The Unknown God - Paul's Legal Defense at the Areopagus in Acts 17

This post is going to focus on what was happening during the famous Mars Hill discussion of Acts 17 where Paul talked about an unknown God. While many believe that this was just a friendly theological/philosophical discussion, where Paul cleverly draws on local customs to make analogies to the God of Israel, this post is going to show that Paul was actually on trial, making a legal defense for the religion he was sharing.

It's worth reading the whole chapter, but the part we are going to focus on is:

A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, "What is this nonsense?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting?" You are bringing some strange ideas to us, and we would like to know what they mean." (Athenians spend their time talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)

Paul stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said, "People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship - and this is what I am going to proclaim to you. 

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'" -Acts 17:18-28

Many pastors have given the impression that the Areopagus (often translated as Mars Hill) was some sort of hangout for local would-be philosophers, where people have friendly discussions about differing religious, political, and societal issues. I actually remember hearing a Bible college professor describe it like the Parisian cafes of the Lost Generation, where authors and artists drank coffee and debated and discussed the latest ideas of the time. As someone with a brand new idea, Paul would have been welcomed and celebrated, and Paul is cleverly emphasizing local cultural customs as a stepping stone to help the Athenians understand his message.

But that's not what is going on at Mars Hill. This is a law court, and not an inconsequential one. The Areopagus was the highest court in Athens. Paul is under trial.

We can see that Paul is under trial because:

-The Areopagus is a judicial court. It is not a hangout place or debate club.

-When Paul was "taken" to the Areopagus, the Greek word used means seized or arrested.

But what was the legal issue that Paul was charged with?

"He seems to be advocating foreign gods." -Acts 17:18

Much of the book of Acts deals with the legal adventures and implications the apostles went through when they spread the message of the Messiah across the world. Keep in mind that according to the social order of the day, appeasing the local deities was thought to bring protection from enemies, natural disasters, crop loss, an so on. Worshipping the local gods was seen as a civic duty. Even though cities and empires paid tribute to multiple gods and goddesses (in Athens - Zeus, Poseidon, Athena, Ares, and Nike for starters), throwing a new god into the mix was not something that was done. Actions like that were seen as political upheaval and even revolution. This literally undermined the social order of the day.

The punishment for such a charge wasn't light either. We know from historic evidence that the Areopagus tried capital cases, and that death sentences were handed out and followed through on. In 399 BC the philosopher Socrates was tried there for impiety - the crime of failing to worship the gods of Athens - and was sentenced to death for it on his conviction.

So when officials ask, "What teaching are you talking about?" they are not making polite conversation over coffee. This has legal implications that Paul needs to defend.

How does Paul defend himself on the charge of introducing foreign divinities?

He points out that they have an altar to an unknown god.

Paul is saying that he can't be introducing foreign gods because the true Living God was already being worshipped in Athens - although it was in ignorance. Since there was a shrine in the city, this God could not be foreign. Indeed the poets of Athens had glimpsed him! This was not a man from a far country trying to import a Middle Eastern deity to Greece.

Unknown, yes. But foreign, no. The Athenians needed to learn about this God - and Paul was there to help.

Paul believed that YHWH was already present in Athens, but needed proper recognition. 

It's worth noting that Luke (the author of Acts) does not seem to believe that Paul is just trying to be friendly by demonstrating his appreciation for the local culture. This idea is dismissed almost immediately by Paul's next statement.

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands."

This is a verse that we read like a pretty piece of poetry. But let's rewind and remember that Paul is standing in the Court of Areopagus in ancient Athens. He and his listeners can see, right then and there, the Parthenon, Nike's temple and likely other temples of the Acropolis. Not only are these temples visible - and truly stunning pieces of architectural achievement and beauty - but most everything about Athenian society was structured around serving these gods and goddesses. And that's where Paul chooses to say, "God does not live in handmade temples"! 

Paul is stating quite plainly that these architectural triumphs are a mistake. You can see how his audience would have been affronted by him declaring that the Athenian way of doing things was misguided at best. So it's hard to see his comments about your own poets, and so forth as an appeal to local sensibilities. Paul is not going easy here.

But what is Paul doing? He's making a case that even within this system, it is legal to worship this unknown God.

Paul is saying that it is legal to worship YHWH.

He's not just doing this to protect his own life or the lives of his travel companions. He is pleading this case, so that the residents of Athens know they are free to turn from the idols of their city and worship YHWH! 

What happened on Mars Hill was more than just a lively discussion about religion. The cities leaders were trying Paul to make sure that he was abiding by their laws. By making his case in the Areopagus court, Paul set a legal precedent for citizens of Athens to worship YHWH.

If you're interested in learning more about this I would recommend NT Wright's book The Challenge of Acts.

Related posts:
What No Greater Burdens Means in Acts 15
The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:19-20
What Does Grafted In Mean in Romans 11?

Is Romans 14:5 About Fasting or the Sabbath?

This post examines the meaning of Romans 14:5 and what it means by saying that one person considers certain days more sacred than another, and specifically if it's talking about Sabbath keeping or celebrating Bible holidays. We will take a look at correct understanding of this New Testament passage to see that it's talking about fasting.

"One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind." -Romans 14:5

People often take this verse to mean:

-It doesn't matter what day we keep the Sabbath.

-That the Sabbath day is not more sacred than the other six days of the week.

-That Biblical holidays like Passover are of no consequence, because all days are the same.

-It's up to us to decide if anything related to the Sabbath or Bible holidays matters.

And if this one verse was all I had to go by, I'd have to say, all of those ideas would make sense...but we have 31,000 other verses of Scripture that we can check these beliefs against. It is reckless to pull one verse out of the Bible and insistent that it somehow undoes many other parts of the word of God. 

These interpretations are only possible when we yank the above verse grossly out of context. I had a science teacher with a somewhat defective skeleton in his classroom. There was a way he could grab the spine and it would completely separate from the rest of the bone structure. It was disconcerting to watch even a fake spine move like that. And that's basically what's happening to Romans 14:5.

People are quick to yank the fifth verse out and claim it's about the Sabbath, but the entire rest of the chapter is about food and eating! Look at the context: the passage starts with talking about how some people eat meat, but some stick to vegetarian diets, it talks about fast days, and the importance of not distressing others with what you eat.

Doesn't it seem rather odd to say that this verse is positively dealing with the Sabbath and/or Biblical holidays when it doesn't once mention them, and the entirety of the chapter is focused on eating? It wouldn't make a lot of sense for Paul to jam another topic in the middle of his thoughts on food...especially when we don't see that idea expressed anywhere else in the Old or New Testaments. Actually, Scripture repeatedly tells us the opposite of this thought...it says that the seventh day is holy. If the point of Romans 14:5 is to say that the seventh day is not holy, then that's totally out of line with many parts of Scripture.

So what does Romans 14:5 actually mean?

While there isn't any evidence suggesting that "one person considers one day more sacred than another," is supposed to mean, "You get to decide when the Sabbath is, or if there's even such thing as a Sabbath day." We know this cannot be what the Bible means, because the Bible many times says the opposite. One of the ten commandments is to remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.

But if we look at this comment in light of the very next verse, we see that it's about fasting.

"Whoever regards as special does so to YHWH. Whoever eats meat does so to YHWH, for they give thanks to God, and whoever abstains does so to YHWH and gives thanks to God." -Romans 14:6

Romans 14:6 shows us that Romans 14:5 means that it's not a Biblical issue if you think one day is more sacred for fasting, than another. 

While Scripture speaks often of fasting, and the Messiah's words in Matthew 6:16 (When you fast, not if) imply fasting as a given in the lives of his followers, it does not specify certain days as especially good or not for fasting.

(A lot of people will bring up Yom Kippur and the directive in Leviticus 23:29 directive to 'deny yourselves.' Note that the word used for 'deny' is a different one from what Scripture uses for fasting. A case could certainly be made that fasting can be part of denying or humbling oneself, but it is not an explicit call for all Israel to fast. This could have been in debate at the time, and could even be what Paul is seeking to address in this part of Romans.)

Note that while Paul is validating differences between believers, he is doing so only in regards to actions that fit within Biblical law. Fasting and not fasting are both permissible in Biblical law, as are vegetarian diets and non vegetarian diets. Paul is not saying that actions don't matter at all and that believers are now free to cast away commandments of God. He's saying that certain differences are okay. There may be days when you feel especially called to fast, but it's okay if other believers don't feel this same call, because Scripture does not command all believers to fast on any specific day.

Romans 14:5 is saying that some people consider certain days more sacred...for fasting from food. Paul is saying that it's okay to think this or not, because while the Bible speaks of the significance of fasting, it doesn't say that any certain days are for fasting. 

Related posts:
Romans 14 Explained (Key to Understanding New Testaments Verses on Food)
Veganism is Not a Biblical Commandment
What Does Romans 8:28 Actually Mean? (God Works All Things Together For Good)

The Myth and Meaning of 'I Do Not Permit a Woman to Teach'

What did Paul mean by "I do not permit a woman to teach"? This verse from 1 Timothy 2:12 that seemingly forbids women from teaching or preaching or 'having authority over a man' has long been used to ban women from ministry or even speaking about Biblical truth in many contexts. While most Christian denominations have taken these infamous words at their English face-value, if we study the words used and the rest of Scripture we will be able to see that this was not a universal ban on women teaching, and that Jesus and Paul both treated women with respect and dignity, and not like the lesser beings that many today believe.

Let's take a look at how this New Testament passage typically reads in English Bibles:

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." -1 Timothy 2:11-14

It's easy to quickly read over those sentences from the NIV Bible and think that Paul is not permitting any woman, ever, to teach. Many denominations teach that because Eve was the one that was deceived it means that all women are gullible and easily deceived. Therefore, they cannot be trusted with teaching or exercising any kind of authority. 

Here we have the myth: women aren't allowed to teach. Period.

This one belief has held back millions of women from teaching the Gospel, and has brought a barrage of rude remarks and abuse on most women who do teach Scripture. But of course, the way denominations apply this supposed teaching of Paul is plainly at odds against what they believe he said. If women are so easily deceived that not a single one is fit to teach anything related to the Bible...then why is it okay for women to teach children or other women? Most people will point to "assume authority over a man," and make an assumption that Paul is saying that women just can't teach men. But, if the reason they can't teach is because women are gullible or easily deceived...why would they be allowed to teach women and children? Would that not be an incredibly terrible way to run things...to have deceived people teaching wrong ideas to children and then expect the children to grow up and understand faith and God's word? Would any denomination recognize that a teacher is deceived and then decide that they are fit to teach children and women?

However there is no caveat here that it's fine for women to teach children, their own or otherwise, or other women. Most people who teach this myth were taught the majority of what they know about God's word in children's Sunday school - and nearly all Sunday school teachers are women. I also frequently hear from women who attempt to teach me that women aren't allowed to teach...an irony so heavy that it's barely worth mentioning.

But you know what? That is not what Paul's getting at.

First of all, Paul frequently mentions women who are teachers and leaders in the early church movement, and he does so positively. Of all the people Paul offers greetings to at the end of the book of Romans, he only commends Phoebe, calling her a deacon and a leader (Romans 16:1). And he tells the people he's writing to, to support her. Most scholars believe that by listing her first, Paul is indicating that she is the one bearing his letter. That means that one of the most significant books in the New Testament was originally entrusted to a woman...which means once the letter was read, any questions about it would be directed towards Phoebe, who would then explain or elaborate on the meaning of Paul's words. Another word for explaining something would be teaching.

The second person he mentions in Romans is another woman, Priscilla. He calls her and her husband, Aquila, his coworkers in the Messiah. In Romans 16:12, he mentions three more women who work in YHWH, Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis. In 1 Corinthians he encourages all believers to prophesy and speak in tongues...including women. Paul also points out in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 that men and women have equal rights in the marriage.

We have covered elsewhere that the notorious, "Let women be silent, they are not allowed to speak," passage of 1 Corinthians 14:34 was Paul quoting someone else's incorrect quotation of Biblical law. 

In light of Paul being supportive of women like Phoebe in leadership roles in the church, it simply does not make sense that he would simultaneously ban all women from teaching. We see that he put Phoebe in a position of teaching his letter to the Romans. This sudden ban also doesn't fit with the Old Testament, where we see women like Deborah, Miriam, and Huldah in leadership roles. Contrary to popular belief, the Old Testament never says that women can't teach or lead.

So what is going on in 1 Timothy 2:11?

We should note that Paul's letter is composed in response to questions and concerns that Timothy was dealing with at the time. This means he wasn't compiling a list of life advice or helpful hints to pastoring, but is referencing specific situations and events that Timothy was dealing with.

If you study the New Testament, you're probably aware that ancient Greek doesn't have grammar in the sense that we are used to in English. The word that is mostly translated as "a woman" is just one word - gyne (Strong's G1135).  Which does mean a woman, but it means a certain or specific woman. It does not mean all women. The significance of this is huge.

This changes the meaning of this sentence from, "I do not permit any women to teach," to "I do not permit that specific woman to teach"!

The meaning of 1 Timothy 2:12: Paul does not permit a specific woman to teach.

Further support for this idea comes from the rest of the passage.

"...she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." 

Many Christian denominations will tell you that because God made Adam before Eve, then the men of the world are entitled to do all the teaching and hold all the leadership positions, and women are forbidden from all ministry opportunities. But Scripture never says that Adam was superior because he was made first. Mind you, Adam was the second-to-last part of creation...are pigs and insects and fish superior to Adam because they were made before him? John and Stasi Eldredge teach in their book Captivating that woman being formed after Adam wasn't an insult or a sign of a lesser status, but that she was formed last as a fitting climax to the Creation story itself.

And if being made first is the issue here, wouldn't that mean that the pastor of every church should be the oldest person there? Should there be a ban on learning anything from someone who is younger than we are?

But why does Paul bring up that Adam was formed first? Well, if he's talking about a specific woman that Timothy is having trouble with, he's bringing it up because it ties in with the issue that he was addressing.

What many scholars believe was happening was that a certain woman in Timothy's congregation was teaching that Eve was formed first and that Adam was the one that was deceived. This information is incorrect based on the book of Genesis. So Paul was saying that he was not permitting this specific woman to teach, because what she was teaching went against the basics of what the Bible teaches.

This is a perfectly sensible approach to what was a bad situation for Timothy's community, and that's what I would want from any church or ministry...that they wouldn't allow any person - female or male - to preach incorrect information about Scripture, to anyone.

If we look at the passage in this light, where Paul is not placing a universal ban on all women teaching for all time, that makes sense with how he does support certain women who teach, such as Phoebe and Priscilla. Paul is not banning women from teaching, he's banning bad teaching.

We should also note that Paul is not banning all women everywhere from having any kind of authority over males. He's saying that he does not endorse this specific woman having authority, because she was wrong about what the Bible says. We know that Paul is not against women exercising authority or being in leadership. As mentioned earlier, he told the people in Rome to listen to Phoebe and be supportive of her.

A better translation of 1 Timothy 2:12 would be:

"I do not permit that woman to teach, because she lacks understanding about basic issues like Adam and Eve being formed."

I hope by now we can see that the criteria that Paul valued when it came to teaching was correct knowledge and understanding of the word of God and the work of the Messiah. Qualification is not based on gender. God used both men and women to teach his word, tell of his glory, to serve as prophets and leaders in the Old Testament and the New Testament and he still does so today.

Related posts:
The Truth About 1 Corinthians 14 and 'Women Should Be Silent'
Who Was Phoebe in the Bible?
Mary and Martha - The Real Meaning of the Messiah's Words in Luke 10

Who Was Phoebe in the Bible? (Her Significance as a Deacon in Romans)

This post takes a look at Phoebe, a deacon in the early church that Paul mentions in the book of Romans. We will take a look at who Phoebe was, where we see her in the Bible, where she was from, the connection she had to Romans, the significance she carries, and how that applies to believers today. Learning about Phoebe will give us a better understanding of what the Bible says about women in ministry. There's a lot to be gleaned from her, including Paul's beliefs about women.

Where we see Phoebe in the Bible:

"I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchrea. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me." -Romans 16:1-2 NIV

These two verses contain several significant details about Phoebe's life and ministry that we need to unpack!

Who was Phoebe in the Bible?

She lived in the coastal town of Cenchrea, in what is now Kechries, Greece. Living in a harbor town, she would have met many travelers stopping between Asia Minor, Italy, and Macedonia, and would have been exposed to various ideas and goods from around these parts of the world. This is the same town that Paul stopped in, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila, and cut his hair off, thus fulfilling his Nazirite vow (Acts 18:18). It seems likely that Phoebe and Paul met during this time, whether as a first meeting or to catch up again. Interestingly, Scripture does not record that Paul started the church in Cenchrea. It's possible that he did, but it's also a possibility that the Good News reached Phoebe's city another way. 

What Romans 16 tells us about Phoebe:

If you read Romans 16, you'll see that Paul had plenty of people to highlight and greet (the whole chapter - 25 verses - is him doing so), but the very first person he wanted to call attention to was Phoebe. And she is the only person listed that he specifically commends, and he goes out of his way to call attention the fact that she is a deacon and a leader. Other people he lists as friends, coworkers, brothers, or sisters, but only Phoebe does he give a title of leadership to.

This shows that Paul did not have a problem with women in leadership.

While Paul didn't hesitate to ban certain women from ministering or teaching when they were sharing things out of line with the Bible, he obviously did not have a problem with what Phoebe was doing or teaching - or he would have said something, as he frequently called out those in ministry for not acting appropriately. (Including Peter!)

Was Phoebe a deacon or a servant?

Different versions of Scripture translate Phoebe's title as either deacon (NIV) or servant (KJV), so which is it? The Greek word that's used is, diakonos. This word is usually translated as 'minister,' and it's the same one that Paul used in the previous chapter to describe the Messiah (Romans 15:8). Paul also uses it at other times to describe himself (Ephesians 3:7, Colossians 1:23).

Many denominations teach that while diakonos means minister or deacon in the case of Jesus and Paul, it means something more like servant or assistant when it comes to Phoebe. Downplaying Phoebe's role comes from misunderstanding Biblical passages related to women, and it is not implied by text itself. It's difficult to believe that Paul meant some sort of watered-down version of the word for a few reasons.

1. Paul is a master wordsmith. If he truly meant to call Phoebe a secretary or assistant or a lady that helps a lot, he would not have opted to use the exact word that he used 20 sentences earlier to describe the very Savior of the world. A middle schooler might make that kind of error on a homework assignment, but that's not what's happening here. 

2. If he did mean that Phoebe's work was insignificant, he wouldn't have mentioned her first. The next people he lists are Priscilla and Aquila, whom he calls his 'coworkers'. Paul shows respect to and believes in the work that Phoebe is doing.

3. The rest of what he says about her does not support this.

Scripture honors Phoebe with the title of deacon.

Paul instructs believers to receive Phoebe in a worthy manner.

We see that in Romans 16:2 Paul tells his readers to receive this woman in a manner that's worthy of the saints. Not just to receive her, but to receive her well. He's calling on them to be particularly good to her. He also tells the Romans that they are to support Phoebe. More than simply offering financial provision or help with the logistics of her visit, he is calling them to stand by her. The text indicates that he is calling on his readers to offer her moral support and respect.

Phoebe likely was responsible to explain the book of Romans.

Most scholars believe that by listing her first, Paul is indicating that she is the one he entrusted to bear this letter, which we of course know as the book of Romans. This means that one of the most significant books of the New Testament was originally entrusted to Phoebe, a woman. As she lived near a major harbor, it would have been relatively simple for her to sail to Rome from there. It was not only her job to transport it to Rome, she was responsible to clarify, explain, or elaborate on the questions the readers and listeners had, which naturally would be directed at her. 

Think about the implications of that. Paul sent the book of Romans with her and put her in a position where she would need to explain what he meant to anyone who didn't understand his meanings. This shows that he believed her to be capable of correctly explaining and expounding on his message. Paul placed Phoebe in a position to teach!

Phoebe was a spiritual leader to Paul.

"...for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me." -Romans 16:2b NIV

The end of the mention of Phoebe highlights another significant detail about her. The NIV uses the word 'benefactor' and many translations use the word 'helper'. It's easy to read words like that and think that Phoebe supported Paul financially, or that she let the apostles stay in her house occasionally, or maybe she cooked for them or did their laundry. We assume that the only help she was able to give was housekeeping or money...because the truth is that much of the church has significantly downplayed the roles and actions of the women of the Bible. We haven't been taught the significance of women like Phoebe, so it's easy to miss.

But once again, if we dig deeper into Scripture, and examine what words Paul used and what they meant to him, we will see that his words mean something more than what we have assumed.

The word that is translated as helper or benefactor is the Greek word prostatis (Strongs G4368) - a feminine noun derived from proistemi, which is usually translated to rule over, or something similar. We only see this word once in the New Testament, which should call our attention to the significant meaning behind it.

According to Strongs, prostatis means:

1. A woman set over others.

2. A female guardian, protectress, patroness.

Phoebe is a woman set over others, including Paul (Romans 16:2).

Further support for this idea comes from the definition of the root word, proistemi which means: to set over, to be over, superintend, preside over, to be a protector or guardian, to care for, give attention to. This is dynamite! Phoebe is a leader. 

It is very, very difficult to read these definitions and think that this woman had done nothing for Paul except make a donation or feed him a few good meals. Paul respected Phoebe as a spiritual leader. Again, Paul is an excellent communicator...if he hadn't meant that Phoebe was over others or acting as a guardian, protector, and patron, he would have used a different word. His word choice highlights that he himself learned from her and considered her a leader in the church.

It's also worth noting that even if we jump to the last possible definition of this word - 'patron' - it doesn't fit well with what many believe this passage to mean. In the cultural context of the time, a patron was someone who provided significant help. This is not someone who makes a $20 donation, but someone who sponsors the entire ministry, and pays yearly salaries. If Phoebe were wealthy enough to do so, would it make sense for Paul to tell the Romans to support her financially? Wouldn't there be better uses for their money than giving it to a very wealthy woman? The text simply can't mean that all Phoebe did was fund his ministry, or that the only support he expected the believing community to offer her was financial.

Elsewhere in Scripture we do see women financially supporting the Gospel (Joanna and Susanna in Luke 8:3), and prostatis is not the word used. If Phoebe's work was about physical or financial provision, that would have been described differently.

The latter part of Romans 16:2 could be translated as, "...for she has been set over many people, including me."

What Phoebe's life means for us today:

Her life demonstrates that the role of women in ministry is not limited just to children or other women. It's not just about doing secretary tasks, sweeping the floors, taking care of orphans, and so on. While those tasks matter, and those who do them are honored in the kingdom of Heaven, Phoebe's life and ministry show that women can also teach the Gospel and have positions of leadership in churches and ministries.

Paul himself, undoubtedly one of the greatest teachers of the Gospel in history, went out of his way to highlight that not only was this woman a deacon, but he himself was under her spiritual influence and authority. Paul respected her ministry. She had taught and encouraged Paul. Paul chose to validate that. Phoebe's life is a validation of women in ministry.

I know that many people will disagree with this message because it just doesn't fit with what so many pastors and churches have told us about women in ministry. I would highly encourage you to study the original meanings of the words Paul chose to use and look at what this passage meant to the writer. Here's a link to the Strongs definition of prostatis to get your studies started.

More about women in the Bible:
The Significance of Sarah in the Bible
1 Corinthians 14:34 Does Not Mean Women Aren't Allowed to Speak
The Real Meaning of the Mary and Martha Story

What Romans 8:28 Actually Means

"For God works all things together for the good of those who love him." -Romans 8:28

This statement made by Paul in the New Testament is packed full of hope, isn't it? I love the promise of the idea that no matter what happens in my life, God will bring something good to me through that. An ugly situation will be weaved into something beautiful. Bad things will be turned around. That's the power of YHWH, the one who trades beauty for ashes.

This idea isn't limited in origin to Romans 8:28. Joseph told his brothers that what they had intended for evil, God had used for good. So I'm not saying that the common understanding of this verse is wrong. But it is limited. There is more to it than what sits above the surface.

Most of us have heard, or experienced ourselves, first hand accounts of this. The person that claimed the awful car-accident was the wake up call they needed to fix their marriage. Someone insisting that getting fired from a job was the best thing that ever happened to them. And yet...all of us have experienced deep heartache, grief and loss that can feel too heavy to bear.  There are certain pains in life where it seems cruel to say, "Not to worry - good will come from this." 

And that's where we need to see the deeper meaning of Romans 8:28.

The point of this passage isn't limited to all things somehow working out to be beneficial to followers of God, even if they don't see how in the world that could be true until eternity. Romans 8:28 also means that no matter what happens, it is our job to work with God to bring about good in this world.

Again, while I firmly believe that God is faithful to turn around the mess in our lives, we are also called to work with him in that! That means there is tremendous hope in each of our lives! Not just for good to happen to us. But to overcome the hard things and heartache, and continue to be faithful servants of YHWH, doing everything we can to bring about good into the world.

Many of us struggle to take our eyes off their hardships and the brokenness of our world. And I get that. There are far too many overwhelming situations and heartaches for most of us. And there are scary statistics and predictions about society, the economy, depression rates, and the environment on the news every day. It's easy to want to throw your hands up in the air and say "What's the point?" But truthfully, as the body of Messiah this is our time to step into the role that God created us for. It is your job to work with God to bring about good in your life, your family, your community, and our world, no matter what unwanted circumstances may arise.

Here's a better rendering of Romans 8:28

"We know that God works all things together for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose."

Related posts:

What Does 'No Greater Burdens' in Acts 15:20 Mean?
The Real Meaning of 1 Corinthians 14:34
The Beautiful Detail You've Never Heard from the Prodigal Son Parable

Romans 14 Explained (Key to Understanding New Testament Verses on Food)

Much of Christianity believes that in the New Testament the commandments about what we should not eat are done away with through the work of the Messiah. This idea stems from misunderstanding New Testament Bible passages. If we take a closer look, we will see that Scripture never changes the Living God's instructions about what we eat! It's time to see that point of the Messiah's death was to provide redemption for people, not to add pig flesh to our diets.

Here on the blog, we've already tackled misunderstood passages of the New Testament like, Jesus made all foods clean, Peter's hearing the voice say to eat unclean animals, and eating whatever is set before you. Links are below if you'd like to check out those topics later, but for now we are going to focus on Romans 14.

This passage of Scripture comes up in nearly every discussion about believers and what we eat. It gets thrown out as a catch all, "But Romans 14 says no food is wrong to eat and it's up to our conscience to decide!" Let's take a few minutes to learn to understand that passage of Scripture that has been misunderstood and abused.

Explaining Romans 14:

"One person believes it is right to eat anything. But another believer with a sensitive conscience will eat only vegetables. Those who feel free to eat anything must not look down on those who don't. And those who don't eat certain foods must not condemn those who do, for God has accepted them." -Romans 14:2-3

"See? Paul is saying that it's right to eat anything and we shouldn't judge what someone else eats because God accepts it, right? So we can eat any animals now, even what were considered abominable in the Old Testament." This logic is used by many believers, and it's extremely flawed. Nowhere in Romans (or anywhere else in the Bible) does it talk about a debate of whether or not it's okay to eat the animals that Leviticus 11 says not to. The subject in question is that while some people choose a vegetarian diet, others eat permissible meats. How do we know they're talking about clean animals? Because the Bible defines food as what YHWH says we can eat. Since Leviticus 11:41 says that things like pigs, dogs, most insects, lions, camels, etc. are not food, we know that "those who don't eat certain foods," weren't eating animals the Bible considers food - such as beef and lamb. This whole debate is about if you have to be a vegetarian, or if it's okay to eat the animals that the Old Testament says you can. 

Romans 14 is not talking about anyone eating what the Bible says is not permissible!

"I know and am convinced on the authority of the Messiah that no food, in and of itself, is wrong to eat." -Romans 14:14a

Again, the subject here is food, as defined by the Bible. Paul is saying that if the Bible says something is food, then it can be eaten. This fits with other parts of Scripture, like the Messiah saying that the bread his disciples were eating was not unclean, even though they hadn't kept a manmade tradition of ritual hand washing in Mark 7, and 1 Timothy 4 that says that false teachers will promote a demonic idea that not all foods - again things the Bible says we can eat - should be eaten.

Paul is not saying that it's okay to go directly against what the Bible says and eat abominable creatures. 

"If another believer is distressed by what you eat, you are not acting in love if you eat it. Don't let your eating ruin someone for whom the Messiah died." -Romans 14:15

It is somewhat mystifying that the same people who throw Romans 14 up as a license to consume literally anything they want...from abominable animals to psychedelic drugs...conveniently skip over this verse. Here's a Bible passage reminding us that our choices about what we eat have very real effects on others, and that we should do our very best to act in love and consideration! 

I hope this explanation sheds light on what Paul meant by these words in Romans. When we understand that New Testament authors used the Bible's definition of what food is, then Scripture doesn't contradict itself! 

More about eating:
Did Jesus Declare All Foods Clean?
Understanding Peter's Vision
Should We Eat Whatever is Set Before Us?
Romans 14:5 - About Fasting or the Sabbath?

1 Timothy 4 Explained (and why it doesn't mean all animals should be eaten)

A common question related to Biblical eating is what about 1 Timothy 4? Many people believe that this verse not only says that we can eat whatever we want, but that those advocating for following the Bible's dietary laws are following demonic teachings that come from deceptive spirits! Many people think 1 Timothy 4 teaches that the commandments regarding food have been done away with.

Let's take a look at this verse before we discuss how this does not mean that all animals can or should be eaten or that the laws surrounding what we eat are no longer in effect.

"Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true faith; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons. These people are hypocrites and liars, and their consciences are dead. They will say it is wrong to be married and wrong to eat certain foods. But God created those foods to be eaten with thanks by faithful people who know the truth. Since everything God created is good, we should not reject any of it but receive it with thanks. For we know it is made acceptable by the word of God and prayer." -1 Timothy 4:1-5

If you come from a background of belief that all the Biblical dietary laws have been done away with, then it's easy to read this passage to mean that literally anything you pray over can be received as food. God created everything to be eaten, right?

But take a closer look at the wording. The issue at hand is not that people are saying it's wrong to eat certain animals. The problem is that they are teaching that certain FOODS are wrong to eat. Big difference here! When the authors of the Bible speak, they do so with the foundational assumption that the Bible has already defined what does and what does not count as "food."

The Bible defines food in:

-Genesis 1:29

"Every seed bearing plant and the fruit trees."

-Leviticus 11

"Of all the animals that live on the land, these are the ones you may eat..."  Which goes on to explain which animals, birds, fish, and insects can and cannot be eaten.

The Bible explains that animals that are considered abominable should not be eaten in Leviticus 11:41. They should not be eaten, because they are not food according to Scripture. So when 1 Timothy 4:3 says that God created foods to be eaten, it's talking about what the Bible considers food. It does not mean that everything on the planet is considered fit for consumption. This passage does not mean that animals like pigs, dogs, cats, or shellfish can be eaten if we give thanks, because Paul, the author, did not consider these animals to be food since the Bible says they aren't.

Think this is a crazy idea? If you invite me over and say, "Help yourself to some snacks on the counter," what you mean is that I can eat the food you have out on the counter - things like apple slices, bread, cheese, carrot sticks, and cookies. You're not saying that I can eat the bouquet of flowers, the dish soap, sponge, potted plant, pet goldfish, the receipt for the groceries or whatever else you have on the counter, because you don't consider those things to be food. YHWH did not say that these things are food, so therefore we shouldn't consume them.

What is 1 Timothy 4 talking about then? This warning from Paul is that false teachers will come along who disagree with the Bible and teach that certain things the Bible says can be eaten, shouldn't be. We should always be on guard against anyone who is saying something that contradicts the teachings and commandments of Scripture! It seems likely that Paul could be referring to those who say that any animal or animal products - ones like cows and sheep that the Bible expressly says may be eaten - should not be eaten. This goes against specific instructions of Scripture that enumerate which animals may be eaten, as well as many examples of godly men and women in the Bible eating and serving these products, like when Abraham and Sarah fed meat and curds to their heavenly visitors and the Messiah served fish to his followers.

This could also have to do with many believers who insist on following not just Bible dietary commands, but Jewish kosher laws which add many manmade rules to the simple directions the Bible gives. As we've discussed in other posts, the Bible does not teach that meat and dairy products can't ever cross paths at all, but Jewish laws say they shouldn't even be used in the same kitchen. This is another undue burden to place on others. These rules may be well-intended, but it's still wrong to put manmade rules on par with Biblical law, or to claim that those manmade traditions are the same as what the Living God commands!

1 Timothy 4:5 supports the idea that these people will teach that certain Biblically permissible foods are off limits (as well as teaching that it's wrong to be married). We see that in the phrasing, "We know it is made acceptable by the word of God." This means that the author is referring to animals/foods that the Bible expressly says we can eat. How can we be sure something is food even if a faith movement, pastor, or author say it's not? We check the Bible and see what it says! Paul is drawing attention to the fact that Scripture decides what is acceptable or not before YHWH. Not religious leaders advocating for extra rules. Not people who are sensitive about eating animals. Not people who think that Jesus did away with the food laws. Not well intentioned people fearful of allergies. Not denominational doctrine. Not people who abuse the Bible and say that Scripture only permits veganism. Just the Bible. Scripture is the only thing that gets to decide what food is.

1 Timothy 4:1-5 explains that we should be leery of anyone changing the Bible's laws around food, not that we shouldn't follow Scripture's instructions!

Related posts:
What the Bible Says about Meat and Dairy
Understanding Mark 7:19 and the Messiah Declaring All Foods Clean
The Difference Between Unclean and Abominable