The whole section from Romans 14:1 to Romans 15:13 concerns those whom Paul himself calls the "weak" and the "strong" among believers. When believers of distinct and separate backgrounds come together in fellowship, they are likely to find matters of personal preference in which they do not agree, and even situations in which their personal consciences may differ.
As Paul uses the words, the "weak" are weak in faith (Rom 14:1), being characterized by weak consciences (1 Cor 8:7). Their faith is not strong enough to break away entirely from the scruples that they have inherited through their traditions.
The "strong", on the other hand, understand the implications of their freedom or liberty in Christ (1 Cor 8:9; 10:29; Gal 2:4; 5:1) and are not afraid to act upon that knowledge. They have come to realize that nothing is unclean in itself (Rom 14:14). Since they know that there is only one God, from whom all things come (1 Cor 8:6), they are not afraid to eat anything (Rom 14:2), even meat offered to idols (1 Cor 8:1). Idols, after all, mean "nothing" to them (1 Cor 8:4).
Dennis Gillett explains this point in a similar fashion. The "weak", he says, "are people with strong opinions. But more — they are people with strong opinions about things which, as far as salvation is concerned, are not important" (May You Know it to be True, p. 87).
These definitions fit Paul's usage in Romans and 1 Corinthians, but in some ways they are counterintuitive to us. We may think of believers who have more scruples about what to avoid as being "strong" in resisting temptations, while the "weak" are those who too easily succumb to such temptations. From time to time, we should remind ourselves of how Paul uses these words as we consider chapters such as this one.
It is easy for the "weak" or the more tradition-minded with strong opinions, such as the Jewish believers in the first century, to desire earnestly that other believers revere their Jewish traditions and history as much as they themselves do. On the other hand, the "strong" newer believers, such as Gentile converts in the first century, appreciate more keenly their liberty in Christ, while seeing much of the past as stifling to spiritual growth.
So while both the "weak" and the "strong" accept and believe the same principles and commandments of Christ and his apostles (e.g., Rom 12; 13), there will always be varying and perhaps conflicting opinions as to how to apply those principles, and how to obey those commandments. Each individual must be guided personally by his or her conscience, enlightened by Bible teaching. But when the individual is called upon as a member of an ecclesia to determine what another believer should or should not do, and possibly what action if any an ecclesia should take, then conflicts will certainly arise. This is what Robert Roberts referred to when he wrote:
"There is division enough, in all conscience division that is inevitable — division that must be, unless we are to ignore divine obligations altogether; but there are divisions that ought not to be. It is possible to go too far in our demands on fellow believers. How far we ought to go and where to stop, is at one time or other a perplexing problem to most earnest minds. They are afraid on the one hand of compromising the Truth in fellowship, and on the other, of sinning against the weaker members of the body of Christ. The only end there can be to this embarrassment is found in the discrimination between true principles and uncertain details that do not overthrow them"
"True Principles and Uncertain Details, or The Danger of Going Too Far in Our Demands on Fellow-believers", The Christadelphian, Vol. 35, No. 407, May 1898, pages 182-189.
What Robert Roberts calls "uncertain details", and what the apostle calls "disputable, or doubtful matters" ("doubtful disputations": KJV), are matters of exposition or application on which differences of opinion should be tolerated.
In short, they are not "true principles", or "first principles", on which there should be no real argument among true believers.
Of course, this leads to the question: 'How do we define first principles? Or: ‘What is the essential, fundamental and saving Bible teaching?' The proper answer to these questions is most certainly not to refer to any particular statement of faith as though it were the final authority. The final authority must be the Bible. The proper response to such questions is to ask yet another question:
'What makes some doctrines essential, while others are not?'
To this last question, there needs to be an answer which is based strictly on the Bible, and which logically draws a clear line between 'essential' and 'non-essential'.
One approach to answer these questions is the book What Are the First Principles? by George Booker (in print, and available online, at “The Christadelphian Tidings” and the “Agora” website).
We may also compare Romans 14:1 through 15:13 with similar advice which Paul gives in 1 Corinthians 8:1 through 11:1. His teaching in Romans is briefer and given in more general terms, though there are obvious similarities:
- There is the danger that the strong one, by his conduct, will cause the weak one to stumble or fall.
- And there is the corresponding danger that the weak one will sit in judgment upon the strong one.
There are also several differences, in subjects and emphasis, between Paul's consideration of the weak and the strong in the two letters:
- In Romans:
- Paul does not mention idols or food offered to idols.
- The word "conscience" does not appear.
- He does not describe the strong as those who have knowledge.
- On the other hand, in 1 Corinthians:
- Paul does not mention vegetarians.
- He does not refer to those who insist on observing a certain day in contrast to others who look on all days as being alike.
"From speaking of those who were too lax in the indulgence of natural appetites [Rom 13:11-14], the subject passes mainly to those who are too scrupulous. The object is not to remove these scruples, but to show those who have them and those who [do not have them] how to live in Christian peace" (James M. Stifler, The Epistle to the Romans).
Such "Christian peace" is always at the forefront of Paul's mind, especially when dealing with the difficulties that can arise in any ecclesia. Paul's most important concern was that brethren find a way to maintain their unity in the Body of Christ. Note that the commands to accept and welcome one another are bookends to this lengthy section of the letter. The same command occurs both at the beginning (Rom 14:1) and at the end (Rom 15:7; see notes there).
Within this section Paul also gives three other "one another" references (Rom 14:13, 19; 15:5), reminding us once again how strong the bonds should be that bind us to each other in the One Body of Christ (Rom 12:4,5).
Brethren should refrain from judging one another in doubtful matters. This is a particular temptation for those brothers and sisters whom Paul calls "weak". They believe that everyone should refrain from certain practices which they believe to be displeasing to God, but which other brothers and sisters feel to be legitimate. In the first century, these doubtful matters involved Jewish traditions and customs. These customs arose from the Law of Moses, and especially focused on dietary and ritual customs which were no longer applicable for Jewish Christians. Nevertheless, all serious Jews felt the extremely powerful force of long-held family and national traditions and practices. They may have known in their intellects that such practices were no longer of the first importance, but in their emotions and their subconscious they found it terribly difficult to make the break. The examples specifically given in Romans and 1 Corinthians included:
- Eating foods previously unclean under the Law;
- Eating meats that had been offered to idols; and
- Observing and/or disregarding special days according to the Mosaic calendar.
The lesson for us today is that we should also refrain from judging our brethren in similarly doubtful matters.
It is not too difficult to compile a modern list of such "doubtful matters". Some believers will feel some of these to be improper, while they will see nothing wrong with others. Matters of preference and conscience might include:
- Observing Christmas, Halloween, and other 'religious' holidays;
- Attending sporting events;
- Drinking alcohol in any form, and/or drinking anything stronger than a little wine;
- Attending bars or nightclubs;
- Using tobacco;
- Hair length of brothers;
- What is suitable clothing for brothers and sisters at memorial meetings;
- What is suitable clothing for young people in general;
- Whether musical instruments should be used in ecclesial meetings;
- Whether musical instruments other than piano and organ should be used in ecclesial meetings;
- Whether sisters should wear makeup;
- How much jewelry, if any, is appropriate;
- Which novels and other books are suitable reading;
- Which entertainments (movies, plays) are permissible;
- Whether we should watch television at all, or how much, or what particular programs, etc.;
- Being involved in social media;
- Buying lottery tickets;
- Participating in office pools;
- What sort of headcoverings, if any, should be worn by sisters, and when;
- Which Bible versions should be read (or not read) in meeting and classes;
- Entering into partnerships with non-believers (or, as some may prefer, misbelievers);
- How ecclesias should deal with those who marry outside of the Truth;
- How ecclesias should handle every variation and circumstance of divorce and/or remarriage; and
- Allowing one's children to join boy scouts, girl scouts, and/or other social clubs.
The criteria the writer has used in compiling this list is his own experience. A list such as this might be compiled by any believer. What each of us might include will depend on where we live in the brotherhood, our family background, our background in the Truth, and with whom we associate on a regular basis.
Some who read this particular list may feel that certain items should never have been included, either because everyone should know how wrong they are, or — at a totally different extreme — because no one should even think to question them.
Similarly, others may wonder how something else has been left off. The point is: We can all think of certain "doubtful matters", where we have seen opinions vary from one fellow-believer to another, and about which there is no established consensus.
We note that the above list does not have any items pertaining to "doubtful matters" of Bible interpretation: e.g.,
- How, when, and how often the Hebrew names of God should be used, and how they should be pronounced;
- Details of prophecy;
- The age of the earth;
- Whether Noah's flood was universal or local;
- Precisely how the Lord Jesus Christ benefited by his own sacrifice;
- The location of Christ's judgment seat; and
- The details and circumstances of any "temple" and sacrifices in the Millennium.
Most of us could compile our own separate list of such questions also.
It is for just such matters that Paul's advice is given here, regardless of which specific items are on my personal list or yours.
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters: The Greek for "accept" is "proslambano"; it 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 and comforting word, and conveys a sense of fullness of fellowship and wholeheartedness in sharing. The verb here is in the middle voice, and continuous: "to go on receiving". The RSV is even more gracious: "Welcome him." Here is no grudging, grumbling acceptance, but an open-hearted and open-armed full fellowship. It has a positive meaning: "to welcome into a circle of friends, or coworkers".
We, who may feel ourselves to be "strong", must "accept" him who is "weak" in his faith, because God has "accepted" him (Rom 14:3). It is the business of the "strong" to "walk the extra mile" in receiving and helping, not "looking down upon", the "weak" (Rom 15:1,2). And again, Paul exhorts:
"Accept ['proslambano'] one another, then, just as Christ accepted [the same word] you, in order to bring praise to God" (Rom 15:7).
The depth of feeling in the word may be gauged by its other uses in the New Testament:
- When Peter wishes to speak quietly and in confidence to Jesus, we read that he "took him aside" ("proslambano") (Matt 16:22; Mark 8:32).
- When Apollos preached boldly, but incompletely, in the synagogue, Priscilla and Aquila heard him and "invited him" ("proslambano") to their home, where they quietly explained to him the way of God more perfectly (Acts 18:26).
- Paul "encouraged" his companions on the ship to eat something (Acts 27:36). This inviting in a welcoming way suggests a solicitous parent gently coaxing a sick child to eat something for his or her own good.
- The islanders of Melita or Malta showed the shipwrecked travelers "unusual kindness". "They built a fire and welcomed ['proslambano'] us all because it was raining and cold" (Acts 28:2).
- Paul encourages Philemon to "welcome" Onesimus as a partner — even to "welcome him as you would me" (Philemon 1:7).
HIM WHOSE FAITH IS WEAK: Not "weak in the faith" (KJV, NET), as though he did not understand the first principles of the faith. Rather, the meaning should be "weak in faith" (ASV, RSV), or "in his faith" (NEB), i.e., in his own personal faith. That is, his faith is not strong enough to enable him to perceive the full liberty he should enjoy in Christ. He is not troubled by questions of doctrine, but by doubt as to whether it is right for him to eat some foods (cp. v. 23).
"Weak", both here and in the next verse, is the Greek "astheneo", referring to one who is without strength, or even one who is sick or ill (cp Phil 2:26,27; 2 Tim 4:20). The brother or sister who is "weak" is sick and perhaps unable to care for himself; he is not wicked! James uses the same word when he writes: "Is any one of you sick ['astheneo']? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord" (James 5:14). The one who is "weak" should be able to expect care and comfort, not judgment and contempt (cf 1 Cor 8:11,12). The "weak" ("astheneo") should, if possible, be "healed" (Matt 10:8; Mark 6:56; Luke 4:40) and cared for (Matt 25:36, 39). Paul catches the spirit of this perfectly when he writes about his care for all the ecclesias: "Who is weak ['astheneo'], and I do not feel weak ['astheneo']?" (2 Cor 11:29).
WITHOUT PASSING JUDGMENT ON DISPUTABLE MATTERS: "Disputable" is "dialogismos". The word suggests dialogues or debates, involving doubts, arguments and disputes. Other renderings of this phrase have been suggested:
- "Not to doubtful disputations" (KJV, RV).
- "Not for decisions of doubts" (RV mg.), as though every doubt must be resolved one way or another.
- "Not for decisions of scruples" (ASV), presumably meaning: 'not to decide the scruples of others'.
- "Not for the purpose of quarreling over opinions" (RSV).
- "Without attempting to settle doubtful points" (NEB).
- "Not [for] disputes over differing opinions" (NET), with the NET Notes adding: "The qualifier 'differing' has been supplied [i.e., by the translators] to clarify the meaning."
- "Not to discussions of opinions" (F.L. Godet).
- "Not so as to awaken doubts of thoughts, i.e., scruples" (Luther).
The ecclesia ought to welcome, warmly and lovingly, those whose faith is weak, without trying to decide between their changing opinions, or about their questionable scruples. They should be welcomed as equals in the family of believers, without condemning or censuring them (even in thought, much less publicly).
Dennis Gillett writes:
Fellowship is not to be based on disputing and arguing about things that are non-essentials. Nor is it right to compel your brother to adopt your opinions in order to make him acceptable. You might have expected Paul to say that the strong must make the weak see sense — but he does not.
May You Know it to be True, p. 88
H.P. Mansfield puts this well: "The ecclesia is to receive those who are troubled by these conflicting thoughts and doubts, not however, to judge or condemn them for such" (Logos, Vol. 34, p. 250).
Harry Whittaker makes the same point, while considering the application to the "weak" brother who may be troubled by somewhat peculiar ideas, not particularly founded upon Scripture:
It is easy to see why Paul so advises. As long as the weak brother with (slightly) off-beat ideas continues in the fellowship of sounder brethren there is some hope that by degrees he will achieve a more balanced point of view. Such things have been known to happen. But the necessary condition must be observed: "Not to doubtful disputations." If such a problem individual is to continue to share the blessings of the community, he must be prepared to cease all forms of propagation of the ideas he has espoused. Only on these eminently reasonable terms can his membership in the family of Christ be tolerated.
The Testimony, Vol. 43, p. 344
The "propagation of ideas”, to which Harry Whittaker refers, presumably includes insisting that one's personal, individual "doubtful matters" be treated as essentials, i.e., considered "first principles".
From "Fellowship: Its Spirit and Practice":
A community needs order and method in what it does; otherwise it will sow the seeds of its own destruction. The New Testament makes it plain that the apostles expected the ecclesias to have decency and order in their arrangements, but the same apostle who wrote, "Let all things be done decently [in a fitting way] and in order" ( 1 Cor 14:40), also wrote, to the same ecclesia, "Let all your things be done with charity [love]" ( 1 Cor 16:14). Some of our ecclesial behavior may smack [i.e., suggest, or hint] more of law than of grace; and it behooves all of us, not least those who have charge of our affairs, to remember that two quite different duties, both alike Christian, confront us. The one says that a community of people accepting a common basis for their association should not encourage its members to treat lightly the basis which they have undertaken to uphold. The other says that there are varying degrees of proficiency in the Scriptures among our members, and bids, "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations" [Rom 14:1]. Through differences in age (the very old and the very young being specially vulnerable), and training, and disposition, ability to grasp the fine distinctions which some doctrinal discussions involve, and to make wholly logical deductions from accepted premises, varies enormously from member to member. Precious though the gift of precise thinking may be, it can become unbearably tyrannical if over-pressed; and we must beware of the danger of making it seem that salvation, or even fellowship itself, is a matter of competence in logic and consistency in exposition. On the other hand, mere dogmatism unsupported by sound Scriptural reasoning is not conducive to healthy fellowship. If we administer the letter of the Statement of Faith without regard for its spiritual meaning, we have forsaken Christ for a system of justification which cannot be supported by Scripture. The teaching of Christ and of the Gospel through all Scripture is clear enough: "For if righteousness came by the law, then Christ died in vain" (Gal 2:21, RV).
The Christadelphian Magazine Publishing Association, The Christadelphian, December 1971
ONE MAN'S FAITH ALLOWS HIM TO EAT EVERYTHING, BUT ANOTHER MAN, WHOSE FAITH IS WEAK, EATS ONLY VEGETABLES: Paul did not say why the weaker brother chose not to eat meat. This brother's reasons were immaterial to Paul. The point is that, for some reason, this Christian believed that he would please God more by not eating meat. He was wrong, since God has not forbidden Christians to eat any food (1 Tim 4:3,4).
"Vegetables" is "lachanon", meaning greens, garden vegetables, or herbs in distinction to wild plants. The KJV and ASV use the old-fashioned "herbs", but RSV, NIV and NET translate "vegetables". The commentator Charles Hodge writes that, according to Josephus, some of the Jews at Rome lived on fruits and vegetables exclusively, from fear of eating the smallest thing that might be ritually unclean. Quite possibly this fear was carried over to the ecclesia by some of the Jewish Christians.
It could also be that some believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, were vegetarians for health or ascetic reasons (cp. Col 2:16,17), much as is the case today.
Fellowship at a communal meal
The concern about which foods were acceptable would be more than a matter of personal or family preference in the first century, because communities of believers — whether Jews or Gentiles, whether scrupulous about foods or not — would all be expected to share meals together. Even the heart of worship, the memorial meeting itself, was generally part of a communal meal. The Anchor Bible Dictionary discusses this aspect of first-century Christian life:
"There is abundant evidence in the New Testament to suggest that early Christians often gathered to eat communal meals (Acts 2:46; 1 Cor 11:20–32; Jude 1:12). The sharing of common meals was one activity which characterized Jesus' followers before and after his crucifixion. The gospels depict Jesus as an itinerant preacher who was accompanied on his travels by a band of followers. Since they were often away from home, they undoubtedly ate meals together… The gospels therefore contain many references to Jesus eating meals with a variety of people, including social outcasts (Matt 9:11–16; Mark 2:15–17; Luke 15:2; 19:1–10), those who came to hear him preach (Mark 6:35–44; 8:1–10), and Pharisees (Luke 7:36–50; 11:37–54; 14:1–24). Meals eaten by Jesus and his disciples [include] the Last Supper and the meals of the resurrected Jesus with his disciples. These meals had an inherently religious character since pious Jews began and ended all meals with table prayers. Though wine was drunk only on festive or solemn occasions, all Jewish meals began with a blessing said over the bread (Mark 6:41; 8:6; John 6:11; Acts 27:35). If wine is served after the meal, one should say the benediction for all, of the type 'Blessed art thou who createst the fruit of the vine.'
"Food was a focal problem in early Christianity (Mark 7:1–30; Acts 15:12–29; 1 Cor 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 and Acts (Acts 10:1–11:18; 16:31–34). Just as the meals that 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' (1 Cor 10:17)."
This background suggests that in Paul's day dietary differences and scruples about foods would impact much of Christian fellowship. This is unlike today, where believers may share small portions of bread and wine at a memorial meeting, but not necessarily have regular meals together around the same table.
THE MAN WHO EATS EVERYTHING MUST NOT LOOK DOWN ON HIM WHO DOES NOT, AND THE MAN WHO DOES NOT EAT EVERYTHING MUST NOT CONDEMN THE MAN WHO DOES, FOR GOD HAS ACCEPTED HIM: The person who eats should not view himself as superior even though he is right. Nor should he look down on his extremely sensitive brother with contempt or a condescending attitude, because God has accepted the sensitive one. The weaker brother, who is overly scrupulous, should not judge the more liberal or open-minded believer as unacceptable to God either, because God has accepted the less fastidious one too!
LOOK DOWN ON: The Greek word "exoutheneo" means to look down upon, to despise, or to treat with contempt or even ridicule. Its usage in the New Testament conforms to this:
- Christ is the object of contempt in Mark 9:12, and the despised ['exoutheneo'] "stone" in Acts 4:11 (citing Psalm 118:22). Herod and his soldiers "ridiculed" ['exoutheneo'] Jesus (Luke 23:11).
- Christ told the parable of the publican and the sinner in the temple because some were confident of their own righteousness and "looked down on ['exoutheneo'] everybody else" (Luke 18:9).
- God has chosen the lowly and the despised ("exoutheneo") things of this world, to nullify the things that are (1 Cor 1:28).
- Paul himself was an example of this. His enemies said of him, "His letters are weighty and forceful, but in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing ['exoutheneo']" (2 Cor 10:10).
- Nevertheless, even when he was ill and weak, Paul's friends did not "treat [him] with contempt ['exoutheneo'] or scorn" (Gal 4:14).
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: The weaker brother needs to remember to whom the stronger brother is responsible, and then he needs to leave the judgment of that brother to God. Paul assured the weaker brother that the stronger brother would stand approved by God because God approves his liberty.
The first part of this verse sounds very much like Romans 2:1, 3, where Paul rebuked the self-satisfied Jew:
"You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things… So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?"
With this we may also compare James 4:12:
"There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you — who are you to judge your neighbor?"
"Servant" here is not the more common "doulos", which is sometimes translated "slave", but rather is "oiketes" (Luke 16:13; Acts 10:7; 1 Pet 2:18): a "house-servant", a domestic or personal servant, and thus one who is closer to the master and his family. Sometimes this same word may refer to an actual member of the family, even a child of the master.
Standing and falling can be metaphors here for being accepted or rejected as a worthwhile servant by a Master, in this case the Lord Jesus Christ. The following passages give other evidence of this same metaphor:
- Psalm 37:23,24: "If the Lord delights in a man's way, he makes his steps firm; though he stumble, he will not fall, for the Lord upholds him."
- Proverbs 24:16: "For though a righteous man falls seven times, he rises again, but the wicked are brought down by calamity."
- Jeremiah 8:4: "When men fall down, do they not get up? When a man turns away, does he not return?"
- Amos 5:2: "Fallen is Virgin Israel, never to rise again, deserted in her own land, with no one to lift her up."
- Amos 8:14: "They who swear by the shame of Samaria… they will fall, never to rise again."
- Micah 7:8: "Do not gloat over me, my enemy! Though I fall, I will rise."
- Romans 11:20: "You stand by faith."
- Revelation 6:17: "For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?"
In the last phrase here (Rom 14:4), the KJV uses "God" because some New Testament manuscripts have "theos". Most modern translations (including ASV, RSV, NIV and NET) use "Lord" because, as the NET Notes say, " 'Kyrios' is found in many of the most important manuscripts." Other commentaries suggest that "This change [i.e., to God] crept into the text as copyists carried the mention of 'God' over from verse 3" (EBC).
In the context here, this is scarcely a significant distinction.
Judging one another
The New Testament warns of the damaging consequences of human judgments, and as a rule it commands believers not to judge others (Matt 7:1-5; 1 Cor 4:5; James 4:11). This ought not be construed as moral indifference, however. The universal and persistent cry of the prophets for justice (e.g., Amos 5:24), the Baptist's judgment against Antipas' adultery (Mark 6:17), Jesus' judgments of Pharisaic abuses (Matt 23), and Paul's judgment against sexual immorality in Corinth (1 Cor 5:1-5) are clear evidence that Biblical faith decisively rejects injustice and immorality wherever they occur.
The Lord Himself is exemplified by the twin characteristics of righteousness and mercy. The ecclesia, if it is to reflect His divine image, must balance these two qualities also. While being available to show mercy where there is proper repentance, the ecclesia must also demonstrate that it can discern between righteousness and unrighteousness in the first place. Yet even when they must sometimes make such judgments, believers must remember that they each stand under God's scrutiny also. To be blind to one's own faults while putting the alleged faults of others under a microscope is wrong. To think that we are exempt from the same faults that trouble others is to become self-righteous.
When judgment is necessary, then there are safeguards against going too far in our demands upon others. The first safeguard is, as above, to look at oneself at least as severely as one looks at the supposed 'sinner'. The second is to keep always in mind that there ought to be a clear distinction between:
- matters of essential doctrinal and moral truth, and
- non-essential matters where no such issues are at stake.
These are what Paul calls "disputable matters", i.e., doubtful points or differing opinions (Rom 14:1).
Also in the category of "doubtful matters", which we should not "judge", is the motives of others. A man's actions are almost always subject to more than one interpretation. Those who expect to have good motives attributed to themselves (as surely we all do) must be ready, even eager, to give others the benefit of the doubt, and attribute the best possible motives to them (Matt 6:14,15; 7:1,2).
We need to remember to give the benefit of the doubt, also, when we do not know all the facts of a case. It is often all too easy to know part of a story, and then make what might be called 'educated guesses' to fill in what is not known. It can be too easy to portray another person in the worst possible light, if we have already decided to discredit him or her. We may be right in putting the worst interpretation on the story, but we may also be wrong. When our Lord was confronted with a woman allegedly taken in the act of adultery, he asked for other witnesses, and 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.
Commenting on Romans 14:4, Robert Green writes: "Yea, all of us are swindled, maligned, misinterpreted and misunderstood. And all of us have a temper. The danger lies in the very real possibility that healthful indignation [i.e., toward the wrongdoing of others] will become carnal spite, and that our feelings are apt to settle down into a protracted siege of resentment and bitterness. But a prolonged grudge is the most expensive thing anyone can carry. It injures you more than the one against whom you carry it. Our attitude should be one of helpfulness, forgiveness and reconciliation. Anytime you try to judge what you have no authority over, you are out of your jurisdiction! Paul writes, '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.' "
ONE MAN CONSIDERS ONE DAY MORE SACRED THAN ANOTHER; ANOTHER MAN CONSIDERS EVERY DAY ALIKE: In this case it is the weaker brother who actively does something, while the stronger brother is passive and does nothing in this regard. This is the opposite of the situation pictured by Paul in the previous example, where the strong brother was active, and the weak is restrained.
The reason the weaker brother observes the day is immaterial. The point is that he does observes it. When Paul wrote, observing the Sabbaths and Jewish feast days was a matter of disagreement among Christians. Some Jewish believers chose to continue observing these while the Gentile believers did not.
We are probably correct in assuming that Paul is referring to Jewish calendrical observations, perhaps the regular Monday and Thursday fast days, perhaps the Sabbath and various feast days, or perhaps even, as Schlatter suggests, the debate over the shift from Saturday to Sunday as the day of worship in Christian churches.
Some historians of early Christianity suggest that the transition from the Jewish Sabbath (or seventh day of the week) to the Christian Sunday (or first day of the week) was far from automatically and universally accepted, but that some Jewish Christian congregations continued to remember the Lord in a memorial specifically kept on the Sabbath day.
The observance of special days such as the Sabbath is a matter of indifference, or personal preference. No one should impose the keeping of days on another as a condition of salvation, or even of shared fellowship:
"When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ" (Col 2:13-17; cp Gal 4:10,11; 5:1-4).
It really does not matter if one follows the Law or not, so long as one understands that doing so provides no righteousness. The Law was (and is) a valid lifestyle choice. However, the redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ has put the Law to the side as a possible means of salvation. Therefore, if one keeps the Law with the hope of gaining salvation, he is sorely mistaken and ought to be taught otherwise. Nevertheless, if one does so as a matter of preference, then it matters no more in the eternal sphere than choosing to be a vegetarian, or not, or observing some days differently than others, or not.
One can keep any manner of laws, both personal or divine, or follow various practices, or not, without being legalistic. But it is reliance on the Law for salvation that is the problem. Legalism is declaring one's own righteousness through ceremonially following the Law of Moses, or any law. If this is what a person is doing, then he or she is simply wrong.
EACH ONE SHOULD BE FULLY CONVINCED IN HIS OWN MIND: "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" (KJV). The same word, "plerophoreo", with its cognate forms, occurs in Romans 4:21 ("being fully persuaded"); it can mean to realize full satisfaction, be fully assured, be filled or fulfilled, or believe fully, i.e., to be certain of (cp. also Luke 1:1; 2 Tim 4:5; Rom 15:13; Col 2:2; 4:12; Heb 6:11; 10:22).
The apostle enforces the same principle here as in the previous case involving "doubtful matters". That is, that one man should not be forced to act according to another man's conscience, but that every one should be satisfied in his own mind, and be careful not to do what he considers wrong.
HE WHO REGARDS ONE DAY AS SPECIAL, DOES SO TO THE LORD. HE WHO EATS MEAT, EATS TO THE LORD, FOR HE GIVES THANKS TO GOD; AND HE WHO ABSTAINS, DOES SO TO THE LORD AND GIVES THANKS TO GOD: Any two believers may well choose divergent lifestyles, and even philosophies, as regards non-essential, doubtful matters, as mentioned in verses 1 and 2. Which course of life one chooses, or which other choices one makes, the key factor for any and all (when dealing with uncertain details of the faith) is this: It is important to recognize the Lord God and His Son in all aspects of one's life, give them thanks for whatever comes, and trust in them for the future. Then, whether one chooses one path or another, he may still hope in the promise that God works in all things for the good of His elect (Rom 8:28).
"In other words, whatever stance is taken on the particular matter of eating meat sacrificed to idols, as long as it is done in faith, is acceptable to God. This is true for many matters of walk where the Word of God gives us no direct command. If you can thank God for it, it indicates that you have the faith to do it. If you cannot thank God for it, it is sinful to proceed — for the Bible teaches, 'Those who have doubts are condemned if they eat, because they do not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin' (Rom 14:23)" (Kyle Tucker).
The constraint in this matter is obvious. One man eats any food, and another man eats only vegetables. But if each man can in his own conscience truly thank God for what he eats, then it is evident that each man is acting according to his own conscience and not by coercion. And in doubtful matters, that is acceptable for each.
Comparing three different verses, we have these three ideas, all of which are true:
- In essential things, the church or ecclesia ought to be characterized by unity (Phil 1:27).
- In doubtful things, the ecclesia ought to be characterized by liberty (Rom 14:6).
- In all things, it ought to be characterized by love (1 Cor 13:1, 5).
GIVES THANKS TO GOD: The Greek word for "giving thanks" occurs twice here. "Eucharisteo" is a significant feature in several of Paul's letters (Rom 1:8; 14:6; 1 Cor 1:4; 14:18; Phil 1:3; 1 Thes 1:2; 2:13; Philemon 1:4; Col 1:3; 3:17; 2 Thes 2:13).
In his word study of "eucharisteo", H.H. Esser writes: "The verb is found also in the words of institution of the Lord's Supper, with both bread and wine in Luke 22:17, 19, with the bread only in 1 Corinthians 11:24 (but verse 25: 'in the same way', implies it for the wine), with the wine only in Mark 14:23; Matthew 26:27 (but the use of 'blessed' with the bread is an equivalent). Hence, during the second century, 'eucharistia' [the Eucharist] became the general name for the whole service of the Lord's Supper, as may be seen in 1 Corinthians 10:16" (NIDOTTE).
The giving of thanks, especially for the bread and the wine, with a reverent understanding of everything symbolized by those elements, is not an incidental or optional matter. According to Paul, it is a uniquely definitive activity of true believers.
FOR NONE OF US LIVES TO HIMSELF ALONE AND NONE OF US DIES TO HIMSELF ALONE: Paul meant that no believer should live to please himself alone, but rather should live to please the Lord. The context makes this clear by the repetition of "to the Lord" (vv. 6,8). "The principle… is a true Christian principle. No Christian considers himself as his own master, or at liberty to regulate his conduct according to his own will, or for his own ends; he is the servant of Christ, and therefore endeavors to live according to his will and for his glory. They, therefore, who act on this principle, are to be regarded and treated as true Christians, although they may differ as to what the will of God, in particular cases, requires" (Hodge).
The believer's desire to please the Lord will continue beyond the grave, so Paul could also say that we do not die for ourselves. Our whole existence, both now and in the age to come, should express our commitment to please the Lord:
"For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 8:38,39). "[Christ] died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him" (1 Thes 5:10). "And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again" (2 Cor 5:15). "I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death" (Phil 1:20).
It is possible that dying here may also be Paul's symbolic way of referring to dying to the "flesh", or putting to death the ways of this world (see v. 8 below, note) This may be the more appropriate counterpart to "living to Christ", mentioned earlier in the verse.
IF WE LIVE, WE LIVE TO THE LORD; AND IF WE DIE, WE DIE TO THE LORD: In context, "live" could mean: to enjoy, or indulge oneself (i.e., to eat everything: v. 2; to live to oneself: v 7), and "die" could mean: to deny oneself (to eat only vegetables: v 2; to die to oneself: v 7).
SO, WHETHER WE LIVE OR DIE, WE BELONG TO THE LORD: Here Paul speaks of living or dying to the Lord in the same sense as the Lord himself used it in relation to his Father in Luke 20:38 (cp. Rom 4:17). There Jesus reminds his followers that God is the God of the "living", and therefore those who have died in faith are not truly and eternally dead. For the believer, death is not just the conclusion to life, but can be the final affirmation of a faith-directed life. Last days of trouble or illness, patiently endured in hope, have been and continue to be the crowning achievement for many a believer, and a wonderful testimony to others, whether believers or not: "Then I heard a voice from heaven say, 'Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.' 'Yes,' says the Spirit, 'they will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them' " (Rev 14:13).
FOR THIS REASON, CHRIST DIED AND RETURNED TO LIFE SO THAT HE MIGHT BE THE LORD OF BOTH THE DEAD AND THE LIVING: Jesus Christ also lived, died, and lives again, now and forever. Consequently he is Lord both of those who have died and those who are still alive. Paul's point, simply put, is that Jesus is the Judge. The obvious corollary is that we are not.
In some sense it was always true that the Son of God was Lord, but the title has become particularly and uniquely appropriate after his resurrection and glorification. As one example, "Lord Jesus" occurs only a couple of times in the gospels, but more than 100 times in the letters.
"The confessional cry used in worship, 'Jesus (is) Lord',… is one of the oldest Christian creeds, if not the oldest. With this call the New Testament community submitted itself to its Lord, but at the same time it also confessed him as ruler of the world (Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3; Phil 2:11). God has raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him to the position of universal 'kyrios'. Moreover, he has 'bestowed on him the name which is above every name' (Phil 2:9-11; cp. Isa 45:23,24), i.e., his own name of Lord and with it the position corresponding to the name… The exalted 'kyrios', Christ, rules over mankind (Rom 14:9). All powers and beings in the universe must bow the knee before him… Christ is called the ruler over all the kings of the earth, Lord of lords and King of kings (Rev 1:5; 17:14; 19:15,16). In this way Jesus Christ received the same titles of honor as God Himself (1 Tim 6:15; cf Dan 2:47)… Since Christ has now been raised to the position of 'kyrios', all powers have been subjected to him and must serve him (Col 2:6, 10; Eph 1:20-23). When Christ has overcome every power (1 Cor 15:25), he will submit himself to God… Thus Jesus' lordship will have achieved its goal and God will be all in all (1 Cor 15:28)" (Hans Bietenhard, NIDNTT).
AND RETURNED TO LIFE: Christ was raised from the dead because he was sinless, and "it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him" (Acts 2:24). God designed this, in His mercy, for our justification (Rom 4:25). Thus Jesus received the preeminence [supremacy: NIV] (Col 1:15, 18) as the "Lord" (Acts 2:36), upon whom the Father has conferred supreme power over the living and the dead (1 Thes 5:10).
YOU, THEN, WHY DO YOU JUDGE YOUR BROTHER? OR WHY DO YOU LOOK DOWN ON YOUR BROTHER?: Both the critical weaker brother and the scornful stronger brother are guilty of the same offense, i.e., judging prematurely and on improper grounds.
OR WHY DO YOU LOOK DOWN ON YOUR BROTHER?: "Look down on" (Greek "exoutheneo") is translated "despise" (RSV, NET, Diaglott, Rotherham). It can also mean: to treat with contempt, scorn or ridicule. The KJV and ASV have "set at nought". The same word is used in Romans 14:3 (see the additional notes there).
FOR WE WILL ALL STAND BEFORE GOD'S JUDGMENT SEAT: The KJV translates "of Christ", but virtually every other version translates "of God" or "God's" (RV, ASV, NIV, NET, RSV, NEB and ISV). Bruce Metzger, recognized authority on the text of the New Testament, says the reading of "Theos" ("God") "is supported by the best witnesses…", but that this reading "was supplanted by 'Christou' ['of Christ'], (probably because of influence from 2 Corinthians 5:10)" (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament).
In other words, Metzger and other scholars suggest that the original reading was "of God" (or "God's") and that, at some point, copyists changed the reading to "of Christ" (or "Christ's"), so as to conform with 2 Corinthians 5:10.
In any case, there should be no doctrinal difficulty in speaking of "God's judgment seat" as also being "Christ's judgment seat", because the Father has bestowed all power and authority upon His Son.
Additionally, the context of Romans 14 supports the reading of "God's judgment seat":
- Verse 11 says: "Every tongue will confess to God."
- Verse 12 says: "So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God."
Elsewhere Paul writes: "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad" (2 Cor 5:10; cp. 1 Cor 3:10-15; 4:5; 1 Pet 5:4). All judgment has been entrusted to the Son by the Father (John 5:22). The Father has appointed a day when He will judge the world with Justice, by this man whom he has appointed (Acts 17:31; cp. also Matt 16:27; 25:31).
"The judgment seat ('bema') was a raised platform mounted by steps and sometimes furnished with a seat, used by officials in addressing an assembly or making pronouncements, often on judicial matters. The judgment seat was a familiar item in Greco-Roman culture, often located in the agora, the public square or marketplace in the center of a city" (NET Notes).
"The remains of a public rostrum still stand among the ruins of Corinth" (O. Broneer, "Corinth: Center of Paul's Missionary Work in Greece", Biblical Archaeologist,Vol. 41 1951, cited in the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology).
Pilate rendered judgments from such a "bema" (Matt 27:19; John 19:13), as did Gallio proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18:12,16,17) and Festus at Caesarea (Acts 25:6, 10, 17). Herod Agrippa made an oration from a "bema" (Acts 12:21).
Thus the word "bema" refers to a specific location where a judge sits to hear evidence and render a decision. It does not refer to some vague idea of judgment by an absentee Master, but a real event with tangible people involved. Furthermore, the "bema" of God is the "bema" of Christ (2 Cor 5:10); the two are one and the same.
"There is no need for us to associate despondency and despair with the thought of appearing before the Judgment Seat of Christ. True, our sins and our failings are constant reminders of the possibility of our failure there. But Paul's message to us is not intended to paralyze us with fear or to crush us under hopeless remorse. It is rather intended to influence our lives for good; to spur us to greater activity in Christ's service; to mold our characters nearer to the pattern he has left us, that we may win success when Christ appears. Paul desires us to remember the one certainty in our lives, and remembering it, to order our lives accordingly. There is no occasion for despondency and alarm, provided we are in earnest about our standing in the day of Christ. It is true that we fail and we sin; but God 'knows our frame, and remembers that we are dust' [Psa 103:14], and has made merciful provision for our weakness. There is no limit to God's forgiveness if it is sought in accordance with His conditions… Are we such egotists as to imagine that our cases are so unique as to be beyond the saving grace of God?"
F.W. Turner, Meditations, pp. 22,23).
"Christians in general must learn to avoid judging and condemning the conduct of others, since God will be the judge of all conduct (Matt 7:1–5; Rom 14:10–12; James 4:12). Humility reflects a willingness to consider others and their needs before one's own (Phil 2:1–5; James 1:9). These various examples of relationships between Christians also include the material obligations of Christians to aid those who are poor and afflicted (James 1:27), as well as the hospitality which traveling Christians might expect from other communities (Rom 12:13; Philemon 1:22; Rom 16:1,2). Such actions represent the concrete shape which commands to 'love one another' could take in early Christian churches.” Anchor Bible Dictionary
IT IS WRITTEN: " 'AS SURELY AS I LIVE,' SAYS THE LORD, 'EVERY KNEE WILL BOW BEFORE ME; EVERY TONGUE WILL CONFESS TO GOD' ": This quotation is a combination of Isaiah 49:18 ("As surely as I live", declares the Lord) and Isaiah 45:23 ("Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear"). In Philippians 2:10,11 the same passages from Isaiah are used: It is because the Son of God has humbled himself, even unto death, that the Father will exalt him to receive all power and authority.
When Jesus comes to sit in judgment, all those who are responsible to him will acknowledge his lordship (Luke 14:14; 1 Thes 4:13-17; 1 Cor 4:5; 2 Tim 4:8; Rev 22:12; Isa 26:19; Dan 12:2).
SO THEN, EACH OF US WILL GIVE AN ACCOUNT OF HIMSELF TO GOD: Charles Hodge paraphrases this verse: 'Therefore, since God is the supreme judge, and we are to render our account to Him, we should await His decision and not presume to act the part of judge over our brethren.'
In this summary statement Paul identifies the personal responsibility of every believer to give account of himself or herself to God, through Christ. We will not have to answer for our fellow believers or anyone else, but we will have to account for our own deeds:
"Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account" (Heb 4:13).
"We stand before God in the awful loneliness of our own souls; to God we can take nothing but the self and the character which in life we have been building up" (William Barclay, Daily Study Bible: Romans).
Brethren must avoid offending one another: Specifically, the strong brother is warned that his example may have a disastrous effect on the one who is weak, by leading him to do something which might damage his weak conscience.
"The question at issue in this passage is the relationship between the right of Christians to use their freedom and their commensurate responsibility to use that undoubted freedom in a way that is constructive rather than destructive of Christian fellowship" (Paul Achtemeier, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary: Romans).
This verse marks the transition from Paul's discussion of brethren judging one another (vv. 1-12), to the need for brethren to avoid offending one another (vv. 13-23).
THEREFORE LET US STOP PASSING JUDGMENT ON ONE ANOTHER: G.V. Growcott offers a nicely balanced statement on the need for constraining judgment, by keeping necessary 'censure' within properly restricted limits:
"Do not judge. Rather, try to understand, and make an effort to help. Most people need your patience more than your criticism. Leave the judging to God, unless absolutely necessary in faithfulness to the Truth. He has guaranteed He will take care of all the judging that is necessary, at the proper time. If someone annoys or offends us, the trouble is most likely in our own pride and vanity or small-mindedness or touchiness. Thin skin is a miserable disease. If we were large-minded enough, or less self-centered, we would feel sympathy and compassion, rather than offense. The command not to judge is a broad Scriptural principle. It is not, however, to be wrongly used to undermine the specific (and equally important) command to keep Faith and Fellowship sound. When we face a required decision, then we must judge and act — very carefully and prayerfully: very gently if it means censure of others: very sorrowfully if it means separation — but always firmly and faithfully. There is a time when it is a sin, and dereliction of duty, not to 'judge righteous judgment' [John 7:24]. But let us cure ourselves of judging and criticizing as a habit and a hobby. This is purely of the flesh."
INSTEAD, MAKE UP YOUR MIND: By a neat use of language, Paul employs the same verb "judge" (Greek "krino") in a somewhat different sense ("make up your mind"). Johann Bengel's paraphrase comes close to the point: "Let us no longer judge one another. But if we must judge, let this be our judgment, not to put a stumbling block or obstacle in a brother's way."
Paul is calling for a determination to adopt a course of action that will not hurt another brother, a decision once for all to avoid whatever might impede his progress in the faith or cause him to fall. In other words, Paul says, 'Do not judge your brother, but do judge yourself, and your motives, and your actions!'
NOT TO PUT ANY STUMBLING BLOCK: The Greek "proskomma" is literally something, such as an object on a path, against which one may strike his foot, causing him to stumble or even fall.
The same word is found in 1 Corinthians 8:9 in a very similar context, having to do with the "strong" and the "weak", as well as eating meat offered to idols:
"Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block ['proskomma'] to the weak."
OR OBSTACLE IN YOUR BROTHER'S WAY: "Obstacle", the Greek "skandalon", presents a different picture, that of a trigger or a trip wire that activates a trap or snare. Thus it means something purposefully designed to catch a victim, either human or animal.
The words "skandalon" and "proskomma" are close synonyms, but there is this difference: A "proskomma" is something that happens by chance, whereas a "skandalon" is intentional and thus a more serious wrongdoing by the perpetrator.
"Skandalon" is used here to suggest that which constitutes a temptation to sin. It could be taken as a stern warning against deliberately tempting or enticing a brother to do what for him would be sinful (verse 23). Jesus says that, at the last day, the angels "will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin ['skandalon']" (Matt 13:41). Again he says, "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin ['skandalon' again]!" (Matt 18:7; Luke 17:1).
In the Apocalypse, Jesus refers to Balaam, who helped "entice the Israelites to sin ['skandalon']" — interestingly, "by eating food sacrificed to idols" (Rev 2:14)! Also relevant to this discussion, Paul wrote: "Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin [the verb form, 'skandalizo'], I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall ['skandalizo']" ( 1 Cor 8:13). Jesus applied this word to Peter when that disciple sought to deter him from going to the cross (Matt 16:23).
"Skandalon" is also translated in various ways: "trap" (NET), "hindrance" (RSV), "occasion to fall" (KJV, Rotherham), "occasion of falling" (ASV, RV), "stumbling block" (NASB), "stumbling-block" (NEB), and "obstacle" (NIV). The fact that some translations of "skandalon" match with some translations of "proskomma" indicates how closely related these two Greek words are.
AS ONE WHO IS IN THE LORD JESUS, I AM FULLY CONVINCED THAT NO FOOD IS UNCLEAN IN ITSELF: Elsewhere Paul affirms in a similar context that everything God created is good (1 Tim 4:4), an observation that rests on the account of creation (Gen 1:31). In this passage Paul seems to be referring to the words of Jesus in Mark 7:15-23 (parallel to Matt 15:10,11,16-20), where the Master declares that one is not rendered unclean by what he takes into himself, but rather by what comes out of him, from his inner life, his heart and mind. Mark adds the comment that in this pronouncement Jesus declared all foods "clean".
"Unclean" here (occurring three times in one verse) is "koinos", which actually means common, as distinct from "hagios", or "holy" (i.e., separated or set apart for some special or sacred purpose). To use the word for 'common' or 'ordinary' as though it means 'impure' — as if to say: all ordinary things are unclean — strikes us as extreme. But then this was probably a view distinctive to seriously devout Jews, which of course Paul had been in his earlier life. It is interesting to note that, when Peter was told to eat non-kosher food in Acts 10, he uses two words in his reply, the second stronger than the first: "Surely not, Lord! I have never eaten anything impure ['koinos': common, ordinary] or unclean ['akatharos': not cleansed, not purified]" (vv. 14, 28).
BUT IF ANYONE REGARDS SOMETHING AS UNCLEAN, FOR HIM IT IS UNCLEAN: But not everyone understands this issue, and if one is convinced in his heart that some foods are unclean (e.g., in terms of the Mosaic food laws), for him such foods remain unclean. Until or unless he is convinced otherwise, it would violate his conscience to partake of them.
Even the apostle Peter, who had been with Jesus and had heard his teaching, did not understand this point until some time after Pentecost. Even today there are many Christians, Seventh Day Adventists for example, who believe that they are required to (or at least that they should) observe the dietary restrictions of the Law of Moses.
IF YOUR BROTHER IS DISTRESSED BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU EAT, YOU ARE NO LONGER ACTING IN LOVE: Even if the strong brother does not try to convince the weak to change his habits, his own practice, when it is known, can be a stumbling block to the other, causing distress, injury (RSV), or grief (as the KJV and ASV). This distress may be viewed as the reaction to the callous indifference of the strong brother.
DO NOT BY YOUR EATING DESTROY YOUR BROTHER: "Destroy" ("cause the ruin of": ASV, RSV) is the Greek "apollumi". It suggests, among other things, spiritual ruin and loss of eternal life. To "destroy" someone is to bring a far greater calamity than the "distress" of the earlier phrase.
How might the weaker brother be "destroyed"? Perhaps by following the example of the stronger brother, despite his own weak conscience. Thereby he may find himself doing what he still believes to be wrong, and he will have started down a slippery slope — being led to do yet other things which he regards as wrong, because now 'it just doesn't matter'!
An analogous situation might be the "strong brother" who sees no harm in, and who himself is not harmed by, occasionally indulging in strong drink. But when the "weaker brother", who is a recovering alcoholic, is encouraged to do the same, he spirals down to his own destruction.
So a selfish insistence on liberty by the stronger may tear down and destroy the weaker. But love, when it is exercised, will invariably build up (1 Cor 8:1).
"Causing someone to sin is such an easy thing to do. We can do it by encouraging someone else to do wrong things, like when we encourage someone else to pay back a wrong and they follow through with our plan. We cause someone to sin by setting ourselves up to be someone to envy — having an expensive car or lavish lifestyle can cause envy. We can provoke sin by constant goading or criticizing and having an attitude that brings out the worst in others. And we can cause people to sin by our example if we show ourselves to be lazy, uncommitted or pleasure seeking, at the expense of our devotion to God — those following our example will be led into sin.
"Every moment and every aspect of our lives needs to be watched. We must make sure all of our actions and words encourage people to become sinless instead of sinners. Jesus' exhortation is for us all. 'So watch yourselves' [Luke 17:3].”
Robert Prins
YOUR BROTHER FOR WHOM CHRIST DIED: Christ laid down his life for the weak as well as the strong, but — perhaps more to the point here — he also subjugated his own will ("Not my will, but yours be done!” (Luke 22:42; cp. Matt 26:42; Mark 14:36) on behalf of others. If even the Lord Jesus Christ did not "please himself", then surely neither should we (Rom 15:3).
We can go even further: Paul has said previously, in Romans 5:6, that Christ died for us when we were "powerless". The Greek there is "astheneo", and it is exactly the word used to describe those whose faith is "weak" in Romans 14:1,2. Paul seems to be saying to the "strong" that, even as they might look with contempt upon the "weak", they are forgetting that — in the most important sense, that of achieving their own salvation — they are as weak as the weakest brother, as weak as a newborn baby. What after all is their imagined strength in which they boast? If they in their most abject weakness needed a strong Saviour, then how can they — in their relatively puny 'strength' — refuse to help their weaker brother where he is most vulnerable?
Hodge paraphrases: 'If Christ so loved your brother as to die for him, how base are you not to submit to the smallest self-denial for his welfare.'
"Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died… Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification… Do not destroy the work of God" (Rom 14:15,19,20).
The ecclesia was intended to be a shelter — a respite — from the chaos that is the world. The ecclesia is ordered by God's word. Principles guide the conduct of the members to create order and peace. How destructive it is when this peace is violated such that those who seek shelter from the world find this sanctuary defiled. We can imagine finding ourselves in a violent storm. The lightning strikes all around us. The wind tosses us to and fro. The rain hits with such force as to sting. Yet, we see in the distance a refuge — a safe harbor from the storm. We fight the elements with all our being to reach this shelter, only to find a hollowed out shell of what was once a building fitly framed together. The once solid building now provides no shelter, no comfort and no peace for the weary traveler. Such is the pity of an unharmonious, fault-finding ecclesia to the weary traveler along life's road.
In ecclesial battles, history has shown that the protagonists are seldom the casualties. More times than not, those slaughtered are the babes in Christ. The Bible mentions several times the horrendous ancient practice of killing infants by smashing their young heads against a wall… Anyone with a shred of sanity left is sickened by the thought of such a display. Yet, how many times have brethren, enraged by some perceived slight or misspoken word, lashed out at another — destroying the peace and, in so doing, spiritually speaking, destroying a babe in the family of Christ? In modern military parlance, we speak of the deaths of innocents and non-combatants as 'collateral damage'. The world was horrified when Timothy McVey described those young children in the day care facility in Oklahoma City — murdered by his bomb — as 'collateral damage'.
We too can dismiss ecclesial casualties as collateral damage when in fact we should remember the words of Jesus:
"It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones" [Luke 17:2].
Too often we paint ecclesial strife as a necessary evil to maintain purity of doctrine or walk. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it is not. It is amazing how often, in an attempt to bring supposed order to an ecclesia, divisive and inappropriate actions are taken. We all too often forget that "hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy" are all works of the flesh of which the Bible clearly states:
"I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" [Gal 5:21].
Our focus verses taken from Romans 14 are not about critical doctrine or walk. They are about nonessential doctrine — the eating of meat sacrificed to idols.
There are times when decisive action needs to be taken to maintain order in an ecclesia. When the ecclesias in Crete were falling apart from the destructive doctrine of the Judaizers, Paul sent Titus to "set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city." The decisive actions of Titus — coupled with his training of spiritually mature brethren to do the same (which Paul takes great pains to define for him in Titus 1:6-9) — were intended to fix these problems and bring peace. The whole letter of Paul to Titus is concerned with how to bring peace to a contentious ecclesia and is well worth our time in study.
"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you" (Phil 4:8,9).
Kyle Tucker
DO NOT ALLOW WHAT YOU CONSIDER GOOD TO BE SPOKEN OF AS EVIL: The good thing refers to the liberty to eat meat or to do anything in the realm of "doubtful matters" which is not specifically forbidden. But people could legitimately speak of such an action — even if it were truly no more than "doubtful" — as actually evil if it resulted in the fall of a brother.
"To be spoken of as evil" is, in Greek, "to be blasphemed". Edwards writes: "If Christian freedom is employed to the detriment of a believer's salvation, then the work of God in the life of the believer is itself spoken of as evil and blasphemed."
THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS NOT A MATTER OF EATING AND DRINKING: With keen spiritual insight, Paul lifts the entire discussion to a higher level than mere eating and drinking. Similarly, in another place Paul again states what the kingdom of God is not!: "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power" (1 Cor 4:20).
Paul's readers, all of them, are the loyal subjects of Christ's coming kingdom. They know that this kingdom is in reality a future hope — a kingdom to be established on the earth at the return of Christ, and after the resurrection, where the righteous will have been glorified. All this is absolutely true, but this wonderful future inheritance is so certain for believers that, in their minds and spiritual lives, they may feel it to be almost a reality now. Indeed, they commit themselves so heartily to this vision of “hope and glory” that even now they place themselves in Christ's royal realm. Even now — in this evil age — they swear allegiance to Christ as their only Lord and Master.
This aspect of a spiritual kingdom, which in some sense believers experience even in this life, is not unheard of in the New Testament. Another instance of this may be seen in Colossians 1:13, where Paul states that the Father "has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son He loves." Yet even in this immediate context, of a kingdom somehow experienced in the here and now, Paul can speak of a future kingdom which is the true hope of every believer. The Father, he says, "has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light" (Col 1:12) — the word "inheritance" plainly pointing toward the future.
Also, Christ's teachings refer to something like a present "kingdom of heaven", most notably in Matthew 13. In this one chapter the Lord introduces no fewer than six parables with the words, "The kingdom of heaven is like…" (vv. 24, 31, 33, 44, 45, 47; also cp Matt 18:23; 20:1; 22:2). Plainly, these parables all discuss how faithful individuals should live in this world, not so much how they expect to live in a future world. Among other things, in this world they should preach the gospel (of a future kingdom, of course) even now; they should search for the hope of that future kingdom as for hidden treasure; they should treasure the gospel message as a pearl of great price; and they should seek to convert others to this wonderful hope (again, of a future kingdom). It is easy to see that, even while the kingdom of God is, in its fullness, a hope for the future, it is nonetheless a very real philosophy that has a great impact on how believers should live today.
Even if the kingdom of God has this present aspect, as described above, it must never be lost sight of that the kingdom of God is (or rather, will be) a literal, physical, material force upon the earth, which will break in pieces and consume all other kingdoms (e.g., Dan 2:44; 7:13,14,18,22,27; Hag 2:22; Rev 11:15; Zech 14:9; Psa 2:8,9; Zech 1:16,17; 2:12; Luke 1:32,33; 22:29,30; Acts 1:6; 15:15,16; Mic 4:6-8; Obad 1:17,20,21; etc.).
Without this future hope, the believer's present is a broken reed, or an empty shell.
Living as they do in a spiritual realm, believers' real concerns are not external ones such as diet, but rather the spiritual realities motivating life and shaping conduct. With this in mind, the strong will surely agree that their insistence on Christian liberty in doubtful matters must not endanger the spiritual development of weak believers, for whom Christ also died.
but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit: "Righteousness" and "peace" and "joy" may be taken as a hendiatris, that is, "one made out of two or three", and thus may be restated: "a peaceful, joyful righteousness".
The phrase "in the Holy Spirit" lacks the definite article in the original. Keeping in mind that capitalizing certain words is an aspect of modern translations, this phrase may be stated: "in a holy spirit", i.e., a mind and heart based on the holiness which comes from and through God.
Putting these two phrases together, we may conclude: 'The kingdom of God is all about developing and demonstrating "a peaceful and joyful righteousness", born out of "a holy spirit", which comes from focusing our mind upon the holiness of God.
BUT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS: In this context "righteousness" ("dikaiosune") is not justification or the imputation of righteousness through faith in the grace of God, as discussed in depth earlier in the letter. Instead, here it refers, more narrowly, to the right conduct to which the believer is called in obedience to the will of God (cp. Rom 6:13, 16, 18).
PEACE AND JOY IN THE HOLY SPIRIT: Peace, which includes reconciliation with God (Rom 5:1; cp. Phil 4:7), and joy (Rom 5:11; 1 Thes 1:6; and all of the Philippians!) are fruits of the Spirit, and manifestations of the love which is taught by God (Gal 5:22,23; cp. Rom 12:9,10).
Peace and joy are combined in one of the Proverbs as well:
"There is deceit in the hearts of those who plot evil, but joy for those who promote peace" (Prov 12:20).
"Joy is an unexpected alternative to deceit; the two halves of the proverb make the point that what we pursue for others, and the way we pursue it, leaves its mark on our cast of mind. 'Peace' includes the idea of general welfare — and to be planning this for other people is to enjoy its by-products ourselves" (Derek Kidner).
Both Jonathan speaking with King Saul (1 Sam 19:4-7), and Abigail speaking with David (1 Sam 25:23-32), rejoiced in the success of their good counsels for peace.
"Joy" and "peace" occur side-by-side in the list of Galatians 5:22,23 (as aspects of the fruit of the Spirit), and again in the Beatitudes, where the seventh blessing is for the peacemakers (Matt 5:9), and the eighth is for those who are persecuted because of righteousness: "Rejoice and be glad!" (Matt 5:10-12). Other instances of the joining together of "joy" and “peace":
- When Israel repents and turns back to God, they will "go out in joy and be led forth in peace" (Isa 55:12).
- At the same time, Jerusalem will bring God joy, and they will be in awe at the abundant peace He provides them (Jer 33:9).
- "May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him" (Rom 15:13).
BECAUSE ANYONE WHO SERVES CHRIST IN THIS WAY IS PLEASING TO GOD: Acceptance with God involves the stressing of these great principles of Christian life, rather than whether or not we engage in some permissible practice.
AND APPROVED BY MEN: "Approved" is the Greek "dokimos" (see Rom 16:10; 1 Cor 11:19; 2 Cor 10:18). It means: put to the test and accepted. The same word is translated "proved genuine" in 1 Peter 1:7, where it refers to gold that is refined by fire.
This emphasis also wins the approval of other people since they realize what is more important, when they see these Christian principles in operation and experience their benefits.
LET US THEREFORE MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO DO WHAT LEADS TO PEACE AND TO MUTUAL EDIFICATION: Peace and edification are always desirable, and never cause others to stumble. Bitterness, strife and division are never desirable, and often cause others (particularly the young and the novices) to stumble and fall.
MAKE EVERY EFFORT: The Greek "dioko" means to pursue, to press on toward a goal with intensity. The same word is used by Paul in 2 Timothy 2:22: "Pursue ['dioko'] righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart." It seems that "peace" especially requires this "pursuit":
- "Make every effort to live in peace with all men" (Heb 12:14).
- "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone" (Rom 12:18).
- "Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech. He must turn from evil and do good; he must seek peace and pursue ['dioko'] it" (1 Pet 3:10,11, quoting Psa 34:12-14).
So William Klassen comments: "The cumulative impression of these texts is that for the early Christian community peace had a very high priority. Could this stress on the value of harmonious life within community and beyond have come from Jesus himself?" (Anchor Bible Dictionary on "Peace").
On the negative side, the same word, "dioko", is often translated "persecute". Jesus uses the same word this way nine times (Matt 5:10-12,44; 10:23; 23:34; Luke 11:49; 21:12; 15:20), and other New Testament writers use it the same way about 25 times.
The apostle Paul has used “dioko" (pursue) in just this way in Romans already: "Bless those who persecute you" (Rom 12:14). Within the space of two chapters, Paul speaks of those who pursue believers relentlessly so as to do them harm (Rom 12:14), and then encourages believers, never to "pursue" ("dioko") anyone to persecute or harass them, but always to "pursue relentlessly" ("dioko") anything that will lead to peace (Rom 14:19). King The counterpoint here reminds us of David's conduct toward his enemy Saul (1 Sam 24-26). While Saul and his soldiers pursued David and his men incessantly, with vengeance in their hearts, David — just as incessantly, and more so — pursued peace, making the most extraordinary efforts to avoid inflicting any harm upon his nemesis Saul.
PEACE: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God" (Matt 5:9; cp notes, Rom 14:17). Peacemakers are those who make every effort — who work tirelessly and relentlessly — to do what leads to peace.
MUTUAL EDIFICATION: "Edification" is "oikodome": to build up, as of an edifice or building (cp. Eph 2:21; Heb 3:6; 1 Pet 2:4-10). This was Paul's key word in dealing with the problems created by the manifestation of Holy Spirit gifts in Corinth; he wrote that the gifts that were most important were those that especially built up or strengthened the church (1 Cor 14:5, 12, 26). Paul had begun his letter to the Romans in a similar manner, when he wrote:
"I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong — that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith" (Rom 1:11,12).
The New Testament understands peace not simply as 'peaceful coexistence', i.e., an absence of hostility, and a tolerance of differences and difficulties. It is rather an active participation in wholeness and well–being that results from God's pronouncement of righteousness in Christ (Rom 5:1). Paul expressly prefaces 'edification' with 'mutual', thus repeating the theme of Romans 12:3-5. that the transformed life is a life in relationship with others and in community (also 1 Thes 5:11). Individual godliness cannot be conceived of without collective godliness, in the same way that healthy lungs and kidneys, for example, support a functional circulatory system.
Mutual edification implies that the "strong", despite their tendency to look down on the “weak”, may actually learn something from them. It may be that they will come to appreciate loyalty to a tender conscience, and then begin to search their own hearts to discover that they have cared more about maintaining their position than about loving the 'weaker' brethren. Through the fresh demonstration of love by the strong, the weak will be lifted in spirit and renewed in faith and life.
And mutual edification suggests that the “weak” ones could also do their part by refraining from criticizing and passing unnecessary judgment upon the 'strong' ones.
Love will lead us to tolerance. We humans are by nature and practice intolerant creatures. Differences in others are repellant to us. Even those of us who love nonconformity nurture a desire to conform others to ourselves. This is especially true within those social subcultures where ideology is taken seriously. As such, it is true within those churches which value truth and holiness. Certainly there are breaches of standard beliefs which ,ay require our attention, and, if not repented of, must receive our censure and rejection. This is Christian. But when censure and rejection are among our most immediately apparent traits, as individuals or as churches, something is sadly amiss. We must show tolerance for one another out of the motivation of love (Eph 4:1,2). This is the whole point of that vital argument found in Romans 14:1 and 15:7. In matters not directly related to the faith and life of the gospel, freedom in a non-threatening environment must predominate. There must be no contempt; there must be no judgment. There must be love. There must be tolerance.
Or to illustrate it in another way: It is not just the smart members of a church who have something to say to the life and direction of that church. Those members who are not so well-informed, but who pray and who listen to the voice of the Spirit in the Scriptures have something vital to contribute to the church's life and health. This is surely in keeping with Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 12:14–26 (concerning the One Body, with its many parts. Tolerance will lead us to respect one another. Tolerance will, therefore, lead to growth.
Love will lead us to communicate with one another in a manner which encourages growth. How do we speak the truth in love?… 1 Corinthians 13:4–7 shows us how to speak the truth in love:
"Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."
DO NOT DESTROY THE WORK OF GOD FOR THE SAKE OF FOOD. ALL FOOD IS CLEAN, BUT IT IS WRONG FOR A MAN TO EAT ANYTHING THAT CAUSES SOMEONE ELSE TO STUMBLE: What is "the work of God"? There are at least two possibilities:
- It may be the individual brother, weak though he might be (cp. Rom 14:15). Even the weakest of believers is still part of "God's workmanship" (Eph 2:10).
- Or it may be the general peace and wellbeing of the whole community (Rom 14:19).
Paul may even have both considerations in mind. We must get our priorities straight: Individual preference, even if it is legitimate and permissible, should not take precedence over the needs of the weaker members of the body, and certainly not over the peace of the whole Body of believers.
DO NOT DESTROY: This word "destroy" is the Greek "kataluo", different from the Greek translated "destroy" used in verse 15 ("apollumi"). "Kataluo" means to pull or throw down, and makes a perfect contrast to the "edification" (building up) of verse 19. God is at work in and through Christ to "build up" the Body of believers, His family. Our privilege is to help in that work. In light of this, how unimaginably evil is it when Christ's would-be servants not only refuse to help him in "building up", but work instead to "pull down" what their Lord and his true servants are building up!
"Each one should be careful how he builds" (1 Cor 3:10).
I saw a group of men in my home town, A group of men tearing a building down. With a heave and a ho and a mighty yell, They swung a ball and the side wall fell. I said to the foreman, 'Are these men skilled, The kind you'd hire if you wanted to build?'
He laughed and said, 'Why, no indeed, Common labor is all I need, For I can tear down in a day or two What it took a builder ten years to do.' I thought to myself as I walked away: Which of these roles am I going to play?
Author unknown
IT IS BETTER NOT TO EAT MEAT OR DRINK WINE OR TO DO ANYTHING ELSE THAT WILL CAUSE YOUR BROTHER TO FALL: The "better" course — more noble and praiseworthy — is to do without meat under the circumstances, and to refrain from drinking wine, if partaking of either would be a stumbling block to anyone. Paul extends the principle to include anything that might have this effect.
For the first time in the discussion Paul mentions wine, although he did mention "drinking" earlier, in verse 17. This suggests that some 'weak' ones may have tended toward some form of asceticism. In view of Paul's strong stand in a similar matter involving the Corinthians, his counsel here is not something new: "Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall" (1 Cor 8:13). Paul is simply commending to others what has for some time been his rule for himself.
Constable adds: "We willingly alter our pace of walking while leading a small child by the hand so he or she will not stumble. How much more should we be willing to alter our Christian walk for the benefit of a weaker brother or sister in Christ whom we are leading.
SO WHATEVER YOU BELIEVE ABOUT THESE THINGS, KEEP BETWEEN YOURSELF AND GOD. BLESSED IS THE MAN WHO DOES NOT CONDEMN HIMSELF BY WHAT HE APPROVES: The strong believer can be happy in his private enjoyment of permissible practices because he knows that he is neither violating the will of God nor the conscience of a weak brother. As Paul sees it, the strong need only be concerned not to flaunt his Christian freedoms when he is in company with a 'weak' one. He certainly should not seek to force his own convictions on someone else. It is possible that the strong one, in his superior knowledge, may destroy the weak brother, for whom Christ died (1 Cor 8:11).
The NIV says: 'Keep what you believe [i.e., in these doubtful matters] between yourself and God.' However, the word translated "between" here is "enopion", with the meaning: 'to be seen by'. Perhaps a better reading, then, would be something like this, following the KJV, RSV, NET and NASB: 'Keep… to yourself before [i.e., in the presence of] God.'
This verse might be paraphrased: 'Keep to yourself what you believe about doubtful matters, when you are in the company of those who have weak consciences, knowing that you are always in the presence of God.' Or perhaps even better: 'Keep to yourself your practice of doubtful matters' — understanding that "doubtful" here doesn't mean what you think might be sinful (because you know it to be permissible), but what your weak brother might think sinful for himself.
This is admittedly a difficult matter in which to achieve the proper balance. Even Paul the apostle openly taught that there was nothing wrong with eating meat offered to idols, and that there was absolutely no need any longer to observe the customs and sacrifices of the Law. Yet he was careful to manage and control his behavior in certain circumstances. Sometimes, it seems, he was extremely cautious not to offend his weaker brothers, while at other times he taught and wrote boldly, without seeming to care what the consequences might be. The only sure conclusion we can draw is that, first and foremost, his every action was consistent with what he understood at the moment to be in the best interests of others.
Even so, in such matters, the "strong" brother is in a much easier position, and he should be grateful for it. He is able to accommodate his faith to the weak simply by refraining from exercising his full freedom when he feels such actions may hurt others. It is a small price to pay. And when he restrains himself so as not to offend the weaker ones, he is following his Lord's example:
"We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. For even Christ did not please himself" (Rom 15:1-3).
On the other hand, the "weak" brother is one who often walks in fear — a fear of offending, if only in one point. The fears may seem silly to stronger ones, but they are no less frightening to the weak one.
BUT THE MAN WHO HAS DOUBTS IS CONDEMNED IF HE EATS, BECAUSE HIS EATING IS NOT FROM FAITH: This verse, in contrast to verse 22, seems addressed particularly to the weak brother. The weak, who eats something that he believes he should not eat, stands condemned, at least in his own mind — because his own action is contrary to what he believes to be right (even if his belief in this case is actually wrong).
The weak brother stands condemned in his own mind. But is a brother who goes against his own conscience actually condemned by God? Common sense suggests that a believer can scarcely be held guilty for doing what is actually acceptable. If that is the case, then where is the danger? Perhaps it is this: Such a brother has, in his own mind at least, put himself on a slippery slope. Taking the first 'false step', as he sees it, may make it easier for him to take a second and a third 'false step', and correspondingly more difficult for him to recover his previous position.
AND EVERYTHING THAT DOES NOT COME FROM FAITH IS SIN: "Faith" here (as in verses 1 and 22) does not refer to the teachings of the faith, nor to the specifics of the gospel that have to do with salvation. Instead, it refers here to what a person believes to be the will of God for himself personally. If a person does what he believes to be wrong, even though it is not wrong in itself, it becomes sin for him. He has violated what he believes to be God's will, and his conscience is thereby weakened. His action has become, for him at least, an act of rebellion against God. The dam has been breached, and now the flood ensues. The first act makes the next act, and each subsequent act, progressively easier than the previous one.
Romans 14 in relation to the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15)
In the early church, there arose a faction which we may call the Judaizers. Some of these came down from Antioch to Jerusalem, where they actively promoted the idea that "the Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses" (Acts 15:5). The apostles and elders of Jerusalem met to consider this matter. Then Peter rebutted the Judaizers' argument by showing that God Himself had selected Gentiles before, and through His Son Jesus Christ had done so again in the matter of Cornelius and others (Acts 10; 11; etc.): "He made no distinction between us and them… Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?" (Acts 15:9,10).
James then proceeded to agree generally with Peter (verses 12-18). However, he also sought for a compromise by which those with leanings toward Judaism might be more ready to accept an influx of Gentile believers into the brotherhood. His proposal is given in verses 19-21:
"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from [1] food polluted by idols, from [2] sexual immorality, from [3] the meat of strangled animals and from [4] blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
The first question here is: If the apostles and elders knew what was right, why did they go even as far as they did in putting any requirements upon Gentile believers (other than the obvious one, to refrain from "sexual immorality")?
And the second question is: After the requirements were put on Gentile believers, how could Paul later teach (as he had taught earlier) that it was wrong to "force Gentiles to follow [any?] Jewish customs" (Gal 2:14)? And how could he teach that "a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ", and that "by observing the law no one will be justified" (v 16)?
To the first question, A.D. Norris says, first of all:
Having cast his judgment in favor of what Paul and Barnabas had been preaching among the Gentiles, however, James [the presumed chairman of the Jerusalem council] now turns to practical measures to ensure that the new liberties are not abused. Acts and Epistles
Norris goes further, however. He first points out that the specific prohibition against "sexual immorality", or "fornication", seems out of place, for "It would be putting it on altogether too low a level to suppose that James and the others would condemn fornication merely to avoid embarrassment to Jewish fellow-believers."
This observation leads him to go further and suggest that the other three requirements or prohibitions had not so much to do with Jewish kosher practices as with the eating of meat offered to idols.
In his Acts of the Apostles, Harry Whittaker points out that the particular restrictions mentioned in Acts 15 all come from one short passage in Leviticus 17:7-10, which is altogether connected with the worship of idols:
"They must no longer offer any of their sacrifices to the goat idols to whom they prostitute themselves… Any Israelite or any alien living among them who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice and does not bring it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting to sacrifice it to the Lord — that man must be cut off from his people… Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood — I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people."
"The meat of strangled animals" (Acts 15:20, 29) refers to meat not properly bled when the animal was slain.
It is also worth noting that this commandment, though addressed to "all the Israelites" (Lev 17:1,2,5,8, etc.), was also an obligation resting upon "any alien living among them" (vv. 8, 10, 12). And the Gentiles who had accepted the Hope of Israel and been baptized into Christ would certainly fit in such a category.
Now we must return to Norris, picking up again in Acts and Epistles, where we must quote in some detail:
"It is the remaining item, the prohibition of food which has been offered to idols, which seems likely to provide the clue to the meaning of the entire decree. For the Law as such did not contain such a prohibition, and when this one was later interpreted by Paul he construed it remarkably liberally. No idol is anything in the world, and there is no god but One (1 Cor 8:1-13). In consequence meat which has been dedicated to such a 'nothing' is the same afterwards as it was before. It is perfectly permissible for the believer to eat such meat since he so regards it, but it would be perilous to another if that other thought the believer was performing the act of worship which normally went with such eating. The peril would be particularly great 'if a man see thee who hast knowledge sitting at meat in an idol's temple' ( 1 Cor 8:10), and as a result were to feel free to eat such food, perhaps preferring it, and so come to adopt the idolatrous associations which go with it, so being tempted to return to idolatry and lose his inheritance in the Christian hope.
"The same advice, for the same reasons, is repeated later in the same Letter. There is only one religious feast for the believer, and that is the participation in the communion of the blood of Christ and the communion of the body of Christ (1 Cor 10:14-33). It is not permitted, indeed it is not thinkable, that one should drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons, partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. If a believer is invited by an unbeliever to a feast, he is entitled to behave as he does in a butcher's shop, where he buys what lies to hand, asking no question for conscience' sake (1 Cor 10:25, 27). But it anyone tells him, 'This has been offered in sacrifice to idols', then he must not eat, for his sake that showed it, and for conscience's sake [v. 28]. A believer must not knowingly and deliberately offer the Gentile convert the opportunity of concluding that if he became a Christian it would be proper for him to continue to be a pagan as well.
"With that recognition a flood of light bursts on the decree of the apostles and elders, which is immediately seen to be a purposeful, wise, and essential decision, far outstripping in importance any supposed concessions to Jewish susceptibilities. In fact it deserves a banner-headline: So they must remove temptation from themselves and from others by ceasing to eat the idols' consecrated food. They must get right away from the sanctified fornication which went on in the temples of idols."
A.D. Norris then concludes this section of his discussion with these words, in bold print (apparently his own banner-headline):
"Christians are not required to become Jews, but they must cease to be pagans."
By this interpretation, then, he reconciles the decree of the Jerusalem Council with the earlier and the later teachings of Paul. As he sees it, the prohibitions of Acts 15 were not against all non-kosher practices, but only against the ones that were specially associated with pagan Gentile temples. This would be a very reasonable set of prohibitions altogether, which should not interfere in the least degree with the "liberty" of "strong brothers" at all.
Furthermore, the second question no longer needs any answer. The Gentiles were not being forced to follow Jewish customs. According to Norris, the Gentile believers were only being asked to take care that none of their actions could lead prospective Gentile converts, or any Jewish Christians, to conclude that, when they ate meat offered to idols, they were in any way condoning anything else that went on in pagan temples — including the sacrificial rituals themselves, and especially the ritual prostitution or fornication that accompanied the sacrifices.
In his study of Acts 15, Harry Whittaker adds a further thought: "It would appear that the prohibitions regarding food came to be regarded as having only temporary force. When Jewish brethren had learned to live with this problem it became possible for Paul to write:
'Meat commendeth us not [i.e., 'does not bring us near': NIV] to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse' (1 Cor 8:8).
'Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him' (Rom 14:3). 'Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving' (1 Tim 4:4)."
Norris's approach may not seem conclusive to some, because they feel that the Jerusalem Council's decree was intended to have broader application than what he outlines. For them, then, Harry Whittaker's suggestion may still explain how Paul could seem later to contradict the Jerusalem Decree, because the Council's prohibitions were regarded, even at the time, as having only temporary force.
Different, but the same
Let us imagine a group of men walking across the hills of Galilee. They all have beards, and wear robes that mark them as Jews. But there the similarities ends. Some are tall, some short; some are stocky and some slim. Some are young, while others are much older. Some are light-skinned, while others are much darker.
As we come closer we see their faces. Some bear the accumulated evidence of lives lived outdoors; the wind and rain, and the relentless glare of the Middle Eastern sun, have taken their toll. Other faces are softer and paler; plainly they have not yet been exposed to the elements in the same way.
Now they are close enough that we may see their hands. As we might expect, we see the hands of fishermen, as well as the hands of clerks. Now we turn and walk alongside them for a while, listening. We hear the accents of "hillbillies" from Galilee, and then the cultured, educated language of Judah and Jerusalem.
Clearly, they are all very different from one another. Yet they are all the same in a very important way: they are all walking with a purpose and they are all following the same leader — they are all putting their feet, one after another, in the very footprints of their Master.
Let's assume we take some time to know these men better. There's John, a young man who is naturally quiet and reserved. His clothes are well-made and expensive. He has the air of the upper class, of people who are used to being comfortable, going where they please, and getting what they want. We learn later than he is the son of a wealthy businessman, that he grew up in a family which entertained rich and important people, a family that owned vacation homes and employed a number of servants. But he isn't just a spoiled rich kid — the more we observe him, the more we perceive new depths: his mind seeks out the subtleties and hidden meanings in everything he experiences. He is studious and perceptive in ways that surpass his companions.
Then there's Peter. It doesn't take long to learn about him. For one thing, he'll tell you everything he's thinking, and compel you to listen. Older than John, Peter is 'working class', a coarse fisherman with a wife and family to support. He is not interested in the 'finer things' of life; he's never had them. Sometimes he curses, loudly, when things don't go to suit him. He has been known to pull out a concealed dagger and wave it around when he feels threatened. He is given to boasting about what he can do. In a group, he is usually the first to speak, and the first to act — a natural leader. We spend some time with him, and we come to see a man of energy and self-assurance. Sometimes these traits cause him to make thoughtless mistakes. At the same time, we also see a man truly eager to do the right thing — even when his enthusiasm turns him into a bull in a china shop.
As the disciples walk in the footsteps of Jesus, do the young man of privilege and the rough fisherman walk side by side? How do they manage to smooth over their differences?
Then there is Matthew, a despised tax collector. He has grown rich by working hand in hand with the Romans. He was, in the eyes of many Jews, a hated collaborator with their worst enemies. His work has alienated him from the Temple services, and from all polite society. Good Jews consider him "unclean", and treat him as an outcast. He has probably sought out associations among the other outcasts of Israel — he has been a "friend of sinners".
Near Matthew there walks Simon the Zealot. In earlier days, Simon had been a zealous nationalist, a 'freedom fighter'. Some would have called him a terrorist. But he considered himself '100% Jew and proud of it'. At one time he would have poured out the last drop of his blood for his beloved nation, and their dream of independence. He would have given his life gladly, if it could have brought about the deaths of the detested Romans. Once upon a time he had cursed, with a passion, all 'oppressors', everything they stood for, and everyone who had anything to do with them.
As these men follow their Lord, do the 'traitor' and the 'patriot' walk together? How do they ever manage to cooperate with one another?
There are also women who follow the Master, walking a bit behind the men. Their clothing marks them out as Jews also, but otherwise they are, likewise, quite different among themselves.
Let us imagine, again, that we can see the disciple Mary. She is a “bookworm”, a dreamer, always praying and meditating. Frankly, she is simply not very practical and not very mindful of others. Alongside her is her sister Martha. Martha is a capable provider, always thinking ahead and making notes, always busy in the kitchen and about the house.
Since we are still imagining, let us go one step further, and imagine that we can read the minds of these two sisters, and hear their thoughts.
There is Mary; what is she thinking?
'It's so difficult. Here I am walking along, trying to enjoy the beauty of the landscape, and the lovely features of God's handiwork. I want so much to consider the flowers and the birds, and at the same time to remember the psalms and proverbs — the ones that speak of the beauties of the natural world as a counterpoint to the glories of God's Word. But there she is, going on and on to herself while I have to listen — about where we are going to stop for supper, and what provisions will have to be made. Can't Martha just give it a rest, and enjoy this wonderful day?'
Now we tune out the "Mary" frequency, and zero in on "Radio Martha".
'How can I even think about what needs to be done, while she is chattering on about this little blossom, and that silly bird? They've been flowering and fluttering since before she was born, but right now we need to think about food and shelter, and how to care for this group of men. If it weren't for me and a few like me, nothing would ever get done around here. Somebody has to think about such things! I love Mary, I really do… but if we all were like her, we'd simply starve in the wilderness.'
Was there ever tension among the members of this diverse group? Angry words? Heated arguments, followed by hostile silences? Of course — they were human.
In a sense, the group of men and women who journeyed with Jesus represent all believers in all ages. As they followed Jesus, not all at once, but along the way, they were molded into a "fellowship" — we might even call it a "follow-ship"! It was the Lord Jesus who bound them all together, in him. If men like Peter had spoken English, they would have chuckled at the happy coincidences of the words: first, the closeness in sound of "fellow" and "follow", and then the fact that those who are in "fellowship" with one another have become "fellows" in the same "ship".
When the storms of life battered that ship, or boat, as happened on the Sea of Galilee, it was the Master who calmed the winds and brought the boat safely to shore. Those who remained in the boat, the "fellows" in the "ship", would be saved along with him.
When these men and women set out to follow Jesus, they did not leave their personalities and character traits behind them. Instead, they brought them along. They were who they were, lovely qualities along with less lovely ones. As they continued to follow Jesus, even their less lovely traits might be molded into useful tools which the Master could use.
One who is timid, and has a fondness for silent reflection, could — by the Lord's example — be developed into a thoughtfulness for others, and an ability to teach them, to open up and explain "deep things" from God's revelation.
An excessive exuberance and zeal could — by trials and tests — be purged of its more selfish elements and its pride, and made to perform courageous service for the Lord, and supporting and strengthening others to do the same.
Spiritual thinkers and diligent workers — quiet ones and loud ones, modest types and pushy types — could travel side by side, each one giving the other something that might be lacking otherwise.
These men and women were bound together because, in spite of all their superficial differences, they had precious things in common (Acts 2:42-47). These included:
- the apostles' teaching (which was Christ's teaching also);
- the breaking of bread;
- individual and collective prayers, for the same people and the same hope;
- memories of wonders and signs which proved the truth of their shared beliefs;
- a common care and support for one another through all the trials of life;
- the same meeting place, where they might regularly see one another;
- common meals and other times in the company of each another;
- the resulting opportunities to talk of their united faith, and to encourage one another;
- time together to praise God, by reading and exhorting and singing; and
- the joy of periodically seeing new members "born" into their spiritual family.
These men and women shared the experience of traveling with, and hearing the teaching of, the Son of God. Together they saw the blind and the lame and the diseased made whole again, and even the dead raised to new life. From him they learned that the greatest of all miracles was not the healing, and not even the raising from physical death. The greatest miracle occurred each time a person of the world was raised from a spiritual death, through belief and baptism, to be reborn as a child of God. When they sang on such occasions, they knew that their voices were joined with those of the angels in heaven!
So we learn all this too.
Together, we have all embraced the hope of a kingdom to come, when all wrongs will be righted, and life will be pure and peaceful and blessed, as God intended from the very beginning. Together, we have learned that there is no need to fret and worry, and to blame others — whether it be bosses or co-workers or parents or neighbors or politicians — when things don't work out as well as we'd like. Together, we have learned that there is no need to scheme, nor to make excessive provisions for the future, because our Lord holds the future in his hand, and that future — and we ourselves — are all under his control.
By degrees, we come to see that the temporary, superficial things that divide us become more and more trivial. The glorious, eternal things that unite us become more and more important.
Today, some of us have more money than others. Some read one version of the Bible, while others set great store by a different one. Some read a little Greek, and some insert Hebrew names and titles into their Bible readings, while others have enough difficulty just reading their Bibles in English.
Some have very definite views about Last Days prophecy, while others hold very different views equally fervently. Still others wish both sides would preach the coming Kingdom of God in its simplicity, and leave it for the events themselves to prove the rightness and wrongness of various predictions.
Some decorate Christmas trees every December, while others don't even want to hear a mention of the holiday. Some are undisturbed by most secular things, while others try to avoid all things which they see as 'worldly'.
Some are quiet and thoughtful; some are 'touchy' and easily angered. Some are idealistic; some are practical. Some are 'strictly by the book' brothers, while others always seek out 'the spirit of the law'. Some are conservative traditionalists who hold fast to all the "old paths" and resist anything new. Some are liberal innovators who campaign for openness and change, and want to "prove all things", no matter the cost.
Even in some first-centuries ecclesias, Jewish believers, who kept the feast days scrupulously, looked across their meeting room to see "unclean" Gentiles, who purchased non-kosher meat from pagan temples, looking back at them.
In some ecclesias today, believers of equally varied backgrounds and opinions look suspiciously upon one another, even as they share the bread and the wine.
From the first century to the twenty-first, the need to rise above inconsequential differences, and find common ground in the eternal truths alone, has always been a challenge for Christ's people.
We are different in so many ways, but in the most meaningful way we are, very much, all the same. We all follow the same Lord.
Believers must look to the power of Christ's example to overcome the prejudice and fear associated with accepting people who are different. The unity displayed by following the same leader — despite those differences — will show who belongs to Jesus, and whom he counts as his own (John 10:14; 2 Tim 2:19). Did he not say, "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:35)?
Summary
We have seen here something of how the mind of the great apostle worked. First, he understands, and teaches, that it is very wrong for a brother whom he calls "weak" to declare some action a sin when it is in fact not a sin. So the apostle correctly teaches, with no ambiguity, that all kinds of foods are lawful, even when they have been offered to idols.
Having taught this, however, Paul still refuses to grant the "strong" brother, who agrees with Paul on the principle, full freedom to do whatever he pleases, even when he knows it to be innocent. Why? Because the "strong" brother must be loving enough to rein in his own personal freedom precisely at the point where that freedom may cause his "weak" brother (who is, actually, wrong!) to do what he thinks is a sin. And why is that? Because the "weak" brother who doubts is condemned if he continues to do what, in his own conscience, he believes to be wrong.
How far will Paul go to protect even a weak brother from the consequences of his weak conscience? It seems that he will stop at nothing. So we quote the apostle one final time: "Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall" ( 1 Cor 8:13).
Paul thus explains the full measure of love. A brother in Christ who is "strong" should never hesitate to deny himself even a legitimate indulgence if it will keep other believers from falling away.
In the context of Paul's use of "strong" and "weak", how much more does this imply a corollary for the "weak" brother: The brother in Christ who is "weak" should especially deny himself the indulgence of making unnecessary rules and regulations, if such restraint may prevent other believers from falling away.