|
 It is in many ways ironic and sad that the 14th chapter of Romans, a passage designed
to promote unity and harmony among brethren, should become the occasion of strife and division. The problem certainly
does not lie in the obscurity of God's word. Any confusion or discord over this text will have to put down to our
own misunderstanding or some perversity of spirit. We hope it is more the former rather than the latter. Whatever
these studies can do to clear up misunderstandings, lessen tensions, and bring us all closer to a correct understanding
and application of this part of the Scripture will be a great blessing.
Unity among God's people is not only desirable as a divine calling but it is possible.
Jesus willed it and prayed for it (Jn. 17:20-21). In His name Paul also prayed for it (Rom. 15:5,6), pled for it
(1 Cor. 1:10; Phil. 1:27; 2:3,4) and commanded it (Rom. 12:16). Yet we know that the early churches were at times
plagued with division even as they are today. Unity does not come automatically to Christians but demands humility
and hard work (Eph. 4:1-3). It is helped along by a growing spiritual maturity (Eph. 4:11-16). But some efforts
to bring unity are misguided and result in even more strife and division. This apparently was at least some of
the problem in Rome.
To expect absolute uniformity of understanding in every church of the Lord is unrealistic.
Differences in national and religious background and level of knowledge and spiritual maturity are bound to produce
some diversity of view. The gospel, like its Author, is perfect but a mature knowledge and practice of it in our
life together comes only with time and diligent effort. The process is made especially difficult when attitudes
are wrong, but even when the hearts of all concerned are genuine there will be challenges. Everyone may come to
Christ with the same sincerity, but not all will come with the same level of knowledge (1Cor. 8:7). The new birth
is an event, but the new life is a journey, a journey on which the travelers will be strung out all along growth's
highway. Still, for all this, Christ calls His followers to live peaceably and lovingly together as through teaching
and study they continue to grow in knowledge and discernment (Phil. 1:9-11). It is this very challenge that Paul,
in Romans 14:1-15:13, addresses in the Roman church. It was a church made up of both Jews and Gentiles who were
in all likelihood from every part of the empire and at different levels of maturity.
The Setting of the Text
Romans 14:1 - 15:13 is the concluding unit of a larger section of the letter (12:1
- 15:13) which has as its theme, living the kind of sacrificial spiritual life which God's mercies in Christ call
for (12:1,2). In these verses Paul is making practical application of the great principle of justification by faith
which he first carefully laid down in chapters 1-11. The grace of God rather than being an incitement to sin is,
in Christ, both the means and motivation to rid ourselves both of its guilt and its enslaving practice (chs. 6-8).
We are no longer to live in mindless conformity to the world but to give ourselves up to an inward transformation
wrought by the "mercies of God". The shape of that transformed life he had earlier indicated: "conformed
to the image of His [God's] Son" (8:29).
One of the greatest products of God's love toward us is a merciful love toward others, especially to one's own
spiritual brethren (1 Pet. 1:22). This fundamental and overarching principle of the gospel (1 Cor. 13:1-3) regularly
surfaces in this section of Paul's letter (12:9-21; 13:8-10) and is the primary concern of the text we are studying.
Background of the Problem
This chapter reveals that Paul had learned of a tension that had arisen in the
Roman church between what he called the "strong" and the "weak". Before beginning an analysis
of the text itself we need to look at some of the possible backgrounds of this unfortunate conflict. Under the
law of Moses certain meats were forbidden (Lev. 11) and certain days set apart as "holy" (Lev. 23). These
distinctions were purely legal and not due to anything inherent to the animals or to the days. As types of greater
things to come they were fulfilled in Christ and removed (Acts 10:10-16; 1 Tim. 4:4,5; Col. 2:14-17; Heb. 9:9,10).
Consequently, these dietary restrictions and "day" observances had no significance to the Christian.
It was never right to eat meat sacrificed to an idol with the intent to worship
the idol (1 Cor. 10:18-23). Observing days so as to return to the bondage of the law was also always wrong (Gal.
4:9-11). Yet since there was nothing intrinsically wrong with the meat (1 Cor. 8:4) it was not necessary that a
Christian determine its origin before he bought it in the market place, or before, as a dinner guest, he ate it
(1 Cor. 10:25,27). And because the days were not essentially holy there was no wrong in treating every day alike
(no days when one could not rest; no days when one could not work).
Yet these freedoms and all others in Christ could be exercised in a way that was heedless of the best interest
of others. Paul warns of this in Galatians 5:13: "For you, brethren, have been called to liberty, only do
not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh but through love serve one another."
In 1 Corinthians he had dealt specifically with the difficulty raised over meat offered to idols, a problem that
arose from the conversion of former idol worshippers to the gospel. To the knowledgeable brother there was no problem
because he could eat this perfectly good meat without any thought of some non-existent "god" (8:4-6).
"However," Paul reminds them, "there is not in every man that knowledge; for some with consciousness
of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience being weak, is defiled"
(8:7). For these young Gentile converts, so long conditioned to a connection between eating the sacrificial meat
and worshipping some real pagan deity, it was not easy to separate the two in conscience. So it is not enough,
he warns the well-informed brother, for you to know that meat once sacrificed to idols is not essentially joined
to idol worship. You must also take thought for the consequence of exercising your freedom on the less knowledgeable
disciple who in following your example sins in what his "weak" conscience conceives to be idolatry (8:1,2).
Love must always rule in the exercise of Christian freedom. As Paul reminds the
knowledgeable disciple, eating or not eating will be of no consequence to you (8:8) but the influence of your eating
may well destroy your brother (8:8-13). The true follower of Christ is always willing to give up his "rights"
in order to serve the needs of others (1Cor. 9:19-23; Phil. 2:3-8). In all these exhortations in chapters 8 and
9 and 10:23-33, Paul addresses himself not to the "weak" Christians but to those who were knowledgeable
or strong.
In Romans 14 Paul applies the principle of love to what is most likely a rising
disaffection between Jewish and Gentile disciples in the Roman church. I say most likely because while some aspects
of the conflict don't seem on the surface to fit that conclusion (i.e. vegetarianism [perhaps to avoid all possibility
of eating unclean meat], 14:1) the general theme of Romans (1:16,17) and Paul's concluding statements in Romans
15:7-13 would seem to confirm it.
Among Roman Christians there were apparently two views: 1. "In the liberty
of Christ food laws are no longer relevant, and one day is no more important than another." Paul acknowledges
that this is the real view of the gospel (14:14a, 20) and refers to those who understand it as "strong"
(15:1).
2. "In the law of the Lord it is wrong to eat meat, and certain days should be observed above others."
Paul refers to these disciples as "weak in the faith" (14:1) or just simply "weak" (15:1).
Some of those who were "weak" may not have been so certain of this position as they were unsure of the
former one, and in their uncertainty would have sinned to practice it. It was just the sort of conflict that could
have been anticipated when Jews, their consciences still tied by long usage to the law, were brought together with
Gentiles who had never been under the Jewish covenant.
Not a Dispute over Justification by Faith
Though the issue of justification by faith vs. justification by works of the law
was Paul's concern in Romans 1-11, that is not the issue here. The "weak" in this case are not trying
to bind the law as a means of justification. In great contrast to his strong condemnation of the Judaizers troubling
the churches of Galatia (1:6-9) Paul treats the "weak" disciples of Rome with consummate gentleness.
And though they are warned not to "judge" the freedom of their stronger brothers (14:3) these "scrupulous"
brethren are not heretical and divisive teachers. Of such teachers Paul says, "note those who cause dissensions
and occasions of stumbling contrary to the teaching which you learned and turn away from them" (16:17,18).
As to these weak disciples Paul says, "receive" them (14:1).
Weak in Confidence but not in Commitment
Further, these "weak" brethren were not weak in their commitment to Christ
but were as earnest as their stronger brethren. Paul testifies that what they were doing was driven, not by willfulness
or stubbornness, but by a conscientious desire to please the Lord (14:6). Their weakness was in their understanding
of "the faith" (14:1) and in assurance of conscience to exercise the freedom that the gospel had given
them (14:22,23). As Whiteside has it, "This weakness in faith consisted in doubts as to the propriety of eating
meat, and not in the truth that Jesus is the Christ" (Romans, p. 267).
Not Differences over Sinful Practices
It must be also noted that these "weak" brethren were not doing anything
sinful as a result of their ignorance of or weak assurance in the freedoms of the gospel. There had certainly been
clear teaching about these freedoms by the apostles (Acts 10:9-16; Col. 2:14-17; 1 Tim. 4:4,5). They were a matter
of revelation not speculation. Yet understanding can at times be slow to overtake deeply established feelings,
especially those induced by what was once the law of God. Nonetheless, their conscientious scruples did not lead
them into sin. God was as indifferent to whether they ate or did not eat meat, or whether they worked or did not
work on the old sabbaths, as He was to whether they were circumcised or uncircumcised (Gal. 5:6), married or remained
unmarried (1 Cor. 7:8,9). He was, however, profoundly concerned about "faith that works by love", a "new
creation" and "righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Gal. 5:6; 6:15; Rom. 14:17). In
such matters these "weak" disciples were evidently entirely pleasing and acceptable to Christ (14:18).
It should be understood from the beginning that any understanding of this chapter
that tends to reduce the significance and authority of other commands and instructions of God's word would have
to be a perversion. Nothing Paul has written here can be accurately interpreted as diminishing the force of what
he or other New Testament writers have taught either explicitly or implicitly elsewhere. Both the immediate context
of Romans and the general context of Scripture must rule in determining the meaning of this particular text. Specifically,
no one should think that Paul by urging here that the weak brother be "received" was compromising his
earlier prohibition of murder, adultery, false witness and covetousness (13:8-10) or his denunciation of revelry,
drunkenness, lewdness, lust, strife and envy (13:12,13). Such things were sinful and could and did break the fellowship
of Christians when continued in impenitently (1 Cor. 5:9-13; Gal. 5:19-21).
There is clearly nothing in the word of God anywhere which would condone conduct
that is a violation of His own holy character and will. Since "every word of God is pure" (Prov. 30:5)
Jesus warned that the breaking of His least commandment would cost men the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:19). All
God's commandments may not be equally weighty (Matt. 23:23) but they are all equally important simply because they
come from His mouth; and our response to the smallest of them reveals our attitude toward Him. Our Father's expectation
of His children has always been the same, that they would keep all His commandments always (Deut. 5:29). This should
be the aim of every Christian. We certainly all need God's mercy for our failures but that mercy will come only
to those who "will to do His will" (Jn. 7:17), not to those who dismiss some of His instructions as less
important or even unnecessary to salvation. This misdirection is exemplified in a popular commentary on this passage
which says: "We today experience the same thing. There are teachings we think are incorrect but don't hold
them to be soul-severing. There are practices we hold to be wrong but we don't see them as soul-destroying."
In sum, the differences addressed in Romans 14 are differences in understanding
of "the faith" that do not lead to a violation of God's will. The conscientious scruples of the weak
are mistaken but they are not sinful. Such differences will likely always exist among Christians unless a strong-willed
dictator arises to force conformity. It is this very "crushing" of the weak that Paul intends to prevent
and which he sees as a grievous contradiction of brotherly love. Sometimes the attitude of those who have understanding
toward those who do not reveals weakness of character. Those who think they are strong are not as strong as they
think. With true strength comes humility and love. As Oliver Cromwell once appealed to some stubborn Scots: "I
beseech you by the mercies of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Principles Governing the Relationship of the Strong and Weak
The strong are to "receive" the weak without reservation, and not for
the purpose of judging their scruples (14:1; 15:7), or, as James Denny observes: "not with a view to deciding
(or passing sentence on) his doubts" (Exp. Gr. Test.).
The strong and weak are to treat each other with mutual respect (14:2,3). The strong
are not to be contemptuous of the weak. The weak are not to condemn the strong. This was unacceptable for two reasons:
they could not reject one whom God had received, and, it was God's business, not theirs, to judge His servants
(14:3-4 and 10-12). If those servants were presently weak He was perfectly able to make them strong (14:4). Both
strong and weak disciples were in this case trying earnestly to please God, one out of understanding and the other
out of the lack of it. Paul urges each of them to give the other credit for living for the Lord (14:5-9).
In all of this the strong disciple ought not to be annoyed by another's weakness
but concerned that his own heedless exercise of freedom not "destroy" his brother (14:15,20). Things
allowable by God become poisonous to one who either thinks them wrong (14:14) or is uncertain that they are right
(14:20,23). Doing with a good conscience what God has forbidden will never make it right (Acts 23:1) but doing
with a disapproving conscience what God has allowed will always make it sinful. It reveals a heart willing to disobey.
Consequently when the strong exercises his freedom so as to press the weak to violate his conscience, both sin,
even where there is no formal transgression of God's command. The first sins because he is unloving, the second
because he is unsure.
The heaviest responsibility by the very nature of the case always rests with the
strong. Because they are strong they "ought to bear with the scruples of the weak" and not seek "to
please [themselves]" (15:1). Every word and deed of the true disciple should be governed not only by whether
it is lawful but also by whether it serves the good of others and makes for the peace of God's people (14:19; 15:2,5-6).
The overarching concern is love, a love most powerfully seen in Christ who did not please Himself but gladly bore
our burdens (15:3). It was in our weakness that He received us (5:6-8) and in the same spirit we ought to receive
one another (15:7).
Application to Other Disagreements
In our text Paul is applying the principle of love to a disturbance in the Roman
church over differences of practice to which God was indifferent. They neither added to nor took away from a Christian's
relationship with Him. Sin could only occur when the strong brother influenced his weaker brother to violate his
conscience. But if the exhortations of Romans 14 cannot be properly applied to cases of disobedience or false teaching
which subvert the moral or spiritual purity of God's people, surely love toward others will always be applicable.
Moreover, there are also some guidelines in Romans 14 which can help us in dealing with the question of fellowship
as relates to other types of differences between brethren.
It is evident from Romans 14 that it is possible for a disciple to hold some views
that are not biblically correct and still be received into fellowship. In that particular case it applied to misunderstandings
of the gospel that when acted upon did not lead to transgression but Paul's dealing with that circumstance clearly
implies that Christians do not necessarily sin by holding mistaken views, even those which could lead to transgression.
They need teaching not rejection. Sin could arise from such views only if they lead the one who holds them to personally
transgress, create strife, or lead others into transgression.
There is no greater illustration of patience toward lack of understanding than
that of Jesus with the Twelve. During Jesus' years of teaching these men were mistaken about some very important
things and committed some classic blunders. They seemed to be excessively slow to understand some obvious truths
and were incessantly engaged in carnal discussions about who would be greatest in the kingdom of God. Yet the Lord
did not cast them off but continued to patiently instruct them because their hearts were good even when their understanding
was weak. They were evidently shaken when Jesus' sermon on the Bread of life drove off multitudes of formerly excited
followers, but when asked if they too would go away Peter responded, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have
the words of eternal life" (Jn. 6:68). They stayed to learn and grow. Still it may startle us a bit to remember
that even before He died Jesus said of them to His Father, "they have kept Your word" (Jn. 17:6).
We need to imitate the Lord's patience with those who are earnest but mistaken lest we cast out a brother or sister
who with longsuffering love could be brought to strength and understanding.
Are there limits to the rule that one can hold an unscriptural view privately and still be fully received by the
church? I believe there are. It is hardly likely that one could be considered a true disciple while denying that
Jesus is divine (Jn. 8:24) or that He was raised from the dead (1 Cor. 15:12-19). Times of uncertainty can, of
course, assault any follower of Jesus. Even John the Baptist had his moments (Mt. 11:1-6). Patient teaching for
the wavering would certainly be in order but some truths are so central to the gospel that for one to continue
to deny them would make any real connection to Christ impossible.
Love must rule in every case of mistaken understanding or even wrong action. In
a circumstance where all Christians are needing to grow up spiritually and be conformed to the image of Christ
(Eph. 4:13-15; Rom. 8:29) there must be an atmosphere of brotherly love in which brethren can study their questions
and differences without fear of being castigated and summarily rejected. Otherwise the unlearned cannot become
knowledgeable, the immature grow to maturity, or even the mature enlarge their own understanding. When we substitute
charges and intimidation for patient teaching and brotherly engagement, carnal strife and division will be the
inevitable result. Paul has taught a different spirit which will lead those of a good heart to unity and peace
(2 Tim. 2:24-26; 4:2b). It takes courage to be longsuffering. Paul risked being called weak and indecisive because
of his patient efforts with the Corinthians (2 Cor. 1:15-2:4; 10:7-11), but it was his dogged and unyielding love
for them which saved them. As Paul wrote to them and practiced: "Love suffers long and is kind . . . bears
all things, hopes all things, endures all things" (1 Cor. 13:4-7). True love does not expect the worst, presume
the worst, and behave accordingly. It believes and hopes for the best until it is clearly proven otherwise.
Yet Paul knew the difference between patience and indulgence. He knew when men
proved incorrigibly stubborn and impenitent in spite of all his hopes that it was time to end his fellowship with
them in order to save their souls or at the least to prevent them from corrupting others (1 Cor. 5:1-13; 2 Thess.
3:6-15; 1 Tim. 1:19,20; 2 Tim. 2:16-18; Tit. 2:10,11).
Principles to Guide our Fellowship with other Christians
There are at least three very clear biblical principles to guide our fellowship
with other Christians. First, we cannot have fellowship with them in what is contrary to God's will (Eph. 5:8-17).
Whether we lead or follow in such activity both of us will "fall into a ditch" (Mt. 15:14). This would
apply to either our individual involvement with other Christians or the collective actions of local churches. Second,
we cannot have fellowship with other Christians even in what is innocent when they are living impenitently in ungodliness
(2 Thess. 3:6,14) or teaching false doctrine so as to subvert the faith or moral virtue of others (2 Jn. 9-11)
when to do so would make it appear that we approve their wrongdoing or false teaching. To this must be added a
third principle. Viewpoints not supported by scripture when held privately or not taught so as to undermine the
good order or moral and spiritual purity of the churches are not to be an occasion of division but of study (Rom.
14).
Who is to Decide the Question of Fellowship?
Who is to decide what is a matter of indifference and what is a matter of sin?
What if the "weak" think they are "strong" and the mistaken think they are knowledgeable? Clearly
the Lord has laid down the answer in His word, but it is the task of men to diligently and honestly study to determine
what that answer is.
To achieve that God has not set up some overarching human agency to settle such
matters for all His people. He has given that task to local churches and ultimately to individual Christians who
must act according to their knowledge of God's word and within the bounds of their own consciences. Each church
must decide with whom they will have fellowship (Acts 9:26-29; Phil. 4:15) and, at last, each individual disciple
must decide (2 Tim. 4:14,15; Tit. 3:10), for there is no higher tribunal on earth than the individual conscience
confronted by the word of God.
But what if individual disciples and churches do not decide rightly? What if their
decisions run contrary to God's will? That will be a serious error but it is not a new problem. In New Testament
churches under the very shadow of the apostles some were received who should have been withdrawn from (1 Cor. 5:1)
and some were withdrawn from who should have been received (3 Jn. 9,10). Churches were rent by false doctrines
(Judaistic legalism, gnosticism, and other destructive heresies) and by proud and stubborn men who loved to have
the preeminence (Phil. 1:15; 3 Jn. 9,10). The apostles rebuked those involved strongly, but they did not seek to
intimidate them into compliance. At last those who refuse to do the will of God will answer to Him (Rom. 14:10-12).
The Lord will judge His people. And that is altogether good, for human judgment is often flawed (2 Cor. 4:3,4),
especially that which comes from a distance and is based on half-facts, hearsay or mere suspicion. Even in local
churches such judgments need to be made carefully and lovingly, with due regard for the facts and the desire to
help the one involved; and the same is true for individual disciples.
Unity for His people is the will of God but it cannot be compelled, not then and
not now. It can only be urged and facilitated by the teaching of the word of Christ. The truth of the gospel will
always at last be recognized and received by the honest and humble spirit (Is. 57:15; 66:3; Mt. 5:3-9; Jas.1;21;
1 Pet. 5:5,6). And these are the ones who will live at peace with one another in the earnest pursuit of the will
and character of Christ. As to the others, they are left to the hands of the great Judge who will always do right.
A Final Word
The question of fellowship among Christians has been a challenging subject for
all of us, not just in being accurate in our analysis of what the Scripture says but in making application of it
in a spirit that is selfless and Christ-like. I offer my own views with genuine conviction but not as either exhaustive
or definitive. I am perfectly willing to give an honest hearing to any biblically based correction or addition.
|
