscience, I still have not caused him to stumble. I've still not offended him. How can I say that? Well, if he goes contrary to his conscience with me encouraging him not to, that's his sin, not mine. I'm responsible for my actions, not his. Do you follow me? The word offend in the context of Romans 14 and in the context of 1 Corinthians chapter 8 means that you encourage someone to do what you're doing without them having your knowledge. And they think that what you're doing is somehow sinful and wrong and wicked.

Refuting the Former Drunkard Objection

Weaver counters the idea that a taste of wine in communion could cause a former drunkard to relapse, arguing that genuine conversion and the Holy Spirit's power prevent such a fall.

Secondly, stop and think about it. That position teaches that sin is greater, stronger, and more powerful than the grace of God. If the grace of God was great enough and sufficient enough to bring him out of his sin, is not the grace of God sufficient enough to keep him from returning to his sin? If there has been genuine and true repentance, there could not possibly be a turning back. Third, inherent in that position is a denial of the power of the Holy Spirit. If we have been sealed unto the day of our redemption, as the Word of God says in the book of Ephesians, can the Holy Spirit not keep those who are committed to his trust? What about 1 John 4:4? Is it not true? Greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world. Is not 1 John 3 and verse 9 true? Whosoever is born of God cannot sin, that is, he does not continually commit sin. Why? For his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, that is, he cannot continually sin. Why? Because he has been begotten of God.

Scripture Reading — 1 John 3:9

It's the grace and the mercy of God that keeps us from going back. You say, "Ah, but Pastor," and I want you to turn to 1 John 2, I can quote it, but I want you to see it. Turn to 1 John 2. You say, "Oh, but pastor, I know of someone who was a professing Christian. And boy, he went back and boy, one taste set him off and today he's just a drunkard." Well, if that is so, you need to read 1 John 2 and verse 19. Look what John said. "They went out from us." They left us. Why?

"But they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us. But they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." What did John say? If you left us, you never was one of us to begin with. The Lord's salvation was not there. The grace of God was never there. You've got to remember, folks, there are people who reform themselves. Our Lord spoke about that. The man who cast the demon out of himself, so to speak, and the demon left. And what happened? He came back and found his house swept and garnished, and he took seven spirits more wicked than himself with him when he went back in. No. You see, the truth of the matter is those who have been saved, according to Jude 1 and verse 1, are preserved in Jesus Christ.

There's no such thing as a Christian drunkard. There's no such thing as a Christian prostitute. You follow me? If the grace of God is in you and the power of the Holy Spirit has sealed you, you are not going to return to your sin and your wickedness. That's all there is to it.

The Case of the Rechabites

Weaver examines Jeremiah 35, showing that the Rechabites' abstinence was a specific, unreasonable command from Jonadab, used by God to contrast Israel's disobedience, not a universal mandate.

Now, let me cover one other thing before I close today, and that is the case of the Rechabites. And I can deal with this very quickly. Look in your Bibles to Jeremiah 35. Jeremiah 35. Because the Rechabites are mentioned many times by the prohibitionists in saying that, boy, here are our examples. Well, look in verses six and seven. In fact, let's read verse five. Jeremiah 35, verse five,

Scripture Reading — Jeremiah 35:1-8,15-17

"And I said before the sons of the house of the Rechabites, pots full of wine and cups, and I said to them, Drink ye wine. But they said, We will drink no wine. For Jonadab, the son of Rechab, our father, commanded us, saying, You shall drink no wine, neither ye nor your sons, for ever. Neither shall you build houses, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any."

"But all your days you shall dwell in tents, that you may live many days in the land wherein you are strangers. Thus have we obeyed the voice of Jonadab, the son of Rechab, our father, and all that he has charged us to drink no wine all our days, we, our wives, our sons, and our daughters, nor to build houses, etc." You go on and read that yourself. Now, the case of the Rechabites is frequently brought up and said that we should emulate them in the fact that they drink no wine. Well, if you apply the rule of Jonadab and the commandment of Jonadab to us, we are in a great deal of trouble. First of all, Jonadab had nothing to do with us. But he did tell them, you shall drink no wine, you shall not live in houses, you shall plant no vineyards, you shall not live in tents, you shall be nomads. Now, if we are obligated to keep Jonadab's commandments, as some would say, do those who teach that you should totally abstain from wine, do they not live in houses?

Do they not plant gardens? Do they not plow fields? Now, the point I'm trying to make is very simple. If you're going to take one of Jonadab's commandments and say this applies to everybody, what about the rest of the commandments that Jonadab gave? Well, Jonadab has nothing to do with us. Now, you and I cannot say that Christians today are obligated to keep the commandments of Jonadab. Why did God give us this example? Let me show you. Would you say that it was reasonable to tell your descendants to have it as a law that they could never have a garden, they could never have a vineyard, they could never have a house. They had to live in tents, they had to be nomads, and they could never drink any wine. Does that sound reasonable to you? Not really.

But here's what our Lord is showing. The Lord is showing the faithfulness of the Rechabites to the unreasonable commands of Jonadab. And he is showing the unfaithfulness of the Israelites to God's reasonable commands. Look at it in verse 15. Jeremiah 35 verse 15, "I have sent also unto you all my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them, saying, Return ye now every man from his evil way, and amend your doings, and go not after other gods to serve them."

Scripture Reading — Jeremiah 35:1-8,15-17

"And you shall dwell in the land which I have given you unto your fathers. But you have not inclined your ear, nor hearkened unto me, because the sons of Jonadab, the son of Rechab, have performed the commandments of their father, which he commanded them. But this people hath not hearkened unto me. Therefore, thus saith the Lord God of the host, the God of Israel, behold, I will bring upon Judah and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the evil that I have pronounced against them, because I have spoken to them, and they have not heard, and I have called on them, but they have not answered."

Now what did God do? God said, look at the Rechabites. Look at them. Jonadab gave them these unreasonable commands, and they obeyed. Look at you. I've given you reasonable, logical, godly commands, and you disobeyed. By the way, if you'll go back to Jeremiah chapter 35, let me point something out for you. If wine is sinful, or if alcohol is sinful in and of itself, if it is, and it's not, but some say that it is, if wine is sinful in and of itself, and if it's wrong to offer wine to anybody under any circumstances, which some say, you've got a real problem in Jeremiah 35. Why? Look in verse 1.

Scripture Reading — Jeremiah 35:1-8,15-17

"The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord in the days of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah, king of Judah, saying, Go into the house of the Rechabites, and speak unto them, and bring them into the house of the Lord, the temple, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink. Then I took Jazaniah, the son of Jeremiah, the son of Habazziniah, and his brethren, all the sons of the whole house of the Rechabites, and I brought them into the house of the Lord, into the chamber of the sons of Hanun, the son of Igdaliah, the man of God, which was by the"

"chamber of the princes, which was above the chamber of Maaseiah, the son of Shallum, the keeper of the door. And I sat before the sons of the house of the Rechabites, pots full of wine and cups, and I said to them, Drink ye." God said that this wine was to be offered to the Rechabites, God himself. You see what I'm saying? When you take the position that alcohol is inherently sinful in and of itself, then you've got problems. What does the Bible say in James 1? "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God. For God cannot be tempted of evil, neither tempteth he any man." And if alcohol was wrong, and sinful, James 1:13 could not possibly be true, because God would be tempting these people. You follow me?

Now, some have suggested, and by the way, I've never in my life, I've told you repeatedly, I don't drink. I don't encourage people to drink. Never in my entire life have I done that. I'm just trying to be honest with scripture and honest with the word of God. But when people try to say, well, if you and by the way, Trip is here, he can tell you. I've spoken about all my grandchildren and I tell them this, if you don't ever start, you don't have to stop. OK, you follow me? When God saved me, I was a sinner. I can tell you that right now. But I'll tell you this. When God saved me, I never had to stop drinking. I never had to stop smoking. I never had to stop cussing. Why? Because I didn't do those things before God saved me. If you don't ever start, you don't ever have to stop. Understand that. But if you say, well, the absence of wine, boy, that's going to prove that you're godly. Or the absence of alcohol.

Historical Shift to Grape Juice

Weaver recounts how Dr. Thomas Welch, influenced by the belief that alcohol is inherently sinful, developed grape juice in 1869, leading to its widespread adoption in churches after Prohibition.

Now let me just answer one other question. How did the church ever get to using grape juice? It may surprise you. Grape juice did not really come into the use of the church basically until around the time of Prohibition. There was a man, and I'll give you his name just a little bit later, who was born in England in 1825. He moved to this country. He lived in New Jersey. And in 1869, he decided that he would develop a non-alcoholic wine for the use of churches in communion. And the reason he decided this was because he believed that alcohol was inherently sinful in and of itself. His father, who was a merchant, kept a jug of whiskey down in the basement of their home and his father would go down and drink the whiskey and come up and then he and his wife would get into a fight and the mother always referred to the alcohol as the devil's juice and consequently this young man grew up hating it.

He also was a Methodist. In fact, he preached as a Methodist pastor for a couple of years. He was also a dentist. And that's where he made his money, in dentistry, by the way. And so he did develop, he found out, based upon Louis Pasteur's pasteurization process, that if he could kill the yeast particle, then he could have unfermented wine, as he called it. But when he tried to introduce it to the churches, it was met with great resistance.

He was a leader in the temperance movement, which of course does not really mean temperance. Literally, it should be the abstinence movement, because that's what they were saying. That's when they were going around this country using hatchets and axes in the saloons, etc., you remember, which led, of course, to prohibition. This man had a son who also was a dentist. And after a while, he decided to rename it. And then he took it to the World's Fair in Chicago and became an instant hit. And then it went into a lot of the restaurants right around with sarsaparilla and the other drinks. And you know what it was called. Welch's grape juice. The dentist was Dr. Thomas Welch. His son Charles began the manufacture of the grape juice. He's the one that changed the name of it. And thus, after the time of Prohibition then, that's when basically churches began to swap into grape juice. So the truth of the matter is, all churches up until the early 1900s, only used wine. And many of them believed it was wrong to change to grape juice and fought. And there are plenty of churches today that still only use wine. But the grape juice came in through Dr. Thomas Welch, who believed that wine was inherently evil in and of itself.

Applications and Conclusion

Weaver applies the teaching by distinguishing social and religious use of wine, asserting that the Lord's Supper should follow Christ's original institution with wine, and warns against changing the elements.

Now, let me just make some applications in closing. First, I want to remind you once again there is a difference between the social and religious use of wine. None are compelled to drink socially, but yet on the other hand, those priests had no choice in the use of wine in those offerings. God demanded it. I don't believe we have any choice in the use of wine in the Lord's Supper in the sense that I believe that's the way that it was established. And I'm still going to show you even more next week. The second application is this. The weaker brother objection is quickly and easily overcome, not only by common sense and reason, but above all by Scripture. My liberty in Christ and my life in Christ is not and cannot be controlled by people who are ignorant, weak, and sometimes unwilling to learn. You follow me? I can't order my life based upon your desires, or your understanding, or your misunderstanding. I must order my life based upon the Word of God. You must order your life based upon the Word of God. We are not to be controlled by the weak brethren, although we must consider them.

Sin did not reside in the heart of man, but in the alcohol. Thus you have, in this day and time, the average church using grape juice instead of wine. And I would ask this question, and I've asked it earlier. If our Lord instituted the Lord's Supper with wine and unleavened bread, by whose authority and by what right can we change it? And if you can change the wine to grape juice, I can change the unleavened bread to donuts. You follow me? In fact, why don't we just use coffee and cookies? You follow me? If our Lord instituted it one way, that's the way that it should be kept. And observe. And you're going to find out next week there's a reason for it. Let's pray. Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, we ask that you help us and teach us, Lord. May we be biblical in every area of our life and thinking. And may we always follow your word. We ask that you would speak to our hearts. In the name of Jesus Christ, we pray. Amen.

Study Guide

Major Themes

Sin is in the heart, not in matter

Summary: Weaver teaches that sin does not reside in material substances like alcohol, but in the human heart, refuting Greek dualism and Gnosticism.

Evidence: Weaver states, 'sin does not exist in matter... whenever you locate evil or sin in anything material, then you've fallen into Greek philosophy' and cites Matthew 15:16-20.

Proper understanding of the weaker brother

Summary: Weaver clarifies that the weaker brother in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 is the one who abstains from meat and wine due to an uninformed conscience, not a former drunkard.

Evidence: Weaver explains, 'The weaker brother in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians chapter 8 is the one who will not drink at all. He's the total abstainer' and analyzes the Greek words for stumble, offend, and weak.

Sufficiency of grace and the Holy Spirit

Summary: Weaver argues that if a person is truly converted, the grace of God and the Holy Spirit are sufficient to keep them from returning to alcoholism, so tasting wine in communion is not a danger.

Evidence: Weaver says, 'If the grace of God was great enough and sufficient enough to bring him out of his sin, is not the grace of God sufficient enough to keep him from returning to his sin?'

Biblical precedent for religious use of wine

Summary: Weaver uses the Rechabites and the wilderness generation to show that abstinence is not inherently godly, and that God commanded the use of wine in offerings.

Evidence: Weaver points to Jeremiah 35 where God tells Jeremiah to offer wine to the Rechabites, and Deuteronomy 29:5-6 where the Israelites abstained but were unfaithful.

Historical corruption of the Lord's Supper elements

Summary: Weaver traces the introduction of grape juice to Dr. Thomas Welch's belief in the inherent sinfulness of alcohol, arguing that churches should return to the original institution.

Evidence: Weaver recounts, 'Grape juice did not really come into the use of the church basically until around the time of Prohibition... Dr. Thomas Welch... believed that alcohol was inherently sinful in and of itself.'

Key Arguments

Sin is not in matter

Summary: Weaver argues that locating sin in material things like alcohol is Greek dualism, not biblical teaching; sin proceeds from the heart.

Evidence: Weaver says, 'sin does not exist in matter... Alcohol does not make drunkards any more than guns make murderers and spoons make obesity. The sin is in man.'

The weaker brother is the total abstainer, not the former drunkard

Summary: Weaver exegetes Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 to show that the weak brother is one who believes eating meat or drinking wine is sinful, not one prone to excess.

Evidence: Weaver states, 'The weaker brother in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians chapter 8 is the one who will not drink at all. He's the total abstainer.'

Offending a weaker brother means encouraging him to violate his conscience

Summary: Weaver defines 'offend' as causing a weak brother to do something without his knowledge, not merely upsetting him.

Evidence: Weaver explains, 'The word offend means basically to encourage a weak brother to do what you're doing without his having your knowledge.'

True conversion prevents relapse

Summary: Weaver argues that a genuinely saved person cannot become a drunkard again because of the preserving grace of God.

Evidence: Weaver says, 'There's no such thing as a Christian drunkard... If the grace of God is in you and the power of the Holy Spirit has sealed you, you are not going to return to your sin.'

The Rechabites' abstinence was not a universal command

Summary: Weaver shows that the Rechabites' obedience to Jonadab's unreasonable commands was used to contrast Israel's disobedience, not to mandate total abstinence.

Evidence: Weaver says, 'If you're going to take one of Jonadab's commandments and say this applies to everybody, what about the rest of the commandments that Jonadab gave?'

The Lord's Supper should use wine as originally instituted

Summary: Weaver argues that since Christ instituted the Supper with wine, changing it to grape juice is unauthorized and sets a dangerous precedent.

Evidence: Weaver asks, 'If our Lord instituted the Lord's Supper with wine and unleavened bread, by whose authority and by what right can we change it?'

Scripture References

1 Corinthians 11:20-22

Context: Weaver reads the opening passage about the Lord's Supper abuses.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26

Context: Weaver reads the institution of the Lord's Supper.

Leviticus 23:13

Context: Weaver mentions God's command for wine in offerings.

Numbers 15:5,10

Context: Weaver mentions God's command for wine in offerings.

Luke 22:18

Context: Weaver discusses Jesus' statement about the fruit of the vine as a metonymy.

Matthew 15:15-20

Context: Weaver cites Jesus' teaching that what enters the mouth does not defile, but what comes from the heart.

Romans 14:1-3,14,20-23

Context: Weaver exegetes the passage on the weak and strong brother regarding food and drink.

1 Corinthians 8:4-10

Context: Weaver explains the weak brother in the context of meat offered to idols.

1 John 1:1

Context: Weaver references John's affirmation of Christ's physical reality against Docetism.

1 John 2:19

Context: Weaver cites this to show that those who leave the faith were never truly saved.

1 John 3:9

Context: Weaver references the inability of a born-again person to continue in sin.

1 John 4:4

Context: Weaver mentions the greater power of God in believers.

Jude 1:1

Context: Weaver references the preservation of the saints.

Jeremiah 35:1-8,15-17

Context: Weaver examines the Rechabites' abstinence and God's use of their example.

James 1:13

Context: Weaver argues that if alcohol were inherently sinful, God would be tempting the Rechabites by offering it.

Deuteronomy 29:5-6

Context: Weaver notes that the wilderness generation abstained from wine but were unfaithful.

Hebrews 4

Context: Weaver references the wilderness generation's failure to enter God's rest.

Historical References

Greek dualism and philosophy

Context: Weaver explains how Greek philosophy viewed matter as inherently evil, influencing Gnosticism and later Christian sects.

Gnosticism and Docetism

Context: Weaver describes 2nd-century heretical groups that denied Christ's physical body due to their view of matter as evil.

Simeon Stylites

Context: Weaver mentions an ascetic who lived on a pillar for 20 years to purge his body.

Melania and Jovinus

Context: Weaver quotes R.J. Rushdoony's account of a 60-year-old woman who never bathed, illustrating extreme asceticism.

Prohibition (18th Amendment)

Context: Weaver argues that Prohibition did not stop drunkenness but increased it.

Dr. Thomas Welch and Welch's grape juice

Context: Weaver recounts how Dr. Welch, a Methodist dentist, developed non-alcoholic wine for communion in 1869, leading to the widespread use of grape juice in churches.

Important Quotes

Sin does not exist in matter. Let me say that again. Sin does not exist in matter.

Significance: This is the foundational principle Weaver uses to argue that alcohol is not inherently evil.

The weaker brother in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians chapter 8 is the one who will not drink at all. He's the total abstainer.

Significance: Weaver clarifies the identity of the weaker brother, which is central to his argument against the total abstinence position.

The word offend means basically to encourage a weak brother to do what you're doing without his having your knowledge.

Significance: Weaver defines 'offend' in its biblical context, distinguishing it from mere upset.

If the grace of God was great enough and sufficient enough to bring him out of his sin, is not the grace of God sufficient enough to keep him from returning to his sin?

Significance: Weaver argues that true conversion guarantees perseverance, countering the fear of relapse.

If our Lord instituted the Lord's Supper with wine and unleavened bread, by whose authority and by what right can we change it?

Significance: Weaver challenges the substitution of grape juice for wine based on the authority of Christ's institution.

Discussion Questions

How does the belief that sin resides in matter (like alcohol) conflict with biblical teaching about the heart?

Context: Weaver argues that sin is not in material things but in the human heart, citing Matthew 15.

In what ways has Greek dualism influenced modern Christian practices and beliefs about the body and material things?

Context: Weaver traces the influence of Greek philosophy on Gnosticism, asceticism, and views on alcohol.

According to Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8, who is the 'weaker brother' and how should the 'stronger brother' relate to him?

Context: Weaver exegetes these passages to show the weaker brother is the one with an uninformed conscience who abstains.

How does the biblical definition of 'offend' differ from the common modern understanding, and what implications does this have for Christian liberty?

Context: Weaver explains that 'offend' means to cause someone to act against their conscience, not merely to upset them.

What does the account of the Rechabites in Jeremiah 35 teach about obedience, and why is it not a mandate for total abstinence?

Context: Weaver uses the Rechabites to show that their abstinence was a specific command used to contrast Israel's disobedience.

How should the church decide what elements to use in the Lord's Supper, and what are the dangers of changing the original institution?

Context: Weaver argues that since Christ used wine, the church has no authority to substitute grape juice.

Applications

Recognize sin's true location

Summary: Believers should understand that sin originates in the heart, not in material substances, and avoid the error of Greek dualism.

Evidence: Weaver states, 'sin does not exist in matter... it is the heart that is sinful and wicked and ungodly.'

Exercise liberty with consideration

Summary: Stronger believers should not despise weaker ones, and weaker believers should not judge the strong; liberty should be exercised without causing a brother to violate his conscience.

Evidence: Weaver says, 'Let not the strong despise the weak and let not the weak judge the strong.'

Trust in the preserving grace of God

Summary: Believers can have confidence that genuine conversion and the Holy Spirit's power will keep them from returning to former sins.

Evidence: Weaver asserts, 'If the grace of God was great enough... is not the grace of God sufficient enough to keep him from returning to his sin?'

Maintain the biblical pattern for the Lord's Supper

Summary: Churches should use wine and unleavened bread as Christ instituted, rather than substituting based on human traditions or philosophies.

Evidence: Weaver asks, 'If our Lord instituted the Lord's Supper with wine and unleavened bread, by whose authority and by what right can we change it?'

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-06T03:46:54Z

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | weaver_study | 2026-06-06T16:26:41Z

Clean Transcript

The Lord's Supper - Part 9

Clean readable transcript. This view follows the Commentary.net cleaned segment text while preserving timestamps for audio follow-along.

The message you are about to hear was produced by Dominion Ministry. If you would like to support this ministry by becoming a sermon partner or obtain additional high-resolution CDs, DVDs, or MP3s featuring the teaching of Pastor John Weaver, please visit the Dominion Ministry website at www.dominion.org. www.dominionministry.com. This ministry is completely supported by donations and it is through those donations that we are able to provide sermons for sermonaudio.com. Please visit our website at www.dominionministry.com to subscribe or make your donation today. Thank you.
#1 | 0:03 to 0:54 | cleaned
1 Corinthians chapter 11, let's begin reading with verse 20, and we'll read just several verses and then begin. "When you are come together, therefore, to one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper, for in eating every one taketh before others his own supper, and one is hungry and another is drunken. What have you not houses to eat and drink in, or despise you the church of God, and shame them that have not?"
#2 | 1:00 to 1:24 | cleaned
"What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. And when he had given thanks, he breaketh and said, Take ye, this is my body, which is broken for you, this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had stopped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood. This do you as often as you drink it in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do show the Lord's..." Especially for those who are visiting with us today, let me just simply say that I have been preaching on the series on the Lord's Supper, and this will be the ninth week in a row, and hopefully, Lord willing, next week will be the final week on this subject, and then we'll be moving on to several other things.
#3 | 1:25 to 2:21 | cleaned
But I want to take just a moment and review, and especially for those who are visiting today. We've looked at the names of the Lord's Supper in the Bible. We've looked at its significance under the heading of the different kinds of meals that are mentioned in the Bible. And, of course, then we looked at the partakers of it, which was two particular messages in itself. Then we looked at the reproof that the Apostle Paul gave. And then, of course, we began to look at the elements.
#4 | 2:22 to 2:55 | cleaned
Now, I've been dealing with this subject on the elements for the last several weeks because I told you it was probably one of the most controversial parts of this series. We understood, of course, from the Bible that the bread was unleavened bread. That's no problem. But then I tried to share with you and showed you from the Bible that I believe that the liquid in the cup was not grape juice, but it was wine. And, of course, that was what they drank at the Passover.
#5 | 2:55 to 3:24 | cleaned
That is what our Lord instituted the Lord's Supper with. So then we began to look at the usage of wine in the Bible. And I pointed out, and I want to do that again today, there's a vast difference between a social use of alcohol and the religious use of alcohol. And when you get to the social use of alcohol, that falls in the area of Christian liberty. And as long as you do not misuse or abuse it, you may be free to have a glass of wine, but you're also free not to have a glass of wine as well.
#6 | 3:24 to 3:58 | cleaned
But when it came to the offerings, for instance in Leviticus 23 verse 13 and Numbers chapter 15 verses 5 and 10, where God demanded a fourth or a half of a hin of wine with the offerings, the priest could not substitute. In other words, here was a religious use of wine.
#7 | 3:59 to 4:18 | cleaned
Now, I'm going to be dealing with this phrase next week because I'm going to be dealing with the vow of the Nazarite and the abstinence of the priest when he was in the tabernacle and in the temple. But let me point out the fact when our Lord said in Luke chapter 22 and verse 18, "I will drink no more the fruit of the vine until I drink it anew with you in the kingdom of my Father."
#8 | 4:18 to 4:43 | cleaned
And that is a metonymy. That is where the substance of a matter is put for the thing itself. We looked at that in Genesis 49 and other passages of the Bible. We saw even where fir trees was a metonymy for lances. The fruit of the body or the fruit of the womb, of course, is a metonymy for the child or the children or an heir. So it is indeed a metonymy. Now, last week we looked very closely at the Bible under this heading, why its condemnation and its commendation. We went through the Bible and showed you where any and every abuse and misuse of alcohol was condemned over and over. And it's not just drunkenness that is condemned. It is indeed the misuse and abuse of it.
#9 | 4:43 to 5:34 | cleaned
You can misuse it by making other people drunk for immoral and wicked purposes as Habakkuk chapter 2 points out and for Joel chapter 3 where they were selling a boy for a harlot and a girl for a glass of wine. All of this is condemned in the Bible. But then we look at its commendation, and there are many passages in the Bible that commend wine, and I showed you the way in which that wine was commended.
#10 | 5:34 to 6:04 | cleaned
Now, the interesting thing is this. The same Hebrew words that are used concerning wine or alcohol, like chemer, tirosh, yayin, whatever, when it is dealing with the condemnation of alcohol, the same words are used in the commendation of alcohol, so we're talking about the same substance.
#11 | 6:04 to 6:27 | cleaned
Now, let me just simply say this, that my position in all of this is I want to be exceedingly biblical. I want to condemn that which God condemns, and I want to commend that which God commends. I cannot condemn that which God commends, nor can I commend that which God condemns. So I pointed out that the biblical position is simply this. We must view wine, or alcohol if you want to use it as that, as a gift and blessing from God only as it is used the way that he commands and the way that he commends. And any abuse and misuse of wine must be despised and detested and these two positions must be held simultaneously. And then of course last week I pointed out in 1 Corinthians 3 and in 1 Timothy chapter 6 how that only God's people can in reality use anything biblically and scripturally anyhow because of the grace of God that is in us.
#12 | 6:27 to 7:32 | cleaned
Now today what I want to do is this, I still want to deal with some objections and some questions in regard to this matter of using wine, real alcoholic wine, in the Lord's Supper. I'm not talking about going out to a bar, I'm not talking about having a bottle of wine in your home, I'm talking about using wine in the Lord's Supper.
#13 | 7:32 to 7:56 | cleaned
Now, let me begin by emphasizing the first point. I hinted upon this last week, I hinted at it, but today I want to develop it. I want you to understand that sin does not exist in matter. Let me say that again. Sin does not exist in matter. People have referred to alcohol as the devil's juice. They say it's wicked, it's wrong, it's ungodly. Certainly it has been abused and misused many times, and the people who do misuse and abuse it are wicked and ungodly. But whenever you locate evil or sin in anything material, then you've fallen into Greek philosophy.
#14 | 7:56 to 8:41 | cleaned
You're not following the Bible teaching. The Greeks taught a system of dualism. In Greek philosophy, they had a dichotomy, they had a distinction between matter and spirit, or soul and body. And so they viewed matter then as inherently wicked, inherently evil, and only the mind or the soul then was exceedingly pure. Thus you have, because of this false Greek philosophy, you have the rise in Christendom of all these sects and cults. You have the rise of the Gnostics, the Pietists, the Ascetics, the Monasteries, the nunneries, all of these were based upon Greek dualism, not upon the Word of God. Do you remember why those monks many times in those monasteries would beat themselves with whips and cut themselves and make their body to suffer? Because they thought their body was inherently evil. And they were trying to drive the evil out of their bodies so that they could be cured in body and in soul as well. So, if the body, or if the earth, or any kind of matter is inherently evil, then according to Greek philosophy, it must be purged, it must be avoided, it must be despised.
#15 | 8:42 to 10:11 | cleaned
Now, let me just tell you something that may not interest you, but I hope that it will interest you. I remember when I was in college, I had a class in philosophy. And especially when we've got to talk about Plato and Socrates and Diogenes and all these men. And I sat in that class and I thought, this is the dumbest stuff I've ever heard in my life. Why do I need to know anything about Greek philosophy? Why do I need to know anything about Roman philosophy? And I had a little agenda when I was in college.
#16 | 10:12 to 10:54 | cleaned
Those courses that I loved, I made A's in. Those courses that I hated, I made sure that I made an A in because I didn't want to have to repeat it. Well, I hated philosophy until I got out of college and I started reading the scripture and I found out that there is indeed a biblical philosophy. By the way, Phileo is the Greek word for love. Philosophy. Sophia is the Greek word for wisdom. The word philosophy just means a lover of wisdom. God is wisdom incarnate, so therefore he is the chief philosopher. So if you despise philosophy, you despise God. But once you begin to see how heathenistic or humanistic philosophy has intertwined itself in Christianity, you can see the perversion in Christianity and how there has been changes all down through the centuries.
#17 | 10:56 to 12:06 | cleaned
Now, when I understood that, I then saw the importance of understanding philosophy. Neoplatonism, the word neo means new, and it's from Plato. Platonism, it just simply means the new teaching of Platonism. And that is very prevalent and very prominent today, and it is the mixture then of this Greek dialectical dualism which pits the spirit against the flesh and the body, and the soul against mind and matter.
#18 | 12:07 to 12:38 | cleaned
Now, it crept into the church in the 2nd century AD through the root of Gnosticism. Now let me just tell you a little bit about Gnosticism. It's based on the Greek word gnosis, which means to know. The Gnostics basically taught salvation through a secret knowledge. That's why you have all these secret cults today. They're nothing but Gnostic cults, is what it amounts to. But the Gnostics were a heretical group, and they viewed matter as inherently evil.
#19 | 12:39 to 13:08 | cleaned
Well, they had a real problem. If God created the world, and the world is made out of matter, then the world must be evil. And if God created the body, and the body is made out of matter, then the body must be evil. Well, their problem was this, how could a holy God create that which was evil? And so some of the Gnostics then developed a system of demiurges, or what you and I would call semi-creators. So they say, that the one true and the living God created a demiurge under him who was not pure spirit like himself, had some matter in him, and the second demiurge created a third, the third created a fourth, the fourth created the fifth, the fifth created the sixth, the sixth created the seventh, and the seventh happened to be Jesus Christ, and the seventh then created the world. So, they're removing God, then, from his creation because they believe that matter is inherently evil.
#20 | 13:10 to 14:15 | cleaned
Now, I want you to understand something. This led to a number of very vile and wicked applications. For instance, those Gnostics who were known as Docetics, and it's from the Greek word dokeo, which means to appear, or I appear, the Dochetic Gnostics said that Jesus Christ was not real. That he was merely a divine apparition. Why would they say that Jesus Christ was not real? Because matter is inherently evil. So he could not have a real body.
#21 | 14:15 to 14:58 | cleaned
That's why John wrote 1 John 1, and when he said, we have seen him, we've handled him, and we've touched him. In other words, he is real, he is genuine, he does have a body. So that was the docetics. So the docetics, they got around it by saying that Christ was not even a real human being. And you'll find the book of Colossians, as well as the book of 1 John, is written directly against Gnosticism. But then there were the Corinthians as well. And the Corinthians were the individuals who took this then. They said, well, look, if matter is inherently evil, and it is, and the mind and the spirit is that which is pure, well, we can't get rid of the body, so we might as well eat, drink, and be married, for tomorrow we die.
#22 | 14:59 to 15:48 | cleaned
We'll just indulge the flesh and get into everything known to man. You see, you had all these divergent philosophies. You had people in the second century who claimed to be Christians, who abused and misused their bodies on down through there. I could give you illustration after illustration. There was a man by the name of Simeon Stylites who climbed up on a pillar and stayed there for about 20 years. Just up on the rock.
#23 | 15:48 to 16:24 | cleaned
He was purging his body. Let me give you one illustration. Rushdoony, in his book, Flight from Humanity, gives an excellent illustration. And by the way, it's not a very thick book, it's a little paperback. R.J. Rushdoony's Flight from Humanity. If you want to understand Neoplatonism, you need to read that book. Here is an account that he gives of how biblical Christianity got mixed up with Platonism, Greek philosophy, and you can see the horrible consequences.
#24 | 16:26 to 17:01 | cleaned
I'm going to just quote two paragraphs. He says, "For a Christian, the lives of the saints are sometimes painful reading. Intelligence and faith are sometimes wedded to the most ludicrous practices and to ideas alien to biblical religion." And here's the example he gives. "When after a very hot journey, Jovinus washed his tired feet and hands in very cold water, and then stretched out to rest, the holy Melania rebuked him. Melania approached him as a wise mother approaching her own son, and she scoffed at his weakness, saying, 'How can a warm-blooded young man like you dare to pamper your flesh that way?'
#25 | 17:01 to 17:44 | cleaned
"Do you not know that this is a source of much harm? Look, I am sixty years old, and neither have my feet, nor my face, nor any of my members except for the tips of my fingers have touched water, although I am afflicted with many ailments and my doctors urge me. I have not yet made concessions to my bodily desires, nor have I used accounts for resting, nor have I ever made a journey on a litter." Sixty years old and never took a bath.
#26 | 17:45 to 18:17 | cleaned
Rushdoony's got one more sentence. He says, "We learn nothing about biblical holiness from Melania, although we do begin to realize what the odor of sanctity might mean." Well, why would a 60-year-old woman not take a bath? Why would she not rest her body? Because she thought that that body was inherently evil, and she was not going to do anything that would pamper the evil. Now listen to me folks, matter is not inherently evil. What does that mean? That means alcohol is not inherently evil. There is nothing evil in and of itself.
#27 | 18:20 to 18:59 | cleaned
Look in your Bibles to Matthew 15 and I want you to see the clear teaching of our Lord. Look what he said in Matthew chapter 15. Matthew 15 beginning with verse 15. "Then answered Peter, and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable." Matthew 15 verse 16, "Jesus said, Are you also yet without understanding?"
#28 | 18:59 to 19:25 | cleaned
Now look what he says, "Do you not yet understand that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart, and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed what? Evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands defiles not a man." So when our Lord says, do you not understand that which enters into the mouth and goeth into the body? That's not what defiles a man. It's that which comes out of the heart. In other words, it is the heart that is sinful and wicked and ungodly.
#29 | 19:25 to 20:17 | cleaned
You see, if you say that alcohol is evil in and of itself, then you have to throw out all of our medicines because they're alcohol based. You'd have to throw out all your herbal tinctures because you have to have alcohol to make an herbal tincture. You'd have to throw out all of your homeopathic medicine because you have to have alcohol for that. You see what I'm saying? If you postulate that alcohol is evil in and of itself, then you could not taste it, touch it, or take it in any shape, form, or fashion without taking sin into your body. Which is absolutely ridiculous. Now listen to this. Alcohol does not make drunkards. Let me say it again. Alcohol does not make drunkards any more than guns make murderers and spoons make obesity. You follow me? The sin is in man.
#30 | 20:18 to 21:31 | cleaned
It's not in that which is material. It is not that which is matter. Sin is in the heart of man. It's man's rebellious, wicked, ungodly heart that always abuses and misuses everything. It is man and his rebellion against God. The answer is not prohibition, but regeneration and conversion. Did Prohibition stop drunkenness in 1919, 1920? No. The 18th Amendment never stopped drunkenness. There were more drunks and more alcohol sold then than ever before.
#31 | 21:33 to 22:20 | cleaned
One of my dear friends was a godly Christian woman and she had a husband who was unsaved. You can't cut it any other way. He was a drunk.
#32 | 22:22 to 22:36 | cleaned
Now, when I say he was a drunk, that doesn't mean that he stayed drunk all the time. He did not. But about once a month, he had to pitch himself a good drunk. Other than that, he was a wonderful provider. He was a lovable, likable, amiable individual. He would give you the shirt off his back. You enjoyed being around him, except, of course, when he was drunk.
#33 | 22:37 to 23:03 | cleaned
And one day I was talking with his wife trying to encourage her. And she knew better, but she said, "Pastor, he is such a good man. If he would just quit drinking, everything would be all right." I looked at her and I said, "How can you say that? The problem is not his drinking. The problem is his wicked heart. If he quit drinking today, his wicked heart would find another avenue to abuse and misuse and pervert something." You follow me? You get the heart right and everything else turns out right as well.
#34 | 23:06 to 23:50 | cleaned
So sin does not exist in anything material. It does not exist in anything that is made of the matter. Sin is in the heart of man. It's our rebellion, our wickedness, our ungodliness. The second thing I want to cover today is this. Alcohol and the weaker brother. I want you to turn in your Bibles to Romans chapter 14. Romans 14. And we're going to look at this passage and you might want to go ahead and find 1 Corinthians chapter 8.
#35 | 23:51 to 24:25 | cleaned
Because we'll be turning there as well. Romans 14. Now, there is a passage that most people really take out of context, and that is Romans 14 and verse 21. When the Apostle Paul said, "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." Now look at that, it is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything where thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
#36 | 24:25 to 25:11 | cleaned
Now this passage is often quoted by individuals who say, well the Bible demands total abstinence. Well, I've pointed out before, the Bible does not demand total abstinence. The Bible demands, let your moderation be known unto all men. And there is certainly a religious use of wine in the Bible. But this statement is usually quoted by those who are trying to make total abstinence a requirement for every Christian.
#37 | 25:13 to 25:40 | cleaned
They argue that it is the duty of the strong to abstain out of deference to the weak. In other words, they are saying that even a very careful and a temperate use of wine contradicts the apostolic principle in Romans 14 and verse 21. Well, you've got to ask yourself two questions. The first one, look at it. He said, "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." Now, the first thing you've got to ask is what is the weaker brother or who is the weaker brother?
#38 | 25:41 to 26:20 | cleaned
And what does it mean to cause him to stumble or to cause him to offend? Now, I want you to note something, and I'm going to show it to you in this passage, but I would encourage you to read all of this chapter when you get home. You see, in Romans 14 and in 1 Corinthians chapter 8, Paul means something entirely different when he talks about the weaker brother than those who are teaching total abstinence what they mean by the weaker brother. Now, what they mean is this.
#39 | 26:21 to 26:58 | cleaned
Here's someone, say, just been recently converted. I'm going to use Doc. He's sitting close to me. Let's suppose that Doc used to be a drunkard. Thankfully, he never has been, but let's suppose he used to be a drunkard. Now God saves him. And now they say, we cannot use wine in the Lord's Supper, period, because it's going to set him off and he's trying to stay free. And he's trying to totally abstain from alcohol, and if we give him any, then boy, it's going to set him off again and he'll end up being a drunkard.
#40 | 26:59 to 27:37 | cleaned
That is their understanding of a weaker brother. The weaker brother in Romans chapter 14 and 1 Corinthians chapter 8 is not the man who tends to drink too much. The weaker brother in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians chapter 8 is the one who will not drink at all. He's the total abstainer. Look at it. Verse 1, "Him that is weak in the faith receive you, but not the doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things, help me out now, another who is weak eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not, let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth, for God hath received him."
#41 | 27:38 to 28:29 | cleaned
Now, I want you to note something. The man in Romans 14, and the man in 1 Corinthians chapter 8, the weaker brother is an individual who has a scruple of conscience. And his scruple of conscience is that meats and wines are evil in and of themselves. So therefore he is not going to eat any of it or drink any of it because he believes that it is inherently evil in and of itself. It is the stronger brother that recognizes that this is not true. The weaker brother is the weaker brother because of his unscriptural convictions and his unbiblical thinking. He believes that if he eats or if he drinks, then it is sin. Now, I want you to listen to this. I'm going to show it to you from the Bible in just a moment.
#42 | 28:29 to 29:26 | cleaned
It is not the act of eating or drinking that is sin that Paul is dealing with right here. But the sin comes in that he eats and drinks against his conscience without faith. Look at Romans 14 in verse 23. "And he that doubteth is damned, or condemned if he eat. Why? Because he eateth not of faith, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."
#43 | 29:28 to 29:57 | cleaned
Now, the point I'm trying to make is this. In this passage, the weaker brother is the one who will not drink at all. He will not eat meat at all. Look in verse 2 again. "For one believeth that he may eat all things." That's the strong brother. "Another who is weak eateth only herbs." He's the vegetarian. But I want you to note something. It is not a health issue. It is a religious issue. Skip down, if you would please, to verse 14. Look what the Apostle Paul says, Romans 14, verse 14.
#44 | 29:57 to 30:34 | cleaned
"I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself." Is there anything unclean of itself? No. Is anything sinful in and of itself? No. But look what he says. "But to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." In other words, if he's got a scruple of conscience that is sinful, for him to go against that conscience, of course, would be wrong.
#45 | 30:34 to 31:07 | cleaned
But he is classified here as the weaker brother. Look in verse 20. He says, "For meat destroy not the work of God, help me out now. All things indeed are what? Pure. But it is evil for that man who eateth with offense."
#46 | 31:07 to 31:26 | cleaned
Now, is the eating and drinking wrong? No. Is having a glass of wine wrong? Is it sinful in and of itself? No. But if I have a scruple of conscience and I say that wine is evil and I believe that wine is evil and then I take it that I've sinned. And when I say that, I'm the weaker brother in this passage. The weaker brother here is the one who abstains from everything.
#47 | 31:28 to 31:56 | cleaned
That's why the Bible says, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Now, notice if you would, he said in verse 22, "Hast thou faith? Lord, you know better. Have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth."
#48 | 31:57 to 32:17 | cleaned
Now, please, please, don't take what I'm saying out of context. I'm not talking about the social use of wine right now, okay? But I am talking about the religious use of wine, and the Bible says, happy is the man that condemneth not himself, and that thing which he alloweth. In other words, if he understands, if he knows the truth, his conscience is not going to condemn him, period. Now, the point I'm trying to make is this.
#49 | 32:17 to 32:44 | cleaned
The weaker brother in this passage, and in 1 Corinthians chapter 8, is the one who that believes eating certain meats and drinking wine is a sin in and of itself. It's not that this man has a propensity to drink. It's not that he fears in turning into a drunkard. No, no, no. He just believes it's wicked and wrong in and of himself. So he says that wine is sin in and of itself, and therefore he's classified as the weaker brother.
#50 | 32:44 to 33:16 | cleaned
Notice if you would in verse 21. Paul said, "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or made weak." Now, verse 21 does not advocate abstaining from meat or abstaining from drinking wine. He just simply says it's good not to do either one of these things if it's going to cause your brother to stumble, or offend, or to be made weak. In other words, according to verse 22, if you look at verse 22, if you want to exercise your liberty, when you're not around the weaker brother, have at it, he said, "Hast thou faith, have it thyself before God, happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth." Now, let's go back to verse 21, because he said, "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or made weak." First of all, the word stumble. The word stumble is from the Greek word proskopto.
#51 | 33:19 to 34:27 | cleaned
Pros means to or toward, and kopto means to strike or to hit the foot. So when you strike or hit the foot, it causes you to stumble. That is, you are impeded in your journey. You're not walking uprightly. And so the Apostle Paul is using this word as anything that would hinder someone, so to speak, in their divine life. Anything that causes him to halt or to stumble or to slow him down. So that's the word in there for stumble. Then he said the word or offend. Now the word offend here is from the Greek word skandalon. It's where we get our English word scandal.
#52 | 34:27 to 35:08 | cleaned
Now a skandalon was the wooden stake on a trap that the animal triggered when he went into the trap and he got caught. So to scandalize someone means that they are ensnared, they are entrapped, so to speak. And so Paul says, you better not ensnare someone or cause them to be entrapped, so to speak. And then he says, or is made weak. And the Greek word here is asthene, which means without strength or mental vigor, unable to distinguish between right and wrong and clean and unclean. In other words, it talks about someone who has an erroneous judgment or an erroneous conscience. Now, I gave you all those words to tell you this, that the word offend is grossly misunderstood and misapplied today. Usually we interpret the word offend and make it to mean something that upsets someone or something that makes them mad. When someone comes up to you and says, "That offends me."
#53 | 35:10 to 36:32 | cleaned
Let me translate what they're saying. "I don't like what you're doing. Stop it." That's what they mean. I had a woman come to me one time, this was years ago, and I grew my beard because of what the Bible teaches concerning a beard, and I've had this beard. Did you ever see me without a beard? And she's more than 21. No, I've probably had this beard 35 years or longer. But I had a woman come up to me one time and tell me, "Brother Weaver, your beard offends me."
#54 | 36:34 to 37:15 | cleaned
I just smiled and then broke out laughing. I said, "Ma'am, there's no way in the world my beard can offend you because you couldn't do what I'm doing even if you had my knowledge." You see, I just gave a biblical explanation of the word offend. The word offend means basically to encourage a weak brother to do what you're doing without his having your knowledge. Look in your Bibles to 1 Corinthians chapter 8. And by the way, once again, this passage deals with the weak and the strong.
#55 | 37:15 to 37:54 | cleaned
In verse 4, he says, "As concerning, therefore, the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is none other God but one." Now, let me just stop there. Let me tell you what some Christians were doing in the Corinthian church. They would get invited to a feast in an idol's temple. And they'd go in and eat and drink the wine and eat the steak. Because they ate and drank it as unto God and not unto the idol. And they understood that that idol had absolutely no influence whatsoever on that meat. But there were some who used to worship that idol. And they thought that somehow that meat was influenced by that idol.
#56 | 37:56 to 38:54 | cleaned
Now, those are the ones that are weak brethren here in this chapter. Now, wait a minute. When you get to 1 Corinthians 9, he talks about that which is sold in the shambles that eat. What was the shambles? The shambles was the discount meat market. It was right by the idol's temple. In other words, they couldn't use all the meat. The priest couldn't use all the meat and so they would sell it at a discount.
#57 | 38:54 to 39:25 | cleaned
So instead of you paying $4 a pound for T-bone steaks, you can go to the shambles and get a good wonderful steak for about 50 cents a pound. And some of these young or weaker Christians are like, "How can you do that? How can you eat that meat? That meat has been offered to idols."
#58 | 39:26 to 39:49 | cleaned
Now, watch what he says. 1 Corinthians 8, verse 4. "As concerning, therefore, the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols," look what Paul says.
#59 | 39:49 to 39:59 | cleaned
Now, he's a strong brother. "We know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is none other God but one." What's a strong man have? He has knowledge. Watch. Verse 5, "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or earth, as there be gods many and lords many, but to us," that is to those who know the truth, "but to us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him."
#60 | 40:00 to 40:32 | cleaned
Now look what he says, this will take some explanation. "Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge." When he says, "howbeit there is not in every man" or in every Christian that knowledge, he is not saying that there are some Christians who do not know that there's only one God and one Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. What he's saying is there's not in every Christian the knowledge that that idol has absolutely no influence on that meat whatsoever.
#61 | 40:32 to 41:03 | cleaned
Here's how I get that. Watch in verse 7. "For some with conscience," and the word there is literally syneidesis, "for some with habit or custom of the idol unto this hour, eat it as a thing offered unto idol, watch, and their conscience being what? Weak, is defiled." Or is it vile?
#62 | 41:03 to 41:26 | cleaned
Now, what am I saying? So here's the weak man, who may be in times past, before he was converted, he worshipped at that idol's temple. And he thought that that idol had some influence on that meat. And now, if he goes against his conscience and eats that meat, he says, "Hmm, I'm sinning against God because that idol has some kind of influence on this meat." Well, look in verse 10, here's what he's saying. In fact, let's read verse 8. "But meat commendeth us not to God, for neither if we eat are we the better, neither if we eat not are we the worse. But take heed, lest by any means this liberty of yours," notice it's a liberty, "become a stumbling block to them that are weak. For if any man," we're talking about the weak brother now, not just any man, "for if any weak brother see thee which hast knowledge," you're the strong brother, "sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols." Ah. In other words, it is the strong who has the knowledge, it is the weak who are ignorant, and the weak will see the strong man doing something and he says, "Oh, well if he can do it, I can do it." But the problem is, he does not have the knowledge that the strong man has. And he goes ahead and does it. And therefore he wounds his conscience.
#63 | 41:26 to 42:32 | cleaned
Now, let me ask this question. How can I not cause a weak brother to stumble? How can I not cause a weak brother to stumble? First, I could show him and teach him the truth according to the Word of God. If he understood the truth, he would no longer be a weak brother, would he? He would have my knowledge, or he would have the knowledge of the word of God. If he refused the truth, he's not just a weak brother, he's a rebellious brother. You got it? Secondly, I am not causing a weak brother to stumble if I do not encourage him to go contrary to his conscience, even though his conscience may be misinformed. In other words, if Doc is my weak brother, and I know what that weakness is, and I don't encourage him to go contrary to that weakness, then I haven't caused him to stumble. I haven't offended him. I haven't made him weak.
#64 | 42:33 to 42:59 | cleaned
Now if I exercise my liberty somewhere else, hey, that's my business. That's not his business. But I have not offended him. I have not made him to stumble. You see that?
#65 | 42:59 to 44:21 | cleaned
Now remember what I told you last week. I can never surrender the principle of liberty. But I gave you three reasons in the Bible why we could forego the lawful exercise of our liberty. I don't have to eat meat. That's what Paul said. Meat doesn't make me a better Christian. It doesn't make me any less of a Christian. I don't have to eat meat. I don't have to drink wine. That's what he's saying.
#66 | 44:23 to 44:32 | cleaned
Why would you upset someone? Why would you tear something up over something so simple? So, as long as I'm not encouraging him to go contrary to his weak conscience, it doesn't matter what I do, I'm not offending him. I'm not causing him to stumble. Look in Romans 14 in verse 3. Go back there very quickly. I'm still dealing with 1 Corinthians 8. But look in Romans 14 in verse 3. He says this. Romans 14 verse 3.
#67 | 44:33 to 45:02 | cleaned
"Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not. And let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth, for God hath received him."
#68 | 45:03 to 45:38 | cleaned
Now let me show you the problem that we have. You see, God gives obligations to the weak brother and obligations to the strong brother. It is the tendency of the strong to despise the weak. For the strong to look down at Doc and say, "Oh Doc, come on, don't be a baby. Come on, grow up." What is that? That's an attitude of despising where he is. But if he looked at me and said, "I don't see how you can do that and be a Christian."
#69 | 45:38 to 45:47 | cleaned
"You must not be saved." Now what's he doing? He's judging me. So God says let not the strong despise the weak and let not the weak judge the strong. So if I exercise my liberty when he's not around, he has no right to judge me because I'm not encouraging him to go contrary to his conscience. Thirdly, if I continue to exercise my liberty and warn him not to violate his conscience, I still have not caused him to stumble. I've still not offended him.
#70 | 45:47 to 46:25 | cleaned
How can I say that? Well, if he goes contrary to his conscience with me encouraging him not to, that's his sin, not mine. I'm responsible for my actions, not his. Do you follow me? The word offend in the context of Romans 14 and in the context of 1 Corinthians chapter 8 means that you encourage someone to do what you're doing without them having your knowledge. And they think that what you're doing is somehow sinful and wrong and wicked.
#71 | 46:25 to 47:05 | cleaned
When in reality, it is not. Their conscience is just misinformed. Okay?
#72 | 47:08 to 47:46 | cleaned
Now, before I proceed any further, I want to deal with one of the main objections, I've already hinted at it, of using wine in the Lord's Supper. So many people take this weak brother argument to the absolute extreme. They don't only take it to the extreme, they take it to an unbiblical extreme. For example, they would say that the weak brother is a former drunkard and that they're afraid that if he tastes wine in the Lord's Supper that it's going to set him off and drive him back into being a drunkard. First of all, I want you to see in that position they're viewing wine as evil in and of itself when it is not. It is not the wine, it is the wicked heart. Okay? Matter is not inherently evil. Sin is not in matter, sin is in the heart.
#73 | 47:48 to 47:56 | cleaned
Secondly, stop and think about it. That position teaches that sin is greater, stronger, and more powerful than the grace of God. If the grace of God was great enough and sufficient enough to bring him out of his sin, is not the grace of God sufficient enough to keep him from returning to his sin? If there has been genuine and true repentance, there could not possibly be a turning back.
#74 | 47:56 to 48:57 | cleaned
Third, inherent in that position is a denial of the power of the Holy Spirit. If we have been sealed unto the day of our redemption, as the Word of God says in the book of Ephesians, can the Holy Spirit not keep those who are committed to his trust? What about 1 John 4:4? Is it not true? Greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world. Is not 1 John 3 and verse 9 true? Whosoever is born of God cannot sin, that is, he does not continually commit sin. Why? For his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, that is, he cannot continually sin. Why? Because he has been begotten of God.
#75 | 48:57 to 49:34 | cleaned
It's the grace and the mercy of God that keeps us from going back. You say, "Ah, but Pastor," and I want you to turn to 1 John 2, I can quote it, but I want you to see it. Turn to 1 John 2. You say, "Oh, but pastor, I know of someone who was a professing Christian. And boy, he went back and boy, one taste set him off and today he's just a drunkard." Well, if that is so, you need to read 1 John 2 and verse 19. Look what John said. "They went out from us." They left us. Why?
#76 | 49:37 to 50:22 | cleaned
"But they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us. But they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." What did John say? If you left us, you never was one of us to begin with. The Lord's salvation was not there. The grace of God was never there. You've got to remember, folks, there are people who reform themselves.
#77 | 50:23 to 50:58 | cleaned
Our Lord spoke about that. The man who cast the demon out of himself, so to speak, and the demon left. And what happened? He came back and found his house swept and garnished, and he took seven spirits more wicked than himself with him when he went back in. No. You see, the truth of the matter is those who have been saved, according to Jude 1 and verse 1, are preserved in Jesus Christ.
#78 | 50:59 to 51:24 | cleaned
There's no such thing as a Christian drunkard. There's no such thing as a Christian prostitute. You follow me? If the grace of God is in you and the power of the Holy Spirit has sealed you, you are not going to return to your sin and your wickedness. That's all there is to it.
#79 | 51:25 to 51:54 | cleaned
Now, let me cover one other thing before I close today, and that is the case of the Rechabites. And I can deal with this very quickly. Look in your Bibles to Jeremiah 35. Jeremiah 35. Because the Rechabites are mentioned many times by the prohibitionists in saying that, boy, here are our examples. Well, look in verses six and seven. In fact, let's read verse five. Jeremiah 35, verse five, "And I said before the sons of the house of the Rechabites, pots full of wine and cups, and I said to them, Drink ye wine. But they said, We will drink no wine. For Jonadab, the son of Rechab, our father, commanded us, saying, You shall drink no wine, neither ye nor your sons, for ever. Neither shall you build houses, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any."
#80 | 51:56 to 52:20 | cleaned
"But all your days you shall dwell in tents, that you may live many days in the land wherein you are strangers. Thus have we obeyed the voice of Jonadab, the son of Rechab, our father, and all that he has charged us to drink no wine all our days, we, our wives, our sons, and our daughters, nor to build houses, etc." You go on and read that yourself. Now, the case of the Rechabites is frequently brought up and said that we should emulate them in the fact that they drink no wine. Well, if you apply the rule of Jonadab and the commandment of Jonadab to us, we are in a great deal of trouble. First of all, Jonadab had nothing to do with us. But he did tell them, you shall drink no wine, you shall not live in houses, you shall plant no vineyards, you shall not live in tents, you shall be nomads. Now, if we are obligated to keep Jonadab's commandments, as some would say, do those who teach that you should totally abstain from wine, do they not live in houses?
#81 | 52:21 to 53:25 | cleaned
Do they not plant gardens? Do they not plow fields?
#82 | 53:26 to 54:38 | cleaned
Now, the point I'm trying to make is very simple. If you're going to take one of Jonadab's commandments and say this applies to everybody, what about the rest of the commandments that Jonadab gave? Well, Jonadab has nothing to do with us. Now, you and I cannot say that Christians today are obligated to keep the commandments of Jonadab. Why did God give us this example? Let me show you. Would you say that it was reasonable to tell your descendants to have it as a law that they could never have a garden, they could never have a vineyard, they could never have a house. They had to live in tents, they had to be nomads, and they could never drink any wine. Does that sound reasonable to you? Not really.
#83 | 54:39 to 54:43 | cleaned
But here's what our Lord is showing. The Lord is showing the faithfulness of the Rechabites to the unreasonable commands of Jonadab. And he is showing the unfaithfulness of the Israelites to God's reasonable commands. Look at it in verse 15. Jeremiah 35 verse 15, "I have sent also unto you all my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them, saying, Return ye now every man from his evil way, and amend your doings, and go not after other gods to serve them."
#84 | 54:45 to 55:41 | cleaned
"And you shall dwell in the land which I have given you unto your fathers. But you have not inclined your ear, nor hearkened unto me, because the sons of Jonadab, the son of Rechab, have performed the commandments of their father, which he commanded them. But this people hath not hearkened unto me. Therefore, thus saith the Lord God of the host, the God of Israel, behold, I will bring upon Judah and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the evil that I have pronounced against them, because I have spoken to them, and they have not heard, and I have called on them, but they have not answered." Now what did God do? God said, look at the Rechabites. Look at them. Jonadab gave them these unreasonable commands, and they obeyed. Look at you. I've given you reasonable, logical, godly commands, and you disobeyed.
#85 | 55:42 to 56:23 | cleaned
By the way, if you'll go back to Jeremiah chapter 35, let me point something out for you. If wine is sinful, or if alcohol is sinful in and of itself, if it is, and it's not, but some say that it is, if wine is sinful in and of itself, and if it's wrong to offer wine to anybody under any circumstances, which some say, you've got a real problem in Jeremiah 35. Why? Look in verse 1. "The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord in the days of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah, king of Judah, saying, Go into the house of the Rechabites, and speak unto them, and bring them into the house of the Lord, the temple, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink. Then I took Jazaniah, the son of Jeremiah, the son of Habazziniah, and his brethren, all the sons of the whole house of the Rechabites, and I brought them into the house of the Lord, into the chamber of the sons of Hanun, the son of Igdaliah, the man of God, which was by the"
#86 | 56:23 to 57:11 | cleaned
"chamber of the princes, which was above the chamber of Maaseiah, the son of Shallum, the keeper of the door. And I sat before the sons of the house of the Rechabites, pots full of wine and cups, and I said to them, Drink ye." God said that this wine was to be offered to the Rechabites, God himself. You see what I'm saying? When you take the position that alcohol is inherently sinful in and of itself, then you've got problems.
#87 | 57:15 to 58:22 | cleaned
What does the Bible say in James 1? "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God. For God cannot be tempted of evil, neither tempteth he any man." And if alcohol was wrong, and sinful, James 1:13 could not possibly be true, because God would be tempting these people. You follow me?
#88 | 58:23 to 58:53 | cleaned
Now, some have suggested, and by the way, I've never in my life, I've told you repeatedly, I don't drink. I don't encourage people to drink. Never in my entire life have I done that. I'm just trying to be honest with scripture and honest with the word of God. But when people try to say, well, if you and by the way, Trip is here, he can tell you. I've spoken about all my grandchildren and I tell them this, if you don't ever start, you don't have to stop. OK, you follow me? When God saved me, I was a sinner. I can tell you that right now. But I'll tell you this. When God saved me, I never had to stop drinking. I never had to stop smoking. I never had to stop cussing. Why? Because I didn't do those things before God saved me. If you don't ever start, you don't ever have to stop. Understand that. But if you say, well, the absence of wine, boy, that's going to prove that you're godly. Or the absence of alcohol.
#89 | 58:53 to 59:17 | cleaned
No, the absence of alcohol does not necessarily prove godliness. Because if the strict abstainers are supposedly the godliest people of all, and I want you to look in your Bibles to Deuteronomy 29. Turn there. Deuteronomy 29, if the strict abstainers are supposed to be the godliest people of all. Are you there yet? Deuteronomy 29. If strict abstainers are supposed to be more godly than anyone else, then that generation of the children of Israel who wandered in the desert should have been the godliest of all. Deuteronomy 29, verse 5, God said, "I have led you 40 years in the wilderness."
#90 | 59:18 to 1:00:27 | cleaned
"Your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot. You've not eaten bread, neither have you drunk wine or strong drink, that you might know that I am the Lord your God." And what did God end up doing with that generation? He killed them. If you were to look in Hebrews chapter 4, God said they could not enter into His rest. Why?
#91 | 1:00:27 to 1:01:17 | cleaned
Because they were children of no faith. And of that original group that came out of Egypt, how many got in? Two. Joshua and Caleb.
#92 | 1:01:17 to 1:01:41 | cleaned
Now, let me just make some applications in closing. First, I want to remind you once again there is a difference between the social and religious use of wine. None are compelled to drink socially, but yet on the other hand, those priests had no choice in the use of wine in those offerings. God demanded it. I don't believe we have any choice in the use of wine in the Lord's Supper in the sense that I believe that's the way that it was established.
#93 | 1:01:41 to 1:01:50 | cleaned
And I'm still going to show you even more next week. The second application is this. The weaker brother objection is quickly and easily overcome, not only by common sense and reason, but above all by Scripture. My liberty in Christ and my life in Christ is not and cannot be controlled by people who are ignorant, weak, and sometimes unwilling to learn. You follow me? I can't order my life based upon your desires, or your understanding, or your misunderstanding. I must order my life based upon the Word of God. You must order your life based upon the Word of God. We are not to be controlled by the weak brethren, although we must consider them.
#94 | 1:01:52 to 1:02:30 | cleaned
Now let me just answer one other question. How did the church ever get to using grape juice? It may surprise you. Grape juice did not really come into the use of the church basically until around the time of Prohibition. There was a man, and I'll give you his name just a little bit later, who was born in England in 1825. He moved to this country. He lived in New Jersey. And in 1869, he decided that he would develop a non-alcoholic wine for the use of churches in communion. And the reason he decided this was because he believed that alcohol was inherently sinful in and of itself. His father, who was a merchant, kept a jug of whiskey down in the basement of their home and his father would go down and drink the whiskey and come up and then he and his wife would get into a fight and the mother always referred to the alcohol as the devil's juice and consequently this young man grew up hating it.
#95 | 1:02:32 to 1:03:27 | cleaned
He also was a Methodist. In fact, he preached as a Methodist pastor for a couple of years. He was also a dentist. And that's where he made his money, in dentistry, by the way. And so he did develop, he found out, based upon Louis Pasteur's pasteurization process, that if he could kill the yeast particle, then he could have unfermented wine, as he called it. But when he tried to introduce it to the churches, it was met with great resistance.
#96 | 1:03:27 to 1:04:50 | cleaned
He was a leader in the temperance movement, which of course does not really mean temperance. Literally, it should be the abstinence movement, because that's what they were saying. That's when they were going around this country using hatchets and axes in the saloons, etc., you remember, which led, of course, to prohibition. This man had a son who also was a dentist. And after a while, he decided to rename it.
#97 | 1:04:51 to 1:05:26 | cleaned
And then he took it to the World's Fair in Chicago and became an instant hit. And then it went into a lot of the restaurants right around with sarsaparilla and the other drinks. And you know what it was called. Welch's grape juice. The dentist was Dr. Thomas Welch. His son Charles began the manufacture of the grape juice. He's the one that changed the name of it. And thus, after the time of Prohibition then, that's when basically churches began to swap into grape juice. So the truth of the matter is, all churches up until the early 1900s, only used wine. And many of them believed it was wrong to change to grape juice and fought. And there are plenty of churches today that still only use wine. But the grape juice came in through Dr. Thomas Welch, who believed that wine was inherently evil in and of itself.
#98 | 1:05:27 to 1:06:00 | cleaned
Sin did not reside in the heart of man, but in the alcohol. Thus you have, in this day and time, the average church using grape juice instead of wine. And I would ask this question, and I've asked it earlier. If our Lord instituted the Lord's Supper with wine and unleavened bread, by whose authority and by what right can we change it? And if you can change the wine to grape juice, I can change the unleavened bread to donuts. You follow me?
#99 | 1:06:02 to 1:07:17 | cleaned
In fact, why don't we just use coffee and cookies? You follow me? If our Lord instituted it one way, that's the way that it should be kept. And observe. And you're going to find out next week there's a reason for it. Let's pray. Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, we ask that you help us and teach us, Lord. May we be biblical in every area of our life and thinking. And may we always follow your word. We ask that you would speak to our hearts. In the name of Jesus Christ, we pray. Amen.
#100 | 1:07:18 to 1:07:58 | cleaned
In fact, why don't we just use coffee and cookies? You follow me? If our Lord instituted it one way, that's the way that it should be kept. And observe. And you're going to find out next week there's a reason for it. Let's pray. Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, we ask that you help us and teach us, Lord. May we be biblical in every area of our life and thinking. And may we always follow your word. We ask that you would speak to our hearts. In the name of Jesus Christ, we pray. Amen.
#101 | 1:08:00 to 1:08:43 | cleaned

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-06T03:46:54Z

The Lord's Supper - Part 9

John Weaver | Freedom Ministries

In this ninth sermon on the Lord's Supper, John Weaver addresses objections to using real wine in communion. He argues that sin does not reside in matter (like alcohol) but in the human heart, refuting Greek dualism. He clarifies the biblical concept of the 'weaker brother' from Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8, showing it refers to those with an uninformed conscience who abstain, not former drunkards. He also examines the Rechabites in Jeremiah 35, demonstrating that their abstinence was not a universal command. Finally, he traces the historical shift from wine to grape juice in churches to Dr. Thomas Welch and the temperance movement, asserting that the original institution by Christ should be maintained.

Opening

Introduction and Review

Weaver reviews the series on the Lord's Supper, covering names, significance, partakers, reproof, and elements, emphasizing the controversial topic of wine versus grape juice.

Sin Does Not Exist in Matter

Weaver argues that sin is not inherent in material things like alcohol, but in the human heart, countering Greek dualism and Gnostic influences that view matter as evil.

Alcohol and the Weaker Brother

Scripture Reading — Romans 14:1-3,14,20-23

Because we'll be turning there as well. Romans 14. Now, there is a passage that most people really take out of context, and that is Romans 14 and verse 21. When the Apostle Paul said, "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." Now look at that, it is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything where thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Now this passage is often quoted by individuals who say, well the Bible demands total abstinence. Well, I've pointed out before, the Bible does not demand total abstinence. The Bible demands, let your moderation be known unto all men. And there is certainly a religious use of wine in the Bible. But this statement is usually quoted by those who are trying to make total abstinence a requirement for every Christian. They argue that it is the duty of the strong to abstain out of deference to the weak. In other words, they are saying that even a very careful and a temperate use of wine contradicts the apostolic principle in Romans 14 and verse 21. Well, you've got to ask yourself two questions. The first one, look at it. He said, "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." Now, the first thing you've got to ask is what is the weaker brother or who is the weaker brother?

Scripture Reading — Romans 14:1-3,14,20-23

"Him that is weak in the faith receive you, but not the doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things, help me out now, another who is weak eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not, let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth, for God hath received him."

Scripture Reading — Romans 14:1-3,14,20-23

"For one believeth that he may eat all things."

That's the strong brother.

Scripture Reading — Romans 14:1-3,14,20-23

"Another who is weak eateth only herbs."

Scripture Reading — 1 Corinthians 8:4-10

"As concerning, therefore, the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is none other God but one."

Now, watch what he says. 1 Corinthians 8, verse 4.

Scripture Reading — 1 Corinthians 8:4-10

"As concerning, therefore, the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols,"

look what Paul says. Now, he's a strong brother.

Scripture Reading — 1 Corinthians 8:4-10

"We know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is none other God but one."

What's a strong man have? He has knowledge. Watch. Verse 5,

Scripture Reading — 1 Corinthians 8:4-10

"For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or earth, as there be gods many and lords many, but to us,"

that is to those who know the truth,

Scripture Reading — 1 Corinthians 8:4-10

"but to us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him."

Now if I exercise my liberty somewhere else, hey, that's my business. That's not his business. But I have not offended him. I have not made him to stumble. You see that?

Refuting the Former Drunkard Objection

Weaver counters the idea that a taste of wine in communion could cause a former drunkard to relapse, arguing that genuine conversion and the Holy Spirit's power prevent such a fall.

Scripture Reading — 1 John 3:9

It's the grace and the mercy of God that keeps us from going back. You say, "Ah, but Pastor," and I want you to turn to 1 John 2, I can quote it, but I want you to see it. Turn to 1 John 2. You say, "Oh, but pastor, I know of someone who was a professing Christian. And boy, he went back and boy, one taste set him off and today he's just a drunkard." Well, if that is so, you need to read 1 John 2 and verse 19. Look what John said. "They went out from us." They left us. Why?

The Case of the Rechabites

Weaver examines Jeremiah 35, showing that the Rechabites' abstinence was a specific, unreasonable command from Jonadab, used by God to contrast Israel's disobedience, not a universal mandate.

Scripture Reading — Jeremiah 35:1-8,15-17

"And I said before the sons of the house of the Rechabites, pots full of wine and cups, and I said to them, Drink ye wine. But they said, We will drink no wine. For Jonadab, the son of Rechab, our father, commanded us, saying, You shall drink no wine, neither ye nor your sons, for ever. Neither shall you build houses, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any."

Scripture Reading — Jeremiah 35:1-8,15-17

"And you shall dwell in the land which I have given you unto your fathers. But you have not inclined your ear, nor hearkened unto me, because the sons of Jonadab, the son of Rechab, have performed the commandments of their father, which he commanded them. But this people hath not hearkened unto me. Therefore, thus saith the Lord God of the host, the God of Israel, behold, I will bring upon Judah and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the evil that I have pronounced against them, because I have spoken to them, and they have not heard, and I have called on them, but they have not answered."

Scripture Reading — Jeremiah 35:1-8,15-17

"The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord in the days of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah, king of Judah, saying, Go into the house of the Rechabites, and speak unto them, and bring them into the house of the Lord, the temple, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink. Then I took Jazaniah, the son of Jeremiah, the son of Habazziniah, and his brethren, all the sons of the whole house of the Rechabites, and I brought them into the house of the Lord, into the chamber of the sons of Hanun, the son of Igdaliah, the man of God, which was by the"

Historical Shift to Grape Juice

Weaver recounts how Dr. Thomas Welch, influenced by the belief that alcohol is inherently sinful, developed grape juice in 1869, leading to its widespread adoption in churches after Prohibition.

Applications and Conclusion

The Lord's Supper - Part 9

John Weaver | SermonAudio

Lecture Metadata	Details
Speaker	John Weaver
Source	SermonAudio
Media ID	730611443
Subject	New Testament Studies
Course	Romans: Christian Duty, Authority, and Brotherly Peace
Genre	Sermon
Date	2006-03-26
Dictation Name
Book	Book 041: The Lord's Supper — Chapter 9
Source Timed Segments	101

Lecture Guide

Outline

Introduction and Review: Weaver reviews the series on the Lord's Supper, covering names, significance, partakers, reproof, and elements, emphasizing the controversial topic of wine versus grape juice.
Sin Does Not Exist in Matter: Weaver argues that sin is not inherent in material things like alcohol, but in the human heart, countering Greek dualism and Gnostic influences that view matter as evil.
Alcohol and the Weaker Brother: Weaver exegetes Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 to show that the 'weaker brother' is one who abstains due to an uninformed conscience, not a former drunkard, and that causing offense means encouraging them to act against their conscience.
Refuting the Former Drunkard Objection: Weaver counters the idea that a taste of wine in communion could cause a former drunkard to relapse, arguing that genuine conversion and the Holy Spirit's power prevent such a fall.
The Case of the Rechabites: Weaver examines Jeremiah 35, showing that the Rechabites' abstinence was a specific, unreasonable command from Jonadab, used by God to contrast Israel's disobedience, not a universal mandate.
Historical Shift to Grape Juice: Weaver recounts how Dr. Thomas Welch, influenced by the belief that alcohol is inherently sinful, developed grape juice in 1869, leading to its widespread adoption in churches after Prohibition.
Applications and Conclusion: Weaver applies the teaching by distinguishing social and religious use of wine, asserting that the Lord's Supper should follow Christ's original institution with wine, and warns against changing the elements.

Major Themes

Key Arguments

Sin is not in matter

Weaver argues that locating sin in material things like alcohol is Greek dualism, not biblical teaching; sin proceeds from the heart.

Weaver says, 'sin does not exist in matter... Alcohol does not make drunkards any more than guns make murderers and spoons make obesity. The sin is in man.'

The weaker brother is the total abstainer, not the former drunkard

Weaver exegetes Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 to show that the weak brother is one who believes eating meat or drinking wine is sinful, not one prone to excess.

Weaver states, 'The weaker brother in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians chapter 8 is the one who will not drink at all. He's the total abstainer.'

Offending a weaker brother means encouraging him to violate his conscience

Weaver defines 'offend' as causing a weak brother to do something without his knowledge, not merely upsetting him.

Weaver explains, 'The word offend means basically to encourage a weak brother to do what you're doing without his having your knowledge.'

True conversion prevents relapse

Weaver argues that a genuinely saved person cannot become a drunkard again because of the preserving grace of God.

Weaver says, 'There's no such thing as a Christian drunkard... If the grace of God is in you and the power of the Holy Spirit has sealed you, you are not going to return to your sin.'

The Rechabites' abstinence was not a universal command

Weaver shows that the Rechabites' obedience to Jonadab's unreasonable commands was used to contrast Israel's disobedience, not to mandate total abstinence.

Weaver says, 'If you're going to take one of Jonadab's commandments and say this applies to everybody, what about the rest of the commandments that Jonadab gave?'

The Lord's Supper should use wine as originally instituted

Weaver argues that since Christ instituted the Supper with wine, changing it to grape juice is unauthorized and sets a dangerous precedent.

Weaver asks, 'If our Lord instituted the Lord's Supper with wine and unleavened bread, by whose authority and by what right can we change it?'

Scripture References

1 Corinthians 11:20-22: Weaver reads the opening passage about the Lord's Supper abuses.
1 Corinthians 11:23-26: Weaver reads the institution of the Lord's Supper.
Leviticus 23:13: Weaver mentions God's command for wine in offerings.
Numbers 15:5,10: Weaver mentions God's command for wine in offerings.
Luke 22:18: Weaver discusses Jesus' statement about the fruit of the vine as a metonymy.
Matthew 15:15-20: Weaver cites Jesus' teaching that what enters the mouth does not defile, but what comes from the heart.
Romans 14:1-3,14,20-23: Weaver exegetes the passage on the weak and strong brother regarding food and drink.
1 Corinthians 8:4-10: Weaver explains the weak brother in the context of meat offered to idols.
1 John 1:1: Weaver references John's affirmation of Christ's physical reality against Docetism.
1 John 2:19: Weaver cites this to show that those who leave the faith were never truly saved.
1 John 3:9: Weaver references the inability of a born-again person to continue in sin.
1 John 4:4: Weaver mentions the greater power of God in believers.
Jude 1:1: Weaver references the preservation of the saints.
Jeremiah 35:1-8,15-17: Weaver examines the Rechabites' abstinence and God's use of their example.
James 1:13: Weaver argues that if alcohol were inherently sinful, God would be tempting the Rechabites by offering it.
Deuteronomy 29:5-6: Weaver notes that the wilderness generation abstained from wine but were unfaithful.
Hebrews 4: Weaver references the wilderness generation's failure to enter God's rest.

Historical References

Greek dualism and philosophy: Weaver explains how Greek philosophy viewed matter as inherently evil, influencing Gnosticism and later Christian sects.
Gnosticism and Docetism: Weaver describes 2nd-century heretical groups that denied Christ's physical body due to their view of matter as evil.
Simeon Stylites: Weaver mentions an ascetic who lived on a pillar for 20 years to purge his body.
Melania and Jovinus: Weaver quotes R.J. Rushdoony's account of a 60-year-old woman who never bathed, illustrating extreme asceticism.
Prohibition (18th Amendment): Weaver argues that Prohibition did not stop drunkenness but increased it.
Dr. Thomas Welch and Welch's grape juice: Weaver recounts how Dr. Welch, a Methodist dentist, developed non-alcoholic wine for communion in 1869, leading to the widespread use of grape juice in churches.

Important Quotes

Sin does not exist in matter. Let me say that again. Sin does not exist in matter.

This is the foundational principle Weaver uses to argue that alcohol is not inherently evil.

The weaker brother in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians chapter 8 is the one who will not drink at all. He's the total abstainer.

Weaver clarifies the identity of the weaker brother, which is central to his argument against the total abstinence position.

The word offend means basically to encourage a weak brother to do what you're doing without his having your knowledge.

Weaver defines 'offend' in its biblical context, distinguishing it from mere upset.

If the grace of God was great enough and sufficient enough to bring him out of his sin, is not the grace of God sufficient enough to keep him from returning to his sin?

Weaver argues that true conversion guarantees perseverance, countering the fear of relapse.

If our Lord instituted the Lord's Supper with wine and unleavened bread, by whose authority and by what right can we change it?

Weaver challenges the substitution of grape juice for wine based on the authority of Christ's institution.

Discussion Questions

[Question]

How does the belief that sin resides in matter (like alcohol) conflict with biblical teaching about the heart?

[Context]

Weaver argues that sin is not in material things but in the human heart, citing Matthew 15.

[Question]

In what ways has Greek dualism influenced modern Christian practices and beliefs about the body and material things?

[Context]

Weaver traces the influence of Greek philosophy on Gnosticism, asceticism, and views on alcohol.

[Question]

According to Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8, who is the 'weaker brother' and how should the 'stronger brother' relate to him?

[Context]

Weaver exegetes these passages to show the weaker brother is the one with an uninformed conscience who abstains.

[Question]

How does the biblical definition of 'offend' differ from the common modern understanding, and what implications does this have for Christian liberty?

[Context]

Weaver explains that 'offend' means to cause someone to act against their conscience, not merely to upset them.

[Question]

What does the account of the Rechabites in Jeremiah 35 teach about obedience, and why is it not a mandate for total abstinence?

[Context]

Weaver uses the Rechabites to show that their abstinence was a specific command used to contrast Israel's disobedience.

[Question]

How should the church decide what elements to use in the Lord's Supper, and what are the dangers of changing the original institution?

[Context]

Weaver argues that since Christ used wine, the church has no authority to substitute grape juice.

Applications

Format deepseek deepseek-v4-pro structured study JSON | Source Commentary.net transcript enrichment

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | weaver_study | 2026-06-06T16:26:41Z