|
 I appreciate the opportunity to comment on brother Jenkins’ presentation. He and I are on the same page.
It would be difficult for me to take any great issue at all with what he has said. I particularly concur in his
observation about the use of wine in Romans 14 which some have misused. The reference is to wine as food. You can
go back to Proverbs and to Ecclesiastes and see the different way Solomon deals with to the subject of wine. In
Ecclesiastes 9:7 he says, "go eat your bread with joy and drink your wine with a merry heart." The merriness
is not from the wine, but as in the case of the bread, comes from gladness at God’s provision of food. There is
a similar expression in Ecclesiastes 8:15, "So I commended enjoyment, because a man has nothing better under
the sun, than to eat, drink, and be merry: for this will remain with him in his labor, etc." The reference
to wine in Romans 14 is similar where it is placed in the same category with meat. Both are food and one is as
innocent as the other. Therefore, one could feel free to partake of either unless doing so were to be the occasion
of causing a brother to stumble.
In Proverbs 20:1 Solomon treats wine differently: "Wine is a mocker, and strong drink is raging:
he who is deceived thereby is not wise," Here he is speaking about wine as an intoxicant, as a drug. In the
former references he was speaking of wine as innocent, non-intoxicating food which children could drink at the
family table.
Let me also agree with an observation brother Jenkins made in our conversations between sessions when
we were talking about what I had said about the possible sins in Romans 14, that is, the sin of the unloving brother
who caused his brother to stumble and the sin of the brother who was made to stumble. He was correct in observing
that it also deals with the sin that is committed when the weak brother who does not have a full understanding
of the faith judges the freedom of the strong brother. That certainly was prohibited and would have been a violation
of God’s will and I am glad to add that to what I have already said.
But in addition to the case of the weaker brother, convicted that his scruples are a matter of "the
faith," judging the strong it seems to me there is another possibility in Romans 14. That is the case of a
weaker brother who is uncertain, not fully convinced that not eating meat and observing certain days are a part
of "the faith," but not quite sure that they are not. A brother in that situation is not going to be
disposed to judge his stronger brother but he will constrained in his own conduct by his uncertain conscience.
Or another possibility. A Christian who has so long practiced a thing, especially something once a part of God’s
covenant, that he has difficulty in getting his conscience to fully approve what his mind has just come to understand.
That, it seems to me, would be a situation Paul has in mind if not, and I may have misapprehended what brother
Jenkins was saying, and if so he will correct me about that when he responds, it seems to me there would be a problem.
If the weak brother has to come to the conclusion that his scruples are not a part of "the faith’ one wonders
how the strong brother could destroy the weaker brother if in his conscience he knew that what the strong brother
was practicing was all right. If his understanding of the faith did not preclude his eating meat or demand that
he observe the sabbaths, how could he sin in acting accordingly? That’s the question that came to my mind. This
is not a significant issue between us because we certainly are agreed on the basic thrust of this chapter.
Taking into account 1 Corinthians 9 as well as Romans 14 there would appear to be three reasons why a
Christian might abstain from that which was lawful. First of all, for conscience sake, one’s conscience not being
assured that the practice is right. Secondly, for the sake of the weak disciple who by the example of the knowledgeable
brother might be pressed into doing what he was not confident was right. And thirdly I believe Paul in 1 Corinthians
9:19-23 speaks to the issue of abstaining from lawful things for the sake of unbelievers, giving up whatever will
help to open the hearts of the lost to the gospel. It is the same principle that guided the thoughts of Romans
14 -- I’ll give up whatever I need to give up in order not to destroy my weaker brother.
I certainly appreciate the presentation brother Jenkins made. I was glad that he went further than I did
in his study since I did not move very far from the text of Romans 14. I have no other comment to make except to
express again my appreciation for the very thoughtful study that went into his presentation. I am in virtually
complete agreement with what he said with regard to Romans 14. Thank you.
|
