Misused Texts #1

The point: Receive weaker brethren without passing judgment on their restraining scruples, treating them as brethren without condemning their religious scruples of conscience.

Martin uses different English Bible translations (ASV, NKJV, NIV, NASB) of Romans 14:1 to illustrate the difficulty of translating the phrase 'not for decision of scruples' and to clarify its meaning as not disputing over doubtful things or passing judgment on opinions.

And here our English version struggled it seems with trying to translate what is a very difficult clause. The old American standard that I've read uses the translation not for decision of scruples. That doesn't really communicate much at the end of the 20th century. Maybe it did at the beginning of the 20th century but not at the end.

12:03 - 12:22 Read in full sermon

The point: Embrace weaker brethren without choking them by judgment of their opinions, especially in areas of genuine Christian liberty.

He compares the 'hot button issues' of food and day observance in the first-century church to contemporary 'hot button issues' in areas of Christian liberty, emphasizing that the principles Paul gives are universally applicable even if the specific issues differ.

Now in the verses that follow this opening statement in verse 1 Paul cites two examples of issues of difference between weaker and stronger brethren. He gives two examples that rise out of the circumstances of first century Christian life. And these are circumstances that may or may not have any direct relevance to our situation. These exact circumstances may not arise at all in our circumstances.

14:34 - 15:05 Read in full sermon

The point: Learn how to live together in the church despite differences of opinion on areas of Christian liberty, without making it an issue of division.

Martin uses the examples of a 'big plate of pork barbecue' and a 'ham sandwich' to illustrate Paul's teaching in 1 Timothy 4:4 and Romans 14:14, showing that these foods are clean if received with thanksgiving, contrasting with Jewish dietary laws.

The evangelist Mark had understood he had understood the implication of what Jesus said on that occasion that whatever had pertained before that day whatever had pertained in terms of the ceremonial laws of the Mosaic Code about clean and unclean meats Jesus is saying this no longer applies. That it no longer is a matter of clean versus unclean meats. Mark says this he said making unclean meats all things clean. Well elsewhere 1st Timothy 4 in verse 4 Paul says every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving for it is sanctified through the word ...

19:37 - 20:39 Read in full sermon

Driving home: To place the Lord's Day, the weekly Sabbath, in the same category is not only beyond the warrant of exegetical requirements, but brings us into conflict with principles that are embedded in the total witness of Scripture…

Martin quotes Professor Murray to support his argument that Paul was tolerant of ritual observances as long as they didn't compromise the gospel, reinforcing the distinction between ceremonial law and moral law in Romans 14.

He says, Paul was not insistent upon the discontinuance of ritual observances, that is, ceremonial observances of the Levitical ordinances. He wasn't insistent that people had to stop observing certain aspects of the ceremonial law, as long as the observance was merely one of religious custom and did not compromise the gospel.

40:31 - 40:53 Read in full sermon

Driving home: To place the Lord's Day, the weekly Sabbath, in the same category is not only beyond the warrant of exegetical requirements, but brings us into conflict with principles that are embedded in the total witness of Scripture…

He uses Paul's actions of circumcising Timothy for expediency versus his strong condemnation of circumcision for salvation in Galatians to illustrate the distinction between observing ceremonial practices as custom versus as a means of justification.

He himself circumcised Timothy from considerations of expediency, but in a different situation he could write, Behold, I, Paul, say to you that if you are circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.

40:57 - 41:10 Read in full sermon

In this part of the sermon: Martin concedes that 'days' in Galatians 4 likely includes the Jewish Sabbath, along with other ceremonial observances like new moons and annual feasts. However, he strongly…

Martin quotes John Brown's commentary to provide a detailed breakdown of what 'days, months, seasons, and years' in Galatians 4:10 likely refer to (Jewish Sabbath, Day of Atonement, new moons, annual feasts, sabbatical year, Jubilee), conceding that the Sabbath is included under 'days'.

I don't object. Under the word days, months, seasons, and years, I don't object to the idea that Paul here is indeed speaking of the Jewish Sabbath, that is, the Sabbath of the Mosaic legislation. John Brown says the phrase days probably refers to the Jewish Sabbath and the great day of expiation, that is, the day of atonement. Months to the festivals of the new moons.

58:18 - 58:41 Read in full sermon

In this part of the sermon: Martin concedes that 'days' in Galatians 4 likely includes the Jewish Sabbath, along with other ceremonial observances like new moons and annual feasts. However, he strongly…

He quotes Henry Alford's commentary to present a strong anti-Sabbatarian interpretation of Galatians 4:10, which Martin then refutes as going 'far, far, far, far beyond' what Paul teaches.

Well, there are some who say yes. Henry Alford, in his commentary, puts it this way. He says, quote, Notice how utterly such a verse is at variance with any and every theory of a Christian Sabbath, cutting at the root as it does of all obligatory observance of times as such. Alford says, well, if you admit that this word days includes the Sabbath, if you admit that, then how utterly this verse is at variance with any and every theory of the Christian Sabbath.

59:20 - 59:55 Read in full sermon

The point: Read biblical texts in their proper context, as it is the most basic principle of all Bible interpretation.

Martin quotes John Eady to support his argument that Galatians 4:10-11 does not involve the true theory of a Christian Sabbath or Lord's Day.

John Eady says, the true theory of a Christian Sabbath or rather Lord's Day is not in the least involved in the discussion.

62:53 - 63:01 Read in full sermon

The point: Read biblical texts in their proper context, as it is the most basic principle of all Bible interpretation.

He quotes Ellicott, who critiques Alford's overstatement, reinforcing that Galatians 4 is only speaking of legal and Judaizing observances, not the Christian Sabbath.

He's absolutely correct. Ellicott remarks in commenting on Alford's overstatement of the case, it can scarcely be considered exegetically exact to urge this verse against quote, any theory of a Christian Sabbath when the apostle is only speaking of legal and Judaizing observances. That is only speaking of observance of these days in a legal way that is in a way to secure a legal standing before God as justified when the issue is simply how the Judaizers were using the day, not how others might have used the day without their views as a matter of Christian liberty.

63:03 - 63:40 Read in full sermon