“Basic Christianity, Part 4” by Romans
Youtube Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUnDKD1NMH4
Youtube Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsqwTeIUgsU
We are continuing in our Series, “Basic Christianity.” I want to, again, repeat Jesus' words that He prayed to His Father on the night before His crucifixion: “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one” (John 17:20-21). One. “That they all,” plural, “may be one.”
However, as the Church, today, we have accepted an unacceptable, and a very different status quo. According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, “Christianity consists of 6 major ecclesiastico-cultural blocs, divided into 300 major ecclesiastical traditions, composed of over 33,000 distinct denominations in 238 countries, these denominations themselves being composed of over 3,400,000 worship centers, churches or congregations.'”
I believe that the Christian landscape exists as it does, today, because there is one chapter in particular in Paul's Epistle to the Romans which has been completely ignored. It is chapter 14. In it, the Apostle Paul confront some of their earliest “my way or the highway” attitudes that were beginning to appear in the Body of Christ. There were groups forming, there were preferences dividing the Body, and there judgments against fellow-believers being pronounced based on what I have come to call, “non-essential fluff items.”
Remember, this epistle was addressed to Jewish and Gentile believers in Rome. Culturally, personally, and theologically there were clashes and offenses. But people being people, and based on what Paul said should not be happening, judgments and condemnations were also being handed down among the members in Rome. There seems to also have been pressuring and intimidation from one member to another to conform to the “only correct worship” that they practiced.
Rather than taking sides, Paul did something that seems to be completely unknown in Christian circles. He acknowledged that two believers can take opposite personal stands on a non-essential position, and yet neither be wrong. He presented it as the theological equivalent of preferring chocolate or vanilla ice cream. He then took the next unprecedented step of declaring, as we shall see in a moment, that God has accepted both the chocolate-loving believers, and the vanilla-loving believers.
There are certainly denominations who recognize other believers in other denominations as their brothers and sisters in Christ, but they still 1.) Identify themselves as members of a particular denomination, which to me comes perilously close to the “I am of Apollos,” divisiveness that Paul identified as “contentions” (1 Corinthians 1:11); and 2.) The vast majority of their Christian activities and worship and fellowship is primarily with members of their own denominations.
I am going to read Romans 14, now, from the New Living Translation for greater clarity. The KJV uses some obscure phrases in this chapter that detract from the impact I would like to achieve. I have included all of the verses that apply to the basic theme I am presenting, that of unity and oneness, but also of tolerance for and respect of worship that is not a carbon copy of our understanding pwn or practice.
Romans 14: “1 Accept other believers who are weak in faith, and don’t argue with them about what they think is right or wrong. 2 For instance, one person believes it’s all right to eat anything. But another believer with a sensitive conscience will eat only vegetables. 3 Those who feel free to eat anything must not look down on those who don’t. And those who don’t eat certain foods must not condemn those who do, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to condemn someone else’s servants? Their own master will judge whether they stand or fall. And with the Lord’s help, they will stand and receive his approval. 5 In the same way, some think one day is more holy than another day, while others think every day is alike. You should each be fully convinced that whichever day you choose is acceptable. 6 Those who worship the Lord on a special day do it to honor him. Those who eat any kind of food do so to honor the Lord, since they give thanks to God before eating. And those who refuse to eat certain foods also want to please the Lord and give thanks to God...
12 Yes, each of us will give a personal account to God. 13 So let’s stop condemning each other. Decide instead to live in such a way that you will not cause another believer to stumble and fall. 14 I know and am convinced on the authority of the Lord Jesus that no food, in and of itself, is wrong to eat. But if someone believes it is wrong, then for that person it is wrong. 15 And if another believer is distressed by what you eat, you are not acting in love if you eat it. Don’t let your eating ruin someone for whom Christ died. 16 Then you will not be criticized for doing something you believe is good. 17 For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of what we eat or drink, but of living a life of goodness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 If you serve Christ with this attitude, you will please God, and others will approve of you, too. 19 So then, let us aim for harmony in the church and try to build each other up. 20 Don’t tear apart the work of God over what you eat. Remember, all foods are acceptable, but it is wrong to eat something if it makes another person stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything else if it might cause another believer to stumble. 22 You may believe there’s nothing wrong with what you are doing, but keep it between yourself and God. Blessed are those who don’t feel guilty for doing something they have decided is right. 23 But if you have doubts about whether or not you should eat something, you are sinning if you go ahead and do it. For you are not following your convictions. If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.”
Alexander MacClaren says in his Commentary, “THE LIMITS OF LIBERTY: “The special case in view, in the section of which this passage is part, is the difference of opinion as to the lawfulness of eating certain meats. It is of little consequence, so far as the principles involved are concerned, whether these were the food which the Mosaic ordinances made unclean, or, as in Corinth, meats offered to idols.
The latter is the more probable, and would be the more important in Rome. The two opinions on the point represented two tendencies of mind, which always exist; one more scrupulous, and one more liberal. Paul has been giving the former class the lesson they needed in the former part of this chapter; and he now turns to the ‘stronger’ brethren, and lays down the law for their conduct. We may, perhaps, best simply follow him, verse by verse.
We note then, first, the great thought with which he starts, that of the final judgment, in which each man shall give account of himself. What has that to do with the question in hand? This, that it ought to keep us from premature and censorious judging. We have something more pressing to do than to criticise each other. Ourselves are enough to keep our hands full, without taking a lift of our fellows’ conduct.
And this, further, that, in view of the final judgment, we should hold a preliminary investigation on our own principles of action, and ‘decide’ to adopt as the overruling law for ourselves, that we shall do nothing which will make duty harder for our brethren. Paul habitually settled small matters on large principles, and brought the solemnities of the final account to bear on the marketplace and the meal.
In Romans 14:13, he lays down the supreme principle for settling the case in hand. No Christian is blameless if he voluntarily acts so as to lay a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in another’s path. Are these two things the same? Possibly, but a man may stumble, and not fall, and that which makes him stumble may possibly indicate a temptation to a less grave evil than that which makes him fall does. It may be noticed that in the sequel we hear of a brother’s being ‘grieved’ first, and then of his being ‘overthrown.’ In any case, there is no mistake about the principle laid down and repeated in verse 21 which says, “It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything else if it might cause another believer to stumble.”
It is a hard saying for some of us. Is my liberty to be restricted by the narrow scruples of ‘strait-laced’ Christians? Yes. Does not that make them masters, and attach too much importance to their narrowness? No. It recognises Christ as Master, and all His servants as brethren. If the scrupulous ones go so far as to say to the more liberal, ‘You cannot be Christians if you do not do as we do’ then the limits of concession have been reached, and we are to do as Paul did, when he flatly refused to yield one hair’s-breadth to the Judaisers.
If a man says, You must adopt this, that, or the other limitation in conduct, or else you shall be unchurched, the only answer is, I will not. We are to be flexible as long as possible, and let weak brethren’s scruples restrain our action. But if they insist on things indifferent as essential, a yet higher duty than that of regard to their weak consciences comes in, and faithfulness to Christ limits concession to His servants.
But, short of that extreme case, Paul lays down the law of curbing liberty in deference to ‘narrowness.’ In Rom_14:14 he states with equal breadth the extreme principle of the liberal party, that nothing is unclean of itself. He has learned that ‘in the Lord Jesus.’ Before he was ‘in Him,’ he had been entangled in cobwebs of legal cleanness and uncleanness; but now he is free. But he adds an exception, which must be kept in mind by the liberal-minded section-namely, that a clean thing is unclean to a man who thinks it is.
Of course, these principles do not affect the eternal distinctions of right and wrong. Paul is not playing fast and loose with the solemn, divine law which makes sin and righteousness independent of men’s notions. He is speaking of things indifferent-ceremonial observances and the like; and the modern analogies of these are conventional pieces of conduct, in regard to amusements and the like, which, in themselves, a Christian man can do or abstain from without sin.
There is no stronger reason for tender consideration for even the narrowest scruples of Christians than the obligation to walk in love. Our common brotherhood binds us to do nothing that would even grieve one of the family. For instance, Christian men have different views of the obligations of Sunday observance. It is conceivable that a very ‘broad’ Christian might see no harm in playing lawn-tennis in his garden on a Sunday; but if his doing so scandalised, or, as Paul says, ‘grieved’ Christian people of less advanced views, he would be sinning against the law of love if he did it.
There are many other applications of the principle readily suggested. The principle is the thing to keep clearly in view. It has a wide field for its exercise in our times, and when the Christian brotherhood includes such diversities of culture and social condition. And that is a solemn deepening of it, ‘Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died.’ Note the almost bitter emphasis on ‘thy,’ which brings out not only the smallness of the gratification for which the mischief is done...
but the selfishness of the man who will not yield up so small a thing to shield from evil which may prove fatal, a brother for whom Christ did not shrink from yielding up life. If He is our pattern, any sacrifice of tastes and liberties for our brother’s sake is plain duty, and cannot be neglected without selfish sin. One great reason, then, for the conduct enjoined, is set forth in Romans 14:14. It is the clear dictate of Christian love.
Another reason is urged in Romans 14:16-18. It displays the true character of Christianity, and so reflects honour on the doer. ‘Your good’ is an expression for the whole sum of the blessings obtained by becoming Christians, and is closely connected with what is here meant by the ‘kingdom of God.’ That latter phrase seems here to be substantially equivalent to the inward condition in which they are who have submitted to the dominion of the will of God. It is ‘the kingdom within us’ which is ‘righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.’
What have you won by your Christianity? the Apostle in effect says, Do you think that its purpose is mainly to give you greater licence in regard to these matters in question? If the most obvious thing in your conduct is your ‘eating and drinking,’ your whole Christian standing will be misconceived, and men will fancy that your religion permits laxity of life. But if, on the other hand, you show that you are Christ’s servants by righteousness, peace, and joy, you will be pleasing to God, and men will recognise that your religion is from Him, and that you are consistent professors of it.
Modern liberal-minded brethren can easily translate all this for to-day’s use. Take care that you do not give the impression that your Christianity has its main operation in permitting you to do what your weaker brethren have scruples about. If you do not yield to them, but flaunt your liberty in their and the world’s faces, your advanced enlightenment will be taken by rough-and-ready observers as mainly cherished because it procures you these immunities. Show by your life that you have the true spiritual gifts. Think more about them than about your ‘breadth,’ and superiority to ‘narrow prejudices.’
Realise the purpose of the Gospel as concerns your own moral perfecting, and the questions in hand will fall into their right place. In Romans 14:19, two more reasons are given for restricting liberty in deference to others’ scruples. Such conduct contributes to peace. If truth is imperilled, or Christ’s name in danger of being tarnished, counsels of peace are counsels of treachery; but there are not many things worth buying at the price of Christian concord. Such conduct tends to build up our own and others’ Christian character.
Concessions to the ‘weak’ may help them to become strong, but flying in the face of their scruples is sure to hurt them, in one way or another. In verse 15, the case was supposed of a brother’s being grieved by what he felt to be laxity. That case corresponded to the stumbling-block of verse 13. A worse result seems contemplated in verse 20 – that of the weak brother, still believing that laxity was wrong, and yet being tempted by the example of the stronger to indulge in it. In that event, the responsibility of overthrowing what God had built lies at the door of the tempter.
The metaphor of ‘overthrowing’ is suggested by the previous one of ‘edifying.’ Christian duty is mutual building up of character; inconsiderate exercise of ‘liberty’ may lead to pulling down, by inducing to imitation which conscience condemns. From this point onwards, the Apostle first reiterates in inverse order his two broad principles, that clean things are unclean to the man who thinks them so, and that Christian obligation requires abstinence from permitted things if our indulgence tends to a brother’s hurt.
The application of the latter principle to the duty of total abstinence from intoxicants for the sake of others is perfectly legitimate, but it is an application, not the direct purpose of the Apostle’s injunctions. In verses 22 and 23, the section is closed by two exhortations, in which both parties, the strong and the weak, are addressed. The strong brother is bid to be content with having his wider views, or ‘faith’-that is, certainty that his liberty is in accordance with Christ’s will.
It is enough that he should enjoy that conviction, only let him make sure that he can hold it as in God’s sight, and do not let him flourish it in the faces of brethren whom it would grieve, or might lead to imitating his practice, without having risen to his conviction. And let him be quite sure that his conscience is entirely convinced, and not bribed by inclination; for many a man condemns himself by letting wishes dictate to conscience.
On the other hand, there is a danger that those who have scruples should, by the example of those who have not, be tempted to do what they are not quite sure is right. If you have any doubts, says Paul, the safe course is to abstain from the conduct in question. Perhaps a brother can go to the theatre without harm, if he believes it right to do so; but if you have any hesitation as to the propriety of going, you will be condemned as sinning if you do.
You must not measure your corn by another man’s bushel. Your convictions, not his, are to be your guides. ‘Faith’ is used here in a somewhat unusual sense. It means certitude of judgment. The last words of verse 23 have no such meaning as is sometimes extracted from them; namely, that actions, however pure and good, done by unbelievers, are of the nature of sin. They simply mean that whatever a Christian man does without clear warrant of his judgment and conscience is sin to him, whatever it is to others.”
Albert Barnes adds, “Romans 14 is designed to settle some difficult and delicate questions that could not but arise between the Jews and Gentiles respecting food and the observance of particular days, rites, etc. The “occasions” of these questions were these: The converts to Christianity were from both Jews and Gentiles. There were many Jews in Rome; and it is probable that no small part of the church was composed of them.
The New Testament everywhere shows that they were disposed to bind the Gentile converts to their own customs, and to insist on the observance of the unique laws of Moses; (see Acts 15:1-2, Galatians 2:3-4). The “subjects” on which questions of this kind would be agitated were, circumcision, days of fasting, the distinction of meats, etc. A part of these only are discussed in this chapter. The views of the apostle in regard to “circumcision” had been stated in Rom. 3–4. In this chapter he notices the disputes which would be likely to arise on the following subjects;
(1) The use of “meat,” evidently referring to the question whether it was lawful to eat the meat that was offered in sacrifice to idols; Romans 14:2. (2) The distinctions and observances of the days of Jewish fastings, etc., Romans 14:5-6, and (3) The laws observed by the Jews in relation to animals as “clean” or “unclean;” in Romans 14:14.
It is probable that these are mere “specimens” adduced by the apostle to settle “principles” of conduct in regard to the Gentiles, and to show to each party how they ought to act in “all” such questions. The apostle’s design here is to allay all these contentions by producing peace, kindness, charity. This he does by the following considerations, namely:
(1) That we have no right to “judge” another man in this case, for he is the servant of God;
(2) That whatever course is taken in these questions, it is done conscientiously, and with a desire to glorify God. In such a case there should be kindness and charity;
(3) That we must stand at the judgment-seat of Christ, and give an account “there;” and that “we,” therefore, should not usurp the function of judging;
(4) That there is really nothing unclean of itself;
(5) That religion consisted in more important matters than “such” questions;
(6) That we should follow after the things of peace.
The principles of this chapter are applicable to all “similar” cases of difference of opinion about rites and ceremonies, and unessential doctrines of religion; and we shall see that if they were honestly applied, they would settle no small part of the controversies in the religious world.”
As I close, I repeat and maintain that if Romans 14 were read and understood and applied by we who take to ourselves the Name of Christ, we would realize the harmony and the oneness that Jesus prayed that we achieve, and that Paul entreated us to live when he wrote, “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Ephesians 4:4-6).
This concludes this evening's Discussion, “Basic Christianity, Part 4.”
This Discussion was originally presented “live” on September 2nd, 2020.
I have designed a website to serve as an Online Book Store for the things I have written and published on Amazon. These are in the form of both Kindle eBooks, and paperback books. Some of you may recall a Series I presented on "The Lord's Prayer" several years ago. My original notes for this and other Bible Studies have been greatly revised and expanded for these publications. For further details on the books that are available, and for ordering information, click the following:
https://arvkbook.wixsite.com/romansbooks
If you purchase and read any of my books, Thank you! I would also greatly appreciate a review on Amazon!