Is Christian worship a "non-essential"? (Romans 14:5)

Many modern day "Evangelical" Protestants consider Romans 14:5 as the chief proof text for the notion there can be "non-essential" doctrines within Christianity. While there are practices throughout Christian history that can be considered "non-essentials," it is more problematic to apply this to the category of "doctrine," since doctrine implies essential teaching. The logic that certain Protestants use typically reduces down to making almost nothing an "essential" and thus stripping Christianity of anything solid that gives it shape. But when read carefully, we see here that Paul was speaking in a relatively narrow range of 'liberty' in Christian disciplines, especially as these were tied to one's former life and thus they had a certain sensitivity to them, not merely a personal preference. In fact, Paul refers to these people who need special care as those who are "weak in faith," but didn't mean it as an insult, just that they were not mature enough to thrive, which all Christians are called to aspire to.

Let's look at the passage of Chapter 14 of Romans:

1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions [Greek: "scruples" / "doubts"]. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. ... 13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.

The verse "one person esteems one day better than another" is commonly taken to mean that when it comes to the day of worship, that is a "non-essential" doctrine, and that it is really the freedom of each individual Christian to decide whether they want to worship alone or with a community, or on Sunday or on Saturday, etc. With this mindset, these Protestants "conclude" that a true Christian could just sleep in on Sunday and not have to worship in any formal sense at all. These Protestants claim that 14:5 proves that the Church, clergy, etc, cannot even set rules/standards such as how to worship, nor set rules on fasting, etc. But was Paul really giving each Christian such "liberty"? Only a surface level and non-contextual reading could lead to such an "interpretation," while careful look at Paul's language will see he's speaking very carefully and pastorally.

Appreciating the "traditions of men" that Jesus condemned

In the infamous passages of Matthew 15:1-11 and Mark 7:1-22, Jesus condemns the Pharisees for teaching "traditions of men," which Protestants claim rules out "Catholic oral tradition". The Catholic response to this Protestant accusation is understandable, but also unfortunately surface level. When texts are misunderstood in the first place but never corrected, then what typically happens is that these texts turn into 'surface level apologetic' passages that never get studied at all. In this specific situation, Protestants would allege that the Pharisees randomly began taking on all sorts of random teachings and inventing a new religion, instead of simply following the Bible alone for their theology. Such a shallow reading of the text would warrant us to take a step back and see what was really being said here.  

Before looking at the verses itself, the first surface level rookie mistake Protestants make is to think that Jesus was teaching that any doctrine not written on paper is automatically not from God and cannot carry any authority. That Protestant claim is obviously wrong by the simple fact Jesus never wrote anything down and that Jesus taught 'orally' throughout His ministry. Many periods of Salvation History involved teaching being passed down orally, such as the command to circumcise given to Abraham and not written down for hundreds of years later until Moses. With that out of the way, we can now approach the passage with a different mindset.

Here is St Mark's account of the situation, which I trim down for brevity:

Can "gifts" be merited? (Eph 2:8)

I am sorry I have not had a new post of for several months. It has been a mix of life being very busy and also not really having anything new to post about. I try not to post unless I have something I feel worth sharing and that has not been talked about (much) anywhere else.

In this post I want to talk more about the Protestant favorite proof text, Ephesians 2:8-9. I have talked about this text before (HERE) on how to most effectively interpret it, on its face, without having to complicate the discussion. As a recap, simply put, when Paul says "not of works so that no one may boast," we can do a simple substitution to see what "works" means here: Paul cannot mean "sinful works" here, because sinful works do not save and don't allow anyone to legitimately boast. Paul cannot mean "good works" here because if someone can do good works they they should be saved and they should be able to boast, so there is no reason for Paul to attack good works. Paul cannot mean "works inspired by the Holy Spirit," because Paul would not denigrate the work of the Holy Spirit nor would Paul say in the same breath "you are saved by faith inspired by the Holy Spirit but are not saved by works inspired by the Holy Spirit," and thus we must also rule out that meaning. This leaves us with logically only one possible reading, that the "works" here are neutral, or only perceived to be good, or were only good under certain circumstances, and these would be "works of the law," such as circumcision, kosher, and Sabbath keeping. These "ceremonial works" were being used by the Jews to "boast" that they were better than the Gentiles, as proof that God loved them more by making them be born as Jewish. The Jews didn't say they earned it, but rather than they were privliged to be born Jewish. This fits precisely with the context, of Eph 2:11-22, which Protestants intentionally ignore. The whole "chapter" of Ephesians 2 is actually only about eight sentences long, so basically two short paragraphs, so it is disingenuous for Protestant Biblical Scholars to take only one sentence out of two paragraphs and ignore the context. This paragraph you just read you made sure to read it all so you would see my message, without taking me out of context.

This takes me to the new information I would like to share. I have talked with Protestants who say that in Ephesians 2:8-9 when Paul says salvation/faith is a "gift" from God, that this means it was not given because of anything you did. Protestants say gifts cannot be merited nor earned. Protestants say gifts cannot be given through the sacraments. As with most of Protestant "theology," it sounds good when presented but is not actually based on Scripture. Let's consider how the Bible uses the term "gift" to see that this Protestant claim is at the very least unsubstantiated.

Does religion get passed down from the mother or the father?

I came across the official teaching of Orthodox Judaism (the most strict/traditional form) that Judaism teaches that a person's "Jewishness" depends strictly on whether his mother was Jewish. This is called "matrilineal descent", which is opposed to "patrilineal descent" where the child's religion is determined by the father's religion. The only exception to this is if someone formally converts to Judaism, then it doesn't matter if his mother was Jewish. Most of us have grown up thinking that the Bible and ancient cultures passed down their lineage, religion, inheritance, etc, through the father. Thus, I was shocked and wanted to look into this more, especially to see if there was some theological error or problems with this claim.

The first thing that came to my mind was all the lineages listed in the Bible. In every case, it is one long list of fathers and sons. This strongly suggests that the son's tribal/ethnic and religion were passed down from the father. The next thing that came to my mind was the "Patriarch" language used throughout the Bible, especially Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. The language of "Abraham's seed" being the blessed seed/dna/semen would strongly suggest that the father is the ultimate (or at least preferred) determination of one's religion/ancestry/linage. This I just took as an accepted truth that everyone else was fine with, so I was shocked to see this so strongly opposed by the Orthodox Jews. This led me to delve into what "Biblical proof texts" they had going in their favor.

The wikipedia page on this issue (here) cites the main Biblical claims that I've seen on other sources, so I think it's easiest to just address the examples they cite. 

Was Jesus "cursed" to Hell (Gal 3:13 - Part 2) - More problems with Penal Substitution

Years ago I had written about Galatians 3:13 and whether it supported the Protestant doctrine of Penal Substitution (see HERE), which I've written many posts on this blog about. The basic claim of Protestant advocates is that when St Paul says Jesus "became a curse," they say this 'clearly' teaches that Jesus suffered the eternal spiritual torments of hellfire that we deserved. One of the most popular conservative Protestant preachers of our time was RC Spoul, where he preached on this very issue at a major conference: "Jesus had some experience of the beauty of the Father until that moment that my sin was placed upon him, and the one who was pure was pure no more. And God cursed Him. It was as if there was a cry from heaven—excuse my language, but I can be no more accurate than to say—it was as if Jesus heard the words "God Damn You." Because that's what it meant to be cursed, to be damned, to be under the anathema of a Father." (Ligoner Ministries 2019). Protestants cite Gal 3:13 as if it explicitly meant God the Father cursed Jesus with eternal wrath, basically eternal damnation to hellfire. The reality is, that is reading way too much into the text and even causes many problems, some of which I have already highlighted in Part 1. In this Part 2, I will take a look at another historical view of this text that doesn't get much attention but which I feel makes far more sense.

The primary dispute on this verse is what does "cursed (by God)" mean. The Biblical term "curse" refers to speaking/wishing evil upon someone, whether deserved or not. It is not some generic term for "damn to hellfire". In fact, the term "curse" as it is used in the Bible refers almost always to physical evils that come upon someone or something. For example God curses the serpent, saying it will now slither across the ground (Gen 3:14), and God curses the ground after Adam sinned, saying the ground will now produce thorns (Gen 3:17). Noah curses Canaan saying Canaan will be a slave and mockery. In 2 Kings 2:24, Elisha calls a curse on some boys mocking him, and a bear came and tore them up. Jesus cursed the fig tree by saying it will never produce fruit again, and it withered and died (Mt 21:19). There are even times when God is said to make someone "a curse," such as in 2 Kings 22:19, Jeremiah 24:9, 25:18, all referring to the land becoming desolated as a result of the Israelites' sinful behavior. Most especially is Deuteronomy 28:15, which lists a bunch of curses God will do to the Israelites if they break the Mosaic Covenant, including sickness, drought, famine, defeated in battle, blindness, anxiety, scabs, tumors, etc. This Deut 28 curse section is the very context of Gal 3:10-13, which is what Paul is directly citing. This Biblical understanding of "curse" fits far better with the notion that Jesus was publicly humiliated with crucifixion than it does of the Protestant presumption that it must be speaking of some invisible damnation curse by the Father. And that leads us into the "new insight" of this post.

Recall that Paul is not 'randomly' saying Jesus became a curse in Gal 3:13, but that Paul is actually citing Deuteronomy 21:22-23, which says:

22 And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23 his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.

Notice the verse is largely focused on taking care not to defile the Promise Land, and thus the cursed language actually more of a parentheses. So what is it about a body on a tree that defiles the land? Many would say that what "defiles the holy land" is the presence of gravely sinful individuals, such as criminals running around unpunished, which is understandable (cf Num 35:34; Lev 18:24-25). But in this case, it is specifically focused on the burial process, which I'm not sure if other texts address. This verse is unique and somewhat mysterious. This is when I came upon some Biblical commentary that indicate some commentators interpret the "cursed" (by God) text not as God cursing the individual, but rather of the mutilated body being a blasphemy, reproach, curse, etc, against God. For example, the predominant Rabbinical reading is that since man is made in God's Image, then to mutilate or defile the body is basically an insult, blasphemy, etc, against God. This fits with why the Torah forbids certain tattoos, certain fashions, certain grooming, etc, because it is human mutilation. It not only messes with the people, but it is also a bad testimony to others when you're supposed to be a good example to them. (How tragic it is when we see our fellow citizens mutilating their bodies, often because they are deeply wounded inside.)

When the human body is treated like garbage then it is an insult to God's prized creation made in His image, and it is a very pagan thing to mutilate the body. We see how disgusted we get when we think about the Aztecs who used to mutilate their enemies while still alive, and how dark of a cloud comes upon our nation when we think about abortion happening everywhere. When we see in National Geographic type magazines the Islamic form of punishment, namely decapitation, cutting off heads, cutting off hands, cutting off feet, etc, we become repulsed. Similarly, when we see a corpse hanging from a tree or pole, we become grossed out. We are not grossed out or repulsed from mere capital punishment, but rather only those which are popularly called "cruel and unusual" punishment. So similarly, imagine what God sees when the human body is mutilated. In this situation, while it was necessary to have crucifixion for grave offenses, the Mosaic Law put limits on this.

Saint Jerome mentions that some translations had even captured this "curse in the sight of God" rendering, in his Commentary on Galatians (HERE):