The apostle Paul will help us modern believers to do what the "mixed" Roman ecclesia did in the first century, and that is to distinguish between "true principles" and "uncertain details". Meanwhile, I will endeavor to add a few thoughts of my own along the way.

Passing judgment on doubtful matters

Among the practical exhortations alluded to in the last article (Romans 12-15), Paul warns us against judging one another in doubtful, or disputable, matters:

"Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters" (Rom 14:1).

The "weak" brethren of Paul's day wanted everyone to refrain from certain practices which they deemed to be displeasing to God, even while others (the "strong" brethren?) found those same practices acceptable and, in some cases, even supported by Scripture.

In the first century, these doubtful matters often involved Jewish traditions such as dietary rules and ritual customs from the Law of Moses, which were no longer necessary for Jewish Christians. Nevertheless, "serious" Jews strongly felt the emotional and psychological pull of long-held practices. They may have known intellectually that such practices were no longer necessary, nor even important, but on an emotional level they found it difficult if not impossible to let them go.

The principle still applies today. A modern list of such doubtful matters of preference and conscience might include:

  • Which Bible translations are "acceptable", and which should be read in Bible classes and services;
  • Whether Bible commentaries or studies by non-Christadelphians should be used;
  • Observing Christmas, Easter, and other less religious holidays;
  • Attending sporting events, or allowing children to participate in organized team sports or social clubs;
  • Using tobacco or alcohol (that is, anything stronger than wine);
  • What is suitable clothing at memorial meetings, and in general;
  • Whether musical instruments other than piano and organ should be used in ecclesial services;
  • Which hymns should be sung, and which hymnbooks should be used;
  • Whether sisters should wear makeup or jewelry, and if so, how much;
  • Which novels, books, movies, and other entertainments are suitable;
  • Whether we should watch television at all, or how much, or what particular programs, etc.;
  • Being involved in social media, and if so, to what extent;
  • Participating in gambling of any form;
  • What sort of head coverings, if any, should be worn, and when;
  • Whether believers should seek higher education, and the business or professional life which that education might lead to;
  • Entering into partnerships with non-believers;
  • How ecclesias should deal with those who marry outside the Truth; and
  • How ecclesias should handle every variation and circumstance of divorce and/or remarriage.

This list is based on my own experience, but the point is that we can all think of certain doubtful matters where opinions vary from one believer to another, and about which there is no established consensus.

The above list does not even address doubtful matters of Bible interpretation. Some examples:

  • The age of the earth;
  • Whether Genesis days of creation were 24-hour periods, or longer "days";
  • Whether Noah's flood was universal or local;
  • Specific interpretations, or unknowable details — of prophecies yet to be fulfilled;
  • Whether or not Ezekiel's prophecy of a temple pertains to the Kingdom Age; and if so, what interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48 should be followed;
  • The location of Christ's judgment seat, the duration of his judgment, and details of its outworking; and — perhaps most troubling of all —
  • Precisely how the Lord Jesus Christ benefited by his own sacrifice, and precisely how that sacrifice benefits all believers.

I mention this last item not because the atonement is unimportant, but because it is so important that it commands our attention. This means that, too often, otherwise serious Bible students subject the questions — of how Christ benefited, and how we benefit, by his sacrifice — to such intense scrutiny that they develop what can only be called obsessions and/or phobias. Some students may even treat small details and distinctions as though they are first principles, when they are no more than minor quibbles or personal points of view. The technical process of the atonement ('how does it work?') can come to overshadow its moral component ('what does it do for me?'), which can get lost in the weeds. In this all-too-common scenario, debates about "the legality" of the sacrifice choke the life out of much more important qualities such as grace, mercy and love, about which the sacrifice of Christ should teach us so intimately.

You could probably compile your own separate list of such questions too — not that I'd recommend the exercise to anyone! These lists are put forward for a specific purpose — and it is most definitely not to start more arguments! Instead, I'm suggesting that the reader should try to keep in mind the two lists above while reading what follows here. I do not mean this to be a theoretical exercise but rather a practical one. Ask yourself as you read:

'What is my reaction upon reading or hearing about differing opinions regarding the topics on the list? Can I find the grace and strength to refrain from passing judgment on my brethren who hold opinions contrary to mine on these non-fundamental topics? Can I think of them as my brethren in every way, even when they disagree with me? And can I allow them the freedom, not only to think but also to talk about such ideas which I believe to be wrong?'

Paul's advice, regardless of what is on your list or mine, is simple but relevant:

"Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters" (Rom 14:1).

The Greek for "accept" is "proslambano", which means to take, receive or accept into one's company. More specifically, it means to take another aside, to hold him close, and to confide in him. It is a warm, inviting, comforting word, and conveys a sense of fullness of fellowship — literally, wholeheartedness in sharing. The verb here is in the middle voice, and continuous, that is: go on receiving. The RSV is even more gracious: "Welcome him." This is no grudging, grumbling, wary acceptance ('Let's just wait and see if this one measures up, but I have my doubts'). Instead, this is a positive, open-hearted and open-armed full fellowship — with no reservations.

On the other hand, those who consider themselves to be "strong" must accept those who are "weak" in their faith, because God has accepted them (Rom 14:3). The strong must go the extra mile in receiving and helping the weak (Rom 15:1,2). Again, Paul exhorts:

"Accept one another, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God" (Rom 15:7).

Have you ever stopped to realize that absolutely every person whom Christ has accepted as his brother or sister has been inferior — vastly inferior — to Christ himself? This is not just true of every adulterer (like David) or murderer (David again, and Saul of Tarsus) or prostitute (Rahab, Mary Magdalene?). It is true of the apostles Peter and James and John, true of John Thomas and Robert Roberts, and — by the way — it's true of you and me!

Going back to Romans 14:1: the NIV word "disputable" ("without passing judgment on disputable matters") translates the Greek "dialogismos". The KJV and RV both have "doubtful disputations". According to the best lexicons and textual commentaries, the Greek word suggests arguments or debates about matters which are inherently doubtful in the first place. To put it simply, Paul seems to be saying: 'Do not argue endlessly about arguments which have never been settled.'

In my opinion, Paul might well have added… 'and likely never will be settled until the Kingdom, if then.' Other translations of Paul's phrase — and there are many — highlight this very point:

  • The RV margin has: "decisions of doubts"; the phrasing suggests that every doubt must be resolved one way or another — when of course they need not be!
  • The ASV has: "decisions of scruples", presumably meaning: 'Don't try to pass judgment on someone else's scruples';
  • The RSV: "quarreling over opinions"; so why not just leave it this way: 'You have your opinion and I have mine, but we know our shared Faith is the same'?
  • The NEB: "attempting to settle doubtful points"; and
  • The NET has: "disputes over differing opinions", with the accompanying NET note adding: "The qualifier 'differing' has been supplied [i.e., by the translators] to clarify the meaning."

The ecclesia ought to welcome, warmly and lovingly, everyone who shares the same faith, even if some may have a more tenuous grasp than others, while others may have a quite peculiar perspective on some minor issue. All who share the same faith should be welcomed as equals in the family of believers, without condemning or censuring them, even in thought, much less publicly.

As we've discussed in the previous article (#4: "A Suggested Reason…"), the question of which foods were acceptable was quite a troublesome issue in the first century, because mixed communities of believers would be expected to share meals together. Jews were traditionally scrupulous while Gentiles were usually flexible about diet, yet they were all supposed to come together to share a meal and together to remember their Savior. The memorial meeting itself, the very heart of their worship, was generally part of a communal meal. The Anchor Bible Dictionary discusses this aspect of first-century Christian life:

Food was a focal problem in early Christianity (Mark 7:1–30; Acts 15:12–29; 1Cor 8:1–13; Gal 2:12; Col 2:16; Rev 2:20). The issue of table fellowship between (Christian) Jews and (Christian) Gentiles is one prominent aspect of this problem (e.g., Gal 2:11–14), one which was particularly emphasized by the author of Luke–Acts (Acts 10:1–11:18; 16:31–34). Just as the meals Jesus shared with those of various social classes who responded to his message symbolized his full acceptance of them, so in early Christianity, meals shared by Jewish Christians and Hellenistic Christians dramatized the fact that they "are one body, for we all partake of one bread" (1Cor 10:17).

David E. Aune, "Worship, Early Christian", Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 6

In Paul's day, dietary differences and scruples about foods had a serious impact upon much of Christian fellowship. Today, believers may share small portions of bread and wine at a memorial meeting, but they do not necessarily have regular meals together around the same table. And even if they do, no one seems to be troubled by another's preferences for food, and each may choose what he wishes from the table. Nevertheless, there can be other differences of practice or Bible interpretation, as extensively listed above, which introduce unnecessary arguments into an ecclesia. For this reason, we still need Paul's words of advice today:

"Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand (Rom 14:4).

Remember: keep my lists — or yours — in mind as you read this. Try to examine yourself, not others! And then remember to whom your brother — and you! — are responsible, and learn to be content to leave the judgment to God and His Son.

Even when it is truly necessary to judge some situation, there are safeguards against going too far in our demands upon others. The first safeguard is, as above, to look at yourself at least as severely as you look at the supposed sinner. The second is to keep in mind that there ought to be a clear distinction between:

  • matters of essential, fundamental, first principle importance, and
  • non-essential matters where no such issues are at stake.

As we have seen, the second point, about non-essential matters, is what Paul calls "disputable" (NIV) or "doubtful" (KJV) matters (Rom 14:1). While such matters may be studied and discussed, they should never be allowed to rise to the level of "first principles", where they most surely do not belong! No matter how seriously we think about them, or how important they may seem to be to us — if they are not fundamental and essential to our grasp of the first principles, then we should not "pass judgment" upon those whose ideas differ from ours.

A third point is worth mentioning here: the act of passing judgment on the motives of others. Those who expect to have the best of motives attributed to themselves (as surely we all do) must be ready, even eager, to give others the same benefit of the doubt, and attribute only the best possible motives to them (Matt 6:14,15; 7:1,2). When our Lord was confronted with a woman allegedly taken in the act of adultery, he asked for other witnesses. When they did not come forward, he concluded the matter with, "Neither do I condemn you" (John 8:11). The woman may very well have been guilty as alleged, but the Lord would not join in a rush to judgment.

Give the benefit of the doubt when you do not know all the facts of a case. It is often all too easy to know part of a story, and then make educated guesses to fill in what is not known. You may be correct in assuming the worst interpretation of the story, but you may also be wrong. So why risk making a wrong judgment? Leave it alone, and know that Christ will judge righteously, when necessary.

Any two believers may study the Bible carefully but still arrive at very different opinions upon non-essential matters. Then again, any two believers may well choose quite different lifestyles or philosophies, as regards doubtful practices. On matters such as these, no one should be forced to think or act so as to please someone else's conscience.

Elsewhere, Paul provides us with several useful guidelines, which can be easily summarized:

  • In essential things, the ecclesia should be characterized by unity (Phil 1:27).
  • In doubtful things, the ecclesia should be characterized by liberty (Rom 14:6).
  • In all things, the ecclesia should be characterized by love (1Cor 13:1,5).

The result of these guidelines, if truly internalized, is remarkable:

"For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat" (Rom 14:7-10; cp 2Cor 5:10; also see 1Cor 3:10-15; 4:5; 1 Pet 5:4).

Let us always remember on which side of the judgment seat we belong.