49. Rom_14:14-21, Expediency

Romans 14:14-21, Expediency

Romans 14:14-21, “Neither eat flesh nor drink wine,” etc. Expediency necessarily admits the lawfulness and propriety of the use of alcoholic drinks, but that, by reason of the evils which come from the excessive use, men should totally abstain. This does not include the idea of personal danger. It rather assumes it as a certainty that the abstainer can so use them as never to exceed the boundaries of prudence. But because of others, not so firm of nerve, or resolute of purpose or power of self-government, we should abstain in order to strengthen, encourage, and save them. In this view, they feel fortified by the noble decision of the Apostle Paul, “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.” In the Epistle to the Romans, he speaks of those converted from Judaism, but who still felt bound to observe the ceremonial law. Other converts, satisfied that this law was abolished, consequently made no distinction in meats. The former were offended by the practice of the latter. To meet this case, the apostle says, “It is good neither to eat flesh nor drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.” To the Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 8:4-13, he speaks of those recently converted from idolatry, and who were troubled about the lawfulness of eating meats which had been offered to idols and then sold in the markets. While he argues that the meat cannot be thus polluted, still, as “there is not in every man that knowledge,” and as their weak consciences would be defiled, he admonishes those who were enlightened “to take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours becomes a stumbling-block to them that are weak.” He presents the subject in the most solemn and impressive manner, saying, “When ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.” The practical and benevolent conclusion to which he comes is, “If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.”

Thus, in two applications, the doctrine of expediency is fully stated. It is necessarily based upon the lawfulness of the usage, and the rightfulness of our liberty in the premises. 1 Corinthians 10:23, “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” With Paul, expediency was not the balancing of evils, nor the selfish defense of a doubtful usage; but the law of benevolence, so controlling and circumscribing his liberty as to prevent any injury to the conscience of another. “Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved”—1 Corinthians 10:33. The abstinence to which Paul alludes was lest the weak conscience of a brother should be wounded. This is not the precise use of the principle in its application to temperance; for those who drink do not plead conscience, and those who abstain do not abstain because for them to drink would wound the consciences of the drinkers. So far from this, our drinking quiets and encourages their consciences. No one can study this argument of the apostle, and his further statement in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, and fail to feel its benevolent and constraining power. It evolves a principle of action which we are bound to recognize and apply to the necessities of our fellow-men. It demands that we should deny ourselves for the purpose of doing good to others who are exposed to evil. It is the giving up of the use of alcoholic drinks to recover others from ruin, and to save more from taking the first step on the road to drunkenness.

While I fully admit the doctrine of expediency, as laid down by the apostle, I am not quite sure that the use which is generally made of it for the cause of temperance may not be turned against us. I am not certain that, as generally expounded, it does not reflect most fearfully, though undesignedly, upon the benevolence of the patriarchs, prophets, the apostles, and even of the blessed Lord our Savior.

I do not for a moment imagine, much less believe, that the advocates of only alcoholic wines intend to damage the benevolence of the divine Savior. Yet, when they strenuously claim that he not only personally drank intoxicating wine, but made a large quantity of it for the wedding-guests, they throw shadows over His benevolence; for He, better than all others, knew the seductive and destructive influence of alcoholic drinks, as He could not only look back through all the ages past, but also down through all the ages to come, and tell the myriads upon myriads who by them would be made drunkards and fail of heaven; as He, better than all others, understood the law of benevolence, and knew how to practice self-denial for the good of others. But we hear not one word from him about expediency. What possible claim, then, can this doctrine have upon His followers, if He, with all His wonderfully accurate knowledge, not only did not practice it, but did the reverse, and gave the full force of His personal example for the beverage use of inebriating wines—nay, more, actually employed his divine power in making, for a festive occasion, a large quantity of intoxicating wine? Such is the fearful position in which these alcoholic advocates logically, though unwittingly, place their blessed Lord and ours. But there is no necessity for this dilemma, or for the encouragement it gives to the enemies of temperance. The view we have taken, and, as we trust, proved, satisfactorily explains why neither the patriarchs nor the prophets, why neither Christ nor His apostles, had any occasion to adopt the doctrine of expediency in its application to alcoholic drinks. The grapes of Palestine being very sweet, and the climate at the vintage season very hot, by the law of fermentation the juice would speedily become sour unless preserved by methods which prevented all fermentation. Having good reason to believe that the wine Christ drank, and which He made for the wedding, was the pure “blood of the grapes,” His example gave no sanction to others who used intoxicating wines.

We all are aware that there are many thousands of intelligent Christians who have never yet felt themselves bound by the argument for expediency. They find in it no authority, and it does not bind their conscience. They seize upon the inevitable fact that expediency implies the lawfulness and propriety of the beverage use of alcoholic drinks, and ask, “Why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience?” There are many who seriously doubt whether the reformation can be completed while such persons of intelligence and influence are in the way. At the present time, when there are only alcoholic wines in the walks of commerce, and there is not the choice which, we believe, obtained in the days of Christ, and as these alcoholic beverages are doing wild havoc among men, we fully recognize the law of benevolence as a divine law, and as binding upon every individual. We hold that this law demands that we practice total abstinence, not simply for our own personal safety or that of our family, but especially for the good of others, that they may be rescued from the way of the destroyer, or, what is better, effectually prevented from taking the first step in this road to perdition. We, then, that are strong, ought to bear the infirmities of the weak and not please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbor for his good to edification. For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, “the reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me”—Romans 15:1-3.